The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 1993/09/27 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 27, 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER BOARD CHAMBERS - ROOM 310 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 I. ROLL CALL . Brian Bilbray, 1st District County Board of Supervisors . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista 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 on such an item not listed on the agenda. III. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - OTAY 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 October 27, 1993 at 3:00 p.m. in the City of Chula Vista Council Chambers. IV. ADJOURNMENT . County Board of Supervisors to its meeting on September 28, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. in the County Administration Center Board Chambers - Room 310. . Chula Vista City Council to its meeting on September 28, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) - The Otay Ranch Project Office, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who may need special accommodation to access, attend andlor participate in a city meeting, activity or service contact the Otay Ranch Project office at (619) 422-7157 for specific information on existing resourceslor 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. '~ ~........~ OiRY ::::(RnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT COUNTY Of SAN DIEGO' Clli- OF CHUl.A VISTA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 1993 TO: Members of the County Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula Vista City Council FROM: Anthony J. Lettieri, AlCP rl\A/ General Manager "-+J - RE: "What to review and bring" to the September 27, 1993 meeting Presentation Order # I: Jamul Planning Areas GDP text: pp. 193-198 Hearing Binder: item E.l (for other recommendations) Presentation Order # II: San Ysidro Planning Area GDP text: pp. 199-204 Hearing Binder: Tab F (for other recommendations) Presentation Order # III: 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 # IV: Central Proctor Valley GDP text: pp. 181-187; 193-198 Hearing Binder: Tab D: Central Proctor Valley Issue Paper Tab 6: Planning Group letters 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157. FAX: (619) 422-7690 Presentation Order # V: GDP and RMP Related Text Amendments Staff text recommendations concerning the university designation, adult education facilities and Village 3 land uses (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 GDP text: Chapter 1 (Land Use), pp. 127-131 Presentation Order # VI: 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\review4.927 OTAY RANCH PROJECT '~":';=-,"=".;::'=""-''';;'::..=''''''.~''.''' ~ 13 z 15 - u ~ 13 ~ti ~w 5a s[ =>:x: :x:u ~~ "" ruo> W5~ :x: ,,0 ~ww o~:x: z~~ '2~z uoo ~o~ ~~~ 0>- ",u >" ~~ =>1" 0" u>- OZ 8~ is Z " ~ - Z Q J 13 Z => o u ~ 1] ~ " o '" 5 " w ~ => ~ ~ o o " " o '" w => '" '" u ~... c 0 o " ,,- o 0 . " - . . , "" oJ!! c:~ , N > ?;<6 ~ . cr~ . c ~o . . " E " . c'" o~ c c o . ~J: u . ou: ~o 3'(; c . . E ;;t: c 0 o ~ ~. _0 og ~. B :::: g .~ 5'" u"" ~g~ "C5:~ ~ ~ ~ "' - ~~a. oiI: H ~~z ~.~ :5 ~ ~.~ . . >- [~~ co. o u ~ ~~~ :> . u ~ Z ~ ;; 5 fil ~ :> I ~ i '" '" ~ ~ u <( . 5 "5 . u i'l. .5 . 5 . . . i; ~~ ~C5 ~t:i , - cr. .~ ~ c . , ~ti w. G,I'o 50.. .~ . . o . 00 ~ ~~ . ~ c . . . u 5 o . ~ "- '. c o U u "O~ air ~o:: gE' cr' . 0 ~u . . ~~ :>= " 0 ~c: :;;~ u"" o , og N. <:5 ~&n.s . . III ~ ~'e ~ a) 10 > 10 0..= '2:{l~t"5~ ~:B~~~R 5 OO.E a.>.g.~ '0 ~.~ 0 is 111.(::1. ~05"ij~'5t:. :s! C:;-;::l,l:c:;<a ~g~2""'~~ III 10 4/_.E 10 ~ :; 2 ~ ~~<6 4/2~~'gO~ -5 '? c:; III V ~:l ~~~~..s~]; [.sE'~~~~ 0.(;0-000.....01.> lOoc.E:g<l.l;:E Bc:~~.=~~ 9~Eo~EO 1I'lC:;0 -000 ~ E'::: a':: III CI III 0 lO;; IlltJ.!! ::;I)~::::{l~o o.~~E~ ~ij :f! C:'C ~ ~Ui ~ ,g:E ~:s! o~ ~ o III -04/ 1lI 1lI- ~~..s5;S.au ~ g, ~"" .0 ~ c ~t~ M &. '0 ~ 1lI o.,.,M ~~5~ >c:<:>~ _Q,l:"" ~~E; '0 a. 0 ,Ill ;;:jQ.:::5 ~5~~ CO> _ ::l.c o_u ~::.g "0 ;c::;:;,., 2E~6 a. IV'_ 01.> 0.'3 ~-:: III 0" <:> 0 B ~ :::: E ~.s ~g IIl..cO;; ~.~ a ~ ~ _ C C a..g 2 ~ g~~~ - '0 0- ou; C "tl ::E ~ 5 ~ J W Ii 1E ~ ;; >- ;::: o ~ '" ~ " , ~ 5 is > .~ E u ~ . ~ ~ o 0; > u ~ M . ~ g 5' ~ 3 Q i); iii - ci " . . '" ~ " , o u . 5 0. . ~ . 2 , '7M' NO!. "N ..." N ,:2;::: c; .Q 0 0;; E~ 1!! ~ " E :;:: E 1: 8 ~ ~ c .Q , ~r:i' -g$ E~ E- o c u.Q . - - . " ~ i!! :l:: " . >- .~ 3: ",. >0 " - , " o . u~ . . ~ 0 -" 0.. .~ u" u ~ . c 2'6 9~ Me '" '-. . " ,,~ " . . 0 ~- c - .2 5 0"': :>.Q o. . " !i > . 15 2 > "" ~ . > - . 5 " " o (; ~ 3 o ~ " ~ . ~ > c . E , o J: N ci g;;;- 'E~ ~~ "'- ,,~ c . . 0 N" 5~ ~" u_ c 0 ~ [; ,.,;;::; . . O~ .s2 g.~ u_ u . o~ .E ~ N E " E " 8 :l:: ~ ~2 g .~ ; E ~8 "5 . ~ o ;.8~ 'iii o"'iji c __ ~~6 ~ .. _c. - . - >~. u E . ~:::I:;:: , E ~ ~-" <DoSc - E . B~g- "=~ . . c :"tl ~:5E ~'" . . .- 'S.;; .!! :t:~g' .0- ~:E~ _~u -~. .0= ~E~ ~~~ cu. 2~~ ~ ~~ ,.,iij - 5~.~ ~ . c ~o-8 9 ~ 3: ~-o >C~ -cO"C :llll<:: . 0<010;;; U~-S~ ,.,IUOU) .a"'''C~ :t1 ~'5t:. 1II0.lJU') :g E iii ~ 0. 0 "C 0 C .::: ~ ~ .2C4/C1 o~:c.!!! ~g~'5 . ~ E , c E , E .. o E ~ j ~ . ~;;; ~... E~ 0" u" 2i:U = . .~ -- . c Bu t ~ ~~ 00 -u ~3: u. ~> c . o - > >~ c~ , . 0_ u. 5'8 o E ~ 5 >0 ~ u >u .. . , . o~ E c ~ ~ c - , . ~ .- . " ,,- '" 'c . , ~~ c c 0= ;;::;Qj o , :>~ ~ ;! E o " ~ . . o ~ u .5 . ~ " .1! .. c . ~ . is u . ~ !l ;; '. c ; ~ 3 o ~~ ~ u o ~;; "'~ c ~O.!! !!;;c-g~ E III.Q . ~~ g'S ~ 5 E'6(ij III 8~.2':5 ~ ~~5gE. :-85~~M g-C1<6.g <D~ ~~"E~1C! a), E E v 0 t:. ~=E5.E~ ~~E(~~e 0-.... :l ..... ~'g~5g~ ~ -g ui o]i ~ ~.Eg-~;; c:; o'g 01.> . o is c u .0 ~ u g.- u 'E;:1 ij ac:OI a: E ~ .2'::'o.c '5.22 o~= u~c -~, g. g'.~ . t;:E~@: ~~EN --E~ 9 0 0"" M<::I)..... ~.gol:c 1Il<::l......J ~~~2 o.Eo"C gEq~ "6:3g~ "'" ~ . III "" .. ~ III .. c ; 2 ~ .1! . ~ 0; u , ~ > ~ ji > . 15 c o " u E ~~ o . ~ ~ . . ~ 5 ~ " "'5 ::;: ~.5 ~ . c aL2 . . . , ~ -g ~ ~~~~ <:J III 0 CI "C ~ CI c:: ;:1 g'..s.!!! :g '5 :'J g .2 15 a~ ~ ~ ~E C:.!!!"tlE E ~3.8 E <ll <ll 01 o '0 ..... (; ~ ~ g. ~ ..... E lO <G c: E ~a: .2oc>. .~ ~~5 E ~ ~ t 8iil~~ 0I5.,Q ~ ~.~ ~u CO E == o::;;g~ CO> <:: <C C -:: ~~~ fr~~~ I) CI C ,., I).!!! a).!::: <U=_III .E":: ~ ~ 9 ~ ~~ ~~u03 - '" ,.,.- 5..sc~ o ~ :l _ U III 0 0 'O::>uo. !:;: "C 0 III <.I C - III 0.9 t ~ .;., ~~:g ~<::I.. .-:) u~:{l2 ~e~g 1II..c:"C1O <ll - C .. 111 III l:I III [~~.Q~ .~ III iii M .~ ~ g ~$ o ..~: I) "in t':. ~5~-8t::. ~ .. '" ~ u > '., , ;; " u 15 ~ .2 ~ u ;; c ~ 2~ u g u c ~a ~ 0 3"'5 ~ ~ " ~ ~f 25 . ~ ~ ~ 3: g "1g '" 0 ~ "- . '" '. . > " , . 5 "5 ~ c '. . ~ ~ . 5 e E o u ~ 3 o ~ ;; ~ " ~ '" _''''',.c.---'-.'"---_......'. E .1! ~ c o '" " 2 . u c . . .. ~ .Q ii ;; ~ c E E 8 ~ = . ;; . 5 fr u u o 2 " ~ . .~~ u~ ~N c_ U" 0- , 0 q " >0 - ~ c 0 , - o ~ u" >~ ~'" " > .- " c " , o 0 ~u c 0 o c '~ -g :> 0 " . ~ " , .. ~ "0 ~ .Q "- . . " . c .. E ~ ~ . . U~ _ c 03.2 ~;; ~ c "'5.2' o " c . "'~ ~ . c:d:g ;; . " ~ . , " ~ c g . j ;; . W ~ '" .~ ~....... ~..... DTP .-- ::;JAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT l'OtJNTY OF SA.."l DIEGO. Cln" OF CIiULA VISTA JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION ORDER September 27, 1993 I. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "E": JAMUL PLANNING AREAS (Plannine Areas # 16 and # 19) E.1: Should sewer be permitted in Planning Areas 16 and 19 ? II. TENTATIVE ACTIONS ON ISSUE AREA "F": SAN YSIDRO PLANNING AREA (Plannine Area # 17) F.1: What areas should be developed? F.2: Should sewer be extended to Planning Area # 17 ? III. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "C": DEVELOPMENT AROUND OTAY LAKES C.1: Should the area south and east of the Lower Gtay Lake be developed (Village 15)? C.2: What should be developed North of Lower Gtay Lake (Village # B)? IV. TENTATIVE ACTION ON ISSUE AREA "0": 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". 315 Fourth Avenue, Sune A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX: (619) 422-7690 V. 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) Village # 3: Text Amendment (City Council) VI. VILLAGE DENSITY REDUCTION IN NON-TRANSIT VILLAGES CVillal!es 2. 3. 4. 7. 8 and 10) (Board/Council) VII. NEXT JOINT BOARD/COUNCIL OTAY RANCH MEETING DATE: THURSDAY. OCTOBER 28. 1993. 3:00 P.M.. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' CHAMBERS OTAY RANCH PROJECT I. JAMUL PLANNING AREAS (Tab E in Hearing Binder) II. SAN YSIDRO PLANNING AREA (Tab F in Hearing Binder) III. DEVELOPMENT AROUND OTAY LAKES (Tab C in Hearing Binder) IV. CENTRAL PROCTOR V ALLEY (Tab D in Hearing Binder) V. TEXT AMENDMENTS (Tab G in Hearing Binder) . . ~ ~....... ~..... DIA...... RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT CaUNTI' OF SAN OIEGO . Cln' OF CHULA vtSTA MEMORANDUM DATE: September 13, 1993 TO: Members of the County Board of Supervisors Members of the Chula Vista City Council Anthony J. Lettieri, AICP 'k General Manager FROM: RE: Modifications to Errata Sheets The following are proposed staff reco=ended 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 reco=ended 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:IERRATA.MEMl 315 Fourth Avenue, Surte 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, input should be solicited from aOO accej'ltltble to 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 applicable rellional open spacelresource protection prollram 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 III, Plan Implementation, Page 23: University SPA Requirements ;.....-,. 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: Universitv University Primary Land Use Designation: The area indicated Site on the GDP/SRP Land Use MaD as the University Site has a orimary land use designation as a universitv site. At anv time, this area mav be develooed for a university camous and ancillarv uses such as camous-related commercial. residential. and research and develooment suooort services. However, use of the area west of Wueste Road, east of Hunte Parkwav, bv a camous is oermitted, orovided that the use of Salt Creek Canvon (including defining slooes) is limited to trails, oassive recreation, and to biological research and educational activities in keeoing with the oreservation of sensitive habitat and biological soecies located there. No buildings or structures shall be oermitted within Salt Creek Canvon. Secondarv Land Use Designation: The Universitv Site also has secondary land use designations: the land within Villages 9 and 10 has secondarv designations for village ourooses as described in Part II. Chaoter L Sections F9 and FlO, and the area west of Wueste Road, east of Hunte Parkwav, has a secondary designation as ooen soace. This area mav be develooed for university ourooses at anv time. This area mav be develooed for said secondarv land uses onlv after the develooment of "Western Phases I. II and III", as identified in the Otay 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. 2 UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILIBOARD HEARINGS ll2I!. Uaiversity UHiversity site peteatial is imlieatea by this desigaatiea. The leeatiea is eeasisteat with reselutiens ef the City ef Cffilla Vista, CelH1ty ef San Diega and City ef San Diege. f. Geaeral Plan :\meaameat is reEJairea fer iHljllemeatatiea ef this land ase. (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter I, Sectien C.2.e., Page 87): Medify as fellews: e. University The GDP/SRP Land Use map identifies !! the geReral lecatien fer !! the peteatial university campus in the area delineated as Village 9 & 10. as well as the area westerly- ef Wueste Read (Salt Creek)., with aa aRderlyiRg land ase clesigRatieR sheald the URiversity ef Califemia cleeicle Ret te leeate ill: this area. The purpese ef this land use thes& designatiens- is te afferd a universitv the University ef California the epportunity to locate a university campus at this location, shoalcl the URi',ersity seek te de se. (GDP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section D, Page 109) Modify as fellows: 4. Potential University The University of California Regents have expressed their intention to construct three new University of Califernia 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 ef Chula Vista jeintiy submitted a propesal to the University ef California Board ef Regents to lecate a new university campus en Otay Ranch. The propesal identified a site near Wueste Read 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 Ceunty Board of Supervisers appreved resolutiens supporting the Wueste Road location for a university, subject to several cenditions; notably, that. an envirenmental process be completed assuring the identification and pretectien ef significant reseurces. The GDP/SRP Land Use Map delineates icleatifies the geRera!. location for the pateatial a university campus in areas within Village 9. Village 10 and westerlv of Wueste Read. It is the intent of this GDP/SRP te reserve the land so designated for a university fer a Deried ef time 3 _....';.";,i",, '"'~","'-,","". . ,:..... '",,'O<__'_"_._'_C'~_,>_"_. UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILfBOARD 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.If the URiversity' of Califemfa decides to located OR the Otaj' RaReh, the elcaet size of the SEIHlflUS, elffiot leeatioR and iateRsity of fleee3sary sapport lalld uses '.vill Be salljeet to diseretieRary aetioll BY the Iij3propriate govemm.eRtad ageRoy. University Policies o The GDPi8RP LflRd Use MIij3 shadl sYffiBolieally a gelleral loeatieR for a university earnplls westerly of WlIeste Read. The geflerallesatioll shadl. iRelllde, 13llt Ilot Be limited to, 100-+,1 (usaele) aeres adjaeeat ts \\ClIeste Road. The afea shall also be assiglled an 1I1lElerlyiRg land use desigllatioH '.vhioh shall be lItilized, sReuld the Ulliversity of Califorma decide Hot to loeate iH the 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 mav be developed for a universitv campus and ancillarv 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 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 Canvon. o 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 I. Sections F9 and Fro. and the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkwav, has a secondary designation as open space. This area may be developed for universitv purposes at anv time. This area may be developed for said secondary land uses only 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 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 sf Califorma shollld be rellllired te prepare an Environmeatal IHlj3act RopeR '.villeh wellld ideatify ami preteet any sigHifieant eH"lironmeatal reSOllfees that ear.not Be mitigateEl. 4 , UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS o The Uniyersity of Calif-emia sholoila be re!j:llilea te prepare The orecessing of university develooment olan shall include an analysis to ensale of compatibility with adjacent villages. conformance with all oublic facilitv olans. including oarks. and consistencv with the RMP. Q If the 1:Illiversity deets te leeate within the ManagemeRt Preserve, the Resouree ManagemeRt Plan shall be re e'.'alaatea to ensure that the siting of this faBility does not iRterfere with or aIY/ersel)' iffij'lElet the goals, oejeetives and polieies ef that 19100. o If the Ufriyersity eleets to loeate, performanee stoodards sball be adoptea to adaress design, aeeess alla resourBe ]lroteetiell. Q If the 1:Illiversity re!j:aires more land than designated by the GDPiSRP Lana Use Map, transf-ers ef residential aellsity shall be eJfElminea on a ease by eaae basis. . o If the a Hfiiversity reE)Hires Oiay Raueh lalla aesignatea bj,the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as neighborhood or eOlRlRlIflity park, the loeal ]lark reqairements shall be rByiewed Oil a ease by eaGe basis. (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter I, Section F.9.b., Page 153) Modify paragraph as follows: The orimary land use for Village Nine is designated as a University. Part II. Chaoter L Section D. herein. describes this land use. See also Part II. Chaoter 9. Section B. for ohasing oolicies. 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 The miut:\ire sf lana uses, aeBsities, and ser...iees ref],tlired for a uni"':ersity may eause ehanges in the fabrie of the eOlRlRanity east of SR 125. This yillage and adjaeent yillages shall be re e)[amined, shoald the Uaiyersity ee leBated withill the Otay Raneb. (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 primarv land use for Village Ten is designated as a University. Part II. Chapter L Section D. herein. describes this land use. See also Part II. Chapter 9. Section B. for phasing policies. The secondarv 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 lana lises fer this '.'ilIage BRa asjaeeHt villages will Be re examines, shouls the UHiYersi~y Be Ioeated ',vithiH the Ot!!)" R-eneh. The milffilfe ef laRa lises, seHDities, flflS serviees reqaires for !! university may require ehaRges iH the faBrie of the eOlillHunity east of 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 I. II and III. as identified in the Village Phasing Plan. See also GDP/SRP: Part II. Chapter I. Sections F9 & FlO. (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 sholild include~ 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 UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 - COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS approximately units. generating a population of persons at build-out. The Fourth Phase is likely to haye 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 UaiverGit), of Califoraia Ghoald Be reqaired to J'lrepare an ElTvirollffieatal Im!'lact Rtlport ...mieh woald idemify and proteet lffi)' sigaifieant ea,..iroHmemal resourees that ear.not ee mitigated. If the aai'iersity eleets to loeiHe sa the site, the Resouree ManagemeHt Plan shall Be re e'ialllfltea ts easure that the siting of this faeility does HOt iHterfcre ',;-ith or athersel)' iHlflaet the goals, objeetives aad polieies of that plan. Performanee standards shall ee adopted to address aesiga, aeeess aHd reSOHfee proteetisa. If the an:h'ersity reqaires mere land than desigaated BY the GDPi8RP Land Use Map, tranGfers of resideHtial deasity shall Be ellllrniaed oa a eaae by ease hasis. The miRtare of laRd ases, densities and serviees reqaired for a aaiversit)' may eoose ehanges ia the faBrie of the eOHlalHaity eaGt of 8R 125. 8hoald the aniyersity Be loeated withia Otlly Raneh, iHlflaeted 'iillages shall he re eRamiaed Primary Land Use Designation: The area indicated on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map as the Uniyersity Site has a primary land use designation as a uniyersity site. At any time. this area may be deyeloped for a uniyersity campus and ancillary uses such as campus-related commercial. residential. and research and deyelopment support services. Howeyer. use of the area west of Wueste Road. east of Hunte Parkway. by a campus is permitted. proyided that the use of Salt Creek Canyon (including defining slopes) is limited to trails. passiye recreation. and to biological research and educational actiyities in keeping with the preservation of sensitiye habitat and biological species located there. No buildings or structures shall be permitted within Salt Creek Canyon. 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 ofWueste Road. east of Hunte Parkway. has a secondary designation as open space. This area may be developed fer university purooses at any time. This area may be developed for said secondary land uses only after the development of 7 . UNIVERSITY LOCATION AND PHASING September 13, 1993 COUNCILIBOARD HEARINGS "Western Phases I. II and III", as identified in the Otav 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. (GDP/SRP Pages 109, 155, 160, 165). (:\UNVLANG5.CC) 8 MH.14.5.:':' 1,301 au "_;'~ ,,"'c,.'.'~ .~; ;:.;;.. ',. ~,.o~, _,.,. ~. VILLAGE 5 (0" e ~~ / ~AP-' (A r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p MU >-1 '~I ~I >-1 ;;:1 ~I "'I I. I II ",I " I - I 01 I , I , I , , , , "-"-, , .. SPILLWAY -4g/ I I o >- ~ il c "1 ~ I Planning Area 18-A M 613 o Z Q -------- " ~ "" gR.; Ik'T T'\ 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: & School Faciluks c. Goals, Objectives, Policies and Implementation Measures GOAL: COORDINATE THE PLANNING OF ADULT EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES WITH APPROPRIATE DISTRlCT(S). Policv: Provide for the reservation of one or more sites for adult educational facilities to serve the residents of Otav Ranch. Imvlementation Measure: Provide for the reservation of sufficient land/floor svace within the Eue for the Sweetwater Union Hifzh School District adult education facilitv. (:\ADULTED.POL) .--.....,.. , VILLAGE 3 INDUSlRlAL September 27, 1993 COUNCIL/BOARD HEARINGS (GDP/SRP; Part II, Chapter 1, Section C, Page 68) Modify the following laJ1d use designation: Proposed modifications to the GDP /SRP: I Industrial This category includes light manufacturing, warehousing, flexible use buildings and public utilities. Very limited amounts of restaurant and office oriented commercial are also permitted. Village 3 Primary Land Use Designation: The area indicated on the GDP /SRP Land Use Map as Village 3 has a primary land use designation as Industrial. Secondary Land Use Designations: Village 3 also has secondary land use designations for village pUl:poses as described in Part II. Chapter 1. Section F3. This area may be developed for said secondary land uses only if and when Planning Area 18a. designated on the GDP /SRP Land Use Map as Industrial. is de-annexed from the City of San Diego and annexed to the City of Chula Vista. and remains designated as Industrial use. (#18:\INDUST.POL) VI. NON-TRANSIT VILLAGE DENSITIES , . .~ ~....... ~.... D,A...... RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT COUNW OF SAN DIECO . Cln- 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 stiff 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 1, 5 & 6). The increases result from adjusting the core areas from 16.0 dulac 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 Companv 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 co=ercial acreage. (#17:\REDUCTN.MEM) 315 Fourth Avenue. Suite A. Chula Vista. CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157' FAX; (619) 422-7690 .~ ,. ',."". """.....'~.~.".,.',,-_-, .'''.~i'''.'''.-'_''.'''''L . ;':,~",::"V" 'C .~_ .. ". .~_,..., ..,-",:,~.. --::,"""',","'0"''''.",,'''' , ._""'-",".;:'>C'~'."....'",~,.,_,,,,"",,._,",,,,,,_,,,",,,,--,,,,,_,,.'"..,.... PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 OPTION 1 (ADT Equivalent)' Staff Recommendation OPTION 2 (ADT Equivalent)' Baldwin Recommendation 4 -137 -459 -994 -3,898 4 -34 -246 -340 -4,504 Totals Totals , - 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:\DNSREDU I.OPS) . ' OPTION 1 (Staff Recommendation) 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 PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 (ADT Equivalence) Total 2,681 See attached map for Village areas * Units ADT 188 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 of2.9 du/ac. Proposed reductions will reduce actual gross density to 1.5 du/ac. " - The increase of 491 multi-family units in transit villages 1,5 & 6 will total 3,928 additional ADT. (# 17:\DNSREDUC.OP 1) .- ,.,...,.,;--""~,-;-,,,O"- .. ",,,,'><~-.......;.- '-""""';."~";'" ,< . \~OO" - - -~... \." " ~., ll..\ OPTION #1 (Staff Recommendation) . , OPTION 2 (Baldwin Recommendation) PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 (ADT Equivalence) ViII. Acreage Density Units area GDP GDP 2a 320.2 3.5 2b 53.6 5.0 2c 44.4** 2.9 2d 68.6 to.O 2e 18.7 4a 34.1 3.0 See attached maD for Village areas * A total of to 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:IDNSREDUC.OP2) v. \ OPTION #2 (Baldwin Recommendation) 1 I \ 10 I, "' SUNBOW CORRESPONDENCE . ,(, oJ ~ ~....... ~..... OiRY RRnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT CQUNn' OF SAN DIEGO . cm' 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 ;"",,1" PORTFOLIO INVES'fMEN'TS, L l'D. 11 (.'alifornirl /, i mil e J I) a .,. l n e f' .\' h i I) September 1, 1993 City 01 Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91907 Attenlion~ Mr. Duane E. Bazzd Senior Planner RE: Tentative Actions taken by City Council and Boards of Supervisors regarding Otay Ranch Project Dear Mr. Bazzcl: Thank you lor your letter dated August 17. '1993, regarding the above-referenced actions. Our only comment at this time, is that lulure n:sidenls of the) proposed single family dwellings must be made aware of the pre-exiswnce of the approv<,d Sunbow Tentative Map, which allnws fM industrial developm''''t in the south-cast corner of the Sun bow property near the proposc.'CI new residential development. Should construction and sale of these residential units precede the Sunbow industrial development, ,1ny objections t,) the Sunbow proposed industrial devdop"1<'llt by the new residents should not be allowed by thc Cily of Chula Vis!<l. Sincerely, PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS, LTD. By: P One, Inc. OM than Tibbitts ice Pn~sidel11 jT/dle dlc\rtc\sunbow \090193.1 SDRT COK1'OKhTIUN. vet!er,,( 11lolnnC'r, O;\olel t.. SIt"pl1t'Il~<ln, I)tc~a..k'nr era Hanmn ~lnannM ,1710.Jelrerson Av,",,, r.m.C\llo, CA 92590 (909) ti71,i.l$ti1:i4 (.1'109) 676.$5~' l::~K p _ ~:::)2 ....... ... . r '. _ 1\ O('...;E, INC.. Gc:ncl"'.11 r;t(tn~r, Y,..lllldl '"iiC(C:I'I, I'rr.~lrl~"r "Iv C.,f".;..o, !m.. 1~$15 m"h Dluff Ori\'~: SUllr. ~6() S:m Diego. CA 9JI~O ((~19) ~"'~VjC; (61')\ =':'iO.'~^7"'_.l,'"..",_ 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. . Subcommittee 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 1/30/91 3/4/91 4/5/91 SPECIFIC RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMENTS FWS Comment/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 4/19/91 4/26/91 5/10/91 5/24/91 7/7/91 1110/92 3/27/92 4/3/92 USFWS Comment/Suaaestion/Reauest USFWS provided a variety of comments on vernal pool report. Provide criteria for Preserve Owner/ 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 gnat catchers 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 buffer/ 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. DAN SILVER TESTIMONY Fehurarv 2. 1998 Dan Silver: If I could just make one other point, we feel that this is the place to solve your regional problems. ... Don't make Baldwin mitigate someplace else for their impacts here. It should be going in the opposite direction. I think people should be putting money into this property so Baldwin doesn't have to carry this huge burden of set aside, plus RMP, plus management, plus revegeta- tion. Fehurarv 24. 1998 Dan Silver: Our concern is that you may find yourself in a regional gnatcatcher deficit and you need, in essence, to find gnatcatchers to protect or habitat to restore. ... The part to the west of the corridor is an area that the option must be kept open to become part of the reserve depending on what the re- gional gnatcatcher needs turn out to be. You don't know what those are yet. None of us do. But, I feel that this should be considered a part of the reserve. It can be taken away if it turns out that you don't need it; you can put it back. ... we're going to have to solve the gnatcatcher problem somehow, somewhere. What we're saying is that, from a region wide standpoint, this is the most probably cost-effective place to pool resources and solve it.... We have 23,000 acres in one ownership. Now compare that to a situation where you have other areas of coastal sage scrub where you may have hundreds of owners. In other words, how many large ownerships do we really have to work with. There's where we have our flexibility. COMMENT Solving 'regional problems' means miti- gating the impact of other projects from other communities in Otal,! Ranch. Thiscomment recognizes thatpropasols to require Otal,! Ranch to give even more open space are excessive and should be paid for bl,! projects from other communi- ties. However. once the GDP/SRPdec/ares land as open space (part of the feseNe) the oppartunitl,l for regionol mitigation is lost because an offsite developer cannot get credit for mitigating his impactthrough acquisition of open space. Furthermore. a 'regional mitigation poor of funds would not 'waste' its monel,! to acquire open space. A 'regionalgnatcatcher deficit' means 01- lowing development to proceed in other communities. but mitigate their Impacts in South Countl,J. namell,! Otal,! Ranch. This is not true. The GDP/SRP prohibits reducing the size of the open space pre- seNe. (GDPlSRPpage377) This is a proposal to 'pool resources' and solve the 'regionalgnatcatcher problems' in South Countl,l. The problem is - onll,! one deve/oper(Baldwin) and onll,! one commu. nitl,l (Chula Vista) are asked to pal,! the price to solve a regional problem. All other communities will be able to develop es- tate neighborhoods. destination resorts andgolfcoursecommunities./eavingChula Vista and Otal,! Ranch to mitigate the im- pacts from other communities. Clear/I,!. tak- ing more land from Otal,! Ranch Is seen as the easl,! wal,! to solve a regional problem, even though Otal,! Ranch plans are more environmentalll,! sensitive that other plans in other communities. ~ ~ ~. -- C\ ,. ~ -~.=...~-== " -~ :1 :!:iSQ I:T..... ~ o lhOQ ~ '" CD . E.. '" ~ ~ ,~ a:. . ~ 8:8' S.8 OQ ..... pv i2:. C. - ' 2\ , 'j i I~J r 1"'\ \/;--::: ". \ ) ') / v / ' 'r'f->0 (....1 } \ "V(J J\\J 'I \ Q -" ., .-- '\ '" '" t , / / ) j c 1-. 'T - i=' - 1-- '. '1- ,,,-- , I' f) f'( !( \, . , ~ I . " .. " III >- ('~r/rl .) , , . . Village 15 - South and East of Lakes City Staff Baldwin Change Recommendation Recommendation Area Density Units Density Units Density Unit Change Change A 3.0 161 2.0 106 -1.0 -55 B 3.0 209 2.0 138 -1.0 -71 C 3.0 81 2.0 54 -1.0 -27 D 15.0 247 15.0 240 nnchanged -7 E 15.0 295 8.0 152 -7.0 -143 F MU MU MU MU nnchanged 0 G 3.0 84 2.5 70 -0.5 -14 H 2.0 67 2.0 67 nnchanged 0 I 1.0 34 1.0 34 nnchanged 0 J 2.0 158 2.0 158 nnchanged 0 K 1.0 48 1.0 75 nnchanged -27 with added area L 0.0 0 1.0 18 new 18 M 0.0 0 1.0 81 new 81 N 0.0 0 0.5 8 new 8 0 0.0 0 1.0 124 new 124 p 0.0 0 0.75 26 new 26 Q 0.0 0 0.5 33 new 33 Total 1384 1384 nnchanged RESPONSES TO MARK MONTIJO'S QUESTIONS Mark Montijo, chairman of the Jamul/Dulzura Planning Group requested responses to the following questions which deal with Millar Ranch Road,Proctor Valley Road, the adequacy of the otay Ranch DPEIR, and the SEIR for the Hidden Valley Estates. The questions are repeated below and are followed by staff's answers. 1. Were changes to the Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan text, re Millar Ranch Road, advertised for scoping of potential impacts in the Notice of Preparation for the otay Ranch DSEIR. The NOP for the otay Ranch DSEIR indicated that changes were anticipated in the County's Circulation Element and in Land Use, however specific changes were not described in that the purpose of an NOP is to solicit information that will help direct the future studies of potential impacts. The project's DSEIR (p. 2- 25) indicated that changes in the Circulation Element and in the J/D Planning Area text would take place. 2. Have specific impacts of creating a public road for volumes anticipated for full development of Central Proctor Valley been considered as part of the Otay Ranch DSEIR? Yes, Millar Ranch Road was modelled as a public road with full development of Central Proctor Valley in the NewTown PLan Alternative and in the Fourth Alternative of the Oay Ranch DSEIR. 3 & 4. Are there any references or conclusions in the DSEIR regarding Growth Induction, Community Character, Noise or Biological impacts offsite (within Hidden Valley Estates) resulting from this Community Plan text change? Also does the SEIR adopted for the Public Road Alternative on Hidden Valley Estates direct staff to consider such impacts? Use of Millar Ranch Road as a potential public road was considered in the environmental documentation for the Hidden Valley Estates specific Plan project (SP 88-002), and again in the environmental documentation for the otay Ranch General Plan Amendment (GPA 92-04). The Hidden Valley Estates Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was circulated for public review from September 11 to October 25, 1990. This SEIR described the applicant's original project and a number of alternatives, including "Alternative D; Future Four-Lane Roadway Alternative". This alternative was the same as the applicant's original submittal, except for including a potential public use of Millar Ranch Road. Alternative "D" acknowledged that the implementation of a public roadway would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) or similar action to revise the circulation Element and Policy 15 of the -2- Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan. Based on TRANSPLAN traffic modelling and demonstration of need, the alternative provided for a 40 foot wide paved private roadway constructed on a 60 foot wide grade, with an additional 24 feet of ROW which could later be expanded to a four lane public roadway. In addition, the alternative noted the need for a future GPA to implement the public road aspect of the alternative. Impact analysis in the SEIR included Geology and Soils, Landform modification and Aesthetics, Circulation and Traffic, Hydrology, Cultural Resources, utilities and services, Climate and Air Quality, and Land Use. Under the heading "Circulation and Traffic", the SEIR discusses a potential 84 foot roadway, concluding that: It is likely that the Alternative would result in growth inducing cumulative impacts according to CEQA definitions. Transportation modeling has shown that in similar circumstances, such oversized roadway facilities actually draw traffic through a project site of area. Determining the extent of impacts and necessary mitigation for this roadway would require further study and quantification at such time as future densities are determined for the area. Following circulation of the SEIR, additional project alternatives were discussed with the applicant to resolve identified environmental issues. Four additional Millar Ranch Road alternatives were circulated for additional public review in a second SEIR dated February 11, 1991, including "Alternative L - Future Four Lane Roadway Alternative with Biological Mitigation and Additional Modifications to Reduce Landform Modification and Biology Impacts". Alternative L, ultimately accepted by the Board of supervisors in their approval of SP 88-002, was the same as the previous SEIR Alternative D but with the incorporation of modifications designed to reduce identified environmental impacts. The Board of supervisors, on May 22, 1991 (agenda # 14) approved the Hidden valley Estates project (alternative "L"), including "reservation of additional right-of-way of Millar Ranch Road for future public regional traffic needs". The subdivision map resolution (TM 476lRPL5RA) was approved by the Board of Supervisors on March 26, 1992 (#1), including the following requirements with regard to Millar Ranch Road: 14 b. within each phase or unit, offer to dedicate Millar Ranch Road onsite to a width of sixty-nine feet (69') together with the right to construct and maintain slopes and drainage facilities... , _\ -3- 14 c. Prior to or concurrent with the first Final Map, Millar Ranch Road, offsite, from the projeot'. northerly boundary to state Route 94, shall be dedicated to a minimum width of forty feet (40'). Additional right-of-way shall be granted to accommodate two (2) fourteen-foot (14') wide left-turn lanes at state Route 94, satisfaotory to the Director of the Department of Public Works... As a result of these conditions, an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (100) for a 69 foot right-of-way through the project area from Proctor Valley Road to its Rancho San Diego connection will be recorded for potential acceptance into the public road system. Public acceptance of the 100 is contingent upon a General Plan Amendment which revises the Jamul-Dulzura Subregional Plan to delete the existing reference to Millar Ranch Road as a private road. Without such an amendment, the county would be precluded from accepting the 100 because such an action would be inconsistent with the provisions of the General Plan. Additional environmental documentation is included in the otay Ranch Program DEIR, which addresses the indirect impacts of offsite roadway improvements (page 3.10-32). Specific analysis of impact significance for Millar Ranch Road from SR 94 to Proctor Valley Road includes biological resources, cultural resources, land use, landform/ visual resources, and other impact analysis, and is presented in Table 3.10-9 of the DEIR. Finally, responses to comments on the DEIR addresses the issue of alternatives to Millar Ranch Road (comment # 25, page LO.4-9). This DEIR response clarifies that the two alternatives analyzed without the Millar Ranch Road connection (No project Alternative and Composite General Plans Alternative) place all the cumulative traffic within the corridor on the SR-94 facility. The otay Ranch DEIR response to comments concludes: If the Millar Ranch Road connection is not included in the circulation system when major portions of otay Ranch are developed, a reassessment of project and cumulative impacts along with the development of mitigation measures to address these impacts will be required as traffic would be rerouted to other facilities. In summary, the need for Millar Ranch Road has been well documented. Traffic mOdeling demonstrates a need for public use of Millar Ranch Road, even without the additional otay Ranch traffic placed on the regional system. with otay Ranch, the traffic volumes are projected to exceed 25,000 ADT on certain links of the corridor. Under the County Road Standards, a -4- maximum of 250 dwelling units (2500 trips) can be served by a private road. without Millar Ranch Road accepted as a public facility, the private easement could be gated to preclude public use, without further action required by the County (Ord. 8246). Forecasted traffic would need to find alternative routing, further impacting other offsite roads. Such action would be inconsistent with adopted County Road Standards and with prior actions of the Board of Supervisors with regard to the approval of Hidden Valley Estates. Based on the Otay Ranch DEIR, the Hidden Valley Estates FEIR, and on the previous subdivision approval by the Board of Supervisors, the otay Ranch GPA includes the required amendment to the Jamul - Dulzura Subregional Plan to remove the public road prohibition, thereby providing the Board of Supervisors with the option of accepting the required Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. Without such an amendment to the Jamul Dulzura plan, further analysis and potential mitigation measures affecting other offsite roads in the regional system will likely be required. Definition Purpose Use Onsite Specific Projects [k~M PROGRAM . Prepared on a series of actions for one large geographically related project PROJECT . Prepared on a specific development project Examines all project phases: planning construction operation . Ensure review of cumulative impacts . Resolve all issues related to project: - degree of impacts feasible mitigation - feasible alternatives . Resolve basic policy considerations . Examine broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation . Site specific issues not addressed in prior EIR must be analyzed in "second tier" . "Performance criteria" of goals to be achieved must be established during first tier approval . No new review required unless circumstances, projeCt change, or new information is available . Project EIR must contain specific mitigation measures . Subsequent studies may be necessary for implementation or refmement of methods to achieve goals . ~ u Z " - o U ~ U ~~ ~a :5g: "J: J:u ~~ "" >-0, ttl5~ J:"o <nww ~~;:: _ <n ~~z uOo ~o<n >-"z <<Q 0>- "u ,<< ~~ ,," 0<- OZ ffi~ 15 z << ::: - z <::i ~ u z " o u ~ U <n " o <n 5 " w a. " <n ~ o o " <3 " w " <n " v . ~'- o 0 o " ~ ,,- o 0 ~ . " . . , " . 0'" ~ ~ '> >- ~~ , au . 0 ~ 0 o . " E W 0 0" o~ o 0 o . ;:;.r::; u . .U: ~o Sc o . . E ;'iij a g. 2-0 .~ o 0 ~o S ~ ~~ 6<n U. ~~'* ~~"'- ~-g~ g<ot::. .r::;~o.. oU:~ D~Z ~~ :S 'g 'C;'3 . . > ~~~ o 0 0 g ~ E- o ~ 0 " . u ,. !i ~ ;; ~ ~ " ! i <n ~ ~ u " . s 1; . v o ~ .E . S . . . ~ ~~ ~~ ~t:l , " a. .~ ~ 0 . , 9:Li w. ~ '0' .so.. .~ . . o . 00 ~ :i~ " ~ o o . ~ 5 o . " e . o o V o 2('. a.~ %,cc ~E g'a uU . . ~~ " 0 ~E ~~ 0- o , og N. <= ~!~s o . \I) Vi ~'P5' 5 <0 ~ 5 Iii a.,::: ::{:~liifi~ Cl~.r::; 1ii c: co . .~~~~ci!g~ > 15 - >'<U('I a .50 III \I)~ <llog"i$~fit=. :E I:;::l..c: c: <Il ~.g~g-&!~ IIIlll ...._.5 o:l <0 x c: O"C >.- <l/<uc<\l q,,-l!!.!! <uE~~-gO~ ;Za~g5-6 >'CO~-c.5 aE~~~~~ Q.c:O"C<O......2'1Il c: C .... ::> ;;~:il.9 <;I _ ... :J C,J_QJ:: C,J~15~ ; ~.~ ~ eegcJ a. Q,l .- Q,l g.'~ ~ ~ ,g~::2E 0<11 :>.c M-;sgO ",..<:0:;::; ~"j a ~ <II _ c: c: :ill ,Q g g ~ ~ ~ ";:; '? ~;; o ~ c:: c: ~ ... 41 :::l -' w !f if ~ ~ ,. >5 o iC ~ '" .~ ~ , u ,. " '" .9 " o u . ~ ~ o "5 > o U M . ~ 11 " ~ ., Q Vi d " . ~ '" Q. > " , o U . s a . ~ . E , M~ N$ ~N ]!;::: g~ ;:::.2 0- E 11 . 0 - . , E 1:i E . 0 D U , . <n " o .Q , <<iR ~~ E~ ac u.Q ~ to " ~ o . iii:{: ~i ~9 " " , . o . Uu . . =~ a. .~ u<< ~ go 2'6 9-5 M 0 <II .-. . . . u . 0 o 0 ~- ~ g 0": "9 0, . . i > 5 9 > " .. > . ~ . s . . o o ~ ., o ~ . . u . ~ > o . E . o ~ N '" ~;:;- ~~ ~~ gt:. .~ o . . 0 "" 5~ ~<< u_ o 0 ~ 5 >.;: . . 5~ . " 52 lio . 0 u;: u . .~ o . ;: E ME . 8 ~ ~ a~ 5E o ~ "u 1; . D E > o E , E 1\ E ~ j . D 9 ~.8.::: "iii o "'in 0.- ~ ~a ~ . 0 _ 0 . ~ . " >~. ~ E ~ - >. > E ~ ~:s~ - E . .9:~g. lIlo;::U . . 0 :~ U III ~2~ ~ u . e~2 O. ' u.= ~ ..,'Ce ~~~ 'j;~.a. .'l::: C C ~.g .iii ~'Ou -u. . ." ~.E~ . ~ uQ:i3: .E ~ ~ Bcf'* " >0 lC'l.!!~ >.ii .... .~ >?:- u ,.,.w u . 0 ~o{; 9l3: ~-o >o~ ~ ~ -g . 01ll1llM' ue'5~ ,.,llIom .o..'O~ ~~'St:. ill 'O.P III ~ E ~ ~ 0.0'00 C-=~U .9 C .., ~ 'O~E~ ::i.E!~'5 ~ ' ~;;;- D"'- .~ E- o~ u" .9Qj " . .~ Vi; .2; ~ ~ ~g " 0 o 0 - u ~3: U. ~> c. . " ?:E c~ , . o. U 0 5-g o E DE '0 Dv >u ;; 0 > . OD E 0 .~ ~ 0- , 0 ~ .- . . . - III .c o , ~~ c 0 0= :;::"Q1 o . "u ~ ;i E ,g ~ . . o . o ,. . D . ,1! ;; o o ~ . 1: . ~ " " ;; o ~ u ., o ~~ <n u o 11"3- "'~ o .~ 5.!!! ~ ~;d C -g ov EIIl.9",c E.:;I U ~ = o U :J C"U u>!::>:J<l> g'~g~~ clC'lUlii- ~';;-g~.8 Cl."" '" >. ~~ g'.s E SE~<u1I> 8~2'51: .s~E]gA aU-=3;~ ov C1.!!l!o;::C1C'o1 t:.g ~.~ :! t'::!. "', E E <:i 0 t:. .9:'= E..c..E II> ....oo.~~c ..;,.c~~~~ ~ .g 0 a: c:r l'!l III ",,_....I Ill!: ~~~S~5 o.eo"O"+= 5EqeEE -;:08:Je"- ~~~~8~ 50!!! c;dc: .a 11I.2 .!!!~g E " EO" 8&5 ~v ~- ~ .~ B a ~ c; 01 a: c.>s ?;- ~-g 3.92 8~E _ u , ~.~~ ;:;- ~EO;;l2:!. .e=~~ 900"'" MCU~ ~.go5: </ll';l_....I ~~~E o.Eou g E o. ~ g 8 g ~ ""'.., . III ..::: .. ~ (lj '. o g E u ,1! . D '0 u " ~ > " ~ > 5 c o " o E a.~ o . ~ ~ ~ 5 u . ~ :!l - ~ in .s u ~ 0 cci2 . . ~ > ~ III ~ ~ Vi"'';:~ <:1"'001 ~ ~g'~ _0- ~ '5 ~.~ g.9 ~~ ~~~~ E ~ ~8 E .., Q.l 01 o U ... C ~ ~ 8, ~ "- ~ ~ .!!l! 5 0lCl. "in 0 c: >. .~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ e 0;; g.... U 0. ulll"--" 0152 :t: ~.~ ;t'u i: 0 E ~ '" .... 0 0:1 c::u:::U"I <l.l C <:(.s 5~~:i: a.IIlUIIl ~ ~-g ;, U 19 ",.-=: ~~~~ 0: 0 c:.~ .n~g3 !;-;;;<;'E 3.sc~ 8~ao u :J u 0. 0::: '0 0 III <';l c: - III o S ~ ~ .;.. ~~:g .';-lll..::) u~:::.9 ~ ~ ~-g <II,C'C<Il <l.l - C .. '" <II <::l III ~ ~; g . 0..... <\:I;:M' c.~ -g ~ ~ ~.~ 8~!g ~5~{:t::. E ;; '" " o > 'E , ;; " o "0 ~ ]; u o " o ~ "~ ~~ .8E. ~o "'3~ ~~ "u . ~ o _ " ~ .: 5 . ~ ~ ~ :::.3 ~u cd a ~ ~ ;; " ;; 0; > 'E > . S "0 ~ c ;; . ~ ~ . s e " o u u ., o ~ . " ~ ~ ~ '" E .~ . € o o " u 9 . u o . . '0 ~ ]; .9 " ~ o E E o u " " . ~ . s a . u u . " " ~ , .~@: U~ UN 0_ .~ 9(5 v. ,0 -g 2 o ~ u<< 'a. D" :Cc . 0 . , . 0 ~u c 0 o 0 :g-g " . '" '. ~ " > ]i ~ ;; ~ ]; e ;; . . . c .. E " ~ . . u~ _ 0 -a.2 <no ~ 0 3g> o . ~ 0 "'I: ~ . a:i ~ " . " ~ . . . u o ~ . ~ o ~ ;;; . w = '" I. JAMUL PLANNING AREAS (Tab E in Hearing Binder) II. SAN YSIDRO PLANNING AREA (Tab F in Hearing Binder) III. DEVELOPMENT AROUND OTAY LAKES (Tab C in Hearing Binder) IV. CENTRAL PROCTOR VALLEY (Tab D in Hearing Binder) v. TEXT AMENDMENTS (Tab G in Hearing Binder) ~ ~....... ~.... D,A....... RAnCH JOINT- PLANNING PROJECT COUNTY Of' SAN DIEGO' CIn'.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: 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 gove=ental 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:IERRATA.MEM) 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 91910 . (619) 422-7157. FAX: (619) 422-7690 VI. NON-TRANSIT VILLAGE DENSITIES "~ ~~....... a,FlY RFlnCH JOINT PLANNING PFlOJECT COUNn" OF' SAN DIEGO . C[T'l" OF CHUl.A 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 stliffreturn 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 1, 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. Ovtion #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. . Ootion #2 (Baldwin Comoanv 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 connercial acreage. - (AI7:\REDUCTN.MEM) 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A, Chuia 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 -994 4 -340 Totals -4591 -3,898 I Totals -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:\DNSREDUl.OPS) ., OPTION 1 (Staff Recommendation) PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 (ADT Equivalence) ViII. area GDP 2a 320.2 2b 53.6 2c 44.4** 2d 68.6 3a 12.8 4a 34.1 102 4b 18.8 188 Total 2,681 GDP I 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 actual 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:\DNSREDUC.OPI) VI \~"'" ;. ."" ~.,> 'I., OPTION #1 (Staff Recommendation) OPTION 2 (Baldwin Recommendation) PROPOSED REDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS WEST OF SR125 (ADT Equivalence) Vill. Density Units ADT area I GDP GDP GDP GDP 2a 320.2 1,121 11,210 2b 53.6 268 2c 44.4*" 2.9 130 2d 68.6 10.0 2e 18.7 4a 34.1 3.0 Total See attached maD for Village 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. 'f The increase of 491 multi-family units in transit villages I, 5 & 6 will total 3,928 additional ADT. (# t 7 :\DNSREDUC.OP2) . , " ~.~ . " ~ 1" --r.~,y OPTION #2 (Baldwin Recommendation) SUNBOW CORRESPONDENCE ~ ~........ ~.... OiAY RAnCH JOINT PLANNING PROJECT COUNn' OF SAN mEeo . em' OF CHUt.A. 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.02 PORTFOLIO INVES'rMENTS, L'I'D. /I .~ (.' ,I / if () r II i {f /, ; m i t e J /-1 {/ .,. tile l' .\' h i I) """"~'._' - ,.-. ",,'. September 1,1993 City of Chula Vista Planning Department 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, California 91907 Attention: Mr. Duane E. Bazzd Senior Planner RE: Tentati1ie Actions taken by City Council and Boards of Supervisors regarding Otay Ranch Project Dear Mr. Bazzel: ThMk you for your letter dated August 17,1993, regarding the above-referenced actions. Our only comment at this time, is that future n:sidenlS of the proposed single (amily dwellings must be made aware of the pre-existence of the approved Sunbow TentAtive Map, which allows {M industrial development in the south-cast corner of the Sunbow property near the proposed new residential development. Should construction and sale of thl'sc residential units precede the Sunbow industrial development, ,1ny ()bjections to the SUl1bow proposed industrial dewlopm(.'lt by the new residents should not be allowed by the City of Chula ViSl<l. Sincerely, PORTFOLIO INVESTMENTS, LTD. By: p Olle, Inc. iTldle dlc\rtc\sunbow \090193.1 SORT COKl'OKhT.lUN. t.!r.Ilr:r-.1.l I'lolnner, C:\niel I.. 5f~pJwn~.,(\, IJ\'c'~adcnr era Momn ~lnannal ,inu JeUerson Av~nll~ l"m~cuJa, f.A ')2;90 (909) ti71.,).<';olYl C\"l~) 67eh:;5~7 l~:ur. I' Ol'\E. INC.. Gcn<":I".lJ r:;.n.n(':r, Y,..ltlldJ t,i:iCrC:I'l, l'r(:;o;lrf.-:"r ;'/0 C.,f'';''ll, Ill\., 12$';5 t!i~h DlutrOri\'<: SUllr ~ti() :iall Diego, CA 9:.!I~O (t~lq) l"~L.)""':l;.___l/,O.,,\\ ':It.:", '>.....~.." BALDWIN REQUESTED DISTRIBUTION MATERIAL PETTIS, TESTER, KRUSE & KRINSKY KEITH F> 'USMOP ""DELE K. CARDOZA K....~N D. CRAIG MICHAEL S, CUCCHISSI SCOTT oJ OARUTY P....TRtCIA..... OlSCOIE DEAN DUNN.R....NKIN CHARLES S, e:XON CHRISTOPHER,J. F....RLEy. MARK e. FELDM....N GLENN E. FULLE:R ROBERT ,J, GERARD. ,JR ALAN ,J GOROEE HOWARD HALL WILLIAM E. H....LLE CHERIE ERICKSON H....RRIS ANDREW K. H....RTZELL HUGH HEWITT LAWRENCE,J. HILTON ,JOHN O. HUOSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CARY K. HYDEN DAVID A. KRINSKY M. RUSSELL KRUSE CHRISTINE L. LUKETIC REBECCA /14,. M....UCH MARK R. MCGUIRE ....NDREA L. MERSEL MICHAEL L. MILLER DENNIS D. O'NEIL ,JAY F" "''''LeHIKOFF DANIEL L. PELEKQUDAS ALAN 'AI PETTIS ROBERT A. RIZZI PAUL A. ROWE CAROLE STEVENS BRUCE A. TESTER WILLtAM L. TWOMEY KENNETH A. WOLFSON ,JOHN P YEAGER MICHAEL G. YODER A ""'.TOt",,,."... 'HC~U"'''G ....o~o:..'o....~ cO..~....,.,OIU' 18eSl VON KARMAN AVENUE, 16"" FLOOR IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 9271!5 POST OFFICE BOX 19766 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92713 TELEPHONE (714) !5!53-2!500 FACSIMILE (714) 261.0882 (714) 2el.72!51 .A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 811 WEST SEVENTH STREET. PENTHOUSE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017 TELEPHONE (213) 362-0350 FACSIMILE {213J 3e2-0359 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER September 12, 1993 OFCOUHSEL OAMON LAWRENCe::: MICHAEL B. LUBIC 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 on Endangered Habitats League Julv 21. 1993 Presentation Reaardina 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,Oaa-acre otay Ranch project in San Diego County ("Otay 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:~\161\CDRR\~14_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 BUM 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 Planninq 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:\DOC\161\CDRR\~14_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:\POC\161\CORR\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 larae block of habitat which the exoerts have told us is needed to make the reserve work in the long term. It is undoubted Iv 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\CDRR\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 indeoendent 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. a-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 125011-110001 F:~\161\CORR\9309IlIl14.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 specific 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~!( ~~ Andrew K. Hartzell ~ AKHjvjw 09-12-93 12500-00001 F:\DOC\161\CORR\~14.LTR :.Jan Silver . Coorolnator 8424,0. Suta Monica Blva. .592 LOB Angelel, CA 90069 TEL/FAX 2n .654. 1456 ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE L'rd,gJ'e4 to UJe pro,<<!lOn of Caul. Saglt Sendt nnd Other Thretrmrd Ecc.tysums . . July IS, 1993 Mayor Tim Nader City of Chula Vista ::76 Founh Ave. Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE; Otay Ranch hearing. July 21.1993 Dear Mayor Nader. The Endangered Habitats League is an alliance of conservation groups and individuals dedicated (0 ecosystem protection and cooperative land use solutions. We commend you for your thorough review of the proposed Otay Ranch development and for 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. Rese~ Design and Gray Rmu:h. and a map which illustrates our recommendations. We hope this information is helpful to you. With best regards, -d::: ~ Dan Silver. Coordinator <;(. ~,~ A..~ ,),-~ ~ /'/""""7- ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE MEMBERS "San Diego area groups Friends of the Tecare ~ The Enviromnen1Bl Trust" Santiago Creek Greenway Alliance Friends of the Santa Marprita River" Friends of die Northern San Jacinto Valley The Irvinc C-Ql'leerYancy Southwes=n He.lpecologists Society" BKk Counay Usnd Truat" Alpine Usnd~ SlOp Polluting Our Newport Save the F_,t1l1nds Carlsbad Atborctum Foundation" CotrDnwood Creek Conservancy. Ecology Center of Southern California Friends of the Hi11s Defenders of Wtldlife Orange County Fund for Environmcnl81 Defense Laguna Canyon Conservancy Mountain Defense League" Save Our Coastline 2000 Laguna Orcenbclt, Ine. Friends of Batiquitos Lagoon" San Diego Biodivlnlty Project" Rural Canyons Conservation Fund friends of the Santa Ana River T ri County Conte"'Vlltion League San Diego AudI1bon Society" Santa Barbara Audubon Society Laguna Hills Audubon Society Palomar Audubon Society" Los Ang" Audubon Society B\IClII. Vista Audubon Society" Pomona Valley Audubon Society Palos Verdes PerIinsu.\a Audubon Society J?'asaQcna AuduboD Society South Coast Audubon Society Sea and Sage Auduboa Society Sanla Monica Bay Audubon Society .E1 Dorado Audubon Society San Fernando Valley Audubon Society Sierra Oub San Diego OIapta"" Sima Club Angeles Chapla' Sierra Dub San Gorgonio Chapter Friends of Los Pcnasquito& Canyon Preserve" Shoreline Study Center" California Native Plant Society, State Olapte.r California Native Plant Society, Orange County Chapter California Native Plant Society, San Diego ~ California Native Plant Society, iDs Ange1es1Sanla Monica Chapter California Native Plant Society, Kern County Chapter Commii:lce for the rnvironmc:nt (Orange County Bar Assoc.) San Bcmardino SlI8e Friends Save Our Forest and Ranchlands. Friends of the Foothills Ballona Lagoon Marine Preserve CoaataI Conservation Coalition Pomona Valley Greens National Opossums, Inc. EnvirooJl1(O'UIl Health Coalition" Golden State Wildlife Fedr:ration Frialds of the j.lll...... District ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE Dtdil:latu t(I ,ftt ProUUJOn of CoaullJ Snge Sc"~b nnd o/htr ThrmMted E~'Y''''"~ Dan Silver . Coordinator 8424A So.nta Monica Blvd. N592 Los Angeles, CA 90069 TEL/FAX 213 .654 . 1456 RESERVE DESIGN AND OTAY RANCH lmroduaion Past destruction of habitat has limited our options. There is only a single large area of intact coastal sage scrub remaining in the South County, stretching from the Ml San Miguel area southeast to the Olay Ukes and then to BLM lands. Nothing of $ignificance is left to the west. and coastal sage scrub to the east is too high in elevation for CalifornIa Gnatcatchen. 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 proleCtion of the California Gnatca1Cher. ProleCtion of these same areas is also essential to making feasible our own multiple species programs, that is, the NCCP and MSCP. And unless these proactive programs s"""'-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 linkages as determined by the wildlife agencies. Additionally, the huge planning area of Otay Ranch provides great flexibility. The loss of a core habitat area would, we believe. be impossible to justify with a finding of infeasibility under CEQA. Prolection of the reserve in an intemally-mitigared open space dedication is highly desirable, t--<an~ the unwise granting of entitlements or increased development potenrial could cost the rupayers tens of millions of dollars if reserve lands have to be re-purchased. 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 all-Important 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 Landscape". The essential point. derived from studies here in San Diego, is summarized as follows: "... the mosllmportant conclusion from this entire body of investigations is that the best way to maintain wjUJ#~ and ecosystem l'lliues is to minimize habilDlfragmentation" (his italics). . Professor Soule then goes on to characterize the basic rules ofreSC'Ve fonnation: First, "Wherever possible. natural open ~'pac.e areas should be made as large as possible and should be made contiguous." Second, in genenil. "a single large habitat ftagment is superior to several small fragments. . ." Third. large predators, such as coyotes must be retained. Fourth. distutbanc:e and edge effectA, which many species cannot tolerate, must be minimizcd. And last. connec:tivity must be reta1J1ed, and in this regard. wildlife corridors can help u.ssen the effects of fragmentation. 1 A s a practical matter. 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-<lffective acquisition scenario. Returning to Otay Ranch. our basic goal is clear. a broad sweep of conzigllOus hobirar murr be milinlai1u!tif7'Om BLM lands. through Salt Creek and the Son Ysidro parrel, and intO the large block ofhobuar in tIlL Proctor Valley parceL From there. the reserve crescent murr COM1IIU! inraa iTllo the San Miguel region. In outlining what we believe is needed.. we are not setting fonh bargaining positions. We will honestly priontize those areas which are non-mitigable. "must- haves". ami also tell you where we feel more tlexlbility is possible. San Ysidro Parcel In the San Y sidro parcel. development south and east of the Ulke.s would sevc:rely interrupt and fragment the habitat. According to the Scientific Review Panel of the NCCP. coa.sl3.l sage scrub must be rewned within its mosaic of associated habitats. such as grassland and chaparral. and this is euctly the case southeast of the l.Akes. 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 ana edge effects into a pnstine anlIl: lIeg:radation of the high biologic values of the pubUc lands which surround it, including BLM wilderness: high management costs due to distwbance; interfc.C.1Ce with large ptedauJn: and bloc""r of wildlife movement from south to north. Any ~lopmenl soU/hemt ~fthe LakI!s violates 1M cardirull "'~ of avoiding hobirar (ragmenlalion, and thlls jeopunlius the penistence of J1Of1Mlmions and species over time. As a priority I reserve area. we do not believe that the federal government would approve any plan without this ~ anlIl intacL We also note that the progtam EIR, ...eJ-~ prior to the groAre<otcl:lel' listing, also classifies this area as significant and unmitigable. Proc/()r Valley Parcel For the Proctor Valley parcel. needed changes involve both habitat area and imp~ connectivity. For connc:ctivity, we must discard the notion of narrow "wildlife corridors" and fcx::us on the more up-to-date concept of "habitat linkages" . This means that the best connection bc:twc:al areas is viable hDbitar in whk:h aninuUs can oauaily live, and not "highways" to travel upon. The existing habitat linkages on the Ranch must not be compromised. First, there is the connection between ProGtor Valley and San Y sidro near Dulzunl Creek, where wildlife movement is stressed by the conjunction of p.Oyu.ed development north of the Lakes and the nearby planned Daley rock quarry. To meet both habitat and linkage needs, the proposed development bubbles locatcQ just north of the l..alra and east of the wildlife corridor must be eliminated. This is also a priority I reserve area. and the results of recent g"l!tcatMet surveys hc:re may be of intecest. The rest of the area nonh of the I..akes is divided into two priorities. The area to the west of the corrillor is an area of degrBded but highly restorable coaslal sage scrub. It is a priority 2 relielVe area. meaning that all or part is liely to be pan of a reserve. One option would be to lmve it a speciDJ study area pending further consultation and final reserve mo.;gro. More westerly, there is a priority 3 area in which development can be planned but with avoidance of sensitive rellOW'CeS. Central Proc:tul Valley pi: -<'lIS a similar challenge in providing the oombin.......... ofhabiw and linkage needed to connect Olay Ranch to the vital ML San Miguel region.. We have spin divided the area into priorities 1 and 2 (pkme see milp). with priority I rd'erring to that whicb is essential fur a 11lSeI'Ve, and priority 2 referring to areas from whieh development should be 2 withheld pending c:onsullation with the wildlife agencies. but where some development may eventually be possible. Our recommendations here reflect the need to create usable, contiguous habitat. mirumize fragmenlllt1on, and reduce edge effects from nearby development. Otay RiVt!r Valley Parcel In the Otay River parcel. there are several areas of concern. The high biodiversity of Salt Creek and the Otay River Valley must, of COllJX, be prcsc:rved BlI a priority 1. Also, if wildlife populations are to remain viable in Wolf and Poggi Canyons. connections should be wicleoed. road impactS mitigared. and revegetation carried out. For Wolf Canyon. this means that development near the canyon mouth should be pulled baclc per wildlife agency rec:ommendalions for beuer connectivity with the Otay River Park. Also. a change to industrialiand use 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 12S westward. and the number of crossings should be r~AIII-:l to two. In general. however, on the Otay River parcel, we believe that appropriate development .....puaMlities should be taken advanlllgc of. Conclusion The best way to ensure success in meeting the rrumdat.es of the &dangered Species Act in regard to the California ar...t=t"l1er lies in maximizing reserve integrity on the Otay Ranch. Simultaneously. you will preclude future economic disruptions by ensuring the success of the multiple species NCCP and MSCP pl~ams. Otay Ranch also provides your most cost-effective solutions. Regarding estate homes, there are ~,,('.ell.....t o~tica north of the Lake, a4jaamt to the Olay River Valley. and perhaps in the invened L parcel, which is a mesa with views. As you solve regional habitat problems. you will also provide an ...........tic and quality of life achievement for which all future citizens 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) Village PRIORITY 1 PRIORITY 2 SUBTOTAL . . . AC DtJ AC . DU AC. DU 1 - - 99.0 390 99.0 390 2 - . 172.0 632 172.0 632 .. . - 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 County: 471.5 1,649 637.83 2,082 1,109.33 3,731 City: 694.0 2,040 . . 1,331.83 4,W . Loss does not include 3/4 of Resort Site (approy;mlltely 180 acres). County and City figures differ due to County recommendation for open space option area on western ponion of Village 15. .. SOUTHERN CAUFOANIA COASTAL SAQE SCRUB NATURAL COMMUNM'Y CONSERVATION PLANNING Draft Conservation Guidelines July 20, 1993 P'Ublllhld by: California DepaMlenl d FIsh and Game and CaJIomIa Resources Agency '418 IIIh StrNl Sac:nllnelllO, CA 9S814 Contac:t~ Larry En;, Pt1O. Nall.lral Communlll. ConseNlltIo.. PI8/vlJng Program Manager Tel: 91WS3.Q767 Fax: 91~Z588 TAIlLE OF CONTENTS , . InIroductiOn .............................................................................. '. , 2~ Foundation ................................................. 1 a. Pr.mistsonCSSec:ology ................................. 1 b. Premises on tN CIOI'IServetlon challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z c. Pr~S8sontimir1g ....................................... 4 3. Conservation Planning Guidance ................................ .. L Theinterimstrategy ..................................... 4 b. 1he research agenda .................................... 5 e. Managementand restoration . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . 7 d. Appllcatlon to SUbregional planning ..................... _ . . . . B 4. Implementing Interim Strategy ... - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Cet&rmining Potential Long-term Conserve1ion Value. . . . _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ .' 10 a. Ranking land for interim protection. . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 b. Evalulltion process -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . " 11 e. Evaluation methods . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 s. Pclicy ................................................................................. 14 a. Pending approval of subregional NCep ................. _ . . . .. 14 b. WIth lIpprovecl subregional NCC? ........................... '4 e. In ti'le absence of a subregional NCCP . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Attachment A. GeneraliZed Map of Coastal Sage SCrub Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . .. '5 Attachment B. Subregional Focus Areas ............................. 16 Aftachrnem C. Evaluation Logic Flow Chart ........................... 17 7~/n 01lAFT CONSERVA nON GIJIl)ELJNES "'g5 I 1. Introduction This document presents draft Conservation Guide&nes for the Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS) Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) process. The guidelines are published by the California Department of Fish.and Game. The guidelines wer. prepared In coordination among the Department. the US Fish and Wildlife service, and the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), and are based on technical r~ew by and recommendations from the SRP. These guidelines are intended to be usod along with the NCCP Process Guidelines all;C published by ~ CalifOrnia Department of Fish and Game. The SAP was commissioned by the Department and the Service to review available scientific information to assist in ~reparation at the Cons.rve1lol"1 Guidelines. 'The review addresses Information available as of March 1993 and is descnbed in 'Seientll!c Review Panel Conservation GuideUnes and Documentation,' which is available from the Departmenl 2. Foundation a. Preml1l.. on CSS eeelogv 1. CSS vegetation is dominated by a characteristic suite Of shrub species In southem CIIlfomia. The composition of coastal sage scrub vegetational . subcommunities may vary substantially depending on physical circumstances and the succesSional status of ths habitat. An explicit definition of CSS and a deScrfption or Its constituent species has been recommended by the SAP. (See Special Report No. 2, March 1992.) A ~nerallzed map of CSS and . summary description is included In Attachment A. 2. While a variety or species are characteristic Of CSS, no single animal or plant species readily serves as a consistent and entirely reliable indicator of ess conditions across the entirety of the distribution of the habitat in southern California. Rather, many species dependent on CSS are found in cnJy certain subsets Of tne community, and, ccnvsrsely, many nominal CSS species are widely distributed in nonoCSS habitats. Nonetheless. a suit, of "target' species has been identified by lhe SRP that are useful as II surrogate for planning purposes. Species other than target species that have been identified as deserving special consideration on account of poSSible rarity or endangerment are referred to as species of concern. These.,. state or federal candidatss for listing. (See SRP SUl\lty Guldi/lnes, February 1992.) 3. Target speOn are three vertebrates that lire among the community's most visible impern-.d organISmS: CalIfornia gnatc:atcher, cactUs wren, and or8nge- throated whiptaillizard. lhllir distributions embrace the majority of the geographic range of soutl'lem Califomia CSS. 4. Many speeies that depend on ccastaJ sage scn.rb exhibit tramitcry habitat cc:eupanc:y, along with short 6fetimes, high potential rates of reproduction. 7ftOJta ORAFT CONSERVATKJN GIJI/)EUNE.$ Plgt 2 limited horn. ranges, dramatic population fluctuations. and g~9at susceptibility to 10C81 extirJ)atIon. 5. Because of population fluctuations and routine local extirpation and recolonization event=. a single point.jn-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 value or importance as habitat 6. CSS may convert to chaparral or grassland, depending on slope, aspect, climate, lire histo/Y, and other physical faeters and biological phenomena; conversely, chaparral or grassland areas may convert to CSS. 7. CSS is a naturally patchy vegetation community. Over a scale of SlJVeral mnes, it is found in divers. habitat mosaics with other ecological communities. While there 81'8 species dependent on coastal sage scrub, these species do not always exhibit . clear tendency to QCCUPV areaa of continUOU5 coastal sage scrub. Rather, vegetation components of coastal scrub habitat in mosaics with other habitat types may provide habitat for targ.t species and ether species of concern. b. Premia.. on the conservation Challenge , . TIle southern Caifcmia CSS planning region has been severely degraded by pest urbanization and agricultural land conversion. Certain lubhabitats, such as thOlle at low elevation. thoae dose to lhe coast, and those with lesser slope. t'lave been disproportionally affected and many have experienced local losses of some sped.s. 2. Threats to CSS habitat are more than losses of total habitat ariS alone. Threats also include losses of distinct CSS subtypeS'and losses of the special conditions needed to maintain the broad suite of CSS.resident species. (See discussion in ArlaChment A.) 3. Convarsicm of natural land hu also severed connections lII'T1ong remnant habitat patches resulting in their increased isolation. Connections among habitat patches ate critieaJ to the long-term survival of CSS speoies. 4. Because CSS is found naturany admixed with other vegetation communities. the best conservation strategy for CSS is to proted large areas of native vegetation that include biOlogically significant patches of CSS. 5. Under present condltions, few CSs-domin'ated lands are of sufficient extent to a self-sustaining. A status quo strategy of 'beniS" neglect' management likely will result in SUbstarrtlal further losses of CSS biodlversfty. Habitat areas large en01.lgh to be self.sustaining should not be significantly reduced in size and they shoUld be actively managed in ways responsive to pertinent new information as it accrues. 712G.1" rJI'.AFT CONSE.IlVA T/ON GiJJDEUNES f'II.QII. 3 6. The CSS community is i'lherently dynamic and should be managed to retain its C81:)aeity to support the broad range of CSS species over the long term. Under an adaptlve management regime that provides for natural successional dynamics, 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. 1. CSS conservation wiI1 require appropriate levels of participation by pUblic agencies responsible for publicly owned land ttm contains CSS or that serves as linkages between reserves. State and local government can participate through the NCCP process and federal agency land owners can participate through federal progral'll$ coordinated with NCCPs. Although important to the integrity of regional conservation efforts, not enough CSS exists in public ownership for PUbliC land to be the .sole basis of a reserve netwcrl<.. 8. WIthin the solJthem California region liS a whole. roughly a dozen biologically defined subregions, designed around extensive habllat areas can b. identified based on geography, the ecologIcal characteristics of CSS species. and patteml of past land use. Each subregion exhibits distinct local conditicns that wUl affect the conservation approllCh to be used. 9. Each subregion will need to meet explicit conservation objectives to promote ecosystem stability at both subregional and reglonalle\lels. EaCh subregion wiU need to proVide for conservation of the three target species. 10. Despite the extent cf current threats. the majority of the species inhabiting the CSS do not appear to be in imminent dSl'lger of regional extinetion. Some small amount of short-term habitat loss can be tolerated as long as it is ultimately counter.balanced by adequate long-term enhancement efforts. 11. A few, small-scale efforts at CSS restoration and enhancement have b88n attemptedj tIlese examples Indicate that net enhancement at habitat quality may be attainable. Furthermore, ecologicaJ studies of CSS show natural recovery from distu'bance suggesting that active restorative proje~ may be successful. 12. Information available to the SAP supports a censervative estimate of S% habitat quality enhancement potential for existing CSS habitat. This potential for mitigation leadS to a corresponding estfmate of ~'" Short.term habitat 10SI that can be tolerated in any subregion. A level of enhancement beyond 5% may be possIble and with adequate scientific information, improved prospects for enhancement can be the basis for allowing a greater than 5% loss of habitat. 13. Land of high priority for inclusion in . rNerve system can be identifillci basad on a combination of size. location. and quality criteria. The impact of an overall 5% 1088 gf CSS I'labitat erea can be fI.Irther roduced bV avoiding Jesses of higher prlcrity habitat. 7110;'n 0ItAFT CONSERVATION GUIDELiNES Parlfl . c. Premia.. on timing 1. The southern California planning region is too large to be planned as 8 single unit. For conser.:ation planning purpos.s. the region needs to be divid.d into subregions that are based on both biological and poUtieal considerations. The seale and foC\JS of the subregions has been defined by the SRP (Subregional Planning Oocument, May 1992, rcvi$ed August 1992). The focus area map is included as Attachment B. 2. Subregional conservation planning will progress at cflfferent rates due to different local economic conditions. Some subregions are ready to initiate NCCP planning now; others may not participste for several years. Some subregions may break lntc subareas wl-Jch may plan at different times. 3. Scientifie information available to the SAP does not support a conservation plan that w=uld lead t= significant losses of CSS habitat. Despite reeent efforts to address this data short1a!I, there is still a laek of sci.ntifie information on Important aspects of CSS biology that may be necessary to formula'te and implement a long-term plan. 4. lMld owners and local governments should initiate the subregional planning process and identify and begin to fill information needs specifie to that subregion. The exIent of 8dditi~a1 information needed, hence the time and ef'Icrt needed. depends on the extent of projected habitat losses within e subregicn. The amount Of additional date necessary for deciSion-making will be minimal where subregional habitat lOsses are expected to be minimal or where adeQuate mitigation fer losses can be demonstrated conclusiwlly. Conversely, where greater habitat loss is propo!ed or where mitigation entails unproven technologies, data needs will be greater. 5. Subregions are encouraged to formulate NCCPs for approval by COFG and USFWS iUi early as possible. One element Of II NCCP must be an assassment Of the status of scientific infcrmatian in ~e subregion. A NCCP can be approved for implementation in phases despite a need far scientific information. Implementation of each phase of the plan mu~ be adequately supported by scienti1ic information. S. Short-term habitat conversion Should not foreclose future Iong.term conseMltion planning options. 3. Conservation "annlng Guidance a. The Interim strategy o Short-term losses of habitat should be minimized so as to not foreclose future conserv&tion planning options until such time as long-term enhancement programs are formulated. 7,h0j13 0ItAFT CONSERVA.TlON GUlOEUNES f'.~:; o Total nterim loss should be 6mited to 5% of CSS habitat in any individual subregion.. o To the maximum degree practicable, the 5% loss should be limited to areas with smaller populations of target species. o TO the maximum degree practic:able, thv 5% lass should not eIi.proportionally impact specific: subunits of the environmental gradient in each subregion (as defined by veg.tation aubcommunity. latitude, elevation, distance from coast. slope, aspect or soil type). o Durirlg the interim period. subregional and subarea planning should strive to protect areas of higher long-term conservation value - defined by extent of CSS habitat. ~roximity of that habitat to other habitat, value as landscape linkages or corriclcrs, or pres.nce of target species or other species of concem - until a SIolbreglonal plan lO&Tl be put in place. o Development pressure should b. dncted toward areas that have lower long- term conservation value. Such habitat are8$ art ,maDer in extent, are more isolated, have limitecl value as landscape 6nkages.. and support comparatively 1twer individuals of target species. o Planning ShOuld ensure that all interim hebitst losses are adequately mitigated 01' should col'lttibute to an interim subregional mitigation program that wiD be subsumed in the long-term aubregionaJ NCCP as s~ecIfied in the Process Guide&nes. b. 'The reI..rcn Igencla The followlng research program can resolve unanswered questions that bear on the conservation of target species that inhabit coastal sage scrub and the biodiversity assoCiated With 1l'lat community. Tne SRP recommends six interactive research tasks. 1. Biogeography and Inventory of CSS. The basic extent and distribution of CSS vegetation and its constituent species should be adec;uatl'illy mapped for the ~ion and each subregion. This information wiD be required to support any subregional plan. The comprehensive rrterature relliew of CSS initiated by the SRP should be expanded and kept C\lrrent For th. ~Q\lttlem California region, milps of the plilnning re;iQn shol.lld be prollided at a scale of 1:100,000, wr.h minimum mapping units of 100 ha (250 acres) and a minimum resQlution of 100 m (330 feet). Ideally these maps would be GIS-based. Data layers snould indude vegetation, urban and agricultural land use. land ownership, topography, climate, distribution of target species. and available InformatiCln on speCies of conc:em. 7120;;% CRAFT CONSE/NA.TION GUIDEUNES . -.- - Fer each subregion. GIS-based maps (or aecurate manually drawn maps based on similar data) should be provided at a scale of , :24,000 with minimum mapping units of '0 ha (25 acres) and minimum resolution of 30 m (100 feet). Data layers should include those required for regional planning as well as specllle conaltions relevant to the subregion, Wltl'\ great emphasis en gfQ\.Ind- truthing and verification of data. 2. Trends In biodiversity. It is the intent at the NCCP to preserve a substantial representll1ion of the biodiversity asSQeiated with CSS. Better informatiOn on the effect of reserve size and adjoining land uses on biodiversity would help planning decisions. Monitoring of select taxa is necessary to assess the ongoing success at CSS community conservation efforts. Indicator taxa (such as CSS dependent birds, small mammals, and butterllies) should be employed due to time and funding constraints. The relationShips bstween species richness/composition and habitat patch area and the effects of isolation snould be invllitigated in sampling program,. These sampling programs wiD entail surveys for species richness and composition within a carefully selected series of CSS patche$ in each lubregicn. 3. DllipetUI characteristics and landScape corridor use. More information about dlspersallimitationS of CSS species WOI.Ild help planning for adequatEl linkages between reseNts and reveal trade-offs between increasing reserve sizt and improving corridors. DiSpersal information ~quate to allow tests of sensitivity at rnetapopulation models to cOMeclivity are required. Data from SlverallOcatlons wlttlln the planning region during both br.eding and non- breeding Masons shO\.lld be gathered on target species, mountain lions. coyotes, and representative ImaU mammals and invertebrates. 4. Demography and population viability analysis. One test of the potential effectiveness of reaeM systems is population viability analysis. l1mHeries data on the two target species of birds should be gathered in at least half the subregions and frem represent.ative physical circumstances that span those found across the regional distributions of 1he species. Data shQl,llcl include territory SIZe, time budgetS, reproduc:tive sucoeSl, survivorship, emigration and immigration, with separate data obtained both for males and females where pOSSIble. populaticn viabalty analyses should be carried out for sample populatlOrl$ and metapopulations, and should consider connectivity and environmental effects. 5. Surveya end autecologal stUdll. of. aenaltlv8 anima" and planta. Basic: information on the locellOn, abundance, distribution, and natural histOry of vertebrate and invertebrate candidate species for federal protectiOn and CSS- associAtIK! plant :s~CQiO$ of special conce,n should be gathered from !Select sit8$ throughout the ~lanning region. Each subregional planning exerdse .hould contrlbuta to this regional effort. S. Genetic StuCSles. The maintenance of genetic variation Is critical to the long- term viabi1ity.of species inhabiting CSS lIOd wiD be an important aspect of 7/10~ CJMFT COHSERVATIQN GlJJOELJNES f>.ge 7 monitoring populations under a Nee!'. Ceclining genertic variation will be one symptom of inadllQUate &nkages between reslilIV8S and can si~nal a need for changesln rnerve management. Baseline data for comparison with future eond"1Iiona should be gatl'lered at the earliest possible opportunity. Target !pecies and several invertebrates should be sampled from several locations in each subregion. Most genetic data e&rI be obtained with non-destructive sampling ~niques in conjunction with other studies that require handling of . ..;..,.... -. -..,. In................ BnN._. c. Management and restoration Management and restoration practices should be addressed as part of a wen- coO/'dinated research program. Management and r8$tO/'ation research wilJ be valuable to SUbregiOnal NCC? planning. Even after a NCC? is adOpted, ongoing restoration research will be essential to adaptive management of coastal sag. scrub haDitat. The Califomia Department of Fish Ind Game in colaboration with the US Fish and Wildlif. SeMce wlr convene a committee of elq)8rienced pnJCtltioners In the management and restoration of coastal Hge scrub habitats to dewlop guidelines 10r s~h activiti.s. This ccmmittM Should review pertinent cIoeuments and address the current state of knowledge In the following areas key to the management of coastal sage scrub: o Exotic species centre/, including both animala (in particular, cowbirds and feral and domestic mesopredators suCl'l as house C8!S and intrOduced red foxes) and plarns {weedy species, especially annual species of old world origin} o Recreational use at COesta/ lagO =rub and other opon apace reaerve aI'Ole, including identification of suitable low Impact recreational pursuits consistent with preseMltlon goals. o The role of fire in natural ecosystem dynamics and processes, including the appDeation of control bums and the control of ignitions of accidental and vandal origin. Restoration considerations to be addressed in well-designed field experiments include: o Identification Of restoration unit sizes, including identification of maximum areas that are restorable using current teehni~ue!t A focus on patch enlargement t:eehniquN is advised. o Identification of coastal sage scrub responses to Soil conditions in restoration efforts, with fccus on soU structure. soil nutrient Il'\IeIs. 'organic matter content, water holding capacity, and soli compaction. o Identllleatlon Of appropriate SeeCling, outplanting. and irrigation teC/'lniques with foeuses on propar mixes of seeds. Seeding techniques, and timing of applications at seed and irrigation. , o ldentifiestjon Of tec:Miques to encourage native herbaceous specIes and to c5accurag. the establlshment of exotic species. o Establshment of realistic success criteria to evaluate restoration considering liege Species diversity and cover, and use by targlt species. 7/201!l3 DIfNT r;;QNSERVATlON GI,JJOWNES i'8g8 B The management ar)d restoration c:ornmittee wiH be expected to deSign multifactorial field experiments at appropriate spatial scales usinil expficit arid repeatable scientific method to sid in differentiating among alternative techniques. Since treatments will In aD likelihood vary with physical eircumstances. local vegetation coml)()Sltion and struc:ll.Ire. and other unique conditions, eaCh sUbregional planning unit will be expected 10 contribute to the regional management and restoration research effort. d. Application to aubreglonal pi Inning The biogeography research task will provide mapping of physical tearJres, land uses, and vegetation to portray the options for the design of a subregional reserve and corridor network. The other research tasks wiD assist planners in evaluating consarvstlon planning op1lons t3y documenting species distrIbutions and relative abundances within eBCh Subregion, by identifying the sizes and configurations of habitat patches neccss8l)' tc sustain stable demographic units af target species, and by assessing the physical characteristics of landscape corridor linkages required to faci6tate cfl$persal. gene flow. and recolonization by S~8S inhabiting the coastal sag. scrub commlM'ity. bed on this Information, subregional NCCPS will designate I system of interconnected r.serves designed to: 1) promote biodiversity, 2) provide for high likeDhOOds 10r persistence Of target speCies in the subregion, and 3) provide for no net Joss of habitat value from the present, taking into account management and enhancement. No net Iou of hllbitat "'a~.le moano no net reduction u, the abillty of tho subregion to maintain viable populations 01 target species over the long-term. The NCCP will need to establish a wide range of habitat management and enhancement teols and incorporate a monitoring program to provide guidance tor ongoing management' WIth improved techniques for management and restoration, the golll 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 mould be applied to each subregion: 1. COnllrve target SplCill throughout the planning area: Species that are weB.distributed across their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species confined to small portions of their ranges. 2. Larger reaerves ar. better: Large block8 of habitat containing large popull!ltlorls of the target species are superior to small blocks of habitat containing small populations. 3. Keep re..rve are.. clOse: Blocks of habitat that are close to one another ate better than blccks of habitat far apart. 4. Keep habitat conUguous: Habitat that occurs in less fragmented, eontiguous blocks is preferable to habitat tt1at Is fragmented or iSolated by urban lands. 1}2ofl3 OIUFT OON$E1NATION GUlOWNES Peg. Q 5. Unk r..erv. wtth corrldors: Intarcomeded blocks of habitat serve CCltllitINalion P~S" bitter than do isolated bloc:l<s of hsbllat Corridors or inlalges function bitter when tM natlitat Wllt'lln !hem reS8mOlls haOltalltlat Is preferred by targtrl sPldes. 8. R...rves shOuld be dIverse: Blocks of habitat should contain a diverse r~enlalion of physical and environmental conditions. 7. Protec:t .....rv.. from .ncroachment Blocks of habitat that are roadless or otherwin inaccessible to human disturbW\co HIVe to better COr'lservo target species than do accessible habitat blocks. 4. implementing Interlm Str.tegy The interim watogy can tlo Implemented in stlIps lIS lll'OCifiod in the P'oceS$ Guidelines. ThIM n summarized below wi!tl comments: 1. Establish aacn subregional NCCP pianning body aocordlng to process ;uldlnn... 2. DesigIW subregiOr'ls. ,,- ..._ h8\Ie ~ deslgnNd by Ihe SAP. lOl:III JUMdfctIons .,. to draw 1Ile &;NIl DOutlGIIle5 tllIlwNn 10ClUS _ lC cleII;nar. aubrl!llgna far NCCP pWrilll- 10...... there eIlaUd bll_ sullregg.lor -" foGUs __ H_. _,.... bculIfut. eII\ be 11_ tar IlIItNlg ~ ~ 10 conwenlenl J~1onII lacIuncIaIla. CMSfGnI along ~ IlaUIlIlIIIa lWlllll/'Clprllll. W lIlitre .. ....u. 10 lll:IllIdi'lallng pIarInIng on I Wge IC:M. I ~. !hi I~ Inlertm .,. loll cap wII IpPy to ad! blcloglClllly dellnld IUbt8gIan. Large subreglane tIlCA1 mHC 1M ob~1w c11limil1ng t/lOIt.q,m CSS _. en I tII01llQ1C111ty *ICI _e. IIlcI _ lUIIIW sutldMtlcll aI I III;e j;IamIng I\IbIegIcn 11110 allploprlalety aIzecj bloIogl~ aublrllU lor Ihe DIIPOM cIIl1CCCU11l1r1ll fllr Irt8rIm t'CIIIIlloss may be nc_ry. 3. Inventory CSS habitat end speciesln subregion. All 01 ~ ,_. bMIa ~ w..... ... ''lIO......-. _pInG hao be4IIl _pi.... Speda 1IlN8'fa. '-. ." llItiJlly InoClmplela. Ilut COlIlpt...........lIP.... lIUMIV- .N IICIC crlllcallA Iruttm IIfott. Tha PIaMIng Agr8Mlllll e~lahln; a IUllreglClll wiI .pecIfy - CIIh... ---. I ""Y. III ..uRdo1l to lho .,.. .pcolol wi! be eqllloIlIy Idd-.d In planNng tor lhaI euIltI;lcIn. Illdt.ltdUII parceb IhIlIIII conaldel'llCllor .....I'p",.'...1I IIHd to be Sl/IIeyed for lhoI. lpecIea. ~. DtrlemUne long-term conselVltion value of lands in subregion. s.. ~ proeesa W MllItIan II'IIIllOllclogy. below. ~ as habitat In "'- llIbrw;ion Is 10 be MUalId and 1nIAlId. 5. Calculate CSS habitat lUll8 end compute S% intIri'n Ion cal' for each SUbregion. Al! CSS hebIIalln IIIe _'''' II Ulllll courae 10 CCIftIlUI* VIe baSil mr 1M 6.. IIlWlrn Iou. 1IlcNdIn; all puIlIlcIy and prMle/y 0WMcI1and. The IIlOIl lncIlJIIvI dllllllllon at CSS ~d be laid. There II no IftInimum perce! aile 1MI1IIckl1o, CCll'lIIdeIaIIaft. _gn tne .....lItUJm mapping UIlIIlor 1M .ubr8g1Otl (I.g. 25 eerws), or 7 ftOlh 6iz8. and density, location, and bIOlogiC :omPOr'lInts. 7;20/13 OMFT CONSEJfVA TION GIJIDEJ.JNES Page 10 IO/Q ~ Itnshald limit rrwy blIl1PPfClltIIIa for determlnirlg habitat at8aS tIIat .,. "too II'IIIlI to COUIll.' Where a pla..VIIllg SUllfeg/otl hu been dIawn on a scale larger llIan !he fOCU$ areas Ide/lllllld by the SRP, lIle aubrtgJon may need to be dMdtd Into small.,. subareas that are adequat. to 8eCOU/ll for Inran", CSS Iosaea. The baseline lIIould rIllIect the &tent of C$S u of March 2$. 1 SS3, rho 11m. tho SA,. .......1'\I\IIti0fl ~ IICOmrnencllltlon wa. made and U1I USIWS IIstJng at the Califomla gnarcatdler was publ'lhed. Only UloM projects 1Il,1ady apProved by COFG erld USFWS UId n:pI1cit!y meeting !!Ie requlremellU at tile Endangered SP8tles At;t Ihoulc:l be IlCClUded Irom lll4I b1M1ine. The buellrw cal=ulatJoll and d811igllatlon oIltJbarlllS for ICCOUII1'"o ITl1.ISl b. 14rilied by h US FIsh and WlldlW. SoNic" and tile Celifomla O.~_", of Fish And Gama. 6. Establisn an entity to serve as a central Clearing hOuse to aCCOUnt for cumulative habitat loss in each Subregion. That entity wUl advise local land use Jurisdictions. T1le enlly OOlid be the NCCP JiannJng body, 1I eountll d goyemrnenta, or a wild/II. 1;8IIty. $01Tll D/'OIIIalon wfIll81C1 III be made III toofdlnlre and III a=ounr for Ilale prolec:u. or for UlDly or b'ilnsponat/on prlljeas IIlIl eroa SUbregiOnal boundaries. 7. Identify interim mtigation requirernent$ for all development on CSS habitat. ThII WOlllcI belt be dOllt by lhe tlIbreglonal NCCp pIaIltIhg body; 1I IllUIl be ellllbflshed In a aubr.gJona/ pllIl'Inlng ~lIment or anachar wrttan document "qulrlng c:anCUlTwllc:e r:J lhe US FlsIIInCf WiJcIIife SeMc:e and the CaMomIa Department at FIah and GIIme. The pI'OIIIaJons for lIller1m mIUgItJon rneau.a will rIIId to be Ipplled by '-' J~ and lnIIy Includ. . 'oq~ lIItt the lGftcIownor raoeivinll '.<MII far IrIIerirn CSS lake wiD INlcI an approprlale 00II'lIIIltmtnt 10 t.:QnlJnu. to ptItlelpere In the OIIera1l aubrtglonlf NCCP Il/'OQIlII!l. It Is re~ Ih8 full rnIllgaIfon InIIy noc b. JlI8Ct/CaI dUI'tIlg the lnlerfm P8IlOG because reaelVl ~ '1$IrlOn P/OOIaIIlI ana 'Mancemera: tec:Miqua "- IlOl been eatabllshed. HOYIwIIw, an aJ:lprO.'Id IUbreglcnal NCQO wlIlYenII.eIy mlllaat8 interim loatI. In ItIe Inrerlm tlhat. adequar, rnftIOllllon for loues ct IawIr ~118 hIllllat may I'I/lge from PI)!Ilenl at a fee to purchase or to lit Ialdt hlgher value I'1abbt. Mana;emenr and rllSlolatlon efforts undenalran . mitigation d~ting 1M lnIerlnl pro;ram wll edd 10 tt.. OVCI'DII .bUy 01 /hellO OOllCcrvatIoft toolc 10 be employed mare SlIcceatUlty in the Mute. s. Identify and fID scientific information needs for long-term planning. APPl op.iate acIl11111c research tasks war vary f,om SlIbregion to lubreglon del*ldlnv on lhe tmounl Clllnlorrnatlon lIVJlIabI.. Ih. Amcunt of habltar conversion prOPosed. and lhe CGrl8I.....Uon lItmegiea bling conslde'-1. Sclanlllic: rtceIJc:h rnuc be c:oordlnatld wilh reoJOrt-Yllde -<<ona. The tlmlno and fundlnolor atmreglona/ research INIY need to be phased wtIh l18ged ImpilnlenlatJon r:J . plan. 9. Com~. and implement :subregiQnal NCCP according tQ proco:s. guidelines. 5. Determining Potentia' long.term Conswvation Value a. Ranking land for Interim protection CSS and Some associated non-CSS natl.lrallands need to be evaluated and ranked for Interim prOteCtlon. Interim protection ShOuld be afforded to lands that are likely to be important to long-term conservation planning options due tQ CSS Patch size and density, 'ocation, and biglogie components. 7/20~3 'JHNr r;o~iNATJ{)N GUJDWNES Pig, 11 1. Hlgh"r potential value: To determine areas of potentia/long-term conservation value, large. relatively dense areas of CSS must be identified. These are termed Higher Value Oistricts and are possible core areas for a reserve system. They need to be Identified early in the planning process and protected from habitat loss and fragmentation while pJ8f1ning is under way. The methodology described below places 50% of the CSS in a subregion in the hiQM. potential value calegory. 2. IntermedIate potential value: I.arlds that prObably can not b. managed as independent reserves, tl'.Jt which by virtue of high quality, or proximity or linkage to the Higher Value Oistricts shOUld be treated as potentially significant for subrelgionaJ conservation plaMing. 3. Lower potentIaJ valUe: Land considered to have lower potential long-term conservation value will be that remaining after the higher potential value districts and IN mrmediate value areas havo boon identllled. Small, i$oIated CSS patdies (especially those SL8rounded by urban lands) With relatively small populations should be considered of low long-term potential value. Development of these lands could result in a take of small numbers of individuals of target species and wOI.lld probably not affect the long-term 'lfabillty of talget species or other species of concern. . OVerall, an estimated 1 C% to 25% of the CSS in a subregion would fall into 'the lower potential Value category. For the ranking approach to interim hatlitat loss to function, it is important that a ligniftc:ant amount of land be claued lIS lower valUe. The criterie for identifying higher and intermediate value land should be adapted to local COnditions. b. Evaluation procHI Each subregion needs to show interim protection for higher potential value lands on a map. The step-down evaJuiJtlon process is OutliMd here. Large. dense areas of CSS are the Higher potential value lands. N81urall;r.ds that occur in linkag.., that are close to possiblo cor. CSS areas, or that have high $pec:ies richness are considered Intermediate potential value lands. Remaining CSS is considered to have Lower potential value. The guideline policy for local government treatment of the Higher, Intermediate, and Lower potential value lands during the interim period is given in section 6. A. flow chart IUustrating the logic is included as Attachment C. , . Natural Land: Is natural vegetation prlisent? Yes; Check CSS presence (#2) No: Not relevant for reserve planning. 2. CtS: Js CSS present? Yes: Check large sile (#3) No: Check landscape finkages (#5) 7/20/13 f.)1lN'1 WNSEJWAllON ~UIDEUNcS Page 12 3. Large Size: 15 CSS the most dense CSS in subregion? Ves: Land forms a Higher Value District No: Check proximity (#4) 4. prOximity: Is land dose to Higher Value District? Ves: Land is Intermediate Value No: Oleck lancbcape Iinkag8$ (#5) 5. Landscape Unkag..: II land Iccated in corridor between HiQher Value DiStricts? Ves: land Is Intermediate Va/ue No: Check species presence (#6) 6. Species Pres.nce: Does land support high density Of target SPecies? Does land support significant population. of highly endemic species or rare Gub-habitllt' types? Yes: LInd is Intermecfaate Value No: Und is l.ow8r Value c. Evaluation methoda 1. Natural Land: Natural lanes is land with a signlllcant cover of natural vegetation. Natural vegetation in this context inCludes aD native California natural communities and includes forestlands, shrublands, native and non-native grasslands, non-irrigated In. greed lend, and va~t or dlstl.lrtled naural land. Natural land excludes lands subject to intensive agriculture and urban uses. Disturbed land or land recently cleared may sb11 be restorable and should bo included in the evaluation. The California Department of Conservltlon Farmlands Mapping and Mcnitoring Program is one Wt:f to identify nsturallands: natural lands are atlas classified al 'grazing' or "other.' Generaay, land not mapped by the Departm8l"lt of Conservation can be assumed to be natUl'a1 in eastern portions of tI'le study area and urban in westem portiqns. 2. Coastal Sage ScruI:I: CSS includes landscape areas supporting primlty or secondary coyer of characteristic CSS plant species dominants as defined by the SRP, Special Report No. 2, March 1992. A generalized map of CSS and a summary description is attached as Attachment A. 3. Large Size: The largest CSS patches in the subregion should be considered U possible core area fOr fUtlze reserves. BeeaiJse CSS distributlon is natutsfty patchy, patch size needs to represent presence of ess habitat at an imermediate Spatial seal. ~ nl;leds to integrate over minor fragmentation and cfdferences in vegetaticn mapping methodologies. Habitat patches should net be discounted as "too small. merely becallse they are mixed with other natW"a1 vegetation types. It is. however, appropriatll to exclude landscape Sfll8S that are highly urbanized. 7 hO/93 1JAAFT COHSE1IVA TlON GUIDEUNES Page 13 The objdve of the evaluation process is to identify larger patches of CSS In the subregion. These are the Higher Value Districts. The method of findlng the larger patches can be adjusted to concfltions present in each subregion. The SRP recommends determining the percent of CSS cover in a 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 co""r within a subregiOn can be identilied. Neighborhoods should have a radius 01 1/2 to 1 mile. Thi$ spatial scale for planning reflltCts biclogical characteristics at css species end the need for agglomerations of CSS on a scale potentially suitable for incorporation into a reseNll networks. The determination of the 'core 50%" also takes lntc account the presence of urban and non-CSS natural land. 4. Proximity: CSS patches close to a core can be identified by measlJring direct, straight-ine distances. Appropriate spatial scale must be determined for each subregion and snoutd be on the order gf one-quarter to one--half mUe. :5. Lanc:llgepe UnUg": NBturaJ land.. end even lands in Intensive agriculture, may contribute to reserve network comectivity. Corridors must be drawn such that each High.. Value Olstrtc:t Is connected 10 the closest adjacent districts. A geometric corridor between Higher Value Districts is defined by dra',yjng two straiaht ran. tangent to each district. Boundaries can be adjusted as neclKSsry to refteet natural features such as riparian areas that may curve outside of II defined geometric corridor. 6. Species Presence: A test must identify areas 1) that need special protection In the interim to reduce the Okellhood of 18ke of species and 2) that may have long-term value due to special conditions th. support significant populations of highly endemIC s~edes. rare sub-habital: types. or vegetation subcommunities. What constitutes significant populations must be determined for each subregion. For target species, the SRP ccnsideT$ habitat that supports a portion of a loeal population With flve or more pairs of gnatcateher or cactus wrens to be lignlftcant. For oll'ler spedes of planl:i or animals QncJud'ang tho~e species Dsted or cancfldates for listing), the SRP considers habitat that supports II portiCll'l ofa local population representing more than 20% of the known population of the subregion to be signifant. The species presence test specifically means that each parcel uncler consideration for development will be subject to . species clearan<:e: a SlJ'fVfly for target spedes and other rare plantS and animals. The survey should use techniques speCified by the SRP or equivalent methods. (See SAP Survey Guldelln..) Species pt.."e. during a OM-time survey is not a reliable measure of habitat value. MoreovBI', species survey work is also expensive and time consuming. For thiS reason, 1he basic methodology to identify potential reserves ralies most heavily on leSS variant aspects of the landscape. 7 ;2G",~ DRAFT CONSERVATION GIJ~UNES raga 14 e. Policy t. P'ndlng approval of sUbregional Neep When formll planning is unclelway, the conservative interim strategy Sleks to rnJni~ short-term loss of habitat and CSS species and to prevent foreclosure of options for Iong-1erm conservation planning by dererring dewelopment decisiol'ls on lands that may be important component$ 01 a final CSS community conservatiol'l plan. Potential Long-term Conserwtion Value Higher Value PofiGi' Defer development decisions where possible. Oetermine actual COnselVlJtIon suitability in NCCP. AllOW development only where it can be preven that the Ic:=JI will not foreclose reserve planning options. Special mitigation wDI be required. Case-by~ decisions. Special millgstion may be warranted. Intermldlate Value Lower Value . Allow development with adequate mitigation. Cumulative CSS loss in any subregion or any subarea of . large subregion Is rmlted to :;% e1uring the interim period. . b. W1U1 approved subregional NCCP AA &r:lproved subregior-.a1 NCCP plan will supercede the iI'lterim designation of potential long-term conservation value and the interim 5% CSS loss limit will no longer apply. Implementation of an explicit subregional plan will allow long-term economic interests to be served. IMeTent In 1he NCCP Is rfiolution gf technical and implementation issues to allow specification of long-term conservation programs. The iinal subregional Nee? may prtlvide for dlWelopment of lands lMiaJly 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 determined to be valuable in final conservation plans. This consideration is one of marry 1ha1 support a conservative interim loss ceiling. C. In UN absence of I SUbregional NCCP If total cumulative loss of CSS habitat area is kept below 5%, public agencies can undertake l'G8toraticn independently aI privaW lands to attempt to compensate for the 5% habitat area loss that was not directly mitigated by measures imposed on apl)l'ovaJs on private land during the interim prooess. 7)20193 01fAI'T CONSERVA T10N GIJ/DEUNES Plge 15 Attachment A. Generalized Map Of Co.sill Sage Scrub Habitat LOS AlGEI.1:S ...( ... .. .... -0' -.. 4ir;..- #:.,. SAN B~INO '(~-~ ~ '. :...~ _"':. ~ COASTAL SAGE SCRU. less) '. --; 'ii.t: ~ SAN DIEGC ...J....~ ...._"1 ~.... _ to. - '. Il:o' . . . .......... . ,...,., .' -," .- J' ._' ~l' . . ... . eel.. 18Potl... q lhe California 0.,."",.... of Flit! and G.me. Np!lnI Heritte. Division. CoYWlp incomplete. css .. mappllCl lIy UC SInta B..llata GAP Pr",..", flelft Landat dotal. . Prilll.ry CSS coverage. . Seconclary CSS covtllllle. Characteri8tic apecies of =_, sa.. scrub include Cafifornla aagebtwtl A"-'~ t:elilorlllul. .......1 ~_. of Mle ~ melJJfue, s.Jva ftlWI'P7';'II"1 ana SIIIv;. ~""1. Ga'ifomia enulia ~ r:Wi'lomiQl. bromeDuah Cbtt:.1M faNIoNl. Saft Oioeo slU'lfloww (\Ii~ IMiMt_I, and buckwhaa (oncl..... Eno,onum f~lt"'" ana Er.'OfIOIItWrr cJn....). Ewr;..... lde.tophylb\lS ahrub$ sUClt1 aa MMoMne ~. Irhw ",..,,1t0l16. .nd NIu$ ovara are men Pltchily dllnrflllllK in 3WlCls of coastal saoe S4tUll. 1'j20IU I I ! I I c . . D 7/20/13 DRAFT CONSERvATION GUJOELINES ~.g. 18 Attachment 8. SUl)reglonal FOCU$ Area. Subregional CSS NCCP Planning Unit Focus lAap - .-"...r- ... s.w~ '''''1I!l .w_ e- f...~""",, \liD1Ofi:llI ..., 01 . 1:8"-.... "'1.. ~ - .. ~ . iIIdMiolII """ ::.i41 ,-0" .~,._1Iut "!"Y .. .. ....., ~ _ aa.ilIt ..... .. __......'1Il _ 1M ~ ii!)il.lIIt.Illily_~tlI. _ f_ _ ....._ _ !Ill ....... "" ",Ic\s -'ill Ml'LAd'aM -'---M1~' ., tM IRCo SttoIIiII AI_ l_ ., ~ as haiit41 _ ..... It ,_ ;" ._ WltIl ... .f lIlI__L lIttrir .... 1#91 _ .... .....-.. f.... 01 Mldolo _ /Ny _ as ""illIG!. ,_ .ilIl voW u _ or IlCitat Ilol11" for C55 """ _ i_llo "Vol ee~.. a' c..~ .01....... 1Itta: A 1111 f8QI.s aMi _leIi. .... ... bate CIft ewlurdiorl If ._ '. __ ........... '._t. .... _ nat ,..... ....u-. .t ....... ...~ TIW.. Nt . "'- II as .....1. .1 _ -_ OIlAFT CONSBIVA.noN GUfDEl./NES P.gB 17 Attachment C. Evaluation Logic Flow Chart Reter to tmet slldion '.Ct. ElIllluadon Melhod. for dlllinltlon& 7ftO/P3 ~ RESULT NIlINMIlI!or ........ plaMi)g. ~ forms a Hiohar VIM Dlelrioi HI,h.r Jtotefttlal Val.,. For ::m.urm Co... on DIll.. ..r..,..,.. tIIcUxls ,*1IIra 1lC*iIlIe. Ct1IfIlIine actIlIl_lYalicI" IUUbll'rty iI NCCP. ,t dmiOllell, lpICial m~ wII be rIlQlIi/8d. Intermedlat. PoIafttlal Velue for loIla-term Coneervalron e.... by............ SI*iaI mili;alilm '"~ be ViMaI1lIIj. Law.r Potential Value For Long-term Co/IHMtlOft AllCIIW dewlcpmelll. Adequatellliligllfon. .,.,..- if . .... j , Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance Guidelines for ::onserving Wildlife in 1n Urban Landscape lichael E. Soule :Ie study of plants and animals on islands, both Ilural and artificial, has produced a body of :neralizations immediately useful to land use ;lOners concerned with minimizing the impacts habitat destruction on the environment. A case 'Idy of 37 isolated chaparral fragments in San ; cgo, California, demonstrates the conse- "cnces of habitat fragmentation, including - .,id and predictable extinctions of native birds ; solated canyons. This study and others can be -:d to generate planning guidelines for the pre- 1 lion of such disappearances. Among the most Dortant 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 dcvelopment on wildlife, especially where they ,-;cililate the movement of large predators. "(Illle received his doctorate from Stanford University l:ld was founder and first president of the Society for l "il"'~rvation Biology. He is the author or editor of five 1()j.;,S in this field, including Viable Populations lor COIl- ~:'l/fi()fl. (Cambridge University Press, 1987) and Con. .1'iJ!iofl BioloKY: Science of Scarcity and Diversity (Sinauer "'~'()ci<ltes. 1986). He is at the University of California. '.lllfn Cruz. as chair of environmental studies. He was ~,.ljrn1<m of the Planning Commission for the city of ! )\..'1 .\1ar. California. /':/rrwf oj the American Planning Association. Vol. 57, No, ~- Summer 1991.0 American Planning Association, i h il.,,'ago. I L. 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 lhe publi- cation of Design with Nature (McHarg 1971), an envi. ronmental perspeclive has gained prominence in land use planning. This interesl is exemplified by the attention given to physical faclors, such as soil hydrology (Dearden 1980; Dunne and Leopold 1978), geologic hazards (Gl'iggs and Gilchrist 1983), and visual amenities (Elsner and Smadon 1979), and by the integralion of planning and landscape architeclure (McBride 1977). CUI1'ently, many environmentalists and the public at large are asking lhat planners give more atlention to the impact of developmenl 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-tenn needs of celtain c';tically lhreatened. "flagship" species, do not address lhe fundamental issues of the delerioration of entire ecosystems or regions. The worrisome if slow de- cline of songbirds and amphibians, and the steady dis- appearance of wetlands in lhe United Stales ([erborgh 1989: McKibben 1989) exemplify this gradual environ. menIal delerioration. Surveys (Kellert 1980) have shown that most cily people appreciale natural amenities. in- cluding nalive wildlife. and thaI cilizens are willing to pay for a more authentic environmenl. 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 conservalion biology, landscape ecology. and resto,'alion ecology. An integralion of principles and guidelines f!'Om these modem biological disciplines would p,'ovide planners Wilh additional tools 10 deal with the effects of development on biological diversily in gen. eral. and the viability of native species in particular. The principles of modem island biogeography, one of the co''c disciplines of conservalion biology and landscape ecology, can provide useful guidelines for planners wish- ing to assist communities in maintaining a rich envil'on- mental mosaic that complements other components of human welfare. To demonstrate this point, this article opens with an overview of conservation biology, followed by a case study f!'Om San Diego showing how the results of such research are relevant to the issue of cumulative impacts of developmentl on environmental quality. Guidelines that might p!'OmOle the maintenance of wild- life in the suburban situation are then suggested, and the limits of extrapolation f!'Om the San Diego system to those in other regions are explored. Island Biogeography and Conservation Biology \\'e live in a world in which omural habitat is inel'eas- ingly confined to isolated patches. For some time it has \P\ tOL'R" \L 313 SL\t\IER 1001 .,... MICHAEL E, SOULE been observed that isolation increases the risk of extinc- tion, and in the last quarter-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 ag"eement (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- vation, 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 (furner 1989); both areas are concerned, in part, with the loss of species from habitat fragments, and with the disappearance of wildlife in the vicinity of human settlements. One of the 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 (MacArthur and Wilson J 967); 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). Unfortunately, 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. R II Edge effects are also associated with habitat fragmen- tation. Because the ratio of edge habitat to interiO!' habitat increases as fragment size decreases (Figure I). it is im- portant to understand how edges affect wildlife. Edges (or ecotones. as habitat interfaces are 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 decl', But most consel'vationists believe that edges. ovel'all. arc detrimental to the maintenance of species diversity (sec Conservation Biology 1988). Among some of the majol' categol'ies of deleterious edge effects are (I) higher fre. quency and increased severity of fire. (2) higher I'ates of hunting and poaching. (3) higher intensities of predation. (4) highe,' 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 inverse. 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 mor- 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 c 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 A fragment; and C. 16 small fragments that together equal the area of the A fragment. -....... .",......".... .................. .......,......... '.....-........... .........,....... ..................... ... .... ...... ....... ... ".. .., .... ... ... ... .... ... ... .., .... '.. ... -" .... ... ... ... .... ".. ". ... .... .., ... ... .... ... ... ... .... ... ... ....."..... ..... ................. :~~~~ ........,........ .-..........,..... .....".......... .-.......-........ ITSB."....... [3].'..... lllilliJ lllilliJ ............... ............... ............... "..... ...... DODD l:ill EJ L2J U W. . . Iill. . W. . . W. .... .... .... .... .... .... DODD W U !ill I2J /9n/9/9 UWUW . I nterior Habitat [] Edqe Ha bila' . t APA lOURNAL 314 SUMMER 1991 - - _. - ... , t 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. fewe,' deer where predators are abundant. In most parts of the Lnited States. it is deer. not predators. that damage natural and artificial ecosystems. None of the above problems occurs instantaneously: as fragmentation incroases. 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 fragmentation have been studied in deciduous forests in the eastern United States (see Wileove et al. 1986 fo,' a review). in the tropics (Terborgh and Winter 1980: Lovejoy et al. 1986). and elsewhere. but there have been few systematic analyses of fragmen- tation in the western Cnited 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 ,'esults of this study are typical of those in for'est habitats. except that the relative immobility of many of the bit'ds in chapa,-,-al may lead to a higher rate of extinction than would be expected on the basis of results from temperate forests. 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 during the rainless summer and fall typical of Mediter- ranean climates. Even though the dominant shrubs in coastal chaparral are rarely more than three meters high. and often less than one or two. this habitat supports a very J'ich fauna. including mountain lions. bobcats. coy. ote. deer. diverse birds. reptiles. and insects. Only a fraction of coastal scrub vegetation remains in Southern California (\\'estman 1987: Jensen et al. 1990). and most of the remnants of chaparral habitat in the coastal section of San Diego County are limited to steep. sided canyons that dissect the coastal mesas. Until re- cently. these interconnecting canyons constituted a net- work of natural open space. They also served as neigh- hor'hood bounda,'ies. Histo,.;cally. people. especially children. have used the canyons for the same purposes that people everywhere use open space. namely visual relief. exercise. walking dogs. and othe,' forms of spon- o ; 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. 1991) 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 wren tit. Censuses to determine the presencel 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 (Table I). 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 1). and we tested for interactions. We also took a census of birds in unfragmented. "'mainland" habitat (Bolger et al. 1991) 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): I, 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 amition of habitat due to mechanical distur- bance. fire (Westman et 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 chapart'al cover (as shown by partial correlation analysis). and can be attributed to \P\ IOLR:\ \L 315 SL\t\IER tqq, ~ MICHAEL E. SOULE 1 0 C4Inon 11 Zenil 12 Bai.\ 13 Auburn 14 'w'ash;nQton 15 Soli1naDr. 16 S\,lr'aeusf' 17 32ndSt.S. 1847thSt. 19 Mil Cumbres 20 Chollas 21 60th St. 22 ..Juan 23 Acun. 24 Edison 2S Raff.. 26 SDrUCf' 27 D.ak ere-si 28 54th St. 1 Floridi 29 Titus 2 Sandmark 30 Chatuu 3 34th St. 31 N.....ort 4 Balboa T.rraceo 32 AbIP,. 5 ~1t. L. .Jon. 33 1.lbo! 6 Kat. Susions 34 Montanosa 7 Pott..r\l 3S Poinnttia 8 Laure- 1 36 E1 Mu 9 Cimino Corillino 37 32nd St. N 7 .A (16$3') LA JO LLA 33 .3.3 5) 9"'-. '30 , "'J 4 62t\ "24 ~ 19 - .. 15 12 28 .,. CO ~ 21 ~ .. ~ 11 18~~ 20 13 31 I '1' 1( I 2 I the number of years since the canyon was isolated from a larger tract. Soule et al. (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 1987) 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 7S because of the ran- domness inherent in demographic (birth and death) pro- cesses. Unmanaged populations under 10 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 al. 1988; Pimm el al. 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- 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 Oy the necessary distances. though many are indeed weak Oyers. Rather. the poor dispersal ability of CR birds probably represents an intrinsic aversion to abandoning covel". 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 mamma) species are replaced in the canyons by non- native (alien) species, notably house mice (Mus musculus), black rats (Rattus rattus), and opossums, a relatively re- cent invader from the east. Anecdotal evidence from APA lOURNAL 316 SUMMER 1991 , ~-,. LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE TABLE I: Biogeographic data used in the regression analyses. AREA CHAP AGE CANYONS SPECIES. (hectares)b (hectares)b (years)/; FOXCOY' 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 Ails 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 Auburn 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 32t11St. S. 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 Chatlas 1 6.22 1.56 36 1 21 60th St. 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 Raffee 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 54th St. 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 Montanosa 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-requrnng bird species. b. AREA and CHAP are defined in the text. c. AGE is the years SInce iSOlation at the habitat fragment. d. Under FOXCOY, 1 .. coyotes absent, foxes present, 2 = coyotes absent, foxes absent, 3 = 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 ,'vlultiple ,'egression is often used to obtain an equation that can be used for predictive purposes. Urban planners and conserv3tionsists wishing to anticipate the fate of CR birds in a particular habitat f,'agment in the southern California region could use an equation derived f!'Om 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 logarithms (In) befo,'e being multiplied by their respective coefficients.j Estimates of future values for CHAP and FOXCOY can be based on data in Soule et ..... \P~ 'OLJR~ ~L 317 SLJ\I\IER 199, ...,... MICHAEL E. SOULE al. (I 988). Note that the numerical values given in the above equation take into account the correlations of the variables. and differ. therefore. from those shown in fig- ures 3 and 4.3 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 ~ remain in the canyon in five years. twenty-five years. and (/) seventy-five years. Assuming for the sake of simplicity that fOXCOY has a value of 3 (coyotes present. foxes ~ ~ absent). and using the above equation. the corresponding .D E 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. (The 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 -I. 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- TABLE 2: Species of locally breeding birds and mammals expected to occur in canyons of differ- ent ages and degrees of disturbance Loog-isolated. distuJ't)ed canyons Recently iSOlated, undisturbed canyons Pigeon House finch Star1ing 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 Coyote Jackrabbit Brush rabbit Dusky woodrst Woodrst Deer mouse California mouse Pocket mouse GraSShopper mouse Meadow vole Gop/le< 8.0 y = 5.4203 . 0.0713x R = 0.69 . 6.0 .... . . o 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 (1) 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 gnatcatcher. 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 al. 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: Ter- 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. , APA IOURNAL 318 SUMMER t991 . t LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE 8.0 Y = 1.6028 + 1.2895. R = 0.80 .. ..!! 6.0 u ~ a. '" '0 4.0 . . . . . ~ ~ .c E :E 2.0 0.0 - 2 -1 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 Ihe besl way 10 maintain wildlife wzd ecosyslem values is to minimize habitat fragmen- la/iOll. Where urbanization is occuning. 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 baniers. 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- IUlion. especially where species are disappearing from small. local fragments in a predictable order. producing nested species distributions based on habitat area (Pat- 'erson and .-\tmar 1986). and where the ta,'get species Jo 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 (1) are not suppressed by or dependant on fire. (2) are not subject to inbreeding depression or the loss of genetic variability (Ledig 1986: Shaffer 1981: Frankel and Soule 1981: SchonewaJd-Cox et 31. 1983). (3) do nO! depend on animal pollinators 01" seed dispersers. and (4) compete well in the absence of habitat disturbance caused by large ;mimals and fire. On the other hand. plants that are sub- ject to the above forces. or 10 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 1). 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. ....... \P~ IOLR"'L 319 SL.\I\I!-:It '99' ~ MICHAEL E. SOULE that mav needa varietv of habitats. In the .\Iidwcst. manv bird species that requ(re forest interior habit,.ll cannot b~ found b,'eeding in patches of forest that are Icss than 25 hectares in area (Blake and Kan' 1984). For somc animals. roads produce formidable edge effects (sce. e.g.. ,\IcLellan and Shackleton 1988). The deg,'ee to which these neg. ative effects of edges will diminish thc value uf a partic- ular site depends on the habitat. the region. and the spe- cies under consideration. When in doubt. expcrts should be consulted. Part B of Figure 5 illustrates a more Controversial guideline-a single large habitat fragment is superio,.to several small fragments. at least for verteb,'atc animals. This principle does not apply to all biological systems. although the canyon 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 othe,' 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 penains to some highly mobile animals. including many species of temperate forest bh'ds. For these animals. a multiplicity of habitat (forest) types may be more imponant 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 (ferborgh 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 op.ossums (Wilcove et al. 1986). Pan C of Figure 5 symbolizes the advantage of retaining the large carnivores in a system. In the San Diego case (Soule et al. 1988) and in others (ferborgh 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. planners should oppose the "control" of coyotes. bobcats. badgers. and mountain lions (cougars. panthers). An analogous guideline from the ecology field is equally imponant: manage the system in order to maintain habitat.modifying animals such as tortoises. al- ligators. moose. beaver. muskrat. and pocket gophe,'s: such animals Create and maintain a mosaic of habitats that facilitate the persistence of many othe,' species of plants and animals (Harris 1988). Pan 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 fires (Westman et al. 1981). or grading. Other sensitive habitats include heaths. wetlands. sand dunes. and somc forests that. when "opened up" OJ' "cleaned up." drained. or "imp,'oved" bv trail or road develop- ment. are exposed to accelerating or cumulative changes. including the invasion of weeds and mesopredators. ,\ corollary of this guideline is that development configu- rations should minimize adverse edge effects. Trails. roads. and similar facilities increase the frequencv of hu- man contact. and may eventually lead to the disappear- ance of sensitive species. In addition, such improvements increase the amount of edge. Deleterious edge effects. such as predation. nest parasitism (from cowbirds). fi,'c. dessication. noise, and invasion of introduced plants and animals. are often mutually exacerbating. Their impacts al so increase as patch size decreases. The apparent contradiction between this anti-distut.- bance recommendation and the previous mention of the benefits provided by animals that produce extensive habitat disturbance (alligators. beavers. pocket gophe,'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 dynamics. . Pan 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 effects 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. howevet.. 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-case 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 con'idor 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'iam 1985: Fahrig and Paloheimo 1988: Soule and Gilpin 1991). panicularly as it affects the movement of different 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 al. 1988). Planners should bear in mind. however. that species diffe,' markedlv in habitat needs and tolerances. and that the utility o(particular corridors for wildlife (Harris and Gal- lagher 1989) depends on the behavior of the targeted species. t APA JOURNAL 320 SU\fMER Iqq, j T i I LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE For some highly mobile species. the distance between fragments will be relevant. Fo,' 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 al. 1988). The reason is that the CR birds disperse poorly. if at all. through non.native habitat. Our results (unpub- lished) for rodents. rabbits. and hares. on the othe,' hand. suggest a minor distance effect. indicating a slight benefit of patch proximity for these mammals, FOI' most non- !lying animals in most places. however. proximity of habitat remnants will not retard species loss unless the patches are connected by corridors. Other Recommendations The p,'eceding observations suggest that the best way to light the deleterious effects of fragmentation is to pre- 'ent 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 : aliividual housing or commercial development. \Vhere corridors are not practical. there m-e other ways In mitigate fragmentation. One is to ensu,'e 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. .urridors between these larger aggregates are highly 'ccommended. A second possibility. where both land. ,cape linkages and juxtaposition of open space elements ..:'0 impractical. is "mitigation banking"-the developer. .lstead of setting aside tiny parcels that will deteriorate .lDidly. deposits money into an account for future open "'J.ce acquisition. \ third alternative is a permanent committment to the .:'Iilicial transport of organisms on a schedule that pre- .:udes the extinction of isolated populations. Translo- ~ .Hien requires less capital investment than highway un~ , .-rpasses dedicated to wildlife. but assumes that juris- "ictions and management agencies will commit funds '.Joltnitely for the capture and release of animals. In :~,:J.ny cases, however. the infrastructure does not exist :.) routinely translocate animals. or the procedure is proa ':"ilively expensive. In addition. translocated animals _::-'l1Jlly do not survive. and expensive monitoring proa :"::'Jrns are necessary. For these and other reasons. there ..;-0 few if any programs that routinely transfer wildlife <-i1' the purposes of maintaining population viability. Land use planning involves many va,'iables that are :hH in the province of the natural scientist. Nevertheless. . ..:i~ntists can assist planners in the analysis of the avail. .',Ie land.use options. For example. depending on the ':J~O of development and the kind of habitat. many "im- crovements," including highway shoulders. ,he edges of i)Ii:~'cle and foot paths. streams on golf courses and in I.arks. and utility rights of way may facilitate animal :110\'emems. In addition. some species. including large f'redJtol's. 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 conllicts 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 probabilistically- 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 I 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 reo suits and discussion constitute an attempt to begin a dia- logue between planners and conservation biologists. AUTHOR'S NOTE I am grateful for the encouragement. advic'e. and assis- tance of several anonymous reviewers and of lim 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 statT of the San Diego County Planning Department and by Mary L. Brong. NOTES I. The term "development" usually describes a two-step process; (I) 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 [he 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' \ IOU{:-;\L 321 SL.\I\IER 1991 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 lJrhanization on A'Iian Commullity 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. T.. A. C. Alberts. 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. ConservG/ion 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? Conservation Biology I. 2: 132-42. Dunne. T.. 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- cific 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. T.. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: John Wiley. Frankel. O. H.. and M. E. Soule. 1981. Conservation and Evolwion. 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 ScarcilY 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. B.. 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. International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems I. I: 87- 119. Ledig. F. T. 1986. Heterozygosity. Heterosis. and Fitness in Outbreeding Plants. In Conservation Biology: Sci- ence of Scarcity and Diversity. edited 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. I 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 o~ 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 t , ~- i;- f ~ t , - # :1 j '. f. , I . . WA JOURNAL 322 SUMMER 1991 . I LAND USE PLANNING AND WILDLIFE MAINTENANCE .., Patterson. B. D. 1984. Mammalian Extinction and Bio- geography in the Southern Rocky Mountains. In Ex. tinctions. edited by M. H. Nitecki. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Patterson. B. 0.. and W. Atmar. 1986. Nested Subsets and the Structure of Insular Mammalian Faunas and Archipelagos. In Island Biogeography o[ 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 o[Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Orlando. FL: Academic Press. PiI:nm. 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/the California Flora. University o[ Cali[ornia Publications in Botany 72. Shaffer. M. L. 1983. Deiermining Minimum Population Size for the Grizzly Bear. Proceedings o[ the Inter- national Con[erence on Bear Research and Manage- ment 5: 133-39. -. 1981. Minimum Population Sizes for Species Conservation. BioScience 3 I: 131-34. Schoener. T. W. 1976. The Species-Area Relation Within Archipelagos: Models and Evidence from Island Land Birds. Proceedings o[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 Re[erence [or 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 [or Conser- vation. New York: Cambridge University Press. -. 1986. Conservation Biology: the Science o[ Scarcity and Diversity. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer As- sociates. Soule. M. E.. D. T. Bolger. A. C. Alberts. R. Sauvajot. I. Wright. M. Sorice. and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed - Dynamics of Rapid Extinctions of Chaparral.Requiring Birds in Urban Habitat Islands. Conservation Biology 2. I: 75-92. Soule. M. E.. and \1. E. Gilpin. 1991. The Theory of Wildlife Corridor Capability. In The Role o[Corridors in Nature Conservation. edited bv D. A. Saunders and R. I. Hobbs. Sydney. Australia: S~rrey 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. 1: 19-40. Soule. M. E.. B. A. Wilcox. and Claire Holtbv. 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 World-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 o[ Ecology and Systematics 20: I 71-97. Westman. W. E. 1987. Implications of Ecological Theory for Rare Plant Conservation in Coastal Sage Scrub. In Conservation and Management o[ Rare and Endan. gered Plants. edited by T. S. Elias. Sacramento. CA: California Native Plant Society. Westman. W. E.. I. 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 o[ Productivity o[ 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 o[ Scarcity and Diver. sity. edited by M. E. Soule. Sunderland. MA: Sinauer Associates. . ~ . .. . ~~: .. ~. .. ~. ., .. .. .. ~. ... -: ..J :II. ..... ..... .-... ::, APA IOURNAL 323 SUMMER 1991 , . I , 1 ..... CLEAN WATER PROGRAM for Greater San Diego F""IIIlenwePlua . 401.B.S...~Sui..1l1OO . s..Diqo,CA 92101-4230 Pb_ (619) 5334200 . Fu: (619) 5334267 Approved by the MSCP Working Group December 16,1992 ISSUE PAPER No. 5 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR MSCP PRBSERVB DESIGN 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 which 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 PrinciDles 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 Assumptions 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 prCJtected 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: received the highest rankings Evaluation Model. vacant vegetated lands which based on the MSCP Habitat Lands with High Probability ror 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 Chapter 2 Resource Prorectio" 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: (I) 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 al. (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 (i.e., 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 result 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-l0-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 Protection 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 I 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 must 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 -