Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2000/10/17 CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 17, 2000 ~ 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CHY OF CHULA VISTA City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. John S. Moot City Attorney Stephen C. Padilia John M. Kaheny Mary Salas City Clerk Shirley A. Horton, Mayor Susan Bigelow Planning Commission Steve Castaneda M. Kevin O'Neill Marco P. Cortes John McCann Russ Hall John A. Willett Robert S. Thomas, Chair The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays -- Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 AGENDA OCTOBER 17, 2000 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton Planning Commissioners Castaneda, Cortes, Hall, O'Neill, McCann,Willett, and Chair Thomas, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY · OATH OF OFFICE: FRANCISCO GONZALEZ - BOARD OF ETHICS · PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2000 AS "UNITED WAY/CHAD CAMPAIGN MONTH" CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 11) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion, without discussion. unless a Councilmember, a member ofthepublic, or City staff requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak "form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 3, 2000 Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from Henry's Marketplace requesting that the restricted two-hour parking on the north side of J Street be reconsidered. Staff recommendation: The item be referred to staff with direction to prepare a written response to Mr. Ron Cohn and the management team of Henry's Chula Vista. The letter will state that this item was heard by Council with several concerned citizens speaking to the issue. City Council will not reconsider this item. 3. ORDNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDiNG ORDiNANCE NO: 2579 RELATiNG TO AN iNTERIM PRE-SR-125 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN AREA AND TO PAY FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCiNG THE CONSTRUCTION OF SR-125 (2ND READiNG AND ADOPTION) Chula Vista created an Interim Pre-SR-125 Development Impact Fee in November 1993 to provide a funding source to construct an interim roadway facility should SR-125 be delayed significantly. This was necessary in order to provide traffic capacity for future growth. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption. 4. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHiNG A 45 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD BETWEEN MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD AND HUNTE PARKWAY, ESTABLISHiNG A 45 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON HUNTE PARKWAY BETWEEN PROCTOR VALLEY ROAD AND OTAY LAKES ROAD, ESTABLISHING A 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON MACKENZIE CREEK ROAD BETWEEN MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD AND LANE AVENUE, AND ADDING THESE ROADWAY SEGMENTS TO SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER (2ND READiNG AND ADOPTION) Based on the provisions of Chapter 7, Article 1 of the California Vehicle Code, and pursuant to authority under Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic congestion, and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Proctor Valley Road between Mount Miguel Road and Hunte Parkway be established at 45 MPH, the speed limit on Hunte Parkway between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road be established at 45 MPH, and the speed limit on Mackenzie Creek Road between Mount Miguel Road and Lane Avenue be established at 25 MPH. These speed limits will be added to Schedule X of the register maintained in the office of the City Engineer. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on second reading for adoption. 5 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR TWO PARK PROJECTS B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTiNG A GRANT iN THE AMOUNT OF $766,650 FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR TWO PARK PROJECTS (GREG ROGERS PARK AND LOMA VERDE PARK POOL); AND AMENDiNG THE CIP BUDGET TO iNCREASE THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THESE PROJECTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT THE GRANT FUNDS (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Page 2 Council/Planning Commission Agenda 10/17/2000 The City of Chula Vista has i'eceived notice of the award of grant funds from the State of California in the amount of $766;650, divided between two projects - the Loma Verde Pool Renovation (PR226) for $482,650 and Greg Rogers Park (PR169) for $284,000. The City must now submit an application for these grant funds to the State of Califomia, Department of Parks and Recreation in order to receive the funds. The State of Califomia allows the City to apply for and accept the grant simultaneously. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 17470 AND 17471, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 3, 1994, WHICH ASSIGNED A PORTION OF THE WEST CURBLINE ALONG FOURTH AVENUE IN FRONT OF THE POLICE STATION AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTH CURBLINE ON DAVIDSON STREET BETWEEN FOURTH AVENUE AND FIG AVENUE TO PUBLIC PARKING, AND ESTABLISHING THAT PORTION OF PUBLIC PARKING AS ASSIGNED TO SPACE FOR "OFFICIAL VEHICLES ONLY" The Police Department has determined that as a result of increases in staffing, increases in police vehicles, and other expanded programs such as the successful Senior Volunteer Program, there is a critical need for additional parking spaces for official vehicles. Therefore, staff recommends that the public parking area described above be reassigned for "Official Vehicles Use Only" to ease the parking shortage for the Police Department. This temporary change in parking would remain in effect until a new Police facility is completed, which is expected to occur in December 2002. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A PARCEL MAP FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 00-15, ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION (IOD) OF FEE INTEREST FOR OPEN SPACE AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND VACATING AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OVER LOT "A" OF MAP NO. 13920 The proposed parcel map will adjust the property line between three existing parcels in the McMillin Otay Ranch project, with no new lots being created. Final planning and design efforts for the proposed subdivision require minor adjustments to residential Lot 48, Lot 54 and open space Lot A of Map No. 13920. By approving the proposed map, Council will vacate the IOD for the open space lot within the proposed map and replace it with an IOD consistent with the new lot configuration. In accordance with Section 7050 of the Califomia Government Code and Chapter 4, Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code, this type of vacation may be performed summarily through adoption of a resolution. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 3 - Council/Planning Commission Agenda 10/17/2000 8. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT WITHIN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 640-370-11 AT ll01 PASEO LADERA A request has been received to vacate a slope easement belonging to the City of Chula Vista within the property located at 1101 Paseo Ladera, owned by Paseo Ladera Partners. In accordance with Chapter 4, Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code, this type of vacation may be performed summarily through adoption of a resolution ordering said summary vacation. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 9 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF $33,783.93 FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND AND $30,659.18 FROM THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND AND AWARDiNG PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR FIVE UTILITY TRUCKS (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $32,167.69 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE SEWER FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A UTILITY TRUCK FOR THE WASTEWATER SECTION (OPERATIONS) OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED) C. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $32,167.68 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A UTILITY TRUCK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR SECTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $28,046.24 FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A TRUCK FOR THE PARK MAINTENANCE SECTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT In Fiscal Year 1999/2000, a new utility truck was approved with the addition of a new utility mark-out crew for the Wastewater section (Operations) of the Public Works Department. However, this utility truck was not purchased in Fiscal Year 1999/2000. In Fiscal Year 1999/2000, a new utility truck was approved for its normal replacement cycle for the Construction & Repair section of the Public Works Department. However, this utility truck was not purchased in Fiscal Year 1999/2000. For Fiscal Year 2000/2001, Page 4 - Council/Planning Commission Agenda 10/17/2000 one additional utility track was approved for the Construction & Repair section. In addition, the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 equipment replacement budget provides for the replacement of one utility truck for the Construction & Repair section. One additional truck is being requested for the Park Maintenance section, due to growth. The bid was advertised in the Chula Vista Star News on August 25, 2000. Twenty-six bid packages were sent out and eight bidders responded. Two Chula Vista vendors were contacted, but only one of them submitted a bid. On September 19, 2000 the bids for the purchase of these vehicles were opened. (City Manager/Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 10 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING AND AUTHORIZiNG THE RE-BID OF ALL THE BIDS LISTED ON EXHIBIT "B" FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHIfLA VISTA ACCEPTING THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACTS AS DESIGNATED FOR AWARD ON EXHIBIT "A" FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACTS On September 26, 2000 Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2000-333 and 2000-334 approwng the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the first set of bids for the corporation yard project. On October 10, 2000, Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2000-353 and 2000-354 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the second set of bids for the corporation yard project. Approval of the first resolution will reject and authorize the re-bid of certain trades necessary to complete the corporation yard project. Approval of the second resolution will accept the lowest responsive bids and award all the contracts as designated for award on Exhibit "A", on file in the Office of the City Clerk, covering some of the trade work associated with the construction of the corporation yard project. It is staffs intent to come back before Council on October 24 with a resolution accepting and awarding additional bids. The total contract value approved to date is $15,973,666. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 11 A. ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 2 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 2.57, DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS, TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURE FOR THE SELECTION AND AWARD OF DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYiNG THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/CONSTRUCTOR PRIORITY LIST AS THE QUALIFIED LIST OF DESIGN-BUILD ENTITIES Page 5 - Council/Planning Commission Agenda 10/17/2000 In March 2000, the voters approved Proposition B, amending City Charter section 1009, Public Works Contracts, to allow the City to award contracts pursuant to the Design- Build project delivery system. Proposition B required the City to approve an implementing ordinance establishing the bidding and award procedures for this new process. (City Manager/Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council place the ordinance on first reading and adopt the resolution. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staJ~ Comments are limited to three minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 12. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN The MSCP Subregional Plan is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation planning program that addresses the habitat needs of 85 sensitive plant and animal species through preservation of native vegetation communities within southwestern San Diego County. The MSCP allows local jurisdictions to maintain land use control and development flexibility while creating a plan to mitigate for the potential loss of Covered Species and their habitat due to the direct impacts of future development. The City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will allow the City to issue permits for development projects that may impact Covered Species. Implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will also establish a "Preserve" for the permanent conservation of habitat lands. The Preserve is defined by mapped boundaries and/or quantitative targets for habitat conservation and will total approximately 4,700 acres within the City. The terms of implementation of the MSCP Subarea Plan will be addressed through an Implementing Agreement between the City and the Wildlife Agencies. (Director of Planning and Building) Staff recommendation: Planning Commission adopt the following resolution: Page 6 - Council/Planning Commission Agenda l 0/17/2000 A. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AS THE FRAMEWORK PLAN; ADOPT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN CONDITIONED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE FUTURE EXECUTION BY ALL PARTiES OF AN IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM OF THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, 2) THE ISSUANCE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND 3) THE ISSUANCE OF TAKE PERMITS WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT; AND FIND THAT THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND AFFIRM ITS SUBMITTAL Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution. B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AS THE FRAMEWORK PLAN; ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN CONDITIONED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE FUTURE EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES OF AN IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM OF THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, 2) THE ISSUANCE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND 3) THE ISSUANCE OF TAKE PERMITS WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT; AND FINDING THAT THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND AFFIRMING ITS SUBMITTAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION to the Adjourned Meeting of October 18, 2000 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued) 13. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN UNIT 26 OF EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, ZONE B EastLake Greens Unit 26 ("Unit 26") is located within EastLake Maintenance District No. 1, Zone B. However, this property has not been previously assessed to finance the costs associated with the district because a final map had not yet been approved for Unit 26. On October 10, 2000, Council adopted three resolutions declaring the intent to levy annual assessments within Unit 26, setting the public hearing and initiating assessment ballot proceedings. (Director of Public Works) Page 7 - Council/Planning Commission Agenda 10/17/2000 Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating, direct staff to tally the ballots, and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT TABULATION WITHIN UNIT 26 OF EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, ORDERING MAINTENANCE WORK THEREIN AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT THEREIN ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTItER BUSINESS 14. CITY MANAGER' S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. 15. MAYOR'S REPORTS 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on October 23, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. and thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on October 23, 2000 at 6:30 p.m. and thence to the Regular Meeting of October 24, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 8 Council/Planning Commission Agenda 10/17/2000 011' OF EHUI.A VI~A October 12, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager °'/'!~c~, SUBJECT: Council Meeting of October 17, 2000 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, October 17, 2000. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: 2A. This is a letter from Mr. Ron Cohn of Henry's Marketplace requesting that the restricted two-hour parking on the north side of J Street be reconsidered. 1T IS RECOMMENDED THIS ~TEM BE FORWARDED TO STAFF W1TH DIRECT[ON TO PREPARE A WRII'FEN RESPONSE TO MR. RON COHN AND THE MANAGEMENT TEAM OF HENRY'S CHULA VISTA. THE L~ ~ ~ ER WILL STATE THAT THIS ITEM WAS HEARD BY THE C1TY COUNCIL W~I'H SEVERAL CONCERNED C1T[ZENS SPEAKING TO THE ISSUE. CI'FY COUNCIL WILL NOT RECONSIDER THIS ITEM. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OCTOBER 3, 2000 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 4:09 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Rowlands, City Attorney Kaheny, City Clerk Bigelow PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, MARIA MUETT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICE TECHNICIAN, PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT Planning and Building Director Leiter introduced the department's Employee of the Month, Maria Muett, and Mayor Horton presented a proclamation to her. . OATH OF OFFICE - MICHAEL SPETHMAN - GROWTH MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (CENTER CITY) City Clerk Bigelow administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Spethman, and Deputy Mayor Moot presented a certificate of appointment to him. . OATHS OF OFFICE FOR NEW LATERAL POLICE OFFICERS: LUIS ALVAREZ, JOHN SMART, SERGIO MARTINEZ, ISABEL CHAVEZ Police Chief Emerson introduced the department's new lateral police officers. Chief Emerson issued them their official badges, and City Clerk Bigelow administered their Oaths of Office. . PRESENTATION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' HELEN PUTNAM AWARD FOR THE STRETCH AND DASH PROGRAM BY DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, DAVID PALMER AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES MANAGER, MEG SCHOFIELD Deputy City Manager Palmer and Educational Services Manager Schofield provided Council with a musical presentation featuring Stretch and Dash program activities and presented the award to the Mayor and Council. / SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) . PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2000 AS NATIONAL ARTS AND HUMANITIES MONTH ACCEPTED BY AL GORE, CHAIRPERSON OF THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION. ALSO RECOGNIZED WILL BE THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE ARTS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA: LINDA ROSAS - THE STAR NEWS, LIZ JACKSON - PACIFIC BAY HOMES, VALERIE MCCLELLAND - B.F. GOODRICH AEROSPACE, SAM HOLTY - AYRES LAND DEVELOPMENT/SUNBOW, JONATHAN WEEDMAN - WELLS FARGO FOUNDATION, CHUCK WHITE - SYCUAN CASINO, TOM GUTHERIE - DUKE ENERGY OF SOUTH BAY, ANNA NAVARA - JEROME'S FURNITURE, NATASHA MARTINEZ - THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, SAM CALVANO - WASHINGTON MUTUAL, SCOTT ALVEY - PACIFIC BELL, HECTOR MOLINA - UNIVISION-CHANNEL 19, FRAN MUNCEY - GALLEY AT THE MARINA, RITA VANDERGAW - SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AND ARCO FOUNDATION OF SAN FRANCISCO Mayor Horton introduced Cultural Arts Commission Chair Gore and recognized those individuals who have contributed to the arts in Chula Vista. She then read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Moot presented it to Mr. Gore. . ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A NATIONAL HONOR PRESENTED TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA FOR ITS ONGOING ACTION TO PROTECT THE CLIMATE BY THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES (SPECIAL OPERATIONS MANAGER) Special Operations Manager Meacham introduced Willie Gaters, the City's new Environmental Resource Manager. Mr. Meacham acknowledged the City's receipt of a national award for climate protection, stating that Chula Vista was one of only five cities in the United States to receive the top award for its ongoing commitment to protect the climate through the reduction of green house gases. He presented the award to the Mayor and Council. Councilmember Padilla stated that he would like to see environmental practices incorporated into future employee and volunteer orientations and performance evaluations. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items I through 5) 1. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on September 26, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. Page 2 - Council Minutes 10/03/2000 CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-338, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF THREE (3) APPLICATIONS FOR THE "WALKABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM" GRANTS TO THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) AND DESIGNATING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AS THE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTERING AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS PROGRAM The SANDAG Board of Directors has provided a one-time allocation of $1,000,000 from TransNet local streets and roads funds in Fiscal Year 2001 for the "Walkable Communities Demonstration Program." The program is intended to fund projects that demonstrate innovative solutions to pedestrian access problems. The funds are available on a competitive basis and will be awarded to the most meritorious project(s). The 18 cities in the San Diego region and the County of San Diego will be the only eligible applicants. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-339, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO LEKOS ELECTRIC, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS ALONG ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN FOURTH AVENUE AND PALOMAR STREET IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA (TF289) On September 13, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids from five electrical contractors for the installation of streetlights along Orange Avenue between Fourth Avenue and Palomar Street. A low bid of $46,350 was received from Lekos Electric, Inc. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-340, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET, APPROPRIATING $25,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE TO COVER THE CITY'S FIFTY PERCENT SHARE OF THE COST OF AN OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL AUDIT OF OTAY WATER DISTRICT At the June 6, 2000 Council meeting, Deputy Mayor Moot raised concerns in a report regarding management decisions with respect to Otay Water District's water rates, as well as disappointment with the conduct of Otay Water District Board members. Council authorized the City Manager to seek a qualified, unbiased firm to perform an operations and financial audit of Otay Water District. The firm of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. has been retained to perform this audit for a total cost of $50,000. Otay Water District has agreed to split the cost of the audit with the City. The resulting cost to each agency for the operations and financial audit is $25,000. (City Manager) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 10/03/2000 Page 3 - Council Minutes CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-341, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A $10,060 COMBINATION MONETARY AND IN-KIND SERVICE DONATION TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS SECOND ANNUAL "VIVA EL MARIACHI!" FESTIVAL In September 1999, the San Diego County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce hosted the first annual "Viva el Mariachi!" festival at the Starlight Bowl in Balboa Park. Because the last event was such a huge success, and a record number of attendees are expected this year, the San Diego County Hispanic Chamber arranged to hold the second annual Mariachi festival at the Coors Amphitheatre on October 8, 2000. (City Manager) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. With regard to Item #2, Mayor Horton stated that she would like to see the segment of sidewalk on Third Avenue, between Anita and Orange Avenue, incorporated into a future SANDAG project. ACTION: Mayor Horton moved to approve staff recommendations and offered the Consent Calendar, headings read, texts waived. The motion carried 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Doris Steinman, 126-C Garrett, a member of "Let's Talk About Books", a group sponsored by the Civic Center Library, expressed dismay at the prospect of constructing the proposed police facility in Friendship Park. She stated that there are aesthetic benefits to keeping the park and presented the Council with a petition signed by club members objecting to the proposed construction in the park. Victoria Kreiser, Principal of Bonita Vista Middle School, spoke in favor of Proposition BB and requested support for its passage. She stated that Proposition BB would provide much needed improvements to school facilities, including the expansion of the existing library and cafeteria and the modernization of the classrooms. Sam Cowan, 1035 Corte Maria Avenue, spoke regarding a Chula Vista Police SWAT incident and subsequent warrant. He asked Council to investigate the alleged incident and to determine why procedures were not followed. Mayor Horton requested a report from staff on the matter. ACTION ITEMS 6. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2579, RELATING TO AN INTERIM PRE-SRI25 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TO PAY FOR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S EASTERN AREA AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ADVANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SR125 10/03/2000 Page 4 - Council Minutes ACTION ITEMS (Continued) Chula Vista created an Interim Pre-SRI25 Development Impact Fee in November 1993 to provide a funding source to construct an interim roadway facility should SRI25 be delayed significantly. This was necessary in order to provide traffic capacity for future growth. (Director of Public Works) Staff asked that the item be continued to October 10, 2000. ACTION: Mayor Horton moved to continue the item to the meeting of October 10, 2000. Councilmember Davis seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS 7. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS City Manager Rowlands reminded the Council of the workshop regarding the Eastlake Urban Center to be held on Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Conference Room. 8. MAYOR'S REPORTS Mayor Horton reported on the Corporation Yard groundbreaking ceremony held October 28, 2000. 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Deputy Mayor Moot reported that the Council subcommittee met with the Otay Water District regarding the audit of the District's operations, and the independent report will be placed on the October 17th Council agenda for review and acceptance. Councilmember Salas reported that she and the Mayor attended the Girls and Boys State presentation at the American Legion. She explained that the program represents a tremendous educational opportunity for students regarding governmental operations and affairs, and she commended the Post for sponsoring the program. Councilmember Salas thanked the Council for providing a contribution to the upcommg Mariachi festival. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Horton announced that Closed Session had been cancelled, and the following item was not discussed: 10. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 City Negotiator: City Manager Employee organizations: Chula Vista Employees Association 10103/2000 Page 5 - COUllcil Minutes ADJOURNMENT At 5:03 p.m., Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of October 10, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers and thence to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on October 12,2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, ~d--l.1::::3.:.'6"~ Susan Bigelow, CMC, AAE, City Clerk lO/0312000 Page 6 - Council Minutes OCT - 5 2000 COUNCIL OFFICES CHULA VISTA. CA October 2,2000 To: Mayor Horton and Chula Vista Council Members, Recently the section of J-street west of Henry' s Marketplace was restricted to two-hour parking on the north side of the street. The meeting notice that this was going to be considered arrived at our store the day before the meeting. While we planned to send a representative he was detained by car problems and arrived after the vote on this matter. We fully understand the councils concerns about the safety of cars exiting Tree Haven Condominiums. We believe that the problem could be solved by restricting only the spaces nearest the entrances and exits that impair vision. Since the entire area has been restricted our employees have had to park often more than two blocks away from the store, creating both a hardship and safety risk for them. We respectfully request that you bring this matter up for consideration once again. Sincerely, Ron Cohn & The Management team Of Henry's Chula Vista Third Avenue · Chula Vista, California 91910 ° (619) 409-7630 · FAX (6 9) 409-7632 ~,,, I~lkt5 Road · Chula Vista, California 91913 · (619) 656-6434 · FAX 1'619) 656-9682 WHEREAS, the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements require that adequate, safe transportation facilities be available to 'accommodate the increased traffic created by new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that potential delays in the construction of State Route 125 (SR125) by Caltrans or others will adversely irapact the City's ability to accommodate said increased traffic; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance 2251, the original Transportation Development Impact Fee Ordinance included State Route 125 from State Route 54 to the Southern Eastlake Boundary as a project to be financed by the t~e established by that ordinance in recognition of the importance of that facility to the City's overalI trausportation network; and, WHEREAS, Ordinance 2579 established an tnterin~ Pre-SRl25 Development Impact Fee which recognized the importauce of the State Route 125 to the City's circulation system in the Eastern Territories and levied a fee on new development to pay for an roterim facility in the event State Ronte 125 could not be built. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: FINDlUNGS The City Council finds that the construction of State Route 125 will mitigate the adverse impacts on the City's transportation system caused by increased traffic resaltmg from new development; and, The City Council finds that the construction of State Route 125 will provide a greater benefit in acconunodating the increased traffic than will construction of an interim facility within the general SR 125 corridor which has limited traffic capacity: and, The City Council finds that the adverse effects of Caltrans' delay in constructing SR-125 can be avoided by use of the Interim SR-l 2'5 Development finpact Fee to advance the construction of SR-125 all to the beuefit of public safety; and, The City Council finds that the use of the Interim Pre-SRI25 Development hnpact Fee funds to advance the construction of State Route 125 is a reasonable means of spreading the burden among all of the developers in the Easten~ Territories; aud, The City Council finds that the use of tile Interim Pre-SRI2S Development Impact Fee funds is an equitable and reasonable manner of financing the activities necessary to advance the coustruction of State Route 125; and, The City Council finds that using the collected fees to advance the constraction of SR-125 will benefit overall transportation in the City of Chula Vista; and, 111' Ordinance No. Page 2 The City Council finds that the "Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study" prepared by the finn of Howard Needles Tammen & BergendOff in May 1993 references the hnportance of SR-125 and the need for a transportation facility in the corridor in order to accommodate increasing traffic due to development; and, The City Council finds that there is a demonstrated need for a permanent facility to serve the needs created by new development and that such a need is beneficially met by using transportahon fees for purposes related to such a permanent facility rather than solely relying on an interim, temporary solution; and, The City Council finds that the. legislative findings and determinations set forth in Ordinance Nos. 2579, 2759 and 2770 continue to be true and correct; and, The City Council finds, based on the evidence presented at the meeting held for this Ordinance, including the "Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study" prepared by the finn of Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff in May 1993, the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of traffic impact fees on all development in the eastern territories for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in order to protect the public, bealtl~, safety and welfare and in order to assure efl~ctive implementation of the City's General Plan. SECTION 2: Ordinance 2579, Section 1 (e), Establishment of Fees, is hereby amended to add a new paragraph as follows: 5. To advance the construction of State Route 125 the expenditures for which include, but are not limited to, the costs related to studying the feasibility of purchasing the franchise, purchasing the franchise, acqniring right of way, and constructing SR125 as either a toll facility or freeway. SECTION 3: Time Limit for Protest and Judicial Action Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the time period as established by law. In accordance with Govenmaent Code Section 66020(d)(1 ), the ninety day approval period in which parties may protest begins upon the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION 4: Those portions of Ordinances 2579, 2759 and 2770 not amended by this ordinance shall remain in fnll force and effect. SECTION 5: This ordinance shall take eft~ct and be in full lbrce on the thi,~cieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jolm M. Kaheny Director of Public Works City Attorney H:Xhon~e\attorney\interim sr 125 ord ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A 45 MPH SPEE~U]F A 25 MPH SPEED LIMIT ON MACKENZIE CREEK ROAD BETWEEN MOUNT MIGUEL ROAD AND LANE AVENUE AND ADDING THESE ROADWAY SEGMENTS TO SCHEDULE X OF A REGISTER AS MAINTAINED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER WHEREAS, based on the provisions of Chapter 7, Article 1 of the California Vehicle Code, and pursuant to authority under the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020, the City Engineer has determined that in the interest of minimizing traffic hazards and traffic congestion, and for the promotion of public safety, the speed limit on Proctor Valley Road between Mount Miguel Road and Hunte Parkway be established at 45 MPH, the speed limit on Hunte Parkway between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road be established at 45 MPH and the speed limit on Mackenzie Creek Road between Mount Miguel Road and Lane Avenue be established at 25 MPH; and WHEREAS, a engineering and traffic study, as required by State Law, has been conducted and it has been determined that the appropriate speed in this area is to be posted at 45 MPH and 25 MPH, respectively. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Schedule X of a Register of Schedules maintained by the City Engineer as provided in Section 10.48.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Established Speed Limits in Certain Zones and Establishing a Speed Limit of 45 MPH on Proctor Valley Road between Mount Miguel Road and Hunte Parkway, establishing a 45 MPH speed limit on Hunte Parkway between Proctor Valley Road and Otay Lakes Road and establishing a 25 MPH limit on Mackenzie Creek Road between Mount Miguel Road and Lane Avenue adding these roadway segments to Schedule X, is hereby amended to include the following changes: Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.48.020 SCHEDULE X Ending At Proposed Speed Limit Road Ro ~ Hunte Parkway Proctor Valley Otay Lakes 45 MPH Road Road Mackenzie Mount Miguel Lane Avenue 25 MPH Creek Road Road SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of ~orn~"/.~Kaheny, C~ Public Works orney H: \home\lorraine\OR\SPEED EST CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~" Meeting Date: October i 7, 2000 ITEM TITLE: (a) Resolution approving an application for grant funds to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for two park projects. (b) Resolutioh accepting a grant in the amount of $766,650 tiom the State of California for two park projects (Greg Rogers Park and Loma Verde Park Pool); and amending the CIP budget to increase the appropriations for these projects; and authorizing the Director of Parks & Recreation, or his designee, to sign the appropriate documentation with the State of California to accept the grant funds. SUBMITTED BY: Parks & Recreation Director ' REVIEWED BY: City Manager,(. ,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) The City of Chula Vista has received notice (Attachment A) of the award of grant funds from the State of California in the amount of $766,650 divided between two projects, both City of Chula Vista Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) (Attachment B): The Loma Verde Pool Renovation (PR226) for $482,650 and Greg Rogers Park (PR169) for $284,000. The City must now submit an application for these grant funds to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, in order to receive the funds. The State of Califomia allows the City to apply for and accept the grant simultaneously. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the Resolution(s): 1. Approving the application to the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, for grant funds for two projects; and 2. Accepting the grant in the amount of $766,650 from the State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, for two projects; and 3. Amending the FY00-01 C~ budget to increase the appropriations for these projects. 4. Authorizing the Director of Parks & Recreation, or his designee, to sign the appropriate and required grant documentation from the State. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A -' T S11' Item , Page 2 Meeting Date: October 17, 2000 DISCUSSION: The Legislature and the Governor approved the ant funds for FY 00/01, based upo. n a request by Senator Steve Peace, for various projects in t~rg City of Chula Vista. These projects are: Loma Verde Pool - $482,650 The renovation project for Loma Verde Pool will include removal, disposal, and replacement of current pool decking, patching of existing fiberglass pool surface, installation of new rim flow gutters, provision of depth markers in tile and coping, replacement of and repair of deck equipment, renovation of locker/shower facilities including dressing rooms, showers, and restrooms, installation of chip resistant flooring, replacement of dressing and toilet compartments and benches, and upgrading of lighting and water-efficient plumbing. This renovation will enhance both the safety and aesthetics of the pool complex. Greg Rovers Park - $284,000 Improvements for Greg Rogers Park will include design and construction of a new irrigation system in the park, new restroom, removal of the maintenance building, renovation of the existing parking lots, one large picnic shelter, three small picnic shelters, a new playground area, and the installation of picnic tables, barbecues, etc, and renovation of the large parking lot. FISCAL IMPACT: The State of Califomia Legislature has awarded the City of Chula Vista grant funds, disbursed through the State of California Parks and Recreation Department, for the following projects: Loma Verde Park Pool (PR226) $482,650 Greg Rogers Park (PR169) $284,000 Attachments: A - Grant Letter from State B - CIPs - PR226 and PR169 State of California · The Resources Agency Gray Davis, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION. P.O. Box 942896 · Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Rusty Arelas, Director (916) 653-7423 (~~ August 9, 2000 Sunny Shy Asst. Recreation Director · City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Sunny Shy: Attention: Chadine Long MH-37-006 Greg Rogers Park $284,000 2000 Bond Act Murray Hayden Program Chapter3790-102-0005 (5) (nx) GF-37-054 Loma Verde Park Pool $482,650 General Fund Chapter 3790-101-0001 (a)(122) The Legislature and the Governor have approved the above referenced grant(s) in the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 California State Budget. These funds must be encumbered (under contract) by June 30, 2003. To accomplish this, you must submit a complete application to this office. A procedural guide, with program information and application materials, is enclosed to assist you. If the source of funds is the General Fund, you will have a total of 5 years to complete the project. The grant amount indicated for General Fund projects has been reduced by 1.5%for administrative costs, as provided in the State Budget. If the source of funds is from the 2000 Bond Act (i.e. Murray-Hayden, Youth Soccer/Baseball, or Specified), you will have a total of 8 years to complete the project(s). Congratulations on receiving the above referenced grant(s), and we look forward to working with you to complete your project(s). If you have any questions, please contact Donna Arteaga at (916) 653-8785 or e-mail at DARTE@parks.ca..gov. Sincerely, Odel T. King, Jr., Manager Office of Grants and Local Services Enclosure ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVINGANAPPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION FOR TWO PARK PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has received notice of the award of grant funds from the State of California in the amount of $766,650 divided between two projects, both City of Chula Vista Capital Improvement Projects (CIP): 1. The Loma Verde Pool Renovation (PR226) for 4482,650 2. Greg Rogers Park (PR169) for $284,000 WHEREAS, the City must now submit an application for these grant funds to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, in order to receive these funds; and WHEREAS, the State of California allows the City to apply for and accept the grant simultaneously. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an application for grant funds to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for two park projects. Presented by Approved as to form by Andy Campbell, Director J n M'.~K/a~heny~'~ of Parks & Recreation ~'ttorney [H:%HOME~ATTORNEY/RESOtGRANT PARK PROJECTS (October 6, 2000 (12:39prn)] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A GR/~NT IN THE AMOUNT OF $766,650 FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR TWO PARK PROJECTS (GREG ROGERS PARK AND LOMAVERDE PARK POOL); AND AMENDING THE CIP BUDGET TO INCREASE THE APPROPRIATIONS FOR THESE PROJECTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & RECREATION, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ACCEPT THE GRANT FUND WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has received notice of the award of grant funds from the State of California in the amount of $766,650 divided between two projects, both City of Chula Vista Capital Improvement Projects (CIP): 1. The Loma Verde Pool Renovation (PR226) for 4482,650 2. Greg Rogers Park (PR169) for $284,000 WHEREAS, the City must now submit an application for these grant funds to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, in order to receive these funds; and WHEREAS, the State of California allows the City to apply for and accept the grant simultaneously. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept a grant in the amount of $766,650 from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for grant funds for two park projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY00-01 CIP budget is hereby amended to increase the appropriations as described above for these projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Parks and Recreation, or his designee, is hereby authorized to sign the appropriate and required grant documentation from the State. Presented by Approved as to form by Andy Campbell, Director J M. Kahenj~ of Parks & Recreation C orney [H \HOME~,TTORNEY~reSO\Grant Acceptance Park Projects (October 11,2000 (3:50prn)] ~ 'r COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: ~ Meeting Date: 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Rescinding Resolutions 17470 and 17471, passed by the City Council on May 3, 1994 which assigned a portion of the west curbline along Fourth Avenue in front of the Police Station, anc~ a portion of the south curbline on Davidson Street between the Fourth Avenue and Fig Avenue, to public parking, and establishing that portion of public parking as assigned to space for "Official Vehicles Only". SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works O~V/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager .~ ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) .~ -- The Police Department has determined that as a result of increases in staffing, increases in police vehicles, and other expanded programs such as the successful Senior Volunteer Program, there is a critical need for additional parking spaces for official vehicles. Therefore, staff recommends that the public parking area described above be reassigned for "Official Vehicles Use Only" to ease the parking shortage for the Police Depalhtmnt. This temporary change in parking would remain in effect until a new Police facility is completed which is expected to occur in December 2002. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt this resolution rescinding Resolutions 17470 and 17471, passed by the City Council on May 3, 1994 which assigned a portion of the west curbline along Fourth Avenue in front of the Police Station, and a portion of the south curbline on Davidson Street between the Fourth Avenue and Fig Avenue, to public parking, and establishing that portion of public parking as assigned to space for "Official Vehicles Only". BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On May 3, 1994 the City Council passed Resolutions 17470 and 17471, to re-establish Public Parking on the west side of Fourth Avenue from Davidson Street to a point 152' south to the southerly driveway entering the Police Station, just north and adjacent to the entrance to Memorial Way; and for the portion of the south curb line of Davidson Street west of the driveway entrance to the Police Department rear lot, to the east corner at Fig Avenue. Subsequent to the action taken on May 3, 1994 the Police Department has determined that as a result of increases in staffing, increases in police vehicles, and other expanded programs such as the successful Senior Volunteer Program, there is a critical need for additional parking spaces for official vehicles. Therefore, staff recommends that the public I Page 2, Item: Meeting Date: 10117/00 ,--~. parking area described above be redesignated for "Official Vehicles Only" to ease the parking shortage for the Police Department. This temporary change in parking would remain in effect until a new Police facility is completed which is expected to occur in December 2002. Appropriate schedules of parking restrictions as established under Section 10.52.280 of the Chnla Vista Municipal Code, amended by Resolution 17470 and 17471 on May 3, 1994, should be amended to reflect the following change: Official Vehicle Parking Only Name of Street Beginnin~ At Ending At Side Fourth Avenue Davidson Street Memorial Way West Davidson Street Fourth Avenue Fig Avenue South A Trial Traffic Regulation is attached to this report, which will establish this area as an "Official Vehicles Only" area effective upon passage of this resolution and the posting of signs. A review of said installation as required by Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.12.030 shall be made to determine if this regulation is working effectively and should be made permanent. At that time, a resolution will be brought before City Council to make this new restriction permanent or the Trial Traffic Regulation shall cease to be effective. FISCAL IMPACT: Per Chula Vista Master Fee Schedule, the cost for manufacture and installation of six (6) signs and three (3) Tel-Spar posts is $433.80 to complete posting of restrictions. Attachments: Area Plat Resolution 17470, 17471 Letter from the Chief of Police File Number: 0760-95-CY-029 (H:\HOME~ENGINEER~AGENDA~PDPARKIN.doc) ~, ~ ~ Existing Official Vehicles Oniy Parking Proposed Official Vehicle Only Parking \ ~o~Ge 5%~~.~°~ \ \ a~T RESOLUTION NO. 17470 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SCHEDULE Ill "PARKING PROHIBITION AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS" RESCINDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ALONG FOURTH AVENUE AND RETAINING THE PARKING RESTRICTION ALONG DAVIDSON STREET WHEREAS, in order to create sufficient space to park the City's official vehicles adjacent to the Police Station, the City Council passed Resolution 12967 on April 14, t 987, establishing the prohibition of parking on the west side of Fourth Avenue from Davidson Street to a point 152' south to the southerly driveway entering the Police Station; and, WHEREAS, on April 11, 1994, staff received a memo from the Police Chief in which he stated that, since the Police Department has lost nine vehicles due to budget cuts, the parking along Fourth Avenue is no longer needed for "Official Vehicles" and should be restored to public parking with the caveat that this parking be "One-Hour Time Limited" to provide additional parking for patrons of the Civic Center complex; and, WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution amending Schedule III to rescind parking prohibitions along Fourth Avenue beginning at Davidson Street and ending at Memorial Way on the west side. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend Schedule III "Parking Prohibition at all Times on Certain Streets" and rescinding parking restrictions along Fourth Avenue and retaining the parking restriction along Davidson Street as follows: S(2tEDUI~ II1 - PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON t~e. RTAIN STREETS Da'.4dson Street Fourth Avenue Guava Avenue South Presented by Ap ed ~f Public Works Resolution No. 17470 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 3rd day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton, Moore, Nader, Rindone NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Tim Nader, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly 2. Authelet, City STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A.Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17470 was duly I~assed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 3rd day of May, 1994. Executed this 3rd day of May, 1994. A.~Auth~let, Beverly City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 17471 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SCHEDULE VI "PARKING TIME LIMITED ON CERTAIN STREETS" AND CREATING A ONE-HOUR PARKING ZONE IN THE AREA OF FOURTH AVENUE AS DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, in order to create sufficient space to park the City's official vehicles adjacent to the Police Station, the City Council passed Resolution 12967 on April 14, 1987, establishing the prohibition of parking on the west side of Fourth Avenue from Davidson Street to a point 152' south to the southerly driveway entering the Police Station; and, WHEREAS, the same prohibition was created for the portion of the south side of Davidson Street east of the driveway to the Police Department compound (Guava Avenue) 194' east to the driveway exiting the Police Department's east parking lot (Fourth Avenue) which area was then established for parking of the Police Department's vehicles; and, WHEREAS, on April 11, 1994, staff received a memo from the Police Chief in which he stated that, since the Police Department no longer requires the parking along Fourth Avenue for "Official Vehicles", it should be restored to public parking with the caveat that this parking be "One-Hour Time Limited" to provide additional parking for patrons of the Civic "' Center complex; and, WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution Schedule IV establishing a Time Limited Parking zone in this same area; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer and the Police Chief have determined that the need to have the posted parking restrictions along the west side of Fourth Avenue in the area described above no longer exists; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Civic Center Parking Plan and, more specifically, the need for public access to the City of Chula Vista Public Services complex, this portion of Fourth Avenue would better serve the needs of the City if it is designated as a "Time-Limited Parking" area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend Schedule VI "Parking Time Limited on Certain Streets" creating a One-Hour Parking Zone in the area of Fourth Avenue as follows: Resolution No. 17471 Page 2 SCHEDULE VI - PARKING-TIME LII~-I'ED ON CERTAIN STREETS Name of Stree~ Begi~*nnlng At I Ending At I Side [ !eUgt~ of TIme Pe~miued Fourth Avenue Davidson S~reet Memorial Way West One Hour Presented by ed as t ~ fo by ~ i rd Director of Public Works ' C~ty Attorney Resolution No. 17471 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 3rd day of May, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Fox, Horton, Moore, Nader, Rindone NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilme. tubers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Tim Nader, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A.Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17471 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council held on the 3rd day of May, 1994. Executed this 3rd day of May, 1994. MEMORANDUM DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2000 TO: ~4~ JOHN LIPPITT, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WOR FROM: RICHARD P. EMERSON, CHIEF OF POLICE RE: REQUEST TO CHANGE PARKING DESIGNATION The Police Department's parking requirements have grown as a result of an increase ~n sworn personnel. In order to meet our current parking needs we are requesting a change to the parking designation in front of the Police Department on Fourth Avenue and on Davidson from public parking to "Official Vehicles Only." The parking on Fourth Avenue is currently designated as one hour parking but is used almost exclusively for Department vehicles. The parking on Davidson is currently not restricted and is also used by Department staff. The change in parking designations will allow the Department to have sufficient parking spaces without significant displacement. Should you have any questions please contact Lieutenant Gary Wedge at 476-5374. City of Chula Vista RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS 17470 AND 17471, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 3, 1994 WHICH ASSIGNED A PORTION OF THE WEST CURBLINE ALONG FOURTH AVENUE IN FRONT OF THE POLICE STATION, AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTH CURBLINE ON DAVIDSON STREET BETWEEN FOURTH AVENUE AND FIG AVENUE, TO PUBLIC PARKING, AND ESTABLISHING THAT PORTION OF PUBLIC PARKING AS ASSIGNED TO SPACE FOR "OFFICIAL VEHICLES ONLY" WHEREAS, the Police Department has determined that as a result of increases in staffing, increases in police vehicles and other expanded programs such as the Senior Volunteer Program, there is a critical need for additional parking spaces for official vehicles; and WHEREAS, therefore, staff recommends that the public parking area described above be teassigned for "Official Vehicles Use Only" to ease the parking shortage for the Police Department; and WHEREAS, this temporary change in parking would remain in effect until a new Police facility is completed which is expected to occur in December 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby rescind Resolutions 17470 and 17471, passed by the City Council on May 3, 1994 which assigned a portion of the west curbline along Fourth Avenue in front of the Police Station, and a portion of the south curbline on Davidson Street between Fourth and Fig Avenue, to public parking, and establishing that portion of public parking as assigned to space for "Official Vehicles Only". Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt / Kaheny Director of Public Works ~City Attorney [H:/HOME~FORNEY\RESO/Rescind Reso17470 & 17471 (Oc~ber 12, 2000 (10:21am)] COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item f/ Meeting Date 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving a Parcel Map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 00-15, acknowledging on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the irrevocable offer of dedication of fee interest for open space and other public purposes as shown on said map within said subdivision, and vacating an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest to the City of Chula Vista over Lot "A" of Map No. 13920. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/tiff REVIEWED BY: City Manager &/~ ? (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) The proposed Parcel Map will adjust the property line between three existing parcels in the McMillin Otay Ranch project with no new lots being created. Final planning and design efforts for the proposed subdivision require minor adjustments to residential Lot 48, Lot 54 and open space Lot A of Map No. 13920. By approving the proposed map, Council will vacate the IOD for the open space lot within the proposed map and replace it with an IOD consistent with the new lot configuration. In accordance with Seetion 7050 ofthe California Govemment Code and Chapter 4, Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code, this type of vacation may be performed summarily through adoption of a resolution. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution approving the Parcel Map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 00-15. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: On January 11, 2000, by Resolution 2000-005, City Council approved the McMillin Otay Ranch SPA One Phase 3, Unit 2 Map, Chula Vista Tract No. 98-04 (Map No. 13920) and included the dedication of Lot "A" for Open Space and Other Public Purposes to the City of Chula Vista. The City Clerk acknowledged on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the IOD for Lot "A" , noting that section 7050 of the Government Code for the State of California provided that an Offer of Dedication shall remain open and subject to future acceptance by the City. Subsequently, a separate document for the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest over Lot "A" of Map No. 13920 was recorded on January 23, 2000, Document # 2000-0046260 (Attachment "A" ). Final planning and design efforts for the proposed residential lot in Parcel A of the proposed parcel map ("Parcel Map") resulted in minor changes in the configuration of the adjacent open space lot. Page 2, Item q Meeting Date 10/17/00 As a result, McMillin has requested that the City process a parcel map (Attachment 2) for adjusting the boundaries between the three lots of Map No.13920. Parcel maps offer a simple and clean alternative for accomplishing lot line adjustments when no new parcels are created. The other alternative is to process a lot line adjustment plat (which is not recorded) and record deeds for the properties being adjusted. McMillin prefers to process and record a parcel map depicting the boundaries of the new parcels instead of having multiple deeds recorded. Approval of this Map constitutes the vacation of the IOD for open space Lot A of Map No. 13920. It will be replaced by a new IOD for open space (Parcel C) granted on the Parcel Map. This Open Space Lot swap will result in a net reduction of 0.001 acres of open space. The small portion of open space being vacated does not contain any public facilities or easements. The Parcel Map has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works and the Planning and Building Department and is considered ready for Council approval. Typically, parcel maps are approved by staff. In this instance, staff considered it necessary to bring this map to Council due to proposed vacation (on the map) of an IOD for an open space lot, which needs Council action. The Master Homeowners Association (MHOA) for McMillin Otay Ranch owns and currently maintains Lot A of Map No. 13920. An IOD was dedicated as a backup measure for the City to be able to provide basic maintenance, in the event that the MHOA does not fulfill its maintenance obligations. In accordance with Section 7050 of the California Government Code and Chapter 4, Section 8334 of the Califomia Streets and Highways code, Council needs to make the following findings, which will be incorporated in the proposed resolution. The vacated open space area is not necessary for present or prospective public use. There are no public facilities within the area and this summary vacation will not terminate any public service easements. Staff and the City Attorney's Office have reviewed the proposed vacation and consider it ready for Council approval. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fand. All cost associated with processing the Parcel Map will be reimbursed from developer deposits. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Document No. 2000-0046260 Attachment 2 - Plat of Parcel Map Attachment 3 - Disclosure Statement H:\HOME\ENGINEERXLANDDEVXOTAY RANCH-MCM1LLINL~ 113 EP239 FINAL. DOC ATTACHMENT A RECORDED REQUEST OF FirstAmerican Title gglN 28, 2OOO Recording requested by and please 8 E 4 9 {YFIUI~ ,-~.,,-,, ~o: SAN DIEC~ Cl]IJNTY RE[;ORDER'S OFFI~ GREGaRV 3, SHITN, COUNTY RE(IJRI)ER city C~erk FEB: P.O, Box 10ST ' Chula Vista, CA 91912 TLiI instnlment benefits CiO', only, 2000-0046260 No fee required I (This space for Recorder's use, only) · . C.V. File No. 0600-80-OR22.SF APN(s) 642~08041 /~>~/ 7,~/4 --~ IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, MeMillin Otav Ranch. LLC. a Delaware Limited Liability Companv, formerly known as MelHiI!in-DA America Otay Ranch LLC. a Delaware Limited Liability Company represents that, as the owner(s) of the herein-described real propert),, (in the case of multiple ownds, collectively referred to as "Grantor"), hereby makes an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of fee interest to THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, the hereinafter described real property for the following public purpose: FOR OPEN SPACE OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES The real propert3' referred to above is situated in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, and is more particularly described as follows: Lot "A" of Chula Vista Tract 98-04. MeMillin Otay Ranch Spa I Phase 3, Unit 2 {R42) Map No. t 3el 2. D Contains 2.925 acres, more or less This Offer of Dedication is made pursuant to Section 7050 of the Government Code of the State of California and may be accepted aT any time by the City Cldrk ofthe'City of Chula Visti. ' ' This Offer of Dedication of fee interest shall be irrevocable and shall be binding on the Grantor, its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Page 1 of 2 8250 SIGNATURE PAGE day of ,19 McMillin Otay Ranch, LLC, Grantor Signatures: a Delaware limited liability company By: McMillin Companies, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Its: Manage~ By: Its: ~~t' By: Its: 47 (Notary Acknowledgment Required for Each SignatoO') This is to certi.~ that the interest in real property offered herein to the City of Chula Vista, a governmental agency, is hereby acknowledged by the undersigned, City Clerk, on behalf of the Chula Vista City Council pursuant to authority conferred by Government Code ~ 7050 and Resolution No. 15645 of the Chula Kista City Council adopted on June 5, 1990, and the grantee(s) consent(s) to the recordation thereof by its dub' authorized officer. SUSAN BIGELOW CITY CLERK By: ~D,.-I~~ Date: jb/13126aa/forms/iodform. O17 7' '] .-, 21/, Page 2 6f2 8251 STATE OF CALIFORNIA . > cou, rrv oF ~ ~ %~ > o. ~eC, e~-e-r 20, l~qq beforeme, 'Damn 15. hn~v,r, toz5 h,[~ Pv~,/,L , personally appeared '~b pe~onally ~om to me (or prov~ to mc on the basis ofgatisfacto~vidence) to be the person(s) whose nine(s) ~e subscribed to ~e witt insment ~d ac~owledged to me that ~they executed ~e s~e in ~s,~,cr,'~eir au~odzed capaci~(ies), ~d that by bd~gi~,-,'their si~ature(s) on the' instrument ~e person(s) or the enti~ upon behalf of which ~e person(s) acted, executed the insment. WI~SS my h~d ~d official seal. ~ COMM ~ 1125049 notary.one l~O3.uu ILE lU:O~ FAX 619 291 4165 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY ~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA ~002/002 RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS · PLANNERS LOTS 48. 54 & ~4# M~MILLIN OTAY RANCH SPA 1 5620 FRIARS ROAD, SAN DIEGO PNASE3UNITNO. 2 CA. 92,0-2596 PHONEs (619) 291-0707 ~P NO. 1~20 PROjeCT NUMBERs 13126~ C,~ T~CT98-04 O~T~' SE~BER 28. ~ ~,,...a~ ........ ~,.~ ATTACHMENT C THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon maners which will require discretionary action by the Council. Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or f'mancial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the' contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. Mo M illl~, C~y F~anc, k, LIZ- 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or parmership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. 1Mer'c.ed Par/-n~v's I..,ti~iJrcd Pad'n~if, 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter? f. rai.q G, Ci , La l4 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes__ No 1// · 1/r If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract? 6. Have you made a contribution of ore than $250 within the past twelve-(12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? No ~__dfiYYes __ If yes, which Council member? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives, non-profit Board If Yes, which Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (~ months? (This includes being a source of income, money .to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes No If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? Sign . tor/t~ant~/l~O.~ gt~ld¢~- * Person is deftned as: ~y ~dividu~, f~m, co-p~ers~p, jolt ven~e, ~s~iation, s~i~ club, ~ate~ org~ation, co~tion, estate, ~t, receiver, s~cate, ~y o~er co~, ci~, m~cip~i~, district, or o~er politicM subSvision, -or ~y o~er group or combation act~g ~ a ~t. ** Offici~ ~cludes, but ~ not li~ted to: Mayor, Co~cH member, PlUg Co~ssioner, Member of a bo~d, ~sion, or cogittee of ~e Ci~, employee, or staff members. H:\HOME\ENGINEERXADMIN~CONTRACTxSTL25200.23 (Boiler Min) F7 ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A PARCEL MAP FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 00-15, ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION (IOD) OF FEE INTEREST FOR OPEN SPACE AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND VACATING AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OVER LOT ~A" OF MAP NO. 13920 WHEREAS, McMillin Otay Ranch dedicated Lot A of Map No. 13920 as open space; and WHEREAS, the proposed Parcel Map will adjust the property line between three existing parcels in the McMillin Otay Ranch project with no new lots being created; and WHEREAS, final planning and design efforts for the proposed subdivision require minor adjustments to residential Lot 48, Lot 54 and open space Lot A of Map No. 13920; and WHEREAS, the portion of Lot A to be vacated is not necessary for public use and that portion does not contain public facilities; and WHEREAS, by approving the proposed map, Council will vacate the IOD for the open space Lot A of Map No. 13920 within the proposed map and replace it with an IOD consistent with the new lot configuration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a Parcel Map for Tentative Parcel Map No. 00-15, acknowledging on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest for open space and other public purposes as shown on said map within said subdivision and vacating an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest to the City of Chula Vista over Lot "A" of Map No. 13920. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~h~he~ny Director of Public Works City Attorney [Hi%HOME%ATFORNEY\RESO%ParCel Map TPM 00-15 (October 6, 2000 (12:19pn1)] COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item nil Meeting Date 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Ordering the Summary Vacation of a slope easement wiihin Assessors Parcel No. 640-370-11 at 1101 Paseo Ladera SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~dl%t~' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) A request has been received to vacate a slope easement belonging to the City of Chula Vista within the properly located at 1101 Paseo Ladera, owned by Paseo Ladera Partners (see Exhibit "A"). In accordance with Chapter 4, Section 8335 of the California Streets and Highways Code, this type of vacation may be performed summarily through adoption of a resolution ordering said summary vacation. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution ordering the summary vacation of the slope easement within Assessors Parcel No. 640-370-11 at 1101 Paseo Ladera. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: On September 28, 2000, Mr. Craig Davidson of Paseo Ladera partners, owners of the property at 1101 Paseo Ladera, submitted an application to the City to vacate a slope easement located at the southwest corner of their property (see Exhibit "A"). The slope easement was obtained by the City by condemnation proceedings from El Rancho Del Rey, a California corporation, as disclosed by final order of condemnation recorded February 27, 1979 as file no 79-083915. The slope easement no longer serves a purpose to the City. Staff believes the slope easement was originally needed to stage construction equipment during the construction of the adjacent public streets (Paseo Ladera and Paseo Entrada). The slope easement significantly encroaches onto the fiat pad area of this vacant parcel. The owner proposes to build a day-care center on this site and cannot do so until this slope easement is abandoned. Page 2, Item g Meeting Date 10/17/00 The existing slopes surrounding this parcel have established landscaping with irrigation. The slopes do not conform to the shape of the slope easement. All the slopes are owned and maintained privately. There are no Open Space lots or landscape maintenance districts within the subject property. Chapter 4, Section 8333(a) of the California Streets and Highways Code states that an easement may be summarily vacated if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. In this case the easement has not been in use since the public streets were constructed in 1986. The Planning and Building department, all divisions of Engineering as well as Open Space staff have been notified of this vacation proposal and none have any objections. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs related to the processing of this request for vacation are being paid for by a deposit of monies by the applicant under the City's Full Cost Recovery System. Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Plat showing the vacation H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\PV080.SLY EXHIBIT "A" VICINITY MAP NO SCALE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDERING THE SUNMARY VACATION OF A SLOPE EASEMENT WITHIN ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 640-370-11 AT 1101 PASEO LADERA WHEREAS, Paseo Ladera Partners submitted an application to the City to vacate a slope easement within Assessors Parcel No. 640-370-11 at 1101 Paseo Ladera; and WHEREAS, the slope easement was obtained by the City by condemnation proceedings from E1 Rancho Del Rey as disclosed by final order of condemnation recorded February 27, 1979 as file no. 79-083915 and no longer serves a purpose to the City; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 4, Section 8333 of the California Streets and Highways Code, this type of vacation may be performed summarily through adoption of a resolution ordering said summary vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby summarily vacate a slope easement within Assessors Parcel No. 640-370-11 at 1101 Paseo Ladera, as shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this Resolution of Vacation in the office of the San Diego County Recorder. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~ M. Kaheny Director of Public Works City Attorney H: \Home\Attorney\Reso\Vacation. Easement2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date: 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the appropriation of $33,783.93 from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund and $30,659.18 from the Equipment Replacement Fund and awarding purchase agreement for five utility trucks. Resolution Amending the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $32,167.69 from the un- appropriated balance of the Sewer Fund and authorizing the purchase of a utility truck for the Wastewater Section (Operations) of the Public Works Department. Resolution Amending the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $32,167.68 from the un- appropriated balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund and authorizing the purchase of a utility truck for the Construction and Repair Section of the Public Works Department. Resolution Amending the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $28,046.24 from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund and authorizing the purchase of a truck for the Park Maintenance Section of the Public Works Department. REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ X'v (4/5thsVote: Yes X No ) In FY 1999-00, a new utility truck was appruved with the addition of a new Utility Mark- out Crew for the Wastewater Section (Operations) of the Public Works Department. However, this utility truck was not purchased in FY1999-00. In FY 1999-00, a new utility truck was approved for its normal replacement cycle for the Construction & Repair Section of the Public Works Department. However, this utility truck was not purchased in FY1999-00. For FY2000~01, one additional utility truck was approved for the Construction & Repair Section. In addition, the FY2000/01 Equipment Replacement budget provides for the replacement of one utility truck for the Construction & Repair Section. One additional truck is being requested for the Park Maintenance section, due to growth. The bid was advertised in the Chula Vista Star News on August 25, 2000. Page 2, Item ;z] Meeting Date: 10/17/00 Twenty-six bid packages were sent out and eight bidden responded. Two Chula Vista vendors were contacted, but only one of them submitted a bid. On September 19, 2000 the bids for the purchase of these vehicles were opened. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1) Approving the appropriation of $33,783.93 from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund and $30,659.18 from the Equipment Replacement Fund and award the purchase agreement to Reynolds Buick, the lowest responsive bidder for $156,824.72. 2) Amend the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $32,167.69 from the un-appropriated balance of the Sewer Fund and authorize the purchase of a utility truck for the Wastewater Section (Operations) of the Public Works Department. 3) Amend the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $32,167.69 from the un-appropriated balance of the Equipment. Replacement Fund and authorize the purchase of a utility track for the Construction and Repair Section of the Public Works Department. 4) Amending the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $28,046.24 from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund and authorizing the purchase of a truck for the Park Maintenance Section of the Public Works Department. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: The new utility truck (for the Wastewater Section) approved in FY99/00 in the amount of $22,210 was not purchased last fiscal year and this revenue was reverted back to the Sewer Fund. Purchase of the utility truck was delayed pending the finalization of plans for the new Corporation Yard located at 1800 Maxwell Road. Now that the construction date has been established, it has been decided that larger trucks should be purchased for the Operations Division to better utilize personnel. As a result of the relocation of the corporation yard, travel distance will be increased for some units of the fleet. Therefore, larger trucks are being purchased to reduce return trips to and from the corporation yard. Consequently, an additional $9,957.69 (in addition to the $22,210 already approved in FY99/00) is being requested to purchase a larger utility truck ($32,167.69) for the Wastewater section. Page 3, Item X Meeting Date: 10/17/00 Three vehicles are being purchased for the Construction and Repair Section of the Public Works Department. The first truck was approved in the mount of $23,500 for replacement in FY99/00 and was not replaced pending the finalization of plans for the new Corporation Yard. As a result, this revenue was reverted back to the Equipment Replacement Fund. Now that it has been decided that larger tracks should be purchased for the Operations Division, replacement of the utility track is now being requested. Consequently, an additional $8,667.68 (in addition to the $23,500 already approved in FY99/00) is being requested to purchase a larger utility truck ($32,167.68) for the Construction and Repair Section. The second utility truck will be utilized by an existing Construction Specialist II (Electrician) position that did not receive a truck when hired (in 1991) due to the lack of financial resources available at that time. The third utility truck is being replaced in its normal replacement cycle (schedule). In addition, the Park Maintenance section does not have a track that can tow the bobcat and trailer that was purchased and approved based on the results from the Park Maintenance study. Therefore, a new track is being requested, not only to tow the bobcat and trailer, but also to haul fertilizer, topsoil, gravel and sand. This truck is needed due to the continued growth in the City and will be purchased with Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Funds. FISCAL IMPACT: Total required funds of $156,824.72 will be provided by: the Equipment Replacement Fund (39200-7406, $62,826.86); the Sewer Fund (29200-7406, $32,167.69); the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund (57400-7406, $33,783.93); and the vehicle account for the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund (PFDIY, $28,046.24). hAsharedXPublicWorksOperations~. 113TiltcabsB 1 File No: 1320-DF RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION OF $33,783.93 FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND AND $30,659.18 FROM THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND AND AWARDING PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR FIVE UTILITY TRUCKS WHEREAS, for FY2000-01, one utility truck was approved for the Construction & Repair Section of the Public Works Department and the FY2000-01 Equipment Replacement budget provides for the replacement of one utility truck for the Construction & Repair Section. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby award the purchase agreement for the five utility trucks to Reynolds Buick, the lowest responsive bidder, for $156,824.72. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve the appropriation of $33,659.18 from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund and $30,659.18 from the Equipment Replacement Fund. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt J M. Kaheny Director of Public Works ' orney [H/HOME~,TTORNEY\RESO% five utility trucks (October 12, 2000 (9: 4am)] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY00/01 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $32,167.69 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE SEWER FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A UTILITY TRUCK FOR THE WASTEWATER SECTION (OPERATIONS) OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, in FY 1999-00, a new utility truck was approved with the addition of a new Utility Mark-out Crew for the Wastewater Section (Operations) of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, however, this utility truck was not purchased in FY1999-00; and WHEREAS, as a result of the relocation of the corporation yard, travel distance will be increased for some units of the fleet of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, therefore, larger trucks are being purchased to reduce return trips to and from the corporation yard; and WHEREAS, consequently, an additional $9,957.60 (in addition to the $22,210 already approved in FY99/00) is being requested to purchase a larger utility truck ($32,167.69) for the Wastewater section. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $32,167.69 from the unappropriated balance of the Sewer Fund and authorize the purchase of a utility truck for the Wastewater Section (Operations) of the Public Works Department. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt n M. Kaheny Director of Public Works torney [H:\HOME~ATTORNEY/RESO\ utility truck wastewater (October 12, 2000 {0: 8am)] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY00/01 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $32,167.68 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A UTILITY TRUCK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR SECTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, a truck was approved in the amount of $23,500 for replacement in FY99/00 and was not replaced pending the finalization of plans for the new Corporation Yard; and WHEREAS, as a result, this revenue was reverted back to the Equipment Replacement Fund~ and WHEREAS, an additional $8,667.68 (in addition to the $23,500 already approved in FY99/00 is being requested to purchase a larger utility truck ($32,167.68) for the Construction and Repair Section. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $32,167.68 from the unappropriated balance of the Equipment Replacement Fund and authorizing the purchase of a utility truck for the Construction and Repair Section of the Public Works Department. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt J n M. Kaheny ~ Director of Public Works rney [H\HOME~ATTORNEY\RESO\Utility truck C&R (October 12, 2000 (9:20am)] RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY00/01 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $28,046.24 FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FUND AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A TRUCK FOR THE PARK MAINTENANCE SECTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the Park Maintenance section does not have a truck that can tow the bobcat and trailer that was purchased and approved based on the results from the Park Maintenance study; and WHEREAS, due to growth, a new truck is being requested, not only to tow the bobcat and trailer, but also to haul fertilizer, topsoil, gravel and sand for the Park Maintenance section. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY00/01 Public Works Department budget by appropriating $28,046.24 from the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund and authorize the purchase of a truck for the Park Maintenance Section of the Public Works Department. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt n M. Kaheny ~ Director of Public Works orney [H:/HOME',ATTORNEY\RE$O/utility truck park maintenance (October 12. 2000 (9:15am)] COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Ite /0 Meeting Date 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Rejecting and authorizing the m-bid of all the bids listed on Exhibit "B' for the renovation and expansion work associated with the construction' of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard Resolution Accepting the lowest responsive bids and awarding contracts as designated for award on Exhibit "A", for the renovation and expansion work associated with the future Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard, authorizing the expenditure of funds, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said contracts rejection, re-bid and awed associated with the first set of bids Br the Coloration Y~d project. On October 10, 2000, the City Council passed Resolutions 2000-353 and 2000-354 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the second set of bids Br the Coloration Yard project. Approval oftonight's first resolution will reject and authorize the rebid ofceaain trades necessa~ to complete the Coloration Yard Project. Approval of the second resolution will accept the lowest responsive bids ~d award all the contracts as designated Br award on Exhibit "A" covering some of the trade work associated with the construction of the Coloration Yard project. It is Staffs intent to come back beBre the City Council on October 24 and in November with a resolutions accepting ~d awarding additional bids. The total contract value approved to date is $ 15,973,666. RECOMMENDATIONS: I - That Council reject ~d authorize the re-bid of all the bids listed on Exhibit "B" Br the renovation and expansion work associated with the future Public Works Operations Facility ~d Corporation Y~d. 2 - That Council accept the lowest responsive bids and award contracts as desi~ated Br award on Exhibit "A", for the renovation and exp~sion work ~sociated with the ~t~e Public Works Opermions Facility and Coloration Yard, authorize the expenditure of funds, and authorize the CiW M~ager to execute said contracts. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS ~COMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Page 2, Item: __ Meeting Date: 10/17/00 The Corporation Yard project involves the renovation and expansion of an existing facility that the City intends to use as its future Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard. On September 26, 2000 the City Council passed Resolutions 2000-333 and 2000-334 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the first set of bids for the Corporation Yard project. On October 10, 2000 the City Council passed Resolutions 2000-353 and 2000-354 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the second set of bids for the Corporation Yard project. The resolutions with this agenda statement pertain to the third set of bids for the Corporation Yard project. Bid and Award Process for the Third Set of Bids: In preparation for the October 6, 2000 Public Bid Opening for the project, Highland placed an advertisement soliciting bids in "The Daily Transcript". The sealed bids were opened at 2:00 p.m. at Highland's offices in Chula Vista. As shown on Exhibit "A", the following trades are being proposed for approval to award: Trade Item Contract Total Floor Covering $ 199,405.00 Vehicle Lifts (first package) $ 285,844.00 Vehicle'Lifts (second package) $131,273.75 Total $ 616,522.75 Exhibit "A" lists the contract amounts that include the bonding costs. Highland staff checked the references, bonding and insurance capacity of each of the contractors. All references of each low responsive bidder have been verified and their work has been satisfactory. Additionally, Highland has met with each of the successful contractors to verify the scope of work for each. Each trade received adequate coverage and bid prices are in line with established budgets. Award of the Vehicle Lift bids tonight is necessary to keep the project on schedule. The first vehicle lift package includes the parallelogram and mobile column lifts. The second package includes the drive thru/over twin post lifts, table lifts, and two post axle lifts. All the lifts will be installed in the vehicle maintenance building. The reason for splitting the packages was to allow for greater competition and broader participation in the bid process. Rejection of Mechanical HVAC Bids Mechanical HVAC was advertised by Highland on September 8, 2000. Bids were received and opened on September 22, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. Bids were received from three (3) contractors to perform the work as follows (listed in order of base bid amount): Contractor Base Bid General Air $1,640,000 Lemon Grove Sheet Metal $1,720,000 Alpha Mechanical $1,761,600 During the review of bids and during discussions with some of the bidders it became apparent that some portions of the plans and specifications had ambiguities. Originally, Staff included in the resolution for award of contracts presented to Council at the October 10, 2000 meeting the recommendation that the bid from General Air be rejected as non-responsive and the award made to Lemon Grove Sheet Metal. During that Council meeting, staff requested the Mechanical HVAC Page 3, Item: ~ Meeting Date: 10/17/00 award be delayed until the October 17, 2000 meeting. After reviewing all of the materials associated with this bid, Highland and City staff believe that to ensure a fair and equitable process all of the bids received should be rejected, the specifications clarified and the package rebid. Staff is currently working on modifications to the specifications to clarify the issues raised during the review of bids and intend to re-advertise this bid package by Friday, October 20, 2000. Staff will be returning with a recommendation for the award of Mechanical HVAC in November 2000. Financial Statement: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Amount of contracts to be awarded $ 616,523.00 B. Contingencies (5%) $ 30,826.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $ 647,349.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. AppropriatedFunds $21,699,409.00 B. Funds approved for first and second sets of bids $15,326,317.00 C. Funds to cover remaining Trade Contracts $ 5,725,743.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $ 647,349.00 Form of Agreement: The contracts will be let on the City's standard public works contract form. The City Attorney will approve the final form of the contracts. Wa~,e Statement: Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications. Environmental Status: A Negative Declaration (IS-00-52) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The Negative Declaration was adopted by the City's Redevelopment Agency on July l 1, 2000. A Notice of Determination was posted in the Office of the County Clerk from July 19 through August 18, 2000. FISCAL IMPACT: On August 15, 2000 the City Council approved Resolution 2000-297 appropriating $23,951,213.00 in additional project funds on the new Corporation Yard Project. Approval of this resolution would authorize the expenditure of $647,349.00 to cover the contract amounts and contingencies associated with all the contracts designated for award on Exhibit "A". The total funding authorized for expenditure to date is $ 15,973,666. Since the proposed contracts represent only a portion of the total construction effort, staff is not indicating any savings to date. Page 4, Item: __ Meeting Date: 10/17/00 When the entire project is bid and accepted, staff will report potential savings at that time. Staff will come back before Council on October 24, 2000 and in November with resolutions approving the award of' the remaining trade contracts. Attachment: CDntractors' Disclosure Statements File # 0735-10-GG131 H:\SHAREDXENGINEER\CORPYARDAWARD3RDA113.SMN.doc 10/12/2000 3:58 PM THE CITY OF CHU'LA VISTA DISCLOSIJILE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon runners which will require discretlon~ action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments. or campaig~ contributions for a City of Chula Visr~ election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the propscry which is the subject of the application or the conunit. e.g-, owner, applicant, contractor, subeotlttactor, material supplier. 2. ff any person~ identified pursuant to (1) above is a corl~ration of parmership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corl~fation/par~ershlp) entity. . ff any penon* identified pursuant to (I) above is a non-profit organization or Wast, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as t~st~ or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4, Pleas~ identify each and every person, including an.y agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an of~ i~'~ of the City of Chula Vista as it r~lates to this contract w~thln the past 12 months? Yes No Form L - Disclosure Statement Bid Package Page I of 2 If yes, briefly describe the nature of rbe financial intorest the official** may have in this contract? 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No vr If yes, which Council Member(s)? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors, Executives, non-profit Board of Directors) made contribution totaling more than $1,000 over the past four (4) years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No ~, ff yes, which Council Member(s)? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an office** of the City of Chula vista in th past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes NO _ ~ If yes, which Official(s) and what was the nature of the item provided? of Contractor/Appllcan Print or Type Name of ContractOr/Applicant Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co.-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver. syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, dispel, or other political subdivision, or any other g~oup or combination acting as a unit. Official includes, but is not limited to; Mayor, Council Member. Planning Commissioner, Member of a Board. Commission or Commmee of the City. Employee. or Staff Members. Form L - Disclo.~tr¢ Statement Bid Package , Page 2 of 2 8-~000 14:13 FROM:MME, INC. 916 649 6481 TO:619498egY0 P.OI~z005 Sep-O~-ZOgO IO=Z4 Fr~IGHL~D PA~NERSHIP I~C, 616198ZOTO T-169 p. OOl/Og3 F-994 ~u~t m ~uncil ~licy iOl~l, ~ m ~y ~ion upon m~ which ~1 ~m di~mdo~ acdon by the Council. Pl~ng Com~ssion ~d all ~er ~ci~ ~iu of ~o ~W, a ~g of digiturn ~ ~n o~hip ~ ~n~lal ~u, pay~u, or c~ mn~budons for a Ci~ ~ Chula Vista el~ mug be fil~ ~c following inflation ~st ~ I. ~sc ~e rims of ~1 ~ons ~ng a ~n~clal inm~t in ~c ~ which is zhc ~bj~t of ~e applic~ion or the conic. e.g., o~, ~plicut, c~rnr, su~mr, mamdal supplier. - . 2. ~ ~y'peaon* i~ndfi~ pu~u~c to (1) a~ve is a c~mfion or pmae~p, li~ z~ nmu of ~1 individuals wiffi a $1~ in~cnc in ~e busin~s (co~o~o~hip) ~tity. If my person' identified pursusnt co (1) above is a non-profit organization or u'uac, list ~he names of any person serving as direant of ~e non-profit otXanizafion or ~ uusme or beneficlaz), or rosstar of die u~st, 4. Please identify each and ever~ person, including any aF~L% employees, consuhants, or independent cone'actors who. you havc assi&,ned to mpruent you before the City in this meKer, S, HaS any person* associated with this ~nlraa h~ any financial dealings with an offi 'al~' of the CRy of Chula Vista as it re/aces ro this corm'act wl~hln the past 12 months? Yes No / Fon~ L - Disciasafe Sm~matt Bid Pacla~e' ~ I of 3 SEP-1~8-E!800 14:13 FROM:MME; INC. 916 649 6481 T8:6194982970 P.003/003 Sep-Oe-20OO IO:Z4 From-HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP INC, 6194gH970 T-1H P,OO~/qO~ F-H4 If yes, briefly dcscHl;e The nem~ of the 6nacial iaeresc the offk~al** may hey; in this c~fgr~ct? y:Iave you or an~ member ~1! your ~vertd~ b~rd (i~c. C~t~:~ratc ~N.d ~r Dkect~r~ ~xecudvcs~ ~1~n-Pr~ ~o~d ~ Directors) made co~budon tofa/ing more than $1,000 over the past four (4) yee, ram a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Ycs No . ~ ~f yu, which Council Member(s)? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an office*~' of the City of Chula Vista in Print or Type Name of Con~'aetor/Applican~ Person is defined as: any individual. firm, co-pazznership..ioint venture.. association, Social club, ~'arernnl organh~ation. corporation. estate. trust, receiver, syndicate, any u~er county, city. municipality. distl'ict. Or Other political subdivision. or any other group or combination actin~ as a unit. Official include, but is not iimited m: Mayor. Council M~'mber. Planning Commissioner, Member of n aoard. Commission or Committee of Ihe City. Employee. or Stuff Members. Form L - iisclosur~ Sialement Bid Packa,.3c PIp 2 of*2 0B/21/2000 14:18 3103233808 PETERSON HVD PAGE Tm~, ~ OF CHULA V~TA DISCLOSURE STATElk~T Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matu~s which will rmtuir~ discretionary action by tic Council, Platoling Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a ~t of disclosure of certain owuc~hip or financial interests, payments, or campaign contn'bmious for a City of Chula Vista election must I~ filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the nanms of all persons having a ~nandal in2rest in .the pmpeaty which is the subject of the application or the conn-act, e.g., owner, applicant, cosmmctor, subcontractor, mamrial supplier. 2. If any penon* identified pureant to (1) above is a corporation or parmmhip, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 invesunent in 0ae business (corporalion/parmer~nip) entity. 3. If any psrson* identified pursuant to (t) above is a non-profit organization or uust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or bes~e~ciary or h'us~or of the mist, 4. Hesse identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent tonifactors who you have assigned to rapresent yon bdore the City in 6nis maRer. Has any person* associated with this cos~u'act had any financial dealings with an official** of die City Of Chula Vim as it n~lales to this conlract within the past 12 months? Y-s No 89/21/2888 14:18 3183233686 PETERSON HYD PAGE 84 If yes, briefly describe the n~ure of me financial interes~ the official** may have in this contract? 6. I~ve you ma4e a contribution of more than ~c~0 withi the past zwelve (12) months ro a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes . No ~-~ If yes, which Council Member(s)? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors, Executives, non-profit Board of Dh~-,om) made contribution totaling marc than $I,000 over the past four (4) years ~ a cun~mt member of the Chula Vista City Council7 Yes No ]L- If yes, Whkh Council Member(s)? Vi Have you pwvided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an office** of the City of Chula ,sta in past zwelve (12) months ? CfMs includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc .) Yes No ff yes, which Official(s) and whg was ~e nature of the item provided? Signature of Conu'actor/Applicant Print or Type Name of Contractor/Applicant Person is defined as: any individual. finn, co-partnership, joim venture, association, social club, fr~J__~al organization, corporation, esta~, unsr. receiver. syndicate. any o~her county, city, municipality, disuicr, or odun- politicsl subdivision, or any other ~roup or combination acting as a unit, Official includes. but is not linliutd to: Mayor, Cotmcil Member, Plannin~ Commissioner, Member of a Bosrd, Commission or Commitme of ~hc City, F_,nlployee, or Sm.ff Members. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REJECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE RE- BID OF ALL THE BIDS LISTED ON EXHIBIT "B" FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS OPEP~ATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD WHEREAS, on September 26, 2000, the City Council passed Resolutions 2000-333 and 2000-334 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the first set of bids for the Corporation Yard project; and WHEREAS, on October 10, 2000, the City Council passed Resolutions 2000-353 and 2000-354 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the second set of bids for the Corporation Yard project; and WHEREAS, Mechanical HVAC was advertised by Highland on September 8, 2000 and opened on September 22, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.; and WHEREAS, bids were received from three contractors to perform the work as followsc Contractor Base Bid General Air $1,640,000 Lemon Grove Sheet Metal $1,720,000 Alpha Mechanical $1,761,600 WHEREAS, during the review of bids, it became apparent that ambiguities within the bid scope of work, specifications and drawings resulted in a wide array of bids and confusion regarding the appropriate subconsultant certifications required; and WHEREAS, after reviewing all of the materials, Highland and City staff believe that to ensure a fair and equitable process, the specifications should be clarified and the package rebid; and WHEREAS, staff is currently working on modifications to the specifications to clarify the issues raised during the review 1 of bids and hope to readvertise this bid package by October 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, during the review, staff also determined that some changes to the specifications were necessary to ensure the project would meet the needs and expectations of the City; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the ambiguities and bid deficiencies compromised the integrity of the bid packages and that they should not be accepted; and WHEREAS, Highland and City staff recommend rejecting and rebidding all of the bids listed on Exhibit "B' for the renovation and expansion work. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby reject and authorize the re-bid of all the bids listed on Exhibit "B' for the renovation and expansion work associated with the construction of the Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jgh~.' Kahe~y Director of Public Works City Attorney [H :\HOME~a, TTORNEY~RESO\COrp yard exhibit b bids 10/17 {October 12, 2000 (3:11 pro)] 2 /L)A -Z EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD PROJECT PENDING REJECTED AND REBID PACKAGES Bid Trade/ Package Company Scope Bid Amount Comments MECHANICAL HVAC BID DATE 9t22/00 N.4 General Air Mechanical HVAC 1,640,000.00 Rejected - Rebid N.4 Lemon Grove Sheet Metal Mechanical HVAC 1,720,000.00 Rejected - Rebid N.4 Alpha Mechanical Mechanical HVAC 1,761,600.00 Rejected - Rebid H:\Shared~Engineer\Pending Rebid Reject Packages City of Chula Vista Corporation Yard 1 10/12/2000 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDS kND AWARDING CONTP~ACTS AS DESIGNATED ON EXHIBIT "AH, FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACTS WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-245 approving an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. ("Highland") for the provision of Construction Manager/Constructor services required for the construction of the Corporation Yard Project; and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2000, the City Council approved Resolution 2000-297 appropriating $23,951,213.00 in additional project funds on the new Corporation Yard Project; and WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on October 6, 2000, at Highland's Offices, the City received sealed bids for floor covering and vehicle lift (first and second package); and WHEREAS, Exhibit "A" lists the contract amounts that include the bonding costs; and WHEREAS, Highland staff checked the references, bonding and insurance capacity of each of the contractors and all references of each low responsive bidder have been verified and their work has been satisfactory; and WHEREAS, all bids for each trade are listed on Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration (IS-00-52) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and was adopted by the Redevelopment Agency on July 11, 2000; and WHEREAS, contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this project; and WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business -/ requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents, however, disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various trade publications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the lowest responsible bids and award contracts as designated for award on Exhibit ~A", for the renovation and expansion work associated with the future Public Works Operations Facility and Corporation Yard. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of $647,349.00 to cover the contract amounts and contingencies associated with the trade contracts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contracts. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Job . Kahe~y~~~ Director of Public Works C~i H: \Home\Attorney\Reso\CorpYard3 2 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF CHULA VISTA CORPORATION YARD PROJECT REBID OPENING REPORT Bid Trade/ Package Company Scope Bid Amount Bond Amount Contract Total Comments FLOORCOVERING H.6 Howard's Rug Co. Floorcoverings 196,458.00 2,947.00 199,405.00 Award H.6 Wood's Village Carpet Floorcoverings 254,100.00 H,6 Progressive Floorcoverings Floorcovedngs 308,700.00 H.6 Shaw Contract Flooring Floorcoverings 318,500.00 VEHICLE LIFTS - PARALLELOGRAM LIFTS & MOBILE COLUMN LIFTS M.01 Mun. Maint. Equipment Vehicle Lifts 281,179.00 4,665.00 285,844.00 Award M,01 Peterson Hydraulics Vehicle Lifts 304,000.00 M,01 Penn Equipment Vehicle Lifts 397200.00 M.01 HCI Vehicle Lifts 402,200.00 M.0t Western Pump Vehicle Lifts 481,671.00 VEHICLE LIFTS - DRIVE THRU/OVER TWIN POST LIFTS, TABLE LIFTS & TWO POST AXLE LIFTS M.02 Peterson Hydraulics Vehicle Lifts 125,900.00 5,373.75 131,273.75 Award M,02 Penn Equipment Vehicle Lifts 187,500.00 M,02 Western Pump Vehicle Lifts 281,000,00 SUBTOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNTS 616,522.75 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Ordinance Amending Title 2 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code to add Chapter 2.57, Design-Build Contracts, to establish the procedure for the selection and award of Design-Build Contracts Resolution Certifying the previously approved CMC Priority List as the Qualified List ofDesign-B 'ld Entities SUBMITTED BY: A~sistant City Manager M~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes __ No~X) In March 2000, the voters approved Proposition B amending City Charter section 1009, Public Works Contracts, to allow the City to award contracts pursuant to the Design-Build project delivery system. Proposition B required the City to approve an implementing ordinance establishing the bidding and award procedures for this new process. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council place ordinance on first reading. That Council approve the resolution certifying the previously approved CMC Priority List as the Qualified List of Design-Build Entities. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Design-build as a project delivery option was approved through a Charter amendment in March, 2000. Previously, all public works projects have been awarded pursuant to the traditional design-bid-build project delivery system. Recently, the City has begun utilitizing other project delivery systems including Construction Manager/Constructor approach. The following is a brief description of the different project delivery systems that, in addition to the traditional design-bid-build approach, the City can use in the design and construction of the different building projects: 1. Construction Manager/Constructor Aimroach Under this approach, the CMC will perform services acting as the City's representative and agent to manage the design, bidding process, and construction of a given project. The CMC conducts the bidding process pursuant to City rules and regulations and the City contracts directly with separate specialty contractors to perform the various trades comprising the entire scope of work. Under this approach, the CMC does not act as a general contractor, but rather as a construction manager/constructor representing the City in managing the work under direction of City staff. The CMC is not allowed to self-perform any trade work nor contract directly with affiliates to perform Meeting Date: 10/10/00 such work. Because the CMC does not act as a general contractor under this delivery system liability usually shouldered by the general contractor falls to the City. This is being utilized currently in the construction of the Corporation Yard project. 2. Construction Manager At-Risk This second approach is similar to the first when it comes to the administration and execution of the work. however, the CM At-Risk does act as a general contractor. When the City Council awards a contract to a subcontractor that performs trade work, the City Council also assigns the financial responsibility to the CM At-Risk. The City is then billed through the CM At-Risk for the subcontractors work. The CM At-Risk is then responsible for the work and guarantees its quality and standard. 3. Design/Build Delivery System Design-Build is a project delivery system in which a property owner contracts with a contractor or designer to take sole responsibility for a construction project. In this case, the contractor is the sole reporting party to the owner, as well as the sole point of responsibility for design and construction of the project. This allows the City to award all phases of a project, starting with design and ending with construction, to one entity. This approach establishes design services that are closely linked with construction management services in the interest of producing the best possible project. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE The proposed ordinance adds Chapter 2.57 to the Municipal Code . The ordinance sets out the parameters under which a design build contract would be let. Specifically, it authorizes the City award a contract to a design-build entity either off the City's previously approved list of Qualified Design-Build Entities (currently known as the CMC priority list), to a firm selected pursuant to a request for proposals or qualifications, or, after appropriate findings are made, to a sole soume. Whichever method is utilized to select the design-build entity, the ordinance establishes certain criteria the City may require the Design-Build entity to have prior to award of the contract. These criteria include, but are not limited to, possession of all required licenses, registration and credentials, documentation establishing the Design-Build Entity has completed or has the capability to complete a project of the scope and complexity due for a~vard, the Entity has appropriate insurance and bonding capability, infom~ation regarding civil or criminal violations in previous jobs, and any pending litigation or claims from projects undertaken within the past years. When utilizing a project specific request for proposal the City may chose from 3 potential selection methods. Those three methods are: 1 ) A Design-Build competition based on performance specifications and criteria set forth in the RFP. The criteria may include proposed design approach, life cycle-costs, project features, financing, quality, capacity, schedule and operational and functional performance of the facility. Under this method an award would be made to the team whose proposal is judged as providing the best value to the City. The best value may not be the lowest responsible bidder but rather the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal meets the design, aesthetic and quality standards set by the City. 2) A Design-Build competition based on program requirements, performance specifications, and a preliminary design or combination thereof set forth in the RFP. The award is made on the basis of the Meeting Date: 10/10/00 technical criteria and methodology, including price, to the Design-Build Entity whose proposal is judged as providing the best value in meeting the interests of the City and the objectives of the project. 3) A Design-Build competition based on program requirements and a detailed scope of work, including any preliminary design drawings and specifications set for in the RFP. The award shall be made on the basis of the lowest responsible and responsive bid. ACter selection of a Design-Build team, the City will negotiate a contract with the Design-Builder. The Design-Builder will be responsible for the hiring of all subcontractors necessary to complete the design and construction of the facility. Because the City will have less contact with the subcontractors on the project than in a traditional design-bid-build project delivery system, the Ordinance incorporates certain protections for subcontractors. Traditionally, a general contractor must list the subcontractors to be utilized on a project at the time of bid. However, under a design-build project delivery system, the design is incomplete when the construction firm is hired so it is not possible for the construction company to call out all of the subcontractors required to complete the project. To afford some level of protection to the subcontractors, the ordinance requires the Design- Build Entity to specify the types of subcontractors that may be named as members of the Design- Build Entity and identify any subcontractors that have been identified to participate in the project. Those subcontractors named at the time of award are to be afforded the protections of the applicable laws. Additional subcontractors shall be selected pursuant to an approved bidding process as set forth in the Design-Build Agreement. Finally, the Design-Build Entity shall be limited by provisions of their agreement with the City to amount of retention that may be withheld from a subcontractor. QUALIFIED LIST OF DESIGN-BUILD ENTITIES On April 17, 2000, the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Construction Manager/Constructor Services, requesting statements of qualifications from Construction Managers/Constructors (CMC) qualified to provide the City with proper guidance and assistance in value engineering, construction management and construction services coordination for City Capital Improvement Projects. in an addendum, the City expanded the request to include qualifications from Design-Build teams. The RFQ indicated that the City was contemplating the adoption of an ordinance which would authorize the use of the Design-Build project delivery system and may award Design-Build projects in the future off that list. On May 19, 2000, the City received a total of 18 submittals in response to the RFQ. A selection committee appointed by the City Manager reviewed and ranked the submittals and conducted interviews with the top six consulting teams. On June 20, 2000 the Council approved a resolution establishing a Construction Management Services Priority List, comprised of six teams, to be used for awarding design and/or construction contracts on future building facilities. The six teams on the CMC Priority List are: 1. Highland Partnership, Inc. 2. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. 3. Turner Construction Company 4. Vanir Construction Management, Inc. Gafcon, LLC 6. Bitterlin Development Corporation I1-3 Page4, Item:// Meeting Date: 10/10/00 It is staffs opinion that all 6 teams are highly qualified design-builders and staff recommends that Council certify the previously established CMC Priority List as the Qualified Design-Build Entity List for a period of 3 years or until the City chooses to conduct a new or supplemental Design- Builder RFQ process. Design-Build contracts may be awarded to teams listed on the Qualified Design-Build Entity List pursuant to the provisions of the Design-Build ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal issues associated with action on these resolutions. H:\HOMEXATTORNEY\EHulI\Design Build OrdA113doe ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING TITLE 2 TO ADD CHAPTER 2.57, DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS, TO ESTABLISH THE PROCEDURE FOR THE SELECTION AND AWARD OF DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION I: That Title 2 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 2.57 to read as follows: Section 2.57.010 Purpose and Intent The purpose of this Division is to establish specific procedures to be used to solicit, qualify, evaluate, select and award design-build contracts. Section 2.57.020 Definitions For purposes of this Division, the following definitions apply: xxBest Interest of the Cityn means a design-build process that is projected to meet the interests of the City and objectives of the project which may include reducing the project delivery schedule and total cost of the project while maintaining a high level of quality workmanship and materials. xxBest Value" means value determined by objective criteria, and may include, but is not limited to, price, features, functions, life cycle costs, and other criteria deemed appropriate. 'xDesign-Build,, means a public works contract procurement method in which both the design and construction of a project are procured from a single entity. "Design-Build Entity" means a partnership, corporation, or other legal entity that is able to provide appropriately licensed contracting, architectural, and engineering services as needed. Page 1 of 8 "Design-Build Entity Member. includes any person who provides licensed contracting, architectural, or engineering services. "Design Professional" means a professional, either City staff or an outside consultant, who develops the criteria package which may include, but is not limited to, facility program, design criteria, performance specifications and other project-specific technical material. ~Qualified List of Design Build Entities" means those Design-Build Entities selected based on a competitive selection process and who are determined to be qualified to act as a Design-Build Entity for the City of Chula Vista on any project. ~Sole Source~ means a commodity or service available from only one known source as the result of unique performance capabilities, manufacturing processes, compatibility requirements or market conditions. Section 2.57.030 Design-Build Procurement (a) Prior to procuring a Design-Build public works contract, the City shall either (1) prepare a project specific request for proposal or qualification setting forth the basic scope of the project that may include, but is not limited to the size, type and desired design character of the project and site, and performance specifications. The performance specifications shall describe the quality of construction materials, assemblies, and other information deemed necessary to adequately describe the City's needs. The performance specifications shall be prepared by a design professional designated by the City; or (2) Prepare a project specific request for proposal setting forth the basic scope of the project that may include, but is not limited to the size, type and desired design character of the project and site, and performance specifications to be distributed exclusively to those teams selected from the Qualified List of Design-Build Entities. The performance Page 2 of 8 specifications shall describe the quality of construction materials, assemblies, and other information deemed necessary to adequately describe the City's needs. The performance specifications shall be prepared by a design professional designated by the City; or (3) select a Design-Build Entity from those teams identified on the Qualified List of Design-Build Entities without preparing a formal request for proposals. Prior to an award to a Design-Build Entity pursuant to the Qualified List of Design-Build Entities, the City Manager shall certify to the City Council in writing that the most qualified firms have been invited to interview and the selected firm is capable of providing the services and it is in the Best Interest of the City to proceed in this manner; or (4) select a Design-Build team as a Sole Source, if, in advance of the contract, the City Manager certifies in writing the Sole Source status of the prorider. Section 2.57.040 Qualification and Selection Process The City may establish a qualification and selection process for Design-Build Entities that specifies the qualification criteria, as well as recommends the manner in which the winning entity will be selected. Nothing in this Division precludes a Design-Build contract from being awarded to a Sole Source, if, in advance of the contract, the City Manager certifies in writing the Sole Source status of the provider. Section 2.57.050 Qualification Criteria Prior to the award of a Design-Build contract, the Design- Build Entity may be required to provide any or all of the following qualification criteria: (a) Possession of all required licenses, registration, and credentials in good standing that are required to design and construct the project. (b) Submission of documentation establishing that the Design-Build Entity members have completed, or demonstrated the capability to complete projects of similar size, scope, building type, or complexity, and that proposed key personnel have sufficient experience and training to competently manage and complete the design and construction of the project. (c) Submission of a proposed project management plan establishing that the Design-Build Entity has the experience, competence and capacity needed to effectively complete the project. (d) Submission of evidence establishing the Design-Build Entity has the capacity to obtain all required payment and performance bonding, liability insurance, and errors and omissions insurance, as well as a financial statement demonstrating to the City's satisfaction that the Design-Build Entity has the capacity to complete the project. (e) Provision of a declaration that the applying members of the Design-Build Entity have not had a surety company finish work on any project within the past five years. (f) Provision of a declaration providing detail for the past five years concerning all of the following: (1) Civil or criminal violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act against any member of the Design-Build Entity. (2) Civil or criminal violations of the Contractors' State License Law against any member of the Design-Build Entity. (3) Any conviction of any member of the Design-Build Entity of submitting a false or fraudulent claim to a public agency. (4) Civil or criminal violations of federal or state law governing the payment of wages, benefits, or personal income tax withholding, or of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) withholding requirements, state disability insurance withholding, or unemployment insurance payment requirements against any member of the Design-Build Entity. For purposes of this section, only violations by a Design-Build Entity Member as an employer shall be deemed applicable, unless it is shown that the Design-Build Entity Member, in his or her capacity as an employer, had knowledge of a subcontractor's or employee's violations or failed to comply with the conditions set forth in Section 1775(b) of the State Labor Code. (5) Civil or criminal violations of federal or state law against any Design-Build Entity Member governing equal opportunity employment, contracting or subcontracting. (6) Any construction or design claim or litigation totaling more than $50,000 pending or settled against any member of the Design-Build Entity over the last 5 years. (7) Any debarment, disqualification or removal from a federal, state, or local government public works project. (g) Provision of a declaration that the Design-Build Entity will comply with all other provisions of law applicable to the project. The declaration shall state that reasonable diligence has been used in its preparation and that it is true and complete to the best of the signer's knowledge. (h) In the case of a partnership or other association that is not a legal entity, a copy of the agreement creating the partnership or association and specifying that all partners or association members agree to be fully liable for the performance under the Design-Build contract. Section 2.57.060 Selection Method The City shall select one of the following methods as the process to be used for the selection of the winning entity: (a) A Design-Build competition based on performance specifications and criteria set forth by the City in the request for proposals. (1) Criteria used in this form of evaluation of proposals may include, but not be limited to, items such as proposed design approach, life-cycle costs, project features, financing, quality, total cost, past performance, business standing, schedule, and operational and functional performance of the facility. However, any criteria and methods used to evaluate proposals shall be limited to those contained in the request for Design-Build proposals or qualifications. (2) Any architectural firms, engineering firms, Page 5 of 8 specialty consultants, or individuals retained by the City to assist in the preparation of the request for proposals shall not be eligible to participate in the competition with any Design- Build Entity. (3) Award shall be made to the Design-Build Entity whose proposal is judged as providing best value meeting the interests of the City and meeting the objectives of the project. (b) A Design-Build competition based on program requirements, performance specifications, and a preliminary design or combination thereof set forth by the City in the request for proposals. Limited or preliminary drawings and specifications detailing the requirements of the project may accompany the request for proposals. (1) The City shall establish technical criteria and methodology, including price, to evaluate proposals and shall describe the criteria and methodology of evaluation and selection in the request for proposal or qualification Design- Build Entity. (2) Any architectural firms, engineering firms, specialty consultants, or individuals retained by the City to assist in the preparation of request for proposals shall not be eligible to participate in the competition with any Design-Build Entity. (3) Award shall be made to the Design-Build Entity on the basis of the technical criteria and methodology, including price, whose proposal is judged as providing best value in meeting the interests of the City and meeting the objectives of the project. (c) A Design-Build competition based on program requirements and a detailed scope of work, including any preliminary design drawings and specifications set forth by he City in the request for proposals. (1) Any architectural firms, engineering firms, specialty consultants, or individuals retained by the City to assist in the preparation of request for proposals shall not be eligible to participate in the competition with any Design-Build Entity. (2) Award shall be made on the basis of the lowest responsive bid. (d) A ~Sole Source" award as otherwise allowed by law. Section 2.57.070 Work Listing The City recognizes that the Design-Build Entity is charged with performing both design and construction. Because a Design- Build contract may be awarded prior to the completion of the design, it is often impracticable for the Design-Build Entity to list all subcontractors at the time of the award. (a) All of the following requirements shall apply to .subcontractors, licensed by the state that are employed on Design-Build projects undertaken pursuant to this Division. (1) The Design-Build Entity in each Design-Build proposal shall specify the construction trades or types of subcontractors that may be named as members of the Design-Build Entity at the time of award. In selecting the trades that may be identified as members of the Design-Build Entity, the Design- Build Entity shall identify the trades deemed essential in the design considerations of the project. All subcontractors that are listed at the time of award shall be afforded the protection of all applicable laws. (2) All subcontracts that were not listed by the Design-Build Entity at the time of award in accordance with Section 8(b)(1) shall be performed and awarded by the Design- Build Entity in accordance with a bidding process set forth in the Design-Build agreement. (3) In a contract between the Design-Build Entity and a subcontractor, and in a contract and any subcontractor thereunder, the percentage of the retention proceeds withheld may not exceed the percentage specified in the contact between the City and the Design-Build Entity. If the Design-Build Entity provides written notice to any subcontractor who is not a member of the Design-Build Entity, prior to or at the time that the bid is requested, that a bond may be required and the subcontractor subsequently is unable or refuses to furnish a bond to the Design-Build Entity, then the Design-Build Entity may withhold retention proceeds in excess of the percentage specified in the contract between the City and the Design-Build Entity from any Page 7 of 8 payment made by the Design-Build Entity to the subcontractor. SECTION II: This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt ~o~eny Director of Public Works City Attorney H:\HOME\EHULL\DB.CV.ord.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CERTIFYING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CMC PRIORITY LIST AS THE QUALIFIED LIST OF DESIGN-BUILD ENTITIES WHEREAS, on April 17, 2000, the Department of Public Works issued a Request for Qualifications for Construction Manager/Constructor Services, requesting statements of qualifications from Construction Managers/Constructors (CMC) qualified to provide the City with proper guidance and assistance in value engineering, construction management and construction services coordination for City Capital Improvement Projectsy and WHEREAS, in an addendum, the City expanded the request to include qualifications from Design-Build teams; and WHEREAS, the RFQ indicated that the City was contemplating the adoption of an ordinance which would authorize the use of the Design-Build project delivery system and may award Design-Build projects in the future off that list; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2000, the City received a total of 18 submittals in response to the RFQ; and WHEREAS, a selection committee appointed by the City Manager reviewed and ranked the submittals and conducted interviews with the top six consulting teams; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2000, the Council approved a resolution establishing a Construction Management Services Priority List, comprised of six teams, to be used for awarding design and/or construction contracts on future building facilities; and WHEREAS, the six teams on the CMC Priority List are: 1. Highland Partnership, Inc. 2. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. 3. Turner Construction Company 4. Vanir Construction Management, Inc. 5. Gafcon, LLC 6. Bitterlin Development Corporation WHEREAS, it is staff's opinion that all six teams are highly qualified design-builders and recommends that Council certify the previously established CMC Priority List as the Qualified Design-Build Entity List for a period of three years or until the City chooses to conduct a new Design-Build RFQ process. II6-I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby certify the previously approved CMC Priority List set forth hereinabove as the Qualified List of Design-Build Entities for a period of three years or until the City chooses to conduct a new Design-Builder RFQ process. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of Public Works ~t [H:\HOME~ATTORNEY\RESO% CMC Priodty List (October 10, 2000 (2:49pm)] 2 T PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: / ;)-. Meeting Date: 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing PCM 95-017 to consider the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional Plan, Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Final MSCP Subregional Plan EIR/EIS and Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS, Chula Vista MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program, and Draft Implementing Agreement between the City and Wildlife Agencies. Resolution No. PCM 95-017 of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista recommending that the City Council approve the MSCP Subregional Plan as the Framework Plan; adopt the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan conditioned on the following: I) the future execution by all parties of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Draft Implementing Agreement, 2) the issuance of a Biological Opinion consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement, and 3) the issuance of take permits with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement; and find that the Draft Implementing Agreement is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and affirm its submittal. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approving the MSCP Subregional Plan as the Framework Plan; adopting the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan conditioned on the following: 1) the future execution by all parties of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Draft Implementing Agreement, 2) the issuance of a Biological Opinion consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement, and 3) the issuance of take permits with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement; and finding that the Draft Implementing Agreement is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and affirming its submittal. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Building ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ /t-ofL- (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-X) K'" The Multiple Species Conservation Program (HMSCP") is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation plan which addresses the needs of a number of sensitive animal species and the preservation of sensitive natural vegetation communities in southwestern San Diego County. The /;) -I Page 2, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 MSCP Subregional Plan provides the overall framework for the MSCP and is implemented locally through the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The Subarea Plan will form the basis for federal and state permits to allow development where impacts to sensitive species or habitat could occur. In addition to the September 11, 2000 Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, a Draft Implementing Agreement is provided that reflects the Draft Subarea Plan. The Implementing Agreement is the contract between the City and the Wildlife Agencies and forms the basis for the granting of an incidental take permit (Section lO(a)(I)(B) Permit) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and take authorization (Section 2835 Permit) by the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). The purpose of the agreement is to ensure implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and bind each of the parties to perform its designated obligations. Also included is the City of Chula Vista MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (MIAMP). The MIAMP is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and summarizes the relevant requirements of the MSCP Subregional Plan, City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and Implementing Agreement and identifies the entity responsible for carrying out each requirement. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that any impacts associated with the approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan, adoption of the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and corresponding Implementing Agreement have been previously identified in the Final EIRlEIS for Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth within the Multiple Species Conservation Program CMSCP) Planning Area, dated January 1997, and therefore an addendum to that document has been prepared. RECOMMENDATION: I. Planning Commission That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. PCM 95-017 recommending that the City Council do the following: A) consider the final EIR/EIS; B) Determine that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is necessary; C) Find that the Addendum, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; D) Approve the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program; E) Approving the MSCP Subregional Plan; F) Adopt the Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, including revisions, conditioned on the following: I) the future approval of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Draft Implementing Agreement, 2) the issuance of a Biological Opinion that is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement, and 3) the issuance of take permits with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement; and G) Find that the Draft Implementing Agreement is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. 2. Citv Council That the City Council of the City ofChula Vista adopt the attached resolution: A) considering the final EIRlEIS; B) Determining that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is necessary; C) /~-'J.- Page 3, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 Finding that the Addendum, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; D) Approving the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreernent Monitoring Program; E) Approving the MSCP Subregional Plan; F) Adopting the Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, including revisions, conditioned on the following: I) the future approval of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Draft Implementing Agreement, 2) the issuance of a Biological Opinion that is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement, and 3) the issuance of take permits with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement; and G) Finding that the Draft Implementing Agreement is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDA nON: The Resource Conservation Commission held a special meeting on Thursday, October 12, 2000 to discuss and make a recommendation on the September II, 2000 Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Staff will prepare and distribute a memorandum to the Planning Commission and City Council on Monday, October 16, 2000 which outlines the Resource Conservation Commission recommendation. A recommendation by the Planning Commission is anticipated to occur during the joint public hearing between the Planning Commission and City Council on October 17, 2000. DISCUSSION: A. BACKGROUND The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program for southwestern San Diego County. The MSCP will conserve a network of habitat and open space, protecting biodiversity and enhancing the region's quality of life. The MSCP will also provide an economic benefit by reducing constraints on future development and decreasing the costs of compliance with federal and state laws protecting biological resources. The MSCP has been developed cooperatively by participating jurisdictions and special districts in partnership with the Wildlife Agencies, property owners, and representatives of the development industry and environmental groups. The program is designed to preserve native vegetation and meet the habitat needs of multiple species, rather than focusing preservation efforts on one species at a time. By identifying priority areas for conservation and other areas for future development, the MSCP will streamline existing permit procedures for development projects that impact habitat. Without a plan for the protection of many species that are currently not protected under the State or Federal Endangered Species Acts, but may potentially be considered for listing, there would be no assurance that development could proceed in a planned and timely manner in the future. By addressing the needs of the more sensitive of these rare species at one time the City, and the /;).-3 Page 4, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 region, will avoid costly delays that would occur while responding to new individual species listings that would likely occur. In 1996, City Council authorized staff to forward a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan ("1996 Subarea Plan") to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego, acting as lead agencies, for inclusion in the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their environmental review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan. In April 1999 the City hired MNA Consulting to assist the City in expediting completion of its MSCP Subarea Plan. By December 1999 City staff had held numerous meetings with Wildlife Agencies staff, had submitted two Screencheck Subarea Plans to the Wildlife Agencies, and had made a diligent effort to resolve outstanding issues. Reflecting work and negotiation to date, on February 17, 2000 a Draft Subarea Plan was submitted to the Wildlife Agencies and distributed to interested parties, including environmental groups and developers. Comment letters were received from 17 different stakeholders. Through April, May, and June 2000, City staff and MNA Consultants worked to resolve outstanding issues raised in the public comment letters. Since there were approximately 10 major unresolved policy issues between the City and the Wildlife Agencies, the City organized a two-day retreat in late June with managers from the Wildlife Agencies and City, and representatives from the environmental and development communities. Policy issues were discussed until verbal agreements were reached. During July and early August, the City's Subarea Plan was rewritten and on August 21, 2000 a Screencheck Subarea Plan was distributed to retreat participants for final comments. On September 22, 2000 the City submitted an application to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for issuance of a Section lO(a)(I)(B) incidental take permit pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and submitted an application to the California Department of Fish and Game for issuance oftake authorization pursuant to Section 2835 of the Fish and Game Code. The application included the September II, 2000 Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, an environmental addendum for compliance with CEQA, and a September 20, 2000 Draft Implementing Agreement. B. COMPONENTS OF THE MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM I. The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subregional Plan The MSCP Subregional Plan provides the overall framework for the Multiple Species Conservation Program. The subregion encompasses an area of 900 square miles in southwest San Diego County and includes 12 jurisdictions. The main goal of the MSCP is to provide a comprehensive conservation program to resolve the haphazard and widespread loss of habitat. By identifying areas for conservation and development, the MSCP will improve the certainty of development outside the preserve. Conservation goals will be achieved by conserving and managing a diverse assemblage of vegetation communities and habitats totaling approximately 171,000 acres. These vegetation communities and habitats will provide for conservation of 85 specific plant, invertebrate, bird and mammal species. /;)-If Page 5, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 The 85 species will be conserved at levels that meet the take authorization issuance standards of the U.S. and California Endangered Species Acts and the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act. The MSCP Subregional Plan also addresses preserve assembly, plan implementation, preserve management and financing. The Plan provides the biological analysis and framework for establishing the preserve size and configuration and protecting the 85 covered species. The preserve will be assembled through three methods including conservation of lands already in public ownership, public acquisition of private lands from willing sellers, and private development contributions through development regulations and mitigation of impacts. The plan establishes general guidelines for compatible land uses and development in the preserve and provides a framework for consistent and coordinated management to ensure conserved habitats are maintained, enhanced or restored over the life of the Plan. The MSCP Subregional Plan provide policies which describe the implementation steps and obligations ofMSCP participants. 2. The Citv of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan Individual jurisdictions participate in the MSCP through adoption of Subarea Plans that implement the MSCP Subregional Plan. In case of conflict between the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Subarea Plan, the Subarea Plan will supersede the MSCP Subregional Plan. The Subarea Plan defines the City's participation in the MSCP and establishes conservation goals and criteria for development for lands within the City's jurisdictional boundary or "Subarea." Major components of the Subarea Plan are as follows: a. Geographic Boundaries and Plarming Components -The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan focuses on the Chula Vista Subarea, or that area strictly within the City's incorporated limits. This is the area for which the City will receive take authorization from the Wildlife Agencies. The Subarea Plan also addresses the Chula Vista MSCP Plarming Area, or that area defined by the City's General Plan. The Chula Vista MSCP Plarming Area includes all areas within the City's incorporated limits as well as the unincorporated areas ofOtay Ranch and Bonita. The Plarming Area is important because of the relationship between the City's Subarea Plan and the adopted County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, which overlaps the Chula Vista MSCP Planning Area. Through adoption of the Otay Ranch GDP/SRP the City and County have encouraged urban development patterns that are oriented to the City ofChula Vista while large blocks of open space occur in the unincorporated area. As land is armexed into the City, take authorization will transfer to the City from the County pursuant to MSCP Annexation Agreements. The Chula Vista MSCP Plarming Area is divided into three planning components: the City, Otay Ranch, and Bonita Planning Components. The City Plarming Component includes all territory located within the City's jurisdictional boundaries, exclusive ofthat area of the City which is part of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP). The Otay Ranch Planning Component includes all land which is part of the Otay Ranch GDP );)-5 Page 6, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 within the City and within the County of San Diego. The Bonita Planning Component includes all land which is outside the City's jurisdictional limits and outside the Otay Ranch GDP. As land is annexed into the City from the Otay Ranch Planning Component, it will remain a part of the Otay Ranch Planning Component, whereas land that annexes into the City from the Bonita Planning Component will become a part of the City Planning Component. These distinctions are important for preserve management, which is discussed in detail later in this staff report. b. Conservation and Take Estimates - Implementation of the Subarea Plan will insure conservation of 4,688 acres ofland within the City's incorporated limits or Subarea. The 4,688 acres is comprised of2,946 acres of uplands, 1,104 acres of wetlands, 559 acres of disturbed habitat, agriculture and other non-habitat land, and, upon annexation of the San Miguel Ranch south parcel, an additional 169 acres of habitat. In addition, conservation that will be added outside the City's incorporated limits to the MSCP Subregional preserve as a result of the City's Subarea Plan will exceed 4,600 acres. Total preserve contributions inside and outside the City will equal at least 9,370 acres. The corresponding take of habitat within the City will equal 4,027 acres including 574 acres for San Miguel Ranch when annexed. Any take of habitat outside the City will be pursuant to individual wildlife permits or another approved Subarea Plan, such as the County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan. c. Species Coverage - The MSCP Subregional Plan provides an analysis of coverage for 85 animal and plant species across the entire South County. The City seeks coverage or take authorization for all 85 species from the Wildlife Agencies, however the 85 species fall within three categories. (i) Eighteen (18) of the 85 species are known to occur within the Chula Vista Subarea and the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan provides a substantial contribution to the subregional conservation program for the 18 species. Conservation of these 18 species covered by the MSCP Subregional Plan is not reliant on other subarea plans. (ii) Thirty-nine (39) of the 85 species are either known to occur within the Chula Vista Subarea, or are not known to occur, but for which suitable habitat exists within the Chula Vista Subarea. Conservation of these 39 species may be reliant on other subarea plans. (iii) Twenty-eight (28) of the 85 species are not likely to be found within the Chula Vista Subarea. Conservation of these 28 species covered by the MSCP Subregional Plan is reliant on other subarea plans. d. Universitv Site - A University Site redesign ("University Redesign") that meets key consistency requirements with the MSCP Subregional Plan is included in the Subarea Plan. The University Redesign does not include a road traversing Salt Creek Canyon to connect the eastern and western university land. ;;J-fp Page 7, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 The University Redesign meets the following three critical objectives: . results in no new significant environmental impacts; . offers equivalent or better biological value; and . is consistent with the objectives of Policy Option 2, described in the MSCP Subregional Plan Final EIRlEIS as conserving a 288-acre Universtiy Site in the Otay Ranch portion of Salt Creek. The University Redesign provides for equal or better preserve design and biological function of the MSCP Preserve by improving conservation through the addition of78.8 acres of habitat and by providing two significant additional wildlife corridor features. By meeting the objectives noted above, the redesign provides additional conservation benefits and meets the requirements of the MSCP Subregional Plan for adjustments to the boundary of the Multiple Habitat Planning Area (MHP A) under a "Like or Equivalent" exchange concept. e. Preserve Assemblv - The Preserve will be assembled primarily through the development entitlement process rather than with public funds. Although not required, 160 acres has been identified for possible acquisition by the City, primarily within the Otay Valley. Properties within the Chula Vista Subarea and Chula Vista MSCP Planning Area have been mapped to facilitate assemblage of the Preserve. (i) Covered Projects Covered Projects contain areas delineated for development and for 100% conservation. Preserve boundaries have been established on a project-by-project basis after evaluation of habitat and species data, project environmental review pursuant to CEQA, review by the Wildlife Agencies, and consideration of how such mitigation could best contribute to the overall MSCP subregional planning effort. Covered projects include Sunbow II, Rancho Del Rey, Rolling Hills Ranch. Bella Lago, Otay Ranch, the Otay Ranch University Site, and San Miguel Ranch when annexed. Coverage for these projects is based on assured dedication of open space, implementation of project-specific mitigation programs, and implementation of specific management directives found in Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan. (ii) 75-100% Conservation Areas The 75-100% Conservation Areas consist primarily of smaller private landholdings located within the planned Preserve. Habitats in these areas will be subject to a new City ordinance called the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance. The HUT will restrict development to 25% of the parcel area, assuring a minimum conservation level of 75%. Many of these properties are being considered for acquisition through the Otay Valley Regional Park land assembly efforts. Jt!)- ? Page 8, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 (iii) Development Areas outside of Covered Projects Compliance with the new HUT Ordinance will be required for all projects greater than one acre in size in mapped development areas outside of Covered Projects. The ordinance will require biological evaluation of all resources onsite. Encroachment into narrow endemic species will be limited and any impact to wetlands or listed noncovered species must be in accordance with applicable federal and state laws. (iv) Amendment Areas Delineation of Preserve and development areas was not resolved for all properties within the Chula Vista Subarea. Lands designated as Minor Amendment Areas will require completion of a Subarea Plan amendment and written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies prior to take authorization becoming effective. Lands designated as Major Amendment Areas will require completion of a Subarea Plan amendment and a pproval of a Habitat Conservation Plan through the Wildlife Agencies before take authorization is issued from the Wildlife Agencies to the City for these areas. f. Implementation - To ensure that all projects within the Chula Vista Subarea are approved and developed consistent with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan, the City will create and utilize several implementation tools. (i) Implementing Ordinances The City has committed to adopting amendments to its grading ordinance prior to issuance oftake authorization. The grading ordinance will be amended to prohibit issuance of a grading permit for areas within a project that will result in impacts to wetland habitats or species, prior to issuance of the applicable federal or state permits. In addition, restrictions on clearing and grubbing of biologically sensitive resources will be incorporated into the grading ordinance. Two new ordinances will also be required to be adopted prior to issuance of take authorization: 1) a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HUT) Ordinance and Grazing Abatement Ordinance. The HUT Ordinance will establish mitigation standards and regulate development projects located outside of Covered Projects, which may have an impact on Covered Species and sensitive habitat. 2) A Grazing Abatement Ordinance will implement the Otay Ranch Range Management Plan and ensure that grazing ceases on lands offered for dedication into the preserve. (ii) Protection of Narrow Endemic Species Narrow Endemic Species are species with limited habitat ranges and require additional measures to ensure their long-term viability is maintained. The draft J~~g Page 9, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 Subarea Plan provides for special protections for these species through coverage requirements for Rolling Hills Ranch and Bella Lago, and through the requirement for establishment of an Otay Tarplant Preserve on San Miguel Ranch. Additional protections to narrow endemic species include the following: . Development areas within Covered Projects are authorized for take of covered habitats and species, including narrow endemic species, by the Subarea Plan. Development areas located outside of Covered Projects will be required to limit impacts to covered narrow endemic species to 20% of the project area, except as expressly authorized by the Wildlife Agencies pursuant to the Subarea Plan. . Impacts to covered narrow endemic species throughout the Preserve will be limited to 5%, except as expressly authorized by the Wildlife Agencies pursuant to the Subarea Plan. g. Future Annexations - The Subarea Plan outlines a procedure for the transfer of take authorization to the City when territory is annexed that is already subject to another jurisdiction's approved MSCP Subarea Plan. h. Boundarv Adjustments - The MSCP Subregional Plan provides that boundary adjustments to the Preserve may be made without amendment to the Subarea Plan, if certain equivalency findings can be made. Such findings are to be made by the City and must have concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies. The Subarea Plan contains language that differentiates between "mapping conflicts" and "boundary adjustments," and outlines a process for notifying the Wildlife Agencies. 1. Preserve Assemblv Accounting and Reporting - The Subarea Plan outlines the requirement for the City to provide the Wildlife Agencies with an annual report of take and conservation. J. Unforeseen and Changed Circumstances - The Subarea Plan contains assurances for unforeseen and changed circumstances. In general, an unforeseen circumstance occurs when there are changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a habitat conservation plan that could not be reasonably anticipated at the time the habitat conservation plan was negotiated and result in substantial and adverse change in the status of the covered species. In the case of an unforeseen circumstance, neither the City nor its third-party beneficiaries would be required to provide additional land, land restrictions, or financial compensation beyond that required by the Chula Vista Subarea Plan at the time the incidental take permit is issued. Changed circumstances occur when reasonably foreseeable circumstances such as natural catastrophes that normally occur in the area affect covered species. The Subarea Plan defines the types of changed circumstances that can occur in Chula Vista and includes guidelines for determining the severity of a changed circumstance. Remediation of damaged preserve areas may be required if after assessment of the changes the City determines this is necessary. /~~9 Page 10, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 k. Critical Habitat - The Subarea Plan has been written so that upon issuance of Take Authorization, any existing federal Critical Habitat designation for Covered Species for lands within the Chula Vista Subarea will be removed entirely from within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea. In addition, if Critical Habitat is designated for any of the Covered Species after take authorization is issued to the City, the Subarea Plan states neither the City nor the third-party beneficiaries will be required to commit additional land, be subject to additional land restrictions, or provide additional financial compensation beyond that described in the Subarea Plan. Any new designations will not apply to any lands within the Chula Vista Subarea, the covered species or habitat conserved by the City's Subarea Plan, or otherwise affect any of the conservation strategies or mitigation measures required by the Subarea Plan. 1. Land Uses in the Preserve - The Subarea Plan outlines the types of land uses that are compatible, conditionally compatible, and incompatible with the Preserve. Public access and recreation, emergency, safety and police services, preserve management, and scientific and biologic activities are all identified as compatible with the Preserve. m. Infrastructure and Public Facilities - The Subarea Plan provides for two categories of facilities: Planned and Future Facilities. Planned Facilities are those that have been specifically identified by the City of Chula Vista to serve development approved by the City. Planned Facilities will be permitted in the preserve through take authorization pursuant to the Subarea Plan, subject only to narrow endemic species restrictions. Future facilities are those facilities that may be necessary to support City services or planned development in the future, or are ancillary to Planned Facilities. Because future facility needs cannot be specified at this time, Future Facilities have been defined by facility categories. Impacts to covered species and habitats from Future Facilities will be limited to two acres per project, and a cumulative 50 acres, as well as narrow endemic species impact restrictions. n. Active Recreation Areas in the Otav Vallev Regional Park - The Subarea Plan provides for a total of 246 acres of active recreation area in the Otay Valley Regional Park. The configuration of the 246 acres of active recreation may be modified based on the presence of narrow endemic species, primarily Otay tarplant. However, if modifications occur, no less than 246 acres of equivalent active recreation areas are assured. This will insure the City's ability to develop the intended uses, including playing fields and other active recreational facilities. o. National Wildlife Refuge - The Subarea Plan provides language that will enable the City to fully support the transfer of certain Preserve land, located east of Otay Reservoir, into the USFWS San Diego National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). The language provides that prior to transfer of lands to the USFWS, any easements required to insure construction of infrastructure and trails necessary to support development designated by the City and/or County General Plan will be specifically incorporated into related transfer documents. In addition, the Subarea Plan states that if any portion of the Otay Ranch Jr9 ~ / 0 Page 11, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 Preserve becomes part of the National Wildlife Refuge, the funding and implementation for all management and monitoring in the NWR will be the responsibility of the USFWS. p. Preserve Management Studies - The Subarea Plan provides for the completion of two special studies related to preserve management: 1) a baseline biological survey for the City's central preserve; and 2) completion of the Otay Valley Management Study discussed with Council at the August 19, 1999 MSCP workshop. The primary purpose of both studies will be to define biological management "functional units" for these two preserve areas, and to determine on which species and/or habitats the management in a particular biological functional unit will focus. q. Preserve Funding - Assembly of the preserve does not rely on public acquisition of private property. The preserve will be acquired through the entitlement process and/or pursuant to agreements between landowners and the Wildlife Agencies. If land acquisition funding does become available, the City may elect to acquire land to add to the preserve. In the North City and Otay Ranch Preserve Management Areas, preserve maintenance, management and biological monitoring will be funded through existing or future financing districts. In the Central City Preserve Management Area (PMA) where total preserve area equals 1,285 acres, preserve maintenance and some management will be funded through existing finance districts. Additional preserve management and biological monitoring to meet MSCP requirements will be funded by the City. The MSCP Subregional Plan estimates an average per acre maintenance, management and biological monitoring cost of $50 (year 2000 dollars), adjusted annually for inflation. Consistent with the Implementing Agreements of the County and City of San Diego, the Chula Vista Implementing Agreement will commit the City to management activities in the Central City Preserve Management Area that will not exceed $50 per acre. Based on the funding level provided through existing finance districts in the Central City PMA, the City will need to provide approximately $10-17 per acre or approximately $13,000-22,000 annually to meet the $50 preserve management and monitoring level. Additional preserve management activities in the Central City PMA may be undertaken by the City, and staff has committed that the City will seek other funding to augment this budget. Such additional funding may include grants, support of a regional preserve management funding program, or other resources not known at this time. 3. The Final Environmental Impact Reoort / Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) and Citv of Chula Vista Addendum In order to protect species listed under state and federal laws from the adverse affects of development, the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") proposes the assembly and management of a habitat preserve. The Final EIR/EIS for Issuance of Take Authorizations For Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area, issued January 1997 j;J.- II Page 12, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 (hereinafter referred to as the "Final EIRlEIS"), contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the MSCP. Serving as a "co-lead agency" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code, S21067) and the National Environmental Policy Act (''NEPA'') 42 U.S.C. S4321 et seq.; see also 40 C.F.R. SIS01.S), the City of San Diego and the USFWS certified the Final EIRlEIS so that local jurisdictions within the plan area can rely on the MSCP and analysis in the Final EIRlEIS when considering the adoption of Subarea plans. As a responsible agency, the City is not required to certify the document, however, the City must consider the information included in the Final EIRlEIS prepared by the lead agency and make findings based upon its independent judgement. In addition, the City has prepared an Addendum to the Final EIRIEIS to reflect minor technical changes and additions to the September II, 2000 City ofChula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan made since the 1996 Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan was included in the August 1996 MSCP Subregional Plan, Volume II. 4. Citv of Chula Vista MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources (MIAMP) The MIAMP is a document required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It includes no new substantive requirements rather it summarizes the relevant requirements of the MSCP Subregional Plan, City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and Implementing Agreement and identifies the entity responsible for carrying out each requirement. The purpose of the MIAMP is to combine in a simple, abbreviated, and accessible format the contents of the three documents to create a tool for use by City staff to insure implementation of all conditions of coverage. 5. Implementing Agreement The Implementing Agreement is the contract between the City and the Wildlife Agencies and forms the basis for the granting of a Section 10(a)(I)(B) Permit by the USFWS and take authorization by the CDFG. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, bind each of the parties to perform the obligations, responsibilities, and tasks assigned, and to provide remedies and recourse should any of the parties fail to perform. Key components of the Implementing Agreement area as follows: a. The Implementing Agreement and corresponding federal and state take permits are for a 50-year period. b. The Subarea Plan is severable. If the permit held by another jurisdiction in the MSCP is revoked or suspended, the City's permit will remain in effect as long as the City is performing its responsibilities and obligations under the Implementing Agreement and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. c. The Implementing Agreement limits the amount of land and money the City will be required to commit in order to receive and maintain its take authorization from the /~ -/;;-. Page 13, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 Wildlife Agencies. If the Wildlife Agencies find that additional land, land restrictions, or financial compensation beyond that required pursuant to the City's MSCP Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement are necessary to provide for the conservation of the covered species, the obligation for the additional measures will not rest with the City or the third-party beneficiaries (landowners). d. The Implementing Agreement addresses the listing of new species. If any of the species covered by the MSCP Subregional Plan is subsequently listed as threatened or endangered, the City's federal and state take permit will cover take of the newly listed species without any new requirements. If a species that is not covered by the MSCP Subregional Plan is subsequently listed as threatened or endangered, Wildlife Agencies will identify specific conditions necessary to protect the species and will determine of those measures are already included in the MSCP Subregional Plan. If additional measures are required, the City can choose to include the new measures in its Subarea Plan and receive coverage for the species, or it can choose not amend its Subarea Plan and not receive coverage for the species. e. The Implementing Agreement addresses Critical Habitat issues. Upon issuance of Take Authorization to the City, any existing critical habitat designation for Covered Species for lands within the Chula Vista Subarea will be removed entirely from within the boundaries of the Chula Vista Subarea. In addition, if critical habitat is designated for any of the Covered Species after take authorization is issued to the City, the Subarea Plan states neither the City nor the third-party beneficiaries will be required to commit additional land, be subject to additional land restrictions, or provide additional financial compensation beyond that described in the Subarea Plan. Any new designations will not apply to any lands within the Chula Vista Subarea, the covered species or habitat conserved by the City's Subarea Plan, or otherwise affect any of the conservation strategies or mitigation measures required by the Subarea Plan. f. The Implementing Agreement outlines the funding responsibilities of the City. Assembly of the preserve in those areas designated for 100% conservation will be entirely through the entitlement process or pursuant to agreements between landowners and the Wildlife Agencies. Assembly of the preserve in those areas designated for 75- 100% conservation will rely on the entitlement process, except if funding becomes available for the acquisition of these private lands. For preserve maintenance, management, and monitoring, the City has committed to providing $50.00 per acre per year (FY 00-0 I) as adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index. g. The Implementing Agreement defines how private property owners can establish third- party beneficiary status and share in the benefits of the take permit issued to the City and describes the assurances provided to private property owners once they achieve third- party beneficiary status. Third-party beneficiary status will be established when the following occurs: . necessary mitigation has been provided; . requirement to maintain the biological values of the mitigation land is provided and is immediately effective; and /d-/3 Page 14, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 . the mitigation has been imposed through a condition of development (such as development agreement or tentative map condition) that is recorded and runs with the land and that is enforceable against and binding upon the third-party beneficiary. Third-party beneficiary status may be attained for an entire project or may be attained in phases of a project so long as the mitigation for each phase is not functionally dependent upon the mitigation for a subsequent phase. Once third-party beneficiary status has been attained, the Implementing Agreement protects the landowner from additional land or financial obligations. h. The Implementing Agreement requires the to City complete the following: . maintain accounting for take and conservation of habitat acreage; . prepare and submit an annual report to the Wildlife Agencies of take and conservation of habitat acreage; . meet annually with the Wildlife Agencies to review and coordinate implementation of the Subarea Plan; . every three years, in conjunction with other participating MSCP jurisdictions, prepare a report on the status of the MSCP Subregional Plan and hold a public hearing; . perform biological monitoring, involving the collection and analysis of data on specific species and habitats; and . allow the Wildlife Agencies to complete an audit every three or more years as needed. C. ISSUES I. Public Comments received on the February 16, 2000 Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subara Plan The City received 17 letters of comment from the Wildlife Agencies, environmental groups, and developers and landowners on the February 16,2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. Many of the issues raised in these letters were easily addressed through revisions and greatly improved the Subarea Plan. Other issues such as placement and extent of infrastructure in the Preserve, the configuration of the university site, configuration of active recreation areas in the Otay Valley Regional Park, cessation of cattle grazing, regulatory implementation, protection for narrow endemic species, boundary adjustment policies, preserve management, designation of critical habitat, and unforeseen and changed circumstances were identified as major policy issues requiring deliberate negotiations with the Wildlife Agencies. All of the major issues were addressed at the two-day retreat with the Wildlife Agencies in June. By August 2000 the Subarea Plan had been revised to incorporate the resolution of all major issues. The September II, 2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan adequately addresses the issues raised in the 17 comment letters. Enclosed for review are the City's responses to comments received on the February 16,2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan (see attachment 3). );;-/L! Page 15, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 2. September 25.2000 Correspondence from the Wildlife Agencies on the August 18. 2000 Screencheck Subara Plan On September 25, 2000 the Wildlife Agencies submitted a comment letter to the City on the August 18, 2000 Screencheck Subarea Plan (see attachment 4). In that letter the Agencies recognized the amount of effort the City has put into preparation of the August 18 Screencheck and provided 49 comments to assist the City in finalizing its Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. For ease of reference, each comment in the Agency letter has been numbered. With the exception ofthree comments considered "major issues" (comment numbers 5, 10 and 13), the other 46 comments are "minor" or "technical" in nature. To respond to the 46 comments, the City has revised the September 11, 2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan and created a strikeout/underline version to highlight the revisions (see attachment 5). Staff believes the September 25th Wildlife Agency comments have been adequately addressed and has provided a written response to the comments (see attachment 6). The three major issues include: a) preserve management implementation priorities, b) general program funding, and c) derivation of the $50.00 per acre preserve management funding cap. The three major issues are discussed below. a. Preserve Management Implementation Priorities During the June retreat with the Wildlife Agencies the timing of preparation and implementation of area-specific management directives was discussed as it related to the balancing of resources. The City is responsible for funding area-specific management directives for the Central City Preserve Management Area (PMA), which consists of several open space canyons surrounded by development (see Figure lIon page 144 of the September 11 Draft Subarea Plan). Because there is no baseline biological data for the Central City PMA, the City agreed during the retreat to complete a baseline biological assessment of the Central City PMA. However, the City had already initiated a special study of the eastern Otay River Valley, including Salt Creek and Wolf Canyons. The Otay Valley study is not a baseline biological study, rather is intended to identify existing or expected functions for the various biological units in the study area and identify potential areas for future habitat restoration or enhancement. Completion of the Otay Valley study has proved to be time-consuming for the City. At the retreat, the City indicated that due to lack of resources, it could not simultaneously complete the Otay Valley study and the Central City PMA baseline biological study. The Wildlife Agencies agreed to a phased approach, whereby the City would complete the Otay River Valley study and then commence the Central City PMA biological baseline study. In their September 25, 2000 correspondence, the Wildlife Agencies stated the phased approach for completion of the studies is unacceptable, and that the City should plan for earlier development ofthe area-specific management directives in the Central City PMA. Staff is still addressing this comment and prior to October 17th will prepare and distribute a supplemental memorandum to this staff report. See Wildlife Agencies' comment number lOin attachment 4 to this staff report. /;2.-/5 Page 16, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 b. General Funding In their September 25, 2000 correspondence, the Wildlife Agencies indicated additional details were needed for how funding for acquisition, monitoring and management will be ensured for the life of the 50-year take authorization permit. Staffis still addressing this comment and prior to October 17th will prepare and distribute a supplemental memorandum to this staff report. See Wildlife Agencies' comment number 5 in attachment 4 to this staff report. c. Derivation of the $50 Per Acre Preserve Management Funding Cap In their September 25, 2000 correspondence, the Wildlife Agencies indicated more information should be provided about how it determined that the $50 per acre funding cap will allow for all Subarea Plan management requirements to be met. Staff is still addressing this comment and prior to October 17th will prepare and distribute a supplemental memorandum to this staff report. See Wildlife Agencies' comment number 13 in attachment 4 to this staffreport. 3. Unforeseen and Changed Circumstances The February 16,2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan did not address Unforeseen and Changed Circumstances, but in their March 31, 2000 correspondence, the Wildlife Agencies requested the issue be included in the Subarea Plan. The City and Wildlife Agencies discussed the issue at the June retreat. The City crafted Unforeseen and Changed Circumstances language for the Subarea Plan, but it was not ready to be included in the August 18,2000 Screencheck Subarea Plan forwarded to retreat participants for review and comment. Once ready, the language was forwarded to retreat participants on August 29,2000. Based on the delayed submittal of Section 4.7, the Unforeseen and Changed Circumstances language to the Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Agencies were unable to provide comments on Section 4.7 in their September 25, 2000 comment letter. The City anticipates the Wildlife Agencies will issue comments on the Unforeseen and Changed Circumstances language and Section 4.7 of the Subarea Plan may need to be revised to address the comments. 4. Potential Coastal Commission Involvement in Subarea Plan Approval On July 26, 2000 the California Coastal Commission notified the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) (part of the U.S. Department of Commerce) of its intention to review the City of Carls bad's application to USFWS for an incidental take permit under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. On August 31, 2000 the OCRM responded by authorizing the Coastal Commission to complete a consistency review. The review period was established as six months from the original notice of the activity or within three months from the Coastal Commission's receipt of Carlsbad's consistency certification and supporting information, whichever period terminated last. The "trigger" for such a consistency review is Section 1456(c)(3)(A) of the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act, which states, "After final approval by the Secretary of a state's management program, any /r3 - /~ Page 17, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 applicant for a required Federal license or permit to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state shall provide in the application to the licensing or permitting agency a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies ofthe state's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program." Although the similarities between the City of Chula Vista and the City of Carlsbad do not extend beyond both Cities' desire to receive an incidental take permit pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Commission could request a consistency review of the City of Chula Vista's Draft MSCP Subarea Plan based merely on the broad trigger in the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act. The City is currently on schedule to receive its take permits from the Wildlife Agencies by January IS, 2001. This is a critical date, because the California gnatcatcher breeding season begins February IS and grading in areas with nesting gnatcatcher pairs would not be allowed to start after February 14,2000. The potential delay caused by a consistency review would delay the commencement of grading in many areas of the City until after August IS, 2001. To address potential concerns by the Coastal Commission regarding incidental take impacts in the Local Coastal Program(LCP) Area, staff has added language in the Subarea Plan to indicate if amendments to the LCP are needed, the amendments will not be required to be completed prior to issuance of take authorization by the Wildlife Agencies to the City outside of the LCP Area (see pagel 16 of attachment 5). 5. Miscellaneous Changes to the Seotember II. 2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan As staff has reviewed and edited the September II, 2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, minor revisions have been made. These changes are identified in attachment 6 to this staff report. The corresponding text revisions may be reviewed in attachment 5, the strikeout/underline version of the Draft Subarea Plan. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the MSCP is a necessary program that will provide for the protection of sensitive species both locally and regionally, and that by actively participating in this program which is based on preserving large blocks of connected habitat necessary for species survival, the City will both protect vital resources in the region and provide for some assurance in implementing its vision through its General Plan. The City has taken pains to appropriately plan for the protection oflarge open space areas while delineating future urban boundaries. Staff recommends that Council approve this program and the policy documents and implementing tools necessary for its success and take action as cited in the aforementioned recommendations. /d--/1 Page 18, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 FISCAL IMPACT: 1. The City has utilized MNA Consulting for preparation of the Draft Subarea Plan and associated tasks and has utilized Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP for legal services related to the MSCP. Costs and funding sources associated with those consulting services are as follows: Original Agreement I't Amendment 2n Amendment $ 127,000.00 Development Processing Agreements $ 77,760.00 General Fund $ 142,200.00 General Fund initially, but cost to be recouped through Development Processing Agreements Total Contracts $ 347,660.00 I" Amendment $ 20,000.00 Development Processing Agreements $ 12,500.00 General Fund $ 25,000.00 General Fund initially, but cost to be recouped through Development Processing Agreements Original Agreement Total Contracts $ 57,500.00 A total of $314,200.00 of MSCP consulting services have been or will be paid through development agreements, while a total of $90,260.00 ofMSCP consulting services have been paid through the City's General Fund. 2. Should a "Changed Circumstance" occur in the Preserve, the City will be responsible for restoring the damaged habitat area. These costs could not be estimated until such time as a Changed Circumstance occurs. Any funding for Preserve restoration based on a Changed Circumstance would be funded through the City's General Fund. 3. Additional information pertaining to the Fiscal Impact ofthe City's MSCP program will be distributed in a supplemental memorandum to this staff report. Information to be addressed includes the following: . Preparation of implementation ordinances and guidelines . Review ofprojects seeking permits . Preparation of a baseline biological study for the Central City Preserve Management Area (PMA) J;}./~ Page 19, Item: 12 Meeting Date: 10/17/00 . Completing area-specific management directives for the Central City PMA . Enhanced management and biological monitoring for the 1,285-acre Central City PMA The following attachments to this staffreoort were alreadv orovided to Planning Commission and Citv Council on Seotember 29. 2000: 1. Final Multiole Soecies Conservation Program: MSCP Plan, dated August 1998 ("MSCP Subregional Plan") 2. Recirculated Draft Joint EIR/EIS for Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Soecies Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiole Soecies Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area, dated August 1996 ("Draft EIRIEIS") 3. Final EIRIEIS for Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Soecies Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Soecies Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area, dated January 1997 ("Final EIRIEIS") 4. Consideration of and Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS for the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) by the City ofChula Vista, dated September 11, 2000 5. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 ("Subarea Plan") 6. Implementing Agreement by and between United States Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Chula Vista to Establish a Multiple Species Conservation Program for the Conservation of Threatened, Endangered and other Species in the Vicinity ofChula Vista, California dated September 21, 2000 ("Implementing Agreement") The following attachments are orovided with this staff reoort: 1. CEQA Findings of Fact 2. City of Chula Vista MSCP Mitigation and Implementation Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources 3. City Responses to public comments on the February 16, 2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan 4. September 25, 2000 Wildlife Agencies comment letter on the August 18,2000 Screencheck Subarea Plan 5. October 9, 2000 revisions to the Draft Subarea Plan in strikeout and underline format 6. Letter from the City to the Wildlife Agencies responding to: a) Wildlife Agency comments dated September 25, 2000 on the August 18 Screencheck Subarea Plan and b) identifying other necessary revisions to the Subarea Plan. (H:ISharedIPlanningIChristinalAgd Statement l017.doc) / /f - /q RESOLUTION NO. PCM-95-017 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AS THE FRAMEWORK PLAN; ADOPT THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN CONDITIONED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE FUTURE EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES OF AN IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT SUBST ANTIALL Y IN THE FORM OF THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, 2) THE ISSUANCE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND 3) THE ISSUANCE OF TAKE PERMITS WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT; AND FIND THAT THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND AFFIRM ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") Planning Area ("Final EIRlEIS") in January 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP Subregional Plan in August 1998; and WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City of Chula Vista ("City") participated in the preparation of the Final EIRlEIS through consultation and comment; and WHEREAS, the MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions including the City of Chula Vista would participate in the MSCP Subregional Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August 1996 for inclusion in the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their environmental review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (hereinafter referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") have continued to negotiate a number of aspects of the Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the conditions of coverage for covered projects, the type and extent of protection for narrow endemic species, the amount and type of 1 /;J f1~ / public facilities and infrastructure to be allowed in the Preserve (as defined in the Subarea Plan), and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the Preserve; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated February 16, 2000 to the Wildlife Agencies and the general public and received 17 public comment letters from various environmental groups, landowners, developers and the Wildlife Agencies; ahd WHEREAS, the City continued to worked with the Wildlife Agencies and various landowners, developers and environmental groups to respond to comments and resolve issues during the spring and summer of2000; and WHEREAS, on September 21,2000, the City issued a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000 and a Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the general public; and WHEREAS, the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, follows the Model Implementing Agreement prepared as part of the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000 the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a complete application for a Section 10(a)(I)(B) permit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game a complete application for a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with both applications including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000 and a Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City desires to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and adopt the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000 including revisions attached hereto ("Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan"), but that the adoption shall be conditioned upon I) the City's future approval and execution of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, 2) the issuance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of a biological opinion that is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and 3) the issuance of a Section 10(a)(I)(B) permit pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and a take authorization permit pursuant to section 2835 of the State of California Endangered Species Act with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and /J-IJ-{}- 2 WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October 17, 2000 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, the City's approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan are discretionary actions covered by the Final EIRlEIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City has a more limited role than does a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the City has considered the Final EIRlEIS prepared by the lead agency together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and has reached its own conclusion about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendum dated September II, 2000 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible agency; and WHEREAS, the City has issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, in conformance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which enable the City to make full use of the Final EIRlEIS and the Addendum (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15101, 15093 and 15096, subd. (h)); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an MSCP Mitigation And Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources dated October12, 2000, in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(l); and WHEREAS, the approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will not constitute a binding set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and until I) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency issues a biological opinion which affirms the conservation strategies in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, 2) take permits are issued by both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and 3) the City approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, full implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will also be subject to the City's future adoption of a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take ("HUT") ordinance and amendments to the grading ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista adopts Resolution No. PCM 95-017 recommending that the City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista do the following: A) Consider the Final EIRlEIS; B) Determine that no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is necessary; C) Find that the Addendum, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing 3 / ~fI ~ 5 Agreement Monitoring Program are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; D) Approve the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program; E) Approve the MSCP Subregional Plan; F) Adopt the Draft City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, including revisions, conditioned on the following: 1) the future approval of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Draft Implementing Agreement, 2) the issuance of a biological opinion that is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement, and 3) the issuance of take permits with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement; and G) Find that the Draft Implementing Agreement is consistent with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Planning Commission of Chula Vista, California this 17th day of October, 2000 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Bob Thomas, Chair ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary Exhibit: Exhibit A ~ Draft City Council Resolution H:ISharedlAttorneylReso PC MSCP.doc 4 ;;)11-11 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AS THE FRAMEWORK PLAN; ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN CONDITIONED ON THE FOLLOWING: 1) THE FUTURE EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES OF AN IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM OF THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, 2) THE ISSUANCE OF A BIOLOGICAL OPINION CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AND 3) THE ISSUANCE OF TAKE PERMITS WITH CONDITIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT; AND FINDING THAT THE DRAFT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN AND AFFIRMING ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, as lead agencies for the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") Subregional Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") Planning Area ("Final EIRlEIS") in January 1997 and adopted the Final MSCP Subregional Plan in August 1998; and WHEREAS, as a responsible agency, the City of Chula Vista ("City") participated in the preparation of the Final EIR/EIS through consultation and comment; and WHEREAS, the MSCP Subregional Plan contemplated that local jurisdictions including the City of Chula Vista would participate in the MSCP Subregional Plan and seek federal and state take authorization by adopting a subarea plan consistent with the conservation strategies contained in the MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, the City prepared and submitted a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in August 1996 for inclusion in the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan and for consideration by the lead agencies in their environmental review of the Draft MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the City, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game (hereinafter referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") have continued to negotiate a number of aspects of the Subarea Plan, including but not limited to, the refinement of the conditions of coverage for covered projects, the type and extent of protection for narrow endemic species, the amount and type of public facilities and infrastructure to be allowed in the Preserve (as defined in the Subarea Plan), and an acceptable configuration for the university site adjacent to the Preserve; and 1 p.,B-/ WHEREAS, the City issued a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated February 16, 2000 to the Wildlife Agencies and the general public and received 17 public comment letters from various environmental groups, landowners, developers and the Wildlife Agencies; and WHEREAS, the City continued to worked with the Wildlife Agencies and various landowners, developers and environmental groups to respond to comments and resolve issues during the spring and summer of2000; and WHEREAS, on September 21,2000, the City issued a Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 and a Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, to the Wildlife Agencies and the general public; and WHEREAS, the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, follows the Model Implementing Agreement prepared as part of the adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2000 the City submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a complete application for a Section JO(a)(I)(B) permit for incidental take pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and submitted to the California Department ofFish and Game a complete application for a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the California Endangered Species Act, with both applications including the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 and a Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City desires to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and adopt the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 including revisions attached hereto ("Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan"), but that the adoption shall be conditioned upon 1) the City's future approval and execution of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Implementing.Agreement dated September 20, 2000, 2) the issuance by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of a biological opinion that is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and 3) the issuance of a Section 10(a)(I)(B) permit pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the State of California Endangered Species Act with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council set the time and place for a joint hearing on said project and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised on October 17, 2000 in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and City Council; and 2 //}-13-:;' WHEREAS, the City's approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan are discretionary actions covered by the Final EIRlEIS, and therefore, as a responsible agency, the City has a more limited role than does a lead agency under the California Enviromnental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and WHEREAS, the City has considered the Final EIRlEIS prepared by the lead agency together with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and has reached its own conclusion about whether and how to approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Addendmn dated September 11, 2000 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164 to fulfill the City's obligations as a responsible agency; and WHEREAS, the City has issued Findings of Fact for each of the significant environmental effects of implementing the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, in conformance with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, which enable the City to make full use of the Final EIRlEIS and the Addendum (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15101, 15093 and 15096, subd. (h)); and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an MSCP Mitigation And Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 12, 2000, in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6, subd. (a)(I); and WHEREAS, the approval ofthe MSCP Subregional Plan and the conditional adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will not constitute a binding set of obligations on any public or private entity within the City of Chula Vista unless and until 1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issues a biological opinion which affirms the conservation strategies in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, 2) take permits are issued by both Wildlife Agencies that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000, and 3) the City approves and executes an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and WHEREAS, full implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will also be subject to the City's future adoption of a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take ("HUT") ordinance and amendments to the grading ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, recommend, determine, resolve and order as follows: A. The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission and City Council at the joint public hearing on this project held on October 17, 2000 are hereby incorporated into the record of proceedings. These proceedings, evidence and documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision makers, together with all documents identified in the CEQA Findings of Fact, shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any California Environmental Quality Act claims; and 3 /:;.13-3 B. The City Council does hereby consider that the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area ("Final EIRlEIS") prepared and certified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of San Diego in January 1997 adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; and C. The City Council does hereby determine that no subsequent or supplement environmental impact report is necessary for the City to conditionally approve and adopt the MSCP Subregional Plan and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; and D. The City Council does hereby find that the Addendum, the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources are prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City ofChula Vista; and E. The City Council does hereby approve the MSCP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources dated October _, 2000; and F. The City Council does hereby approve the MSCP Subregional Plan dated August 1998 as the framework plan for the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan; and G. The City Council does hereby adopt the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and does hereby find that the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan is consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan and will provide for the conservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of biological resources for protected species while at the same time allowing the City to carry out its development plans, and conditions the adoption on all of the following: 1. The future approval and execution of an Implementing Agreement substantially in the form of the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 21,2000; 2. The issuance of a biological opinion that is consistent with the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000; and 3. The issuance of a Section lO(a)(l)(B) permit pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and a take authorization permit pursuant to Section 2835 of the State of California Endangered Species Act with conditions that are consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000. 4 /;)6-'1 H. The City Council does hereby find that the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000 is consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and does hereby affirm the submittal of the Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 20, 2000 to the Wildlife Agencies. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Leiter Director of Planning and Building CA-~~ John M. Kaheny City Attorney H:\SharedlAttorney\Reso CC MSCP.doc 5 /;213 ,5 o n - o C" CD .., ....Ii. ...... ~ I\) o o o C- O -. :] ,... "'tJ - Q) :] :] -. :] "'tJCC c: 0 2:0 n. 3 :a: 3 (I) -. Q) tn tn .., -. :5. 0 CC :] ........ o -. ~ o o c: :] C') -. - 3: t: - .... -. "'C - (D (A "'C (D n -. (D en o o ~ en (D < Q) .... -. o ~ "'C ~ o (Q ~ Q) 3 s:: en (") "'tI "'tI - l>> ~ )> ., CD l>> !!~ ii ~ '" > m ~ a; g. ~ I;I'~I '9 ",,".. " ~ ;;; ~~ ~ S' U:~' ~"'."N.(Ir,.;~ 'r-:-"iig :,fg '1;',0::::' .....'!"l g. !!!.! ;0.. "'Cocns: "'O"Cc: o ::::J CD - CC(l)(")~ .., CD -. "C 3<~CD Q) r+ -. o ::::J I ~.JIl~ .1 rlfl\~ II I IIInlomn~~~~.t' (Vf. fHtHli & rr, I IV rJ .d '" . f r om 111lI1 flJlllfflU' . rilr 1*I"f I I f1lldrtHi n NI II r' i I OJ rlIlorOOlIlor::;EC 0l(1)0l(1)0l0C::0l0(1)(C cac:::::;;Ol::;;Ol=l:::;;:::::J(fl::r (1) -- 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 <9 .... 'j'" ,:::::J..., ""0l:E""0-(1)- 0- (C :::::J 1Il :::::J _ __ :::::J -- =l 0 -- (fl- -- (1) -- :::::J -- - ~ 0 (1) 0l=0l2(C0l(1)(flCD 0.. C/) 2 (fl" (C 0 0 (1) 0.. :::::J 0.. C/) ~ 0' ~_ ~ 2" :E ~ g ~ 0 OlOlC::coo(fl ....:::1.'<0l ~~Cfo!!t:E CD~-o::g :::::J Ol Q 0 co ..., < 0 (1) :::::J::ro ::r:::::J :::::J <..., Ol (fl:E (1) (1) ..., ::r -O:::::J"" ..., Q1_ (fl Ol (1) - -O=lo.. Ol 0 (fl a:E-o :E ~ ~ OZlIlO::;E:::tJO 000l0l::r(1)0l o ~ 0.. :::::J -- 0.. = -o::r Ol.... 0.. ..... (1) (1) (1) 0.. cP -- Q ........,0l0lnt'S2.:::::J (fl :::::J (C ... ~ -- -(CO(1)Ol ::r::r(1) 0 (1)(C 0- 0l0l 00.....,..., < =l (fl -- (1) 0 ~ co- (1) 0- .... :E ..., OO-:::::J -0 SJ1.. C'i" Ol :::::J .., c.. Ul ::] < (1) ::l (1) C" .., Cl -- (1) Ul C/) Ol ;::;: 3 Ol Cil ::r (fl ~ -0 -0 (1) ..., O)>:::tJC/) Ol"" --Ol -...,<..., :::;;0(1)~ 0'< Cil 0 3 0 ---- __ (fl 0.. (1) 0l0(1)(C ..., c: ....., 0 (1)-0l- 0.. ::r -- Ol , :E ~ -- (1)(1)(fl~ (C(fl::r(fl (C CD :::::!_ ::r (1) 3 3 :::::!- 0.. -0 3 -- ~ a 0 ~ (C~ C/)OC/) OlQlO :::::J:::::Js. o (C ::r -- (1) :E (1) , (1) (C :T (fl o ..., _ ::r0(1) O Ol ..., _:::::J 3(1)-0 (1) 0.. 0 0..:E:::::J =::ro.. N -. r-+ Ol -0 c:: ...,....~ 0..0l- =(1) "'tJ - Cl ::] -- Ul C/)OC/)<OC/) :::::J tii Ol Ol Ci Ol ~'< :::::J ij5- c:: ;::;: (1) tii O(C :::: 3 o ..., co- Ol (fl- Ol ::r -0 (C CD 0- Cil o iil 0 0.. ::;- ::r -:::::JO- 0..0- Ol .... Ol 0 (fl" -- ...,c,a. co 0..0- " -(1) (1) (fl o,<Ol& 0l0l~(1) o Ol 2" ~ (fl "C/)"'CC/)OOC/)C/) (1)OlOlcoCitiiOlOl 'j'":::::J3:::::Jc::,<:::::J:::::J ~g~~::;3gg < (1)(fl-7(fl0l (1)(1) (C ~ (C(C ~0(1)-g::;~00 0- :::::!- 0.. 8.. Ol Ol .... 3 c:: 2 ~- -- :::::J 3 5 0::::3(1)0l;:;:~..., :::::J 0 :E (1) Ol ::; :::::J Ol :::::J (1) (1) Ol 0' ..., , ..., - (fl 3 0.. 0 -- ::!! -- __ (1) (1) Ol 0 Ol :::::J --:E .... Ol (1) (1) ~ ..., ~g>QQ.g>g>~ =l :::::J ~ ::;; co :::::J 0 Os:: 00l0:E :E -- s:: =l 0.. ;;;- ~ .L (C (1) =_ -- w ~ ~ ffi [l OlOt5 ~ 30 < - :::::J (1)(fl3""0l(C:::::J 0.. Ol -- 0 < 0 Ol < :::::J c:: 0.. ..., ~o"""'::+~(t)a. --0' (C"":::::J (1) (C-< (1)(fl= ~ @=,.....O> (fl (fl Ol Ol ::r (fl"" Ol 0.. (1) -I '< " (1) o o < CD .., Cl cc CD - ::] c.. (1) " (1) ::] c.. (1) ::] -- o o < (1) Dl cc (1) C (1) " (1) ::] c.. (1) ::] -- o o < CD ., CD c. en "C CD n -. CD (J) 0)> 0 -(J) ~ c co.. - CJI Q) C1> "0 - 0.. :::r g ~ !::!: Q) CJI -- C1> ~< -. - :fs;: Q) ~ 0.. -- .., ~ 0.. C1> g Z "0 co. 0.. I 3 CD (J)Q) 0 Q) c CJI 3cg c () en ~ t=l C1> Q) C I 0- C - 0-0 :::r C1>)> ;::;.: ~ ~ ~ ~ 111 Q) Q) -t 0- -~ - a: cr C1> - -t ~ CJI 0 Q) ::!. 0 ;::;: CD ~ -I 0- Q) C1> VI c -I - x )> - )> Q) r- o. ~ ~ r- 0 CJI ~ I en c 0"-1 AI 0 .., - CD AI w N AI- ~W 01 ..... 0> "tI -. . ~ W ..... -...j ..... W - 0) N ""'" 0 co AI UI ..... W N co ~ m -t VI - AI 3 '" .a:.. w CD AI - '"0 01 ):... CD N -...j 01 Q, -...j ""'" w Om 0 VI ~~ - ::::!. "'0 CD .""'" ""'" ..... N O"(iJ W c" Co c VI 0> 01 ..... 0 - -...j 00 co co 0> ...... ""'" -. CD 0 N co co co ""'" 0> o < ; CD C') o ::::s en (I) < Q) - -. o ::::s r- (I) < (I) - en r ~ s g ~ f !Bi~8ll I!l 1: J: c: ~ =i ~ z 2i z g III III ~ ~ I>> J: oC 0-1 <0 mO ;;0..< mm c..~ "'CIS ::Om e)> 0 m.::o Om -I)> (J)(J) Qo L . . . . - 3 (i) (i) 3 o:I: "C "'C iil .., 0) .., 0) - (5" N Q. Q.C" CD -. 3 ;:, -. :r ;::;: 3 ;:, CD cc cc 0) 0) ;:, )> ;:, - CD - 0 (') r- -. C" CD 0 ::::J ;:, .., cc 0) Q. _Ul .... CD -. :I:Ul Q) :t> ;:, 3 0) r-O) .... cc CD ;:, -;:, -. Cil ;:, g ..::IQ. e CD - - ::::J 3 0 - ;:, :t> (') -I CD .., -. ;:, Q. 3 Q. -. CD e - ;:, CD 0) ;:, ;:, e - ;:, Q. 0) - (') 3 - r.n CD CD -I ;:, 0) - ~ - "'tI CD .., 3 -. - I I I. I ~1tI~ 1 i Ill.~ n l (iJ en CD < CD s: A) ::J A) (C CD 3 CD ::J r+ )> (iJ A) \ \ . '\ t,+.~. ~~ i . .(-- ~. . ) ~ m JI i f , "'C .., (1) fA (1) :( (1) i: Q) ::::s Q) (Q (1) 3 (1) ::::s .... OJ G) "tJ OJ 0 .., CD CD 0 0 :J en 0 CO CD -I CD CO (") ..... '< < Q) " (") Q) (I) Q) s: 0 CD s: s: Q) ..... 3: Q) )> 0 :J :J D) :J Q) ..- (") ~ CD - ;::;: CO :J <' D) 0 CD Q) ~ CO ::1. 3 :J CD :J co CD (") 3 :J CD ..- CD ~ - ~ c 0 ~ c. () () () - -. I>> " " " "tI'< ~ 0 0 0 3::::0 co I I I co co co )>1>> -.....I -.....I -.....I :J I I I (") N N N ::T "tI ~ tII (I) <! z z z (I) oC\) oC\) oC\) z 3: _. :E _" :E _" :E ""Co I>> ~" ~" ~" 3:9: :J .., -" .., -. .., -. I>> -" ::J -. ::J _0 ::J co n.n> n.n> n.n> )>0 (I) tII ::J tII ::J tII ::J -. 3 (") (") (") - C\) C\) C\) '< (I) :J - )> ~ ;;0 o~ m I>> z C\) x 0 tII C\) < 00" 00" 00. (I) C\) cn:E ::J ~= o~ "tI3. o ;;0 c -. ::J -- ::J C\) n.co tllco 3:iiJ ~ C\) ....... cnPO'! ::J. " )>- (") < (") _0 0 C\) C\) 0 z::J .......::J -. en ::J c C\) n> en n> - c d :E g ::J '< C\) (") C\) C\) C\) en . . . . ." r::: 0 G') AI G') ~ - CD CD ~ Co ::r :::J to Cl) -. CD CD -. :::J ~ ~ ~ 0 - AI Cl) :::J tIl cc - Cl) CD 'TI - 0' tIl 0 C 'TI C :::J C .., ~ C. :::J (") C. 0 CD :::J tIl to (t) "C ~ ~ r+ 0 .., to Q) ~ Cl) - 3 0 -. r+ '< s: Q) ~ Q) cc (t) 3 (t) ~ r+ . . en , 0 "C (I) 0 CD ::l - 0 ~ - Q) Ci3 .., '< -. Q) :::0 Q) Q) 0 -. - .g> -. ~ en 0< CD .., .... 0 OJ ~ s::::: -. ::!- -. C- O' 0 (;' ~ 5' -. cc '< CD -. en en ::, (") - Q) Q) c (Q c. CD OJ :3 Q) '< CD UI ::, (I) .... - -. t:J ::l -. (I) Ci3 en 0 - .... c -. Ci5 c. en '< ~ ~ ~ ::e "tJ -. .., -0 ::r< :r is: OCD _tII Cll Cll '<tII <tII Cll c: =iiJ CD ~ '< (') ::e CD ::rtll -. - -::r CD Cll '0- .., Cll o (') - - CD -. (') < ~(t) ~ a co (') [a ...... Cll Cll - (') -. CD 0 ~ ~ -Cll "tJa a Cll tII tII CD ::e <! == CD Cll tT .., CD CD '0 Cll .., tII 0 ~. 0. CD 0. . o - Cll .., ~ (6' tII - ::r CD '0 .., o - CD (') - -. o ~ o ..... "tJ a tII CD <! CD Cll a Cll tII ::e ::;: ::r -. ~ o o < CD .., CD 0. "tJ .., ,g. CD (') - tII . o ~ "tJ a tII CD <! CD 3 Cll ~ Cll co CD 3 CD ~ - . "tJ (3 < 0. CD tII 3 o a CD ~ CD ~ tII :C:" CD 0. CD - Cll -. - -m ::rtll (3 or C:tT cc:: ::rtll _::r ::rCD CD tII ::I: 5' 1(') - .., ~CD OCll .., tII 0. CD _.0. ~'O Cll .., ~ 0 (') - CD CD (') ~ o ~ o c: - tII -. 0. CD o ..... o o < CD a Co "tJ .., .2. CD (') - tII a co c: ii) - CD 0. . G>t:! .., tII Cll (') 0. _. c: ~ tII COtll ~ CD Cll tII ~ ..... 0.'" Cll G>3 .., CD ~ ::e -. 0 ~ .., co~ )>0' tT.., Cll..... -c: CD _ 3 c: CD a ~ - -. 3 '0 CD 3 CD ~ - -. ~ co o .., 0. -. ~ Cll ~ (') CD tII ~ CD ~ ::I: I ~:::j . -"tJ o .., tTo < CD _. -0. o CD (') tII ~(') CD- o.m -. .., ~ -. -~ ::r0' CD .., "tJ3 .., Cll CD _ tII -. CD 0 <! ~ CD Cll tT o c: - - ::r CD Cll 3 o c: ~ - Cll ~ 0. - '< '0 CD o ..... . . ~ ..... iiJ tII - .., c: (') - c: .., CD C/)"tJ '0 .., CD 0 < (') -. -. 0. CD CD !I tII 5' 3 (') 0 -.., c: CD 0. -.0. ~ CD co- Cll z== Cll 0 ~ ~ o (') ::e 0 m~ ~ tII 0. CD CD <! 3 Cll - n' o' tII ~ Cll ~ 0. 3 Cll ~ Cll co CD 3 CD ~ - 0' .., o o < CD a 0. :E :::r '< I\) o o o CJ) c: C" Q) .., CD Q) "C - Q) ::] -. fA C" CD .... .... CD .., .... :::r Q) ::] ~ co co en C .., Q) . I- . (')!! J'~ =,0. II) - <::T _. II) Ul- - - II) ::T s::CD enC (')Dl ,,:= en- c 3 C'''C 11)- .., CD CD 3 II) CD "a Dr :r ~cc ~ )> -cc 0..., II) CD 3i3 3 CD -' ~ ~ - cc iii" ;:::;n Ul 0 Ul ~ c !!!. C'Ul 3 CD ::+::1 - - ~~ ;::;: ::T - ::T CD <." -~-1 3 -' J' "C - CD _::T CD -. 3:f= CD CD C ~(')II) ~::T~ ~ C CD(") cc- )>11)0 cc~:j a~1I) CDII)~ 3 :s: CD CD en" ~ (') CD - .., "3 en;::;: c Ul C':E II) -. .., - CDJ' II) (") ,,0 -~ 11)0. ~ -. - II) -. ~ 0 o.~ _Ul ::T- CD ;- C- .., II) II) .., :=CD (") o ~ Ul iii' - CD ~ - <." )><-i cc -. ::T .., ~ CD CD II) -. CD :s: Ul ~ en ~ aQ~ -. .. (") II) en CD ~ C 0 o.C".... II) II) .., CD OJ II) -' ,,2- iiir& ~ -. II) (") ~ ~ 0.0 -"C J' -. CD ~ -. co .., ~ II) (") :=0 -~ 3 Ul "C -. _Ul CD - 3 ~ CD - a~ :r ;+ cc::T - ::T CD (') ::T C iii <." en-i c ::T C"CD Ul.... S-S- ~ c - .., -. CD II) =CD '< >< _. CD ~ (") _c ::T~ CD 0 ....~ o C' ..,,< 3 II) a= _"C J'II) CD ::+ C (j)" .., Ul II) 0 :=.... -II) 3 ~ "C_ (j)3 3"C CD - ~ CD _3 -. CD ~ ~ cc_ )> 5' CCCC Ci3 )> CDCC 3 CD'" CD ~ CD _3 -' CD ~ - . )> 0. o "C - - ::T CD (') ;::;: '< o .... (') J' C - II) ~ Ul - II) en c C' II) .., CD II) "tI ii) ~ (") o ~ 0. ;::;: o' ~ CD 0. o ~ - ::T CD .... o - - o ~ -. ~ cc . )> "C "C .., o < CD - ::T CD s:: en (') " en c C' a cc o' ~ II) - " - II) ~ II) Ul - J' CD " .., II) 3 CD ~ o .., ~ " iii ~ ~ ):. ~ ~ ~ (j) (') o ~ en en - o ~ en :x: o c: r-o ~ (') o I ~ )::; """I Q ~ (') o c: ~ ~ " (") o c: :J C') -. - D) :J C. "'C - D) :J :J -. :J (Q (") o 3 3 -. en en -. o :J )> C') pot< -. o :J en .a_>-3 ~ 0 (=D' ~ 8' "'1 0.. cp >-j en "'1 <; '-' trl>CI s:::: (JQ ..... ('"l -..., en I>> ..... 8" ~S& o::t8"CP ;:; "'1 0.. en I>> I:""' -I>> 1:""'::: ~ ~ 0.. en s::::- "08:2 - CP e; S "'1 0.. S ::::: en 0 ....., '-'::: zn~ o ~..... ::: I>> :>< = 8. 8- ~. r6 n <n~ CP ~ ~ o~ I>> ;;:l I>> ::t en "'1 I>> en "'1 - ~~ ::: 0.. .a - 2- en '-' '2 ::: >-3 ('"l ..... o CP ~ ~ o ::: nn wo wI>> __ en ns- ~- ~ W I>> I>> ::t~ e.w ('"l g. ~o'"d.....,~o~.....,~o ~a~t;l~a~t;l~a ~~~~~~~~~~ CP CP CP CP CP CP CP CP z z :;0 0 :;0 0 CP~CP~ ..c ......g ..... s:: ~. s:: ::::to ..... (Jq ..... (Jq "'1 I>> @ I>> CP...... ...... 0.. ..... 0.. ..... o 0 ::: ::: z z :;0 0 :;0 0 CP~CP~ ..c .......g ..... s:::: ;::to s:::: ;::to ..... (Jq ..... (Jq "'1 I>> "'1 I>> ("1) ~ ('p t"""'t- 0.. ..... 0.. ..... o 0 ::: ::: o Vl ...... - ...... - - Vl ...... ...... '"d "'1 ....., CP ::: en en CP ..... ~ ~ CP ...... ...... Vl ...... ...... ...... tv Vl - ...... - "'1 I>> @ >-3 .a ~. - ~ ...... 0.. en '-' oz~nw I>> I>> I>> 0 0 :>;" ;::to "'1 i';: a. < ..... w p- ~ ('t) 0-. S" (p gQ~;;;8 o..I>>W:::"''Tj -ens::::....o ~ g;,. ('"l ::+l "'1 o..~gw8- eno.._('"lS:::: en CP 2 ::: ::: ....... CP ...... '-' en W ('"l g. ~o CP a en en CP ..... ~ 0.. CP CP '"d "'1 ....., CP ::: en en CP ..... ~ ~ CP ...... tv ...... ...... tv w ...... ...... --! C1> ..., :J: Q) C" -. - Q) - ..... o fA fA QO I Ol 0- ;:::;: Ol .- - ;j (') -. Q. CD ;j - Q) --I '< "0 C1> - r o 3 2 "O~ Ol 0 o :J '-0 - -I Q) ~ CD - :J: ..... - -I - :s:: r _ 0 :J 0 (f) Ol 0. !::!: C1> g "U 0 CD - (f) "'U C1> ..., :< m C1> C1> :< Ol o c;: S. :J (f) -- 0. s: C1> "U ..., C1> (f) C1> :< C1> -. - -. cc Q) - -. o ;j :::0 Q) - -. o fA ;:::;: co' Ol !::!: o :J :::0 Ol .- o. (f) . 3 "C CD 3 (\) j Q: j co )> co .., (\) (\) 3 (\) j - . Oo3:Q o - 3j'< -. 0 30-- -. .., 0 en -. enjj" -. co s:: o _ :::3 "'D I>> tra< o co -. >< .., en I>> S' 3 3: -en Qo m"tl o' 3: o~ coco -. I>> n _ I>> -. -0 ;;oj (\) I>> en j o Co s:: _ .., 3 S"C en CD -3 !;(\) )>j - s: -. "tIj _co I)> :c:~ o (\) -(\) -. 3 :::3 (\) j - . en!! -j !.I>> (\) - 3m (\) j j ~. -.., -0 :!!j j 3 ~(\) ma -I>> ~= !!!3 en"C -I>> I>> n j - o.:;a o(\) _. "C -<3- o _ -m OJ j"< s:: -. - .., I>> 0 <j -. 3 en (\) -j I>> _ )>1>> 0.- 0.3" (\)"C j I>> o.n s:: _ 3 . o ~ o - o j" s:: - I>> ~ en - I>> 3: en o "tI en s:: C' I>> CiJ I>> "tI - I>> j . 3: en o "tI en s:: C' .., (\) co o' j I>> "tI ji) j (') o 3 "C o ::s <D ::s r+ en o ...... r+ :T <D 3: en (') "'tJ c: z <: m ;0 1XJ!e g~ Zen o=i )10m ~n J~ -aJ ~ - < m I . z . Slide 1 MSCP HISTORY Tonight your Commission and Council will jointly be considering the adoption of an MSCP Subarea Plan for the City of Chula Vista. From previous workshops, you know that the MSCP - multiple species conservation program - evolved as the region planned for the expansion of the Metro-wastewater treatment system, and was required to address potential long-term impacts on biological resources resulting from anticipated expanded growth in the regIOn. The MSCP program is a "subregional" program. It encompasses the metro-wastewater district boundaries, and involves participation from 12 cities as well as some special districts. The program is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program, with the goal to conserve an integrated network of habitat and open space in order to protect significant biological resources throughout 900 square miles in the southwestern portion of the County. The subregional MSCP planning document serves as a template for each of the participating jurisdictions. The plan is then implemented by each jurisdiction through a Subarea Plan. Slide 2 THE CHULA VISTA SUBAREA Chula Vista MSCP Planning Area Chula Vista's subarea plan is unique, in that it incorporates planning information and activity that reaches beyond our jurisdictional boundaries. The PLANNING AREA for the Chula Vista Subarea Plan includes all territory located within the City's General Plan. Conservation resulting from development in the City, actually takes place both within the City and outside of our jurisdictional boundaries - but within our Planning Area. The Subarea The subarea is defined as that area for which the federal and state wildlife agencies will transfer their endangered species "Take" authority to the City. Thus, the formal boundaries of the Subarea must be coterminous with our legal City limits. When annexations to the City occur, an annexation agreement will be required to insure continued implementation of MSCP conservation responsibilities, and Take authority will be transferred to the City for the newly annexed area at the time of annexation. Slide 3 TAKE AUTHORITY The state and federal Endangered Species Acts provide that, when a plant or animal species has been "listed" as threatened or endangered, a state and/or federal permit is required for any activity that may harm such species. Such HARM is referred to as "TAKE" The MSCP is an "upland" habitat planning program. It provides to each participating jurisdiction the permitting authority for "Take" of 85 species which are listed or have potential for listing. Based on the Preserve collectively planned by alll2 jurisdictions, the Wildlife Agencies have found that the habitat that will be conserved will ensure the long-term survival of 85 separate species. Thus, these species are considered "covered" species under the Plan. Upon approval of our Subarea Plan by the Wildlife Agencies (and the implementing ordinances that will accompany it), the City will be authorized to issue "Take" permits for these 85 species. Slide 4 STAND-ALONE SPECIES Each Subarea Plan is considered to be a separate "Habitat Conservation Plan" (or HCP) by the USFWS. When considered singularly, our Subarea Plan - our HCP - sufficiently protects 18 of the 85 MSCP Covered species. Thus, if for any reason, permits associated with the other MSCP Subarea Plans were to be revoked, the Chula Vista Subarea Plan would remain as a "stand-alone HCP", and the City would retain coverage for these 18 species. As long as the other participating local jurisdictions continue to implement their subarea plans - and in particular the City of San Diego and the County - Chula Vista, along with the other MSCP jurisdictions, will retain permit authority for all 85 species. Slide 5 CHULA VISTA CONSERVATION GOALS The Take authority issued to the City of Chula Vista is based upon this City's commitment to conserve and manage a habitat Preserve system. This Table summarizes the total acreage anticipated for "Take" through future development activities within the City, and the total acreage anticipated to be conserved as a result ofthose activities: REFER TO TABLE Slide 6 PRESERVE ASSEMBLY The Chula Vista Preserve will be assembled principally through the development entitlement process. Our Subarea Plan will essentially be implemented in three parts: Covered Projects Area This area represents development projects which have been determined, through negotiation with the City and Wildlife Agencies, to appropriately balance development impacts with conservation efforts. Take authorization for these projects will be consistent with existing and/or planned SPA plans. HUT Area, outside the Coastal Zone Development in this part of the City will be subject to a new ordinance - the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take permit ordinance. The HUT will require that impacts to habitat be mitigated, pursuant to MSCP mitigation standards. The HUT ordinance must be adopted by City Council before the City will receive its Take Authorization. Thus, your staff will be returning in the near future to discuss the details of, and to hold a hearing on, the new HUT. HUT Area, inside the Coastal Zone Very recently, the California Coastal Commission has requested to invoke a little-known authority under the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act, to review HCP's involving coastal areas for consistency with Local Coastal Plans. Because of recent activity by the Coastal Commission, we have requested a "phased" Take authorization from the Wildlife Agencies. City staff will initiate immediately with the Coastal Commission the process of a consistency review of our Subarea Plan. Should the Coastal Commission consistency review result in a requirement to amend our LCP, Take Authorization will be granted to the City for all area outside the LCP. Upon completion on an LCP amendment, if one is necessary, Take Authorization would be granted for the LCP area. Slide 7 OTHER IMPLEMENTING TOOLS In addition to the HUT, three other implementing tools must be in place in order for the City to receive Take authority. Amendment to Grading Ordinance The City has committed to adopting amendments to its grading ordinance, to insure that habitat loss will not occur within the City prior to appropriate mitigation. Grazing Abatement Ordinance A grazing abatement ordinance will implement the Otay Ranch Range Management Plan and insure that grazing ceases on lands offered for dedication into the preserve. Implementing Agreement The MSCP Implementing Agreement is the contractual document that binds the City to implement its Subarea Plan, and that assures the City that Take Authority will not be revoked by the Wildlife Agencies without due cause. A draft Implementing Agreement has been prepared by your City Attorney, details of which will be negotiated with the Wildlife Agencies during their review of our permit application. Ms. Moore is available to discuss the Agreement, if you desire, or to answer specific questions you may have pertaining to this important legal document. Slide 8 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT In order to insure the viability of the covered species involved in the Take permit, the City must not only assemble the Preserve, they must also commit to managing the resources within the Preserve. Management will be undertaken in three Preserve Management Areas (PMAs): Otay Ranch, North City and Central City. Slide 9 AREA SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVES Management of the Preserve must be consistent with requirements found in the MSCP Subregional Plan. Particular management requirements for selected species are delineated in what is known as TABLE 3-5 of the Subregional Plan. The Chula Vista Subarea Plan management efforts will evolve as the Preserve is assembled. Management plans for specific areas within the Preserve, known as "area specific management directives" will be developed and will incorporate the requirements found in Table 3-5. REFER TO ASMD SLIDE Slide 10 (a) MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS Preserve Management involves three components: General Maintenance Includes removal of trash, maintenance of trails and fences, security programs to enforce "no tresspassing" rules and curtail activities that degrade resources Biological Management Includes the implementation of programs to maintain and manage preserve habitat values through cultivation, treatment of plant disease, removal and control of invasive plant species, and special management programs (such as control of cowbirds through trapping) Biological Monitoring Implements monitoring programs which identify changes in habitat and/or species quality and/or quantity Management commitments in the Subarea Plan are separated into two priority levels: Priority 1 and Priority 2. Priority 1 "necessary to ensure that the covered species are adequately protected" Priority 2 Activities which are designed to enhance the Preserve, but are not required for covered species status. These activities will "be incorporated into area specific management directives to the extent feasible... and will occur over the life of the Subarea Plan as funding becomes available." A description of the activities that fall into these two categories is provided in the Subarea Plan's Framework Management Plan. Slide lOb MANAGEMENT FUNDING Although expenditure levels for management may vary within the Preserve, in order to direct financial resources to the most productive activities, with adoption of the Subarea Plan, the City will be making a commitment to an overall Preserve management. Staff has estimated the costs to accomplish Preserve management at $50/acre. Funding for the management programs will be assured through established financing programs in the three Preserve Management Areas. In addition, the City commits to seeking additional outside funding. REFER TO-MANAGEMENT SLIDE Otay Ranch, CFD 97-2 North City, future jinancing districts Central City, existingjinancing districts and City funding Slide 11 CITY FUNDING RESOURCES Your staff has reviewed existing budgets for the County and City of San Diego management operations, and estimates that the additional cost for biological management and maintenance in the Central City Preserve Area will cost between $IO-16/acre. Funding may come from a variety of sources, including . Grants - for example, after approval of the Subarea Plan by the State, the City will be eligible for State NCCP local assistance grants - . Regional Funding Program . City General Fund, . Any other available financial resources - for example, the City of San Diego finances a good portion of Preserve management with Tobacco Funds. Slide 12 SPECIAL STUDIES The City has also committed to completing two special studies: a review of biological resources in the Otay River Valley, and a biological baseline study for the Central City area. Although the responsibility for funding the studies will rest with the City, City staff will actively pursue grants and other outside funding sources to assist in financing this necessary biological work. Otay River Valley Study This study was authorized by your Council at last August's workshop on MSCP. The study is underway, but has been put on hold as we complete this Subarea Plan. It is anticipated that, once this Subarea Plan has been approved by the Wildlife Agencies, we can complete the Otay River Valley in approximately 4-6 months. Staff is uncertain at this time if additional finacial resources may be necessary to complete the study and have indicated in your supplemental report that up to an additional $20,000 may be needed to be allocated to this purpose. Central City Baseline Study In order to gather necessary data to prepare future area specific management directives for the Central City Preserve management area, the City will undertake a biological baseline study to identify key biological resources. Based on a consultant estimate, staff estimates that this study will cost between $65-75,000. ASMDs The final component of cost for biological studies will be preparation of the area specific management directives for the Central City. The number and scope of ASMD studies will be determined from the biological baseline study. Staffis estimating at this time that up to three ASMDs may be prepared, for an overall cost ranging from $50-150,000. Slide 13 IMPROVEMENTS TO PLAN The Subarea Plan before you tonight substantially reflects the draft 1996 Subarea Plan. Of course the Plan has been updated, and several improvements have been made which make the current Plan a superior habitat conservation program. Many improvements have come about as a result of comments from the public and the Wildlife Agencies. And, as we reviewed with you at your September Council Workshop, the two-day Workshop with the Wildlife Agencies held earlier this year resulted in strengthening the document. Weare not planning to repeat the extensive review of issues discussed with you at your September Workshop, however, some of the changes that have been made to the strengthen the Plan that are worth noting include the following: REFER TO LIST Slide 14 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As part of approval of the MSCP Subarea Plan tonight, you are being asked to make the following decisions: REFER TO LIST/SLIDE In making these decisions, you will be considering the EIR/EIS prepared jointly by the City of San Diego and USFWS as co-lead agencies for the Subregional MSCP. The final MSCP EIR/EIS was issued in January 1997, and contains a comprehensive disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with the MSCP. Participating local jurisdictions within the MSCP planning area are specifically designated in the final EIR/EIS as "responsible agencies" within the meaning of CEQA. As a responsible agency, the City of Chula Vista participated on the MSCP advisory committee, submitted a draft Subarea Plan to be considered in the EIR/EIS, and assisted in preparation of the EIR/EIS document. More recently, the City has reviewed the EIR/EIS to determine if new information or changed circumstances would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Slide 13, con't This review has led to the preparation of an Addendum, which identifies and thoroughly discusses all changed circumstances and potentially significant new information since certification ofthe Final EIRlEIS by the co-lead agencies, and which determines that none of these changes create the conditions requiring the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA guidelines, sections 15162 and 15163, and therefore an addendum to the EIRlEIS is the appropriate document. The City's Environmental Review Coordinator and City Attorney are available to review the Addendum in more detail, if you wish, or to answer any questions you may have about the CEQA documentation. FINAL RECOMMENDATION Your staff recommends that you make the appropriate findings and approve the MSCP Subregional Plan and Subarea Plan. In addition, in response to concerns expressed by Councilmember Moot at the September Workshop about the City's ability to assemble the Preserve if SR 125 is not permitted and development is impeded, we recommend that you direct staff to return to you with a fiscal impact analysis which addresses the economic feasibility of preserve assembly in light of current and forecasted economic and fiscal factors. Issues that would be considered in this analysis could include estimated completion schedules for key infrastructure projects planned for the study area, such as State Route 125 and the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor. If your Council wishes, approval of the Subarea Plan tonight may be conditioned on such a fiscal study finding that Preserve assembly pursuant to the MSCP remains feasible. CRITICAL HABITAT Today, the USFWS issued a press release announcing that it has made a final determination to designate 513,650 acres ofland as critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher. The press statement indicates that the designation "does include lands that are part of draft HCPs that have not been completed and implemented. If a draft HCP that addresses the gnatcatcher as a covered species is ultimately approved, the Service will reassess the critical habitat boundaries in light of the HCP, but funding constraints may influence the timing of such a review." In anticipation of the critical habitat designation, the City has addressed the issue of critical habitat in the draft Implementing Agreement. The City's position, and goal, is to have critical habitat designation removed prior to acceptance of Take Authority from the Agencies. This issue will be addressed in IA negotiations. . . . " Attachment 1 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA as a RESPONSIBLE AGENCY for the APPROVAL OF THE MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) SUBREGIONAL PLAN and ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) SUBAREA PLAN all as previously analyzed in the FINAL EIR/EIS CERTIFIED BY THE LEAD AGENCIES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TAKE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES DUE TO URBAN GROWTH WITHIN THE MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLANNING AREA OCTOBER 9, 2000 CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 1 I. .-, INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact ReportJEnvironmental Impact Statement (January 1997)("Final EIR") prepared for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area (the "Project") addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan (August 1998) in the MSCP Study Area in southwestem San Diego County, including within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. The MSCP Subregional Plan is a comprehensive habitat conservation planning program that addresses the habitat needs of certain endangered, threatened, and special status species through the preservation of native vegetation communities. The MSCP is designed to allow local jurisdictions to permit mixed-use urban growth and development by establishing a regional preserve system that can meet public and private project mitigation needs. The MSCP assumes that each local jurisdiction within the MSCP Study Area such as the City of Chula Vista will implement its respective portion of the MSCP Subregional Plan through a subarea plan, which in turn will describe specific implementing mechanisms for the MSCP Subregional Plan within the subarea. The proposed actions to implement the MSCP Subregional Plan as addressed in the Final EIR shall occur on federal, state and local levels. The federal actions consist of: a) issuance of Section lO(a)(1)(B) permits to participating jurisdictions for incidental take oflisted and unlisted covered -" species within the MSCP Plan area; b) approval of the MSCP Plan as a Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) area plan; and c) execution of Implementing Agreements ("IAs") with the appropriate jurisdictions. The state action consists of approval of the MSCP Plan as an NCCP Program under the Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act, pursuant to section 2835 of the California Fish and Game Code; the requirements for take under section 2835 are similar to those for a federal habitat conservation plan. Local actions consist of adoption of the MSCP Subregional Plan by participating local jurisdictions through implementation of a subarea plan and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. These findings are specific to the actions proposed by the City of Chula Vista. Findings for impacts identified within the Final EIR that are not related to the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and that are outside the authority of the City of Chula Vista are contained in separate documents adopted by the agencies with appropriate authorities. The lead agencies for the Project were the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the "Service") and the City of San Diego. The City of Chula Vista was designated as a responsible agency for the Project, along with other jurisdictions and agencies within the MSCP Study Area. At the time that the lead agencies analyzed and considered the Project, several ofthe responsible agencies including CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN .-" 2 . . . ., the City ofChula Vista submitted draft subarea plans proposing specific implementing mechanisms for the local jurisdictions. Those draft subarea plans were addressed in the Final EIR as certified by the lead agencies. (Recirculated Draft Joint EIR/EIS dated August 1996 ("Draft EIR"), sections 1.4 & 1.5, and Tablel-1.)' These findings have been prepared to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (pub. Resources Code, 9 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,9 15000 et seq.). These findings are made relative to the following specific actions proposed by the City of Chula Vista: 1) The approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan, specifically with regard to the issuance oftake authorization to the City of Chula Vista; and 2) The adoption of the City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program ("MSCP") Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000, consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan that identifies the Multiple Habitat Plarming Area ("MHP A"), together with the MSCP Mitigation And Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources. The Final EIR certified by the lead agencies expressly addressed these decisions and actions. (See Recirculated Draft Joint EIR/EIS dated August 1996 ("Draft EIR"), Abstract & Section 1.5 (Decisions to be Made).) Although the lead agencies issued findings in certifying the Final EIR, the City of Chula Vista as a responsible agency must make its own findings. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects thereof unless such public agency makes one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects as identified in the completed environmental impact report; (2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 1 Where the Final EIR did not amend the earlier Recirculated Draft Joint EIRJEIS dated August 1996 ("Draft EIR"), the Final EIR directly incorporates by reference the Draft EIR by reference. Likewise, where the Final EIR did not amend the earlier Draft EIR, this document cites to the Draft EIR. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 3 ,. Attachment I CEQA further requires that, where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, ........ the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR or other information in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, S 15093, subd. (b).) No significant unmitigated impacts were identified for the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and therefore, no such statement of overriding considerations pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines is provided. These findings will remain on file at the City of Chula Vista Planning Department. II. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project and related discretionary actions consists of the following documents, at a minimum: . The Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the co-lead agencies in conjunction with the Project; · The Recirculated Draft Joint EIR/EIS for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area dated August 1996; . The Final EIR/EIS for the Issuance of Take Authorizations for Threatened and Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth Within the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Planning Area dated January 1997; ......., . All comments submitted by agencies or members ofthe public during the comment periods on the Draft EIR; · All comments and correspondence submitted to the lead agencies and the City of Chula Vista with respect to the Project, in addition to timely comments on the Draft EIR; · The Administrative Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated February 16, 2000, including all public comments on that draft submitted to the City ofChula Vista; · The Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000, Draft Implementing Agreement dated September 22, 2000, submitted to the Service on September 22, 2000. . The MSCP Mitigation And Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October 9, 2000; CITY OFCHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN ......., 4 . . . . The MSCP Mitigation And Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources dated October XX, 2000; . All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council for the City of Chula Vista in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein; . All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City ofChula Vista, consultants to the City ofChula Vista, or lead, responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City of Chula Vista's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City of Chula Vista's actions on the Proj ect; . All documents submitted to the lead agencies or the City of Chula Vista by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close ofthe public hearing on October 17, 2000; . Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the lead agencies and the City ofChula Vista in connection with the Project; . Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the lead agencies and the City of Chula Vista at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings; . Matters of common knowledge to the City of Chula Vista, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; . Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and . Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is Susan Bigelow, Clerk to the City Council ofthe City ofChula Vista, whose office is located at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California, 91910. The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its decision on the Project and related actions, even if not every document was formally presented to the City of Chula Vista Staff as part of the City files generated in connection with the Project. Without exception, any documents set forth above not found in the Project files fall into one of two categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions with which the City Council was aware in approving the Project (See Citv of Santa Cruz v. Local Agencv Formation Commission (1978) 76 CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 5 Cal.App.3d 381, 391-392 [142 Cal.Rptr. 873]; Dominev v. Deoartment of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 729,738, th. 6 [252 Cal.Rptr. 620].) Other documents influenced the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided advice to the City Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying factual basis for the City Council's decisions relating to the adoption of the Project and related decisions. (See Pub. Resources Code, !l21167.6, subd. (e)(IO); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of San Jose (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 852,866 [226 Cal.Rptr. 575]; Stanislaus Audubon Society. Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 153, 155 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 54].) "'" III. FINDINGS REOUlRED UNDER CEOA Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Emphasis added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifYing both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Emphasis added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual proj ects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." -... The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, !l21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, !l 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that "[ c ]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, !l15091, subd. (a)(l).) The second permissible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (CEQA Guidelines, !l15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines, !l15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." CEQA Guidelines CITY OFCHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT, APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN -... 6 . . . . section 15364 adds another factor: "Iegal" considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v. Board ofSuDervisors ("Goleta II") (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [183 Cal.Rptr. 898].) "'[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." (Ibid.; see also SeQuovah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Citv of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.AppAth 704, 715 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 182].) The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between "avoiding" a significant environmental effect and merely "substantially lessening" such an effect. The City of Chula Vista must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code section 21081, on which CEQA Guidelines section 15091 is based, uses the term "mitigate" rather than "substantially lessen." The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate "mitigating" with "substantially lessening." Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed ifthere are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code, 9 21002.) For purposes of these findings, the term "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen" refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. These interpretations appear to be mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. Citv Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-527 [147 Cal.Rptr. 842], in which the Court of Appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question less than significant. Although CEQA Guidelines section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is "avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed]," these findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less than significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant. Moreover, although section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in the Final EIR. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 7 Although the lead agencies for this Project and related actions issued findings in certifYing the Final EIR, the City of Chula Vista as a responsible agency must make its own findings. (CEQA Guidelines, 99 15096, subd. (h), 15091 & 15093; Pub. Resources Code, 9 21081, subd. (b); Resource Defense Fund v. Local Agencv Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County (1987) 191 CalApp3d 886,896-98.) Although its analysis normally relies on the existing Final EIR, a responsible agency must decide for itself how to respond to those significant effects that will directly or indirectly result from the responsible agency's own decision to carry out, finance, or approve an aspect of the project. (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15096, subd. (g)(I); Pub. Resources Code, 9 21002.1, subd. (d).) The responsible agency must adopt any feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that will substantially lessen such effects. (CEQA Guidelines, 9 15096, subd (g)(2).) In adopting findings, a responsible agency need not consider the feasibility of project alternatives if it adopts mitigation measures that "substantially lessen or avoid" a project's significant adverse impacts. (Resource Defense Fund. suora 83 CaJ.App.3d at pp. 520-21.) ~ In short, CEQA requires that the lead or responsible agency adopt mItIgation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, 915091, subd. (a), (b).) As will be evident from the remainder of these Findings, relatively few environmental impacts will require separate "mitigation measures" beyond those already mandated, as a legal matter, by existing Chula Vista policies or by other mandatory policies or regulations. In particular, the extensive ......", requirements of the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, upon which many of the mitigation measures are based, are already being implemented and enforced to reduce the impacts of new development. Nonetheless, because many of those requirements will become conditions of coverage for incidental take of protected species under the MSCP Subregional Plan, these existing policies will oftentimes serve as mitigation measures for the project. Thus, even where the Findings conclude that "mitigation measures are required," in many instances that claim really means that existing policies, as expressly applied by the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan may render the identified impacts less than significant. With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened either through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternative, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve tiJe project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project's "benefits" rendered "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects." (CEQA Guidelines, 99 15093, 15043, subd. (b); ~ also Pub. Resources Code, 9 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he wisdom of approving. . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT, APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN ~ 8 . . . responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta 11,52 Ca1.3d 553, 576.) IV. LEGAL EFFECTS OF FINDINGS To the extent that these findings conclude that various proposed mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR are feasible and have not been modified, superseded or withdrawn, the City of Chula Vista hereby binds itself to implement these measures. These findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City Council formally finally approves the Project, or when all conditions of the approved Project are satisfied. The mitigation measures are referenced in the mitigation monitoring program adopted concurrently with these findings, and will be effectuated through the process of constructing and implementing the Project. V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), entitled the MSCP Mitigation And Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program For Biological Resources, has been prepared for the Project and has been adopted concurrently with these Findings. (See Pub. Resources Code, !!l 21081.6, subd. (a)(l ).) The City ofChula Vista will use the MMRP to track compliance with Project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. VI. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The Final EIR analyzed in detail impacts to land use, biological resources, regional transportation/circulation, public services and utilities, and population/housing. Program-level analyses were completed for the entire MSCP Subregional Plan area, and project-level were completed for several subarea plan areas, including the City of Chula Vista. The Final EIR identified several significant environmental effects (or "impacts") that the implementation of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT, APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 9 Project and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan might cause. Some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Others cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible environmentally superior alternatives; however, those effects are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency, pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. This Section presents in greater detail the City Council's findings with respect to the environmental effects of the Project and the discretionary actions within the authority and jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista. ....... A. LAND USE Standards of Sil!nificance: A significant land use impact is identified if the Project could: . Result in a land use which is inconsistent with the environmental goals of a General Plan or Community Plan within the study area and existing environmental plans of member cities or participating agencies, or other policy mandates, including propositions; Conflict with adjacent existing and planned land uses and adjoining approved or proposed subsequent development; Adversely affect farmlands of prime, statewide, local, unique, or grazing land importance as defined by the California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Mapping Program; or Adversely impact future extraction of sand and gravel resources. (Draft EIR, pp. ES-8 & 4.2- 1.) "'" . . . Impacts: 4.2-MHP A-I Conflicts with goals of the City of San Diego General Plan regarding provision of housing affordability. 4.2-MHP A-2 Conflicts with Rancho Peiiasquitos regarding timely provision of public facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-65-66.) 4.2-MHP A-3 Conflicts with residential goals of East Elliot CP regarding orderly development. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-65-66.) 4.2-MHP A-4 Conflicts with public facilities element of East Elliott CP regarding provision of adequate school and park facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-65-66.) CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN """"'" 10 . . . 4.2-MHP A-5 Conflicts with Otay Mesa PFFP regarding timely provision of public facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-65-66.) 4.2-MHP A-6 Conflicts with public facilities of Otay Mesa CP regarding provision of adequate school and park facilities. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-65-66.) Findinl!: Each of these impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency, pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. No other significant impacts on land use are identified for the MSCP Subregional Plan, an no significant impacts on land use are identified for the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, S 21002; CEQA Guidelines, S 15091.) Exulanation: At the program, or MSCP Subregional Plan, level no significant impacts are identified for the preferred and approved MHPA Alternative for any of the thresholds of significance regarding land use. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-4, 4.2-65, 4.2-71, 4.2-82-85.) The impacts are summarized in Table ES-2 of the Draft EIR (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), and incorporated herein by reference. The City has independently considered these impacts, and concurs with the conclusions reached by the lead agencIes. At the project, or Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, level no significant impacts for land uses within the City ofChula Vista are identified for the adoption of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-16-17, 4.2-66, 4.2-72-73, 4.2-81, 4.2-94-95, 4.2-115.) The impacts are summarized in Table ES-2 of the Draft EIR (attached hereto as Exhibit 1), and incorporated herein by reference. The City has independently considered these impacts, and concurs with the conclusions reached by the lead agencies. While the Final EIR concluded that a conversion of the planned university site to open space would be an impact on approved land use patterns, that impact did not exist in the project as approved in the Modified GDP Alternative - Policy Option 2, because that alternative assumed that an alternate university site could be located within the City's sphere of influence. (Draft EIR, p. 4.2-16.) Because the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan incorporates the University Redesign located within the City's sphere of influence, there is no impact to planned land uses. (Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, pp. 36-47; Addendum pp. 6-8.) CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT, APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 11 The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 is substantively consistent with the Draft Subarea Plan. Although the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000 contains added specificity for conditions of coverage of mixed-use development projects in the City Planning Component, the Otay Ranch Planning Component and the Bonita Planning Component, the conditions are intended to ensure that the planned land uses adjacent to the Preserve can be implemented in a manner compatible with the Preserve. As a result, the conditions present no new significant impacts on existing or planned land uses. (Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000, pp. 15-27,33-36.) The Final EIR also identified the above-referenced impacts on land use, but those impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency, pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. The City need not make further findings, nor need it identifY any feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, for those impacts outside of its authority and jurisdiction. B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Standards of Shmificance: The following criteria are used to determine the significance of any impact to biological resources: . Any impact Preserve-wide to a plant or animal species listed as endangered or threatened by a state or federal agency if incidental take occurs of the species or its habitat; For the purpose of the programmatic analysis of the preserve scenario alternatives, Preserve- wide impacts to 10% or more of major populations or point locations of species on the MHP A Covered Species List, but not listed as endangered or threatened by a state or federal agency; Substantial interference with the movement of sensitive resident or migratory wildlife species Preserve-wide; Substantial reduction of habitat for sensitive wildlife or plants within the MSCP study area; . . . or · The degree of active land use within and immediately adjacent to the Preserve. (Draft EIR, pp. ES-9-20, 4.3-6.) The same thresholds of significance were applied to the program and the project-level analyses. For certain highly sensitive resources, any impact is considered significant. Conversely, other resources which have low sensitivity could sustain a relatively large area of impact or population loss and not result in a significant impact. Biological impacts are considered not significant if the resource in question does not meet the above criteria for sensitivity or the extent of the impact is limited. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 12 -., -., -., . . . Using the significance criteria, determinations were made regarding the degree to which the MHP A alternative would adequately mitigate identified significant impacts. Consideration was given to a variety of factors, including the consistency of the Preserve design with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines. Conclusions regarding the coverage of sensitive plant and animal species under the MHP A scenario incorporate the best and most recent biological data available for the MSCP study area. The determination also assumes the implementation of the Biological Monitoring Plan, known as "Habitrax," for the MSCP study area, which focuses on detecting changes in habitat quality and population trends in those habitats and plants and animal species covered by the MSCP. (Draft ErR, pp. 4.3-5-7.) The impacts to biological resources are detailed below, and summarized in Tables ES-3 and ES-4 from the Draft EIR (attached hereto as Exhibits 2 and 3). ImDact: 4.3-MHP A-I Direct Impacts to Covered Species: The proposed federal and state actions for take of species on the Covered Species List would result in significant direct impacts to populations of the covered species located outside the MHP A preserve, at the program level. Significant direct impacts will occur to the following covered plant species, as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-150-151): San Diego thorn-mint Shaw's agave San Diego ambrosia Nuttall's lotus felt-leaved monardelJa coastal dunes milk-vetch Encinitas baccharis prostrate navarretia Orcutt's brodiaea Slender-pod jewelflower Lakeside ceanothus Wart-stemmed ceanothus salt marsh bird's-beak Orcutt's bird's-beak Del Mar Mesa sand-aster Short-leaved dudleya Variegated dudleya Sticky dudleya Palmer's ericameria San Diego button-celery San Diego barrel cactus Otay tarplant heart-leaved pitcher-safe Del Mar manzanita willowy monardella San Diego goldenstar Dehesa bear-grass snake cholla California Orcutt grass Torrey pine smal1.1eaved rose San Diego mesa mint Otay Mesa mint San Miguel savory narrow.leaved nightshade CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 13 Likewise, direct impacts to. the following covered animal species would be considered significant: - Riverside fairy shrimp San Diego fairy shrimp arroyo southwestern toad southwestern pond turtle San Diego homed lizard orange-throated whiptail tricolored blackbird California brown pelican Reddish egret White-faced ibis Canada goose bald eagle Cooper's hawk light-footed clapper rail western snowy plover California least tern burrowing owl southwestern willow flycatcher coastal cactus wren California gnatcatcher western blue bird least Bell's vireo Ca. rufous-crowned sparro Belding's Savannah sparro large-billed Savannah sparrow Findinl!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MSCP Subregional Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. Explanation: Significant impacts to the 35 plant and 25 animal species are mitigated through the following measures: I. Preservation of a majority of core or major populations of the covered species in the MHP A preserve. Design and configuration of the MHPA preserve. Monitoring and reporting measures included in the Biological Monitoring Plan for Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego 1996c). (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-180.) ~ 2. 3. There are no impacts to uncovered species, because the take permits will not authorize any harm to species not expressly covered by the permits. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-44.) Under the MHP A, significant direct effects would occur for all of the species on the Covered Species List with the exception of those for which no loss of known observations or major populations is identified, as shown in Table ES-3 of the Draft EIR (attached hereto as Exhibit 2). Under the MHP A, species to which no significant direct effects would occur under the above criteria area as follows: Otay manzanita, Dunn's mariposa lily, Tecate cypress, coast wallflower, Nevin's barberry, Gander's pitcher-sage, dense reed grass, Gander's butterweed, Parry's tetracoccus, salt marsh skipper, Thorne"s hairstreak, and elegant tern. Direct impacts to these species will not be regarded as significant. Impacts to species which are discountable or insignificant, and not listed above, include: aphanisma, thread-leaved brodiaea, California red-legged frog, golden eagle, Swainson's hawk, ferruginous hawk, American peregrine falcon, mountain plover, long-billed curlew, American CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN ~ 14 . . . badger, mountain lion, and southern mule deer. Direct impacts to all other species on the Covered Species List are regarded as significant under the MHPA. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-45.) Direct impacts from Policy Option 2 are consistent with the MHP A Scenario, as addressed in the Final EIR/EIS. It should be noted that the Subarea Plan proposes a modified version of Policy Option 2. The Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS, prepared by the City of Chula Vista addresses this modification and concludes that no additional significant impacts, nor intensification of identified significant impacts, would result from the modification. (See Addendum, section 3.1.) The project proposed to be approved by the City of Chula Vista is therefore considered to be consistent with Policy Option 2. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-155-156.) Impact: 4.3-MHPA-2 Direct Impacts to Vegetation CommunitieslHabitats: Because virtually all natural habitats and non-native grassland in the study areas support one or more covered species, direct impacts to these habitats are regarded as significant. Significant direct impacts would occur to the following habitats, as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-150-151): beach saltpan southern foredunes southern coastal bluff scrub coastal safe scrub maritime succulent scrub chaparral southern maritime chaparra coastal sage scrub/chaparra grassland southern coastal salt marsh freshwater marsh riparian forest oak riparian forest riparian woodland riparian scrub oak woodland Torrey pine forest Tecate cypress forest eucalyptus woodland open water disturbed wetlands shallow bay deep bay Findin!!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MSCP Subregional Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. Explanation: Significant impacts to the habitats supporting covered species are mitigated through the following measures: 1. Preservation of a majority of core habitats within the MHP A preserve. 2. Preservation of vegetation communities by design and configuration of the MHPA preserve. 3. Conservation targets for vegetation communities. 4. Monitoring and reporting measures included in the Biological Monitoring Plan for Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego 1996c). (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-183.) CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 15 ImDact: -., 4.3-MHPA-3 Indirect Impacts to Covered Species: Indirect impacts to covered species would result from edge effects within and adjacent to the preserve and increased development pressure outside the preserve, as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-150-151.) Findinl!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MSCP Subregional Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. EXDlanation: These indirect impacts are mitigated through implementation of guidelines provided in subarea plans for uses within the preserve and guidelines for preserve management activities. In addition, biological monitoring and reporting procedures serve to mitigate indirect impacts. (Draft ErR, p. 4.3-183.) ImDact: 4.3-MHP A-4 Indirect Impacts to Non-wetland Uncovered Species: Because indirect impacts for """'I. non-wetland uncovered sensitive species cannot be meaningfully evaluated at the MSCP Subregional Plan level, impacts are regarded as siguificant, as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan. (Draft ErR, pp. 4.3-150-151.) Findinl!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MSCP Subregional Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final ErR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. EXDlanation: Partial mitigation for these indirect impacts is accomplished through implementation of guidelines provided in the Biological Monitoring Plan for Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego 1996c). Preserve management guidelines and land use planning tools incorporated in the subarea plans provided complete mitigation, as further discussed for impacts 4.3-MHP A-6 through 4.3-MHPA-8. (Draft ErR, p. 4.3-183.) CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN ""'" 16 . . . ImDact: 4.3-MHPA-5 Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats: Because indirect impacts for sensitive vegetation communities and habitats cannot be meaningfully evaluated at the MSCP Subregional Plan level, impacts are regarded as significant, as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 150-151.) Findin2: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MSCP Subregional Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. EXDlanation: Partial mitigation for these indirect impacts is accomplished through implementation of guidelines provided in the Biological Monitoring Plan for Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego 1996c). Preserve management guidelines and land use planning tools incorporated in the subarea plans provided complete mitigation, as further discussed for impacts 4.3-MHP A-6 through 4.3-MHPA-8. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-183.) ImDact: 4.3-MHP A-6 Direct Impacts to Covered Species: The proposed federal and state actions for take of species on the Covered Species List would result in significant direct impacts to populations of the covered species located outside the MHP A preserve, at the project level. Significant direct impacts will occur to the following covered plant species, as a result of implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Plant species on the Covered Species List with populations present (or potentially present) within the Chula Vista Subarea include San Diego thorn-mint, San Diego ambrosia, Orcutt's brodiaea, salt marsh bird's-beak, variegated dudleya (expected), San Diego button-celery, San Diego barrel cactus, Otay tarplant, San Diego goldenstar (expected), prostrate navarretia (expected), snake cholla, California Orcutt grass (expected), Otay Mesa mint (expected). Animal species on the Covered Species List that are represented (or expected to be represented) by populations within the Chula Vista Subarea include Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, arroyo southwestern toad (expected), southwestern pond turtle, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego horned lizard, Cooper's hawk, CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 17 tricolored blackbird, California rufous-crowned sparrow, coastal cactus wren, western snowy plover, reddish egret (expected), southwestern willow flycatcher """ (expected), bald eagle (expected), Belding's Savannah sparrow, large-billed Savannah sparrow, California brown pelican, white-faced ibis (expected), coastal California gnatcatcher, light-footed clapper rail, western bluebird, burrowing owl, California least tern, and least Bell's vireo. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-155-156.) Findinl!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. Explanation: Significant impacts to the 13 plant and 24 animal species are mitigated through the following measures: 1. Preservation of a majority of core or major populations of the covered species in the MHP A preserve within the Chula Vista Subarea. 2. Design and configuration of the portion of the MHPA preserve within the Chula Vista Subarea. 3. Monitoring and reporting measures included in the Biological Monitoring Plan for Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego 1996c). (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-189-190.) """ There are no impacts to uncovered species, because the take permits will not authorize any harm to species not expressly covered by the permits. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-44.) Impact: 4.3-MHP A-7 Direct Impacts to Vegetation CommunitieslHabitats: Because virtually all natural habitats and non-native grassland in the study area support one or more covered species, direct impacts to these habitats are considered significant. Significant impacts would occur to the following habitats within the Chula Vista Subarea as a result of implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan: coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, grassland, southern coastal saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, riparian forest, riparian scrub, open water, natural flood channel, shallow bay, deep bay, disturbed wetlands and eucalyptus woodland. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-156.) CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN -., 18 . . . Findinl!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. EXDlanation: Significant impacts to vegetation communitieslhabitats are mitigated through the following measures: 1. Preservation of core habitat areas occurring within the Chu1a Vista Subarea. 2. Design and configuration of the MHPA preserve within the Chula Vista Subarea. 3. Monitoring and reporting measures included in the Biological Monitoring Plan for Multiple Species Conservation Program (City of San Diego 1996c). (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-190.) ImDact: 4.3-MHPA-8 Indirect Impacts: It is anticipated that conservation measures implemented under the City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan would provide some protection for biological resources. However, indirect impacts to covered species, uncovered species, and sensitive vegetation communitieslhabitats would result from permitted uses within the preserve, edge effects from uses adjacent to the preserve, and increased development pressure outside the preserve, all as a result of implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. These impacts are considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-156.) Findinl!: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan that avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. After mitigation, the impacts will be less than significant. EXDlanation: Significant indirect impacts to covered species, uncovered speCIes, and vegetation communitieslhabitats would be reduced through: 1. The application of conditions of coverage, standards, ordinances and policies identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, CEQA review, and state and federal wetland regulations. 2. Public access and land use controls as provided in Section 5.0 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 19 3. Application of provisions concerning land uses adjacent to the Preserve as provided in Section 6.3 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-190; Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000, Section 6.3.) Application of a tiering system of mitigation ratios, as described in Section 4.2.2 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-190; Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000, Section 4.2.2.) ~ 4. C. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Standards of Silmificance: The following criteria are used to determine the significance of any impact to transportation and circulation: · Elimination or reconfiguration of transportation or circulation facilities necessary to achieve MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan goals that would result in increased traffic congestion or unacceptable levels of service. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-1.) Findin!!: No significant impacts to transportation or circulation facilities are identified as a result of implementation ofthe MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-2-4.) Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than .""'" significant. (Pub. Resources Code, . 21002; CEQA Guidelines, ' 15091.) Exnlanation: Although major transportation corridors are generally considered incompatible with core and preserve areas, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan acknowledges that certain public infrastructure, including major transportation corridors, are necessary for public health and safety and to support allowed development. It is expressly intended that flexibility be allowed in locating planned infrastructure in the Preserve. Allowed roads in the Preserve, along with implementation criteria for each, are listed in Table 16 and Table 17 in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11,2000. Additional siting criteria for roads are discussed in Section 5.2.4.4 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September II, 2000. Because planned circulation elements are allowed subject to the conditions of coverage identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, no significant impacts to transportation and circulation are identified. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN ""'" 20 . . . D. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Standards of Sil!nificance: The following criteria are used to determine the significance of any impact to public facilities and the ability to provide public services: . Need for deletion or relocation of public facilities or services and such deletion or relocation would have adverse effects of the ability of the localjurisdiction(s) to provide public service and facilities in an adequate manner to residents of the region. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-1.) Impacts to public services and utilities are summarized in Table ES-5 of the Draft EIR (attached hereto as Exhibit 4), and discussed in detail below. Impact: 4.5-MHPA-I Because sufficient information is not available on a regional level regarding how public service facilities considered incompatible with the core and linkage areas of the preserve might be relocated or how existing facilities might be expanded to accommodate the potential loss of planned facilities, this impact is regarded as significant at the program, or MSCP Subregional Plan, level. (Draft EIR, p. 4.5-18.) Findinl!: No potential impacts to public facilities within the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan area are identified. To the extent that significant impacts remain unmitigated at the program level, those impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency, pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-18-19.) Explanation: Individual jurisdictions participating in the MSCP Subregional Plan will be required to prepare subarea plans which shall address any significant impact to necessary public facilities. The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan acknowledges that certain public infrastructure, including sewer and drainage facilities, are necessary for public health and safety and to support allowed development. It is expressly intended that flexibility be allowed in locating planned infrastructure in the Preserve. I Allowed public facilities in the Preserve, along with implementation criteria for each, are listed in Table 16 and Table 17 in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000. Additional siting criteria for public facilities are discussed in Section 5.2.4.4 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan dated September 11, 2000. Because planned public facilities are allowed CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 21 subject to the conditions of coverage identified in the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, no significant impacts to public services and utilities are identified as a result of the implementation of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. To the extent that significant impacts remain unmitigated at the program level, those impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency. -.. E. POPULATION AND HOUSING Standards of Silmificance: The following criteria are used to determine the significance of any impact to population and housing: . A shift of greater than 25 percent of the planned residential land uses or population within the MSCP study areas from within a preserve scenario boundary to a location outside the preserve. Increases in overall anticipated residential densities within the MSCP study area above 3.1 DU/acre. Decreases in projected developable land supply to the point that a jurisdiction will be unable to meet their projected 1990-2005 residential land needs. Increases in subarea housing densities greater than 10 percent compared to baseline conditions. A shift from inside a Preserve planning area to outside a Preserve planning area of25 percent or greater of the total forecast number of housing units to be built within an individual jurisdiction or community plan. (Draft EIR, p. 4.6-1.) -. . . . . Impacts to population and housing are summarized in Table ES-6 of the Draft EIR (attached hereto as Exhibit 5), and discussed in detail below. Findin!!: No significant impacts to population and housing are identified as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-24.) Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, '21002; CEQA Guidelines, ' 15091.) Any impacts within other subarea plan areas are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency, pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN -.. 22 . . . Exnlanation: Although the Final EIR found significant unmitigated impacts for the Carmel Valley Community Plan Area and the East Elliott Community Plan Area, those impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency, pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code. F. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS Standards of Sil!nificance: The following criteria are used to determine the significance of any growth-inducing impacts: . If the MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan would induce growth either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. Findinl!: No growth-inducing impacts are identified as a result of implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan or Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 5-1.) Exnlanation: No features of the MHP A would directly or indirectly induce growth. Although provision of a regional preserve system would likely be regarded as an enhancement in the region's quality oflife, it is not anticipated that people would be induced to move to the San Diego area, including Chula Vista, due to implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 5-1.) G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Standards ofSil!nificance: The following considerations are necessary to support an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: . A list of past, present and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; . A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects; and . A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 23 Findin!!: -.. The City has independently considered the discussion of cumulative impacts in the Final EIR, and finds that the implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, the subarea plans of other participating local jurisdictions, and the implementation of related conservation plans throughout San Diego, Orange and Riverside Counties will result in direct impacts to species on the covered species lists of those plans. As discussed in detail above, it is anticipated that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, each of the conservation plans that avoid the significant environmental effects. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) Exolanation: The assembly and management of preserves in accordance with NCCP Conservation Guidelines as incorporated into individual take permits will reduce any adverse impacts to biological resources to a level below significance. (Draft EIR, p. 6-3.) x. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be -.. substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. As noted earlier, in Section VI of these Findings, an alternative may be "infeasible" if it fails to fully promote the lead agency's underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. Thus, "'feasibility' under CEQA encompasses 'desirability' to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors." of a project. (Citv of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at 417; see also Seauovah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.App.4th at 715.) The detailed discussion in Section IX demonstrates that no significant environmental effects of the project that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista remain unmitigated. Therefore, no project alternatives are analyzed. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACT: APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN ""'" 24 . . . XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Because, the City's approval of the MSCP Subregional Plan and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan will not result in any impacts that remain significant and unavoidable, the Council need not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. CITY OF CHULA VISTA FINDINGS OF FACTo APPROVAL OF THE MSCP SUBREGIONAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF THE CHULA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN 25 EXHIBIT 1 Table ES-2 MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Summary ~ TABLE ES-2 SUMMARY OF LAND USE IMPACTS Impact Leval byAlter.ative 'rapaedp,Dject CoastalSagdcrub BiDlagically..Pralerred Public umlSS...ario MRPA Scenario . ...Scenario ... .. Belore After ... Belare Alter ..Balore. Alter . Belilref ..Altar Impact Category and Area .. . M"lligation.. . Miligalio. MiligalianMitigelion . Mitigalion Miligatia. Mili9llianMiti9llian ISSUE 1: W.uld the propl1S8d project rnult in e mnt! 'I'" whiJ:b n iDr:tJn6i!~eDt.with the ~8DBrIlI Pm. er c"",lDunit, Pi!n wlt.hiD tile #n.df _ ad exiotinf/ rmvimDlDent6lp/11..., 1D8Dlbtu _.. ad CDDDty. flM/iCipetJng e!JrH1t:Ju. .r lither polit:, lDenrieta..iDcIudiDg /If1lpo<l1IrH#7 MSCP PLAN less than - less than - less than - lessthan I - significant sillnificant significant sillnificant SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS City 01 Chula Vista Suba,aa Plan less than - less than - less than - significant significant significant City 01 Coronado Subarea Pian less than - less than - Less than - Nor Analyzed significant significant significant City of Del Mar Subarea Plan Less than - less than - less than - significant significant significant City of Sa. Diego Subarea Plan Significant SilInificant & Significant Significant & Significant Significant & not mitigated not mitigated not mitigated City of San Diego 1"If,lementing Action - Less than - Progress Guide and eneral Plan Amendments significant City of San Diego Implementing Action - Community Plan Amendments Cannel Valley Community Plan Less than - ~ significant North City Future Urbanizing Area less than - significant Rancho Peliasqu~as Cammun~y Plan Significant Significant & not mitigated Nor Analyzed East Elliott Community Plan Significant SilIniflCllnt & not migated Otay Mesa Community Plan Significant Significant & not migated Tiiuana River Valley Community Plan less than u significant Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area less than - significant City of San Diego Implementing Action: less than - Cornerstone Lands significant City of Santee Subarea Pian Less than - less than - Less than - significant significant significant Less than less than less than Nor Analyzed County of San Diego - Subarea Plan significant - Significant - significant - County of San Diego - Implementing Actions: Less than - Biology Mitigation Ordinance significant Otay Water District Less than - Nor Analyzed significant Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley less than - RegIonal Park Concept Plan significant ISSUE 2: Would the prrsed project confliet with adjacent existing Bnd planned land uses and adjoining apPflllled/pfflptllld SubSBqUBllt development. No significant impacts were identified for the MSCP Plan, Subarea Plans, and Special Districts under Issue 2. As a result. mitigation is not required. ~ looue 3: W.uld the p'rrJp.oed prajer:t .dvenely effect larmlendo .1 PrilDe, St.tewide.l.cal Uni~e, .r Grezinlf lend ilDponence.. dolined , by the Calil.rnia Depanment., C.noervati.n Irnponant Farmland Mepping Pmgram 7 .uld the pmject edvene/, imper:t luture ,xtnction of sand and grallel resourc,s? The Subarea/Other Plans No significant impacts were identified for the MSCP Plan, Subarea Plans, or Special Districts under Issue 3. As a result, no mitigation is required. 06/07/96 ES-8 EXHIBIT 2 Table E5-3 . MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Summary TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES Impact lavalllyAltarnatiD Prop.....Pr~jact COISII1S~gaScrub Biol~ically Pralellad PubUc1anddc...rio .. .. > ...i MHPA Scenario . > Scuari. ...... .... ...... .~., <. .. ....J> Belo.. Altar .. Balora Aftar . BlI...... Altar. Before .. Aft"r C.. ......... i ..... .... Mitigalilm Mitigiltion Mitigatioll Mitigati"" Mitigation Mitigation Mitigltio.. Mitigalilm ISSUE I: Would tho implamantatio. 01 Iha proposad project alfactively prot..t spaci.. and habitats? IDiract Impacts to eovarad Speci..! .. i >.. i iJ< i..i. <i . .... i .i...... ..i < ...i .ii" i ........i San Diego thorn.mint (AC8nti1omintl14 iliafolia) Significant lass than Signfficant Significant & Signilicant lass than Signifieam Sigllificam & PEJCE .ignificant not mitigated .ignfficant not mitigated Shaw'. agave IAgave .114wi1J Signfficant le.. than Significant Sigllificant& Not Not Not Not "J .ignfficant not mitigated significant .ignifieam .igMicant .ignffieant San Diego ambro.ia IAmb"';' pumila) Significant less than Significam Significant & Significant less than Signfficant less than "/ significant not mitigated significant .ignificant Aphani.ma IApl14ni.ma blitoides) Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not "/ significant significant significant significant significant .ignificant .ignfficant .ignfficant Del Mar manzanitalArcto.taphy(o. glandulo.. var, Significant less than Signfficant Sigllificant& Not Not Not Not Cl'assifolia) .ignfficam no.mitigated .ignfficam .ignfficant significant .ignfficant PEl Dtay manzanita IArcto.taphylo.otayansi.) Not Not SigMicant Signifil:ant& Not Not Signfficant Sigllificant & . "/ significant .ignfficant not mitigated significant .ignfficant not mitigated Coastal dune. milk.vetch lA.tragalu. tenet var, au] Significant less than Significant Significant & Significant lass than Signifieant lass than PE/CE signiflCam not nitigated signfficam significam Encinitas baccharis l8aeehad. ven...ae) Signfficant less than Signfficant SignifJCam & Significam less than Significant Significant & PE/CE significant not mitigated significant not mitigated Nevin's barberry l8erberi. nevi nil} Not Not Not analyzed Not analyzed Not analyzad Not analyzed Not analyzed Not analyzed None .ignificam significant Thread.leaved brodiaea I8rodi86 filifolia) Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not PTJCE significant significant significant significant significant Significant sjgnificant significam Orcutt'. brodi..al8rodiBea orcuttill Significant less than Signffieant Signifocant & Signifieant less than Signffieam less than "/ significant not mitigated .ignfficant significant Dense reed grass (C8Iamagro.ti. d'1/$8) Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not None significant significant stgnificant significant significant significant signfficam signfficam Dunn'. mariposa lily (Ca(ochonu. dunni/J Not Not Significant Signifieam & Not Not Significant Significam& "/CR Signfficant Significant not mitigated significant significant not mitigated Slender-pod jewelfiower ICauJanthu. .t.noe8rpu.) Significant less than Signfficant less than Signfficant lass than Significant Signifieant & "/CR significant stgnificant significant not mitigated lakeside ceanothus (Ceanothu. eyan.u.) Significam lass than Signfficant Significant & Signfficant lass than Significant SignifiCllll& "J significant not mitigated significant not mitigated Wan-stemmed coanothu. (Ceanothu. ..fflJeo.u.) Significant lass than Signffieant less than Not Not Signfficant less than "I significant significant significant significant significant Salt marsh bird'.-beak ICorr/ylanthu. madrimu. ssp. Significant less than SigMicant Signifieant & Not Not Signfficant Significam & maritimu:) significant not mitigated Significant significant not mitigated FEICE Orcutt's bird's-beak ICordylanthu$ oreuttianu:} Significant less than Signfficant Significant & Not Not Significant Significant & "I significant not mitigated significant significant not mitigated 08107/96 E5-10 EXHIBIT 2 Table E5-3 MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Summary """" TABLE ES-3 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES ... Proposedl'rOjlct CoasWSaglScrllb . BiohlgicanYPteje""d < .PubliC.lI'"IsS..lllIdo lmpact..Llvel.byAlternative MHPAi Scenario. Scenario ImpactCOt.egorYalld ~r.. ..ii........ii.. Sefore Afte, Sefore Aller .Sefore AIlOr SIlo" Atil; . Mitigation Mitigation Milifllion MitigaliOn Mitigalian Mitigation MIligalio. r,litigatiOlj Del Mar Mesa sand. aster ICorethIDgyne fiI.ginifo/i. Significanl Lessthan Signmcant Less than Significant Less than Significant Leu than var. linifoli.) significant significant significant signmcant PTI T ecate cypress ICupressus foroesil) Not Not Significant Signifu:ant & Not Not Significant Significant & "/ sigrnficant significant nolmiligated significant significant not mitigatad Shon.leaved dudleva /Pud/ey. blochmaniae spp. Significant Less than Signmcant Signnicanl & Significant Less than Significanl Signmcant & brevifoli.) significant nol mitigated significant not mitigatad PE/CE Variegated dudleva /Pud/ey. ..rieg.t.) Significant Less than Significant Less Ihan Significant Less Ihan Significant Less Ihan "/ significant significant . significant significant StickV dudleva /Pud/ey. viscid.) Significant Less than Not Not Not Not Significant SignifiC8Rt& "/ significant significant significant significant significant not nitigated Palmer's ericameria (Enc,meria palmeri ssp. pa/menl Significant Less than Not Not NOI Not Significant Signnicant & "/ significant significant signmcant significant significant nol qated San Diego button.ceJery I,Eryngium ,rina/arum var. Significant Less Ihan Significant Signnicant & Significant Less than Significant Lessthan "'" p.rishi/l significant not mitigated significant significant FE/CE Coast waUflower Ifrysimum .mmophi/um) Not Not Not NOI Not Not Not Not "/ significant significant significant significant significant significant significant significant San Diego barrel caclus IF.IDe.ctus virid.seens) Significanl Less than Significant Signnicant & Not Not Signmcant Siunmcant & "/ signmcant nOI mitigated significant significant nOI nitigated Otav tarplantll/emiloni. conjug.os) Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than PE/CE significant signmcant significant significant Hean.leaved pitcher sage lJ.ep.chini. c.rdiophyl/.) Significant Less than Significant Signifocant & Not Not Significant sigiuficant & "/ stgnificant not mitigated signmcant significant not nitigated Gander's pilcher sage lJ.epechini. g.nden] Not NOI Significant Signnicant & Not NOI Signmcant Significant & "/ significant significant not mitigated significant significant nol nitigated Nuttall's lotus lJ.otus outr.Ui.ous) Signif",ant Less than Significant Signm..rlt & Not Not Not Nol "/ significant not nitigated significant significant significant Significant Felt.leaved monardeUa IMonordeN. hypo/euc. ssp. Significant Less than Not analvzed Not analvzed Not analvzed Not analyzed Not analvzed Not analvzed /.nota) Significant "/ WillowV monardella IMonordeN. Hooides ssp. Significant Less than Significant Significant & Not Not Significant Less lhan vim/nea) significant not m~igated significant significant significant PE/CE San Diego goldenstar IMuill. cleve/.odu) Significant less than Significant Significant & Signmcant Less than Significant Significant & "J significant nol mitigated significant not mitigated Prostrate navarretia Wavanetia fossa/isl Significant less than Significant Significant & Not Not Significant Signnicant& PT/ Significant not mitigated significant significant not mitigated Oehesa bear-grass Wo/ina intefTata) Significant Less than Significant Signnicant & Significant Less Ihan Significant Signifocant & PT/CE significant not mitigazed significant not m~igated S.ake choUa IOpuoti. parryivar. serpentio.' Significant Less than Significant Signifocant & Significant Less than Significant Less than "/ significant not mitigated significant significant I , 08/07/96 ES-l1 EXHIBIT 2 Table E5-3 . MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS Executive SummAry TABLE ES.3 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES ,..... .... ... .. .Propmd1'l1!joct COlStII.SogoScrllb... BiolGlicolly.Prefo,,"d .Ipuh"" i .........2. ...i> >' ...... IntpoctLovolbyAltomltivo . MHPA ScenariD:,:};:,,: : .ScoolriO .., ...., ... ", < ... ,< .. < .,.. ... ... i.... ...... ....\,.. .... .........ii,ii.i B.foro . ..Aftor Blihlrl . Alter Bofora .A1w .iBoiIo!Ii iAlter '" .........'><i ~i1l8lio1l Mitigation Mitiption MitiglliiHl Mitigation ;Mitigation .. Mititltia.loIitigatioli Cllffornia Orcutt gross (Orcutti. c.liftJmica) Signfficlnt L.ss thIn Significam Significont& Significant Less than Signfficont Less thIn FEJCE significant not mitigated sigmicant significlm T orreV pine (Pinus 'O'''Y808) Significant Less thIn Signfficont SigoiflClnt & Not Not Not Not 0/ significant notmitigoted significant significant sigmicant signfficont San Diogo mosa mint (Pogogyne .bnmsil) Significant Less than Significam Significlltt& Signfficant Less than Sigmicant Less than FEJCE significant not mitigated signfficlnt signfficlm Otay Mesa mint (Pogogyne nudiuscul.l Significant less than Signfficant Signfficont & . Not Not Signfficant Significant & FEJCE significant not mitiglted significant significlnt not mitigated Small.llaVlld rose IRo.. minlJtjfoJj.1 Signfficant Less thIn Not Not Not Not Sigmiclm Less than --ICE signfficant significant signfficant significant signfficant signfficant San Miguel savory ISaturej. chandlen] Signfficant Less than Not analyzed Not anllyzed Not analyzed Not analyzed Not analyzed Not anelyzed None significant Gander's butterweed (Senecio g.nden] Not Not Signfficont Significant & Not Not Signfficant Less than o/CR signfficant significant not mitigated significant significant significant Narrow-leaved nightshade ISol.num tenuilobatuml Signfficant Less than Signfficant Signfficont & Not Not Signfficant Significant .& 0/ significant not mitigated signfficam signifiCant aot mitigated . Porry's tetracoccus ITetracoccus diDicus) Not Not Significant Signfficont& Signfficant Less than Significlnt Signfficont .& 0/ signfficant significant not mitigated significant not mitigB!1ld <' ..... i> .... < ..........,. ........ ... . ... .ii..i .....<.. i,'. .... i ............... ........iiii Sltt marsh Skipper (P.noquina "rans) Not Not Significant SigniflClll\ & Not Not Not Not 0/ signfficant significlm not aitigated significant significant significant signfficant Thorne's hairstrelk butterfly (MilOura thtJrTHI/] Not Not Significant Significant & Not Not Not Not 01 signfficant Signfficant not mitigoted significant significant signfficam signfficlm San Diego fairy shrimp IBranchinecta ..ndiegoensisl Significant Less than Not Inllyzed Not anllyzed Not Inalyzed Not analyzed Not analyzed Not Inalyzed PEl significant Riverside fliry shrimp (StreplOceph.lus wootrom) Signfficlm Less than Significant Significant & Signfficant Less thIn Significant Less than FEJ significant not mitig8I8d signfficlnt significant Arroyo southwestern tOld lBufo microscaphus Signfficant Less than Signfficant Signfficant & Signfficlm Less thIn Signfficant Signfficom & c.lif'micus) signfficant not mitigated significant not miligoted FEJSSC Cllifornia red.logged frog IR.na .urora drayt,m] Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not FT/SSC significant significant significant significant significant significant sigmicant significant Southwestern pond turtle IClemmys mannorata Significlnt Less than Signfficant Significom & Significant less than Significant less than p.Hid.1 significant not mitigoted Significant signifICant o/SSC SIn Diogo homed lizard (Phrynosom. cDronatum Significant Less than Signfficant SigMicant & Significant Less than Significant SigMicam & bl.inville/] significant not mitigoted significant not mitigated o/SSC Orlnge-throated whiptail ICnemidophtJrus Significant Less than Significant Significant & Significant Less than Signfficant Significant & hyperythrus be/dingt) significant not mitigated significant not mitiglted o/SSC 08107196 E5-12 EXHIBIT 2 Table E5-3 MSCP Plan Draft EIR/EIS Executive Snmmstry ...... TABLE ES-3 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES > ...L,{ ...... . ..................... > P~o_dP"'j..t ~omIIS.g.S..lIb . ..BiologiclIllyProt....d PlJbfi"LllndliS.....iill. . ...../<...... ...... .. ..../\... MHPA . ScenariD Seen.,io ..c,c..L_!U...... ..Lii i/ B.lo.... . . Altor Belo.e .AIte.. Belore . AItor Bolo... After> ...... ....... . i . .....> ..iii Mitigation Mi~gltiDn Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigltioll Mitigoti.# . Miti.oti.. California brown pelican (fe/,canus Dccident,Ds Signijicant Loss than Significant Signif..... & Signm.ant Less than Signm.ant Less than californicusl significant not mitig8llld significant significant FElCE Reddish ogret ffgrett. rut..c.ns) Significant Less than Signijicant Significant & Not Not Not Not 'I significant notmitig8llld significant significant significant significant White-la.ed ibis V'eg.dis chilu) Signmcant Less than Not Not Not Not Not Not 'ISSC significant signiji.ant significant significant significant significant significant Canada goose f8rsnt. c..,deMis} Significant Less than Signiji.ant Signilicant& Signiji.ant Less than Signmcant Significant & None significant not mitigated signm.ant not mitigated Bald eagle VI.lis..tusleucDcephslusl Signijicant Less than Not Not Not Nat Not Not FT/CE significant signiji.ant signijicant significant significant significant signmcant Nanhern ha,rier (Circus cy..,us) Not Not Signilicant Significant & Signiji.ant Less than Significant 5i9niIicani& ../SSC significant significant not mitigated significant not mitigated Caope,'s hawk (Accipiter cDDperil) Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Signijicant Less than ../SSC significant significant significant stgnificant Swainson's hawk (But'o swainsom) Not Not Nat Not Nat Not Not Not ../CT significant signij;cant significant significant significant significant significant significant Ferruginous hawk f8uteo reg.lisl Nat Nat Not Not Nat Not Not Not '/SSC significant significant significant significant significant significant significant significant Golden eagle 'Aquil. chrys8ltDs) Nat Nat Significant Less than Nat Not Significant Less than BEPAlSSC significant signijicant significant significant significant significant American peregrine falcon 1f.leD peregrinus .nltum} Nat Not Not Not Not Not Not Nat FElCE significant significant significant significant significant significant significant sigooicant light.footed clapper rai/lR./IuslongifDstrislevip"l Significant Less than Signijicant Significant & Not Not Significant Less than FE/CE significant nat. mitig8llld significant significant signmcant Western snowy plover {Challdtius a/,xandrinus Significant Less than Significant Significant & Not Nat Signiji.ant Less than nivosus) significant natmitig8llld significant significant signijicant FT/SSC Mountain plover (Chsrsdrius mont.nusl Not Not Not Nat Not Nat Not Not CI significant significant significant significant significant significant significant signmcant i long.billed curlew Wumenius amen'canus) Not Nat Significant Significant & Not Not Not Not I'/SSC . significant significant not mitigated significant significant significant significant ! Elegantte,n ISterns eleg.ns} Nat Not Significant Significant & Not Not Nat Nat "/SSC significant significant notmitig8llld significant significant significant significant California least tern (Sterna antil1arum brownI) Significant Less than Significant Significant & Not Not Not Not FE/CE significant nat mitigated significant significant significant significant Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicu/aria hypugaeaJ Significant less than Significant less than Significant Less than Signijicant Signilicant& '/SSC significant significant significant nat mitig8llld Southwestern willow flycatcher fEmpidonax trai/lii Significant less than Significant Significant & Significant less than Significant Significant & extimus) significant nat mitigated significant notmitig8llld FElCE ...... """- 08/07/96 E5-13 . EXHIBIT 2 Table E5-3 . MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive SlImmlll'Y TABLE ES-3 (continued) SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO COVERED SPECIES .. ..Pr~p...dp",j~ ... ....~Slg.s.rull BiologioIIIyPrIjl,,"d ...." . i ImpaotlovelbyAltlll1lltive . .... PllblicLlndS~ria ... MYPA . .S.lnario/ SoIDaria Impaotc.tqQl'yandAr.. i Beloill Alto,. Belara . Altor Before AItor ..81i1"... i.A....i Nitillatian Mitillation Mitigation Mitigatioa Mitigation Mitiliation... Mitiglitio.' . Mijjg8!ial1 COlstl1 cIC1Us wrln (C.mpylorynchus Significlnt Le.. than Significant Less thIn Not Not Significant Lass thIn brunneicspiHus CDUW) significant significant significant significant stgoificaot .,SSC CIUfomia gnltcltchor (f'olioptila cslifornica Signilicant Less than Significant Significant & Significant Lass than Significant Significant & cslifornica) significant ~mitigated significant natJrO!tigated FTISSC WIsler. bluebird (Sis/ia muicanal Sign~icant Less than Significant signiIicant& Significant Lass than Significant Less than None significant not mitigotod significant significant Least BIll's villo lV"1IIO balfij pusiHusl Significant Less than Significant Sipnificant & Not Not Sign~icant Significant & FElCE significant not mitigated significant significant Do!!I!Iiglllld California rufous.crowned sparrow /AimophiJa Sign~icant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Sigrbt& ruficeps caneseeos) significant significant significant ..tgated C2JSSC Bekling's Savannah sparrow (f'asserculus Significant Less than Sign~icant Significant & Not Not Sign~icant sigJiiIioani& samlwichensis balding/l significant Dot mitigated significant significant Dot mitigotod ./CE Large.billed Savannah sparrow (f'assllCuJus Signfficant Less than Significant Significant 8. Not Not Not Not samlwichensis rostratus) significant Dot mitigated significant signfficant signfficant sign~icant .,SSC Tricololld blackbird IAge/.ius tticoJon Signfficant Less than Sign~icant Signfficant & Significant Less than Sign~icant Less than ./SSC significant not mitigated significant significant American badger (T.xidea taxus) Not Not Not Not Not Not Not Not ../SSC significant significant significant significant significant significant significant significant Mountain lion (Felis conc%ll Not Not Significant Significant & Not Not Not Not ../Protected significant sign~icant not mitigated significant significant significant sign~icant Southern mule deer (OdocoHeus hernionus fuJiginata) Not Not Significant SignifocaDt & Not Not Not Not -Igame species significant significant Dot mitigotod significant significant signfficant signffieant ", 08/07/96 ES-14 EXHIBIT 3 Table ES-4 MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Summary -., Imp..t.L.vel.hyAlt.,n.tiw · Proposad P,Oject eo..taISageS!:l'ub . BiologicallyPIIII.rred >.. .'-T{ ..' .....>. ... '..<c ..... 'MHPk . sc....rio . S..nario Cic << c ( · c.... ........... ..L:'"'>i' ... ..... ..i Bofore ~lta, BelDfe Altar <B.lor. Altar . B~I~.III'" . Altar IC' --- ...... <........... Mitiilatm Mitig.tion . Mitigation Mili.....;~ii Mili1lation Mitiaali... MitiilatiOn .1r"iall1ioft ISSUE 1: Would th. impl.m.nlation 01 th. propo..d proj..te"..tiv.ly prot..t sp..i.. .nd h.bilats? [Di,..t ""pacts to Non,covered SpecilSl MSCP PLAN les. th.n les.than l.ss than less than significant - significant - significant - significant - SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS Cny of COOla Vista Subarea Plan' less than less than Less than significant - significant - significant - City 01 Coronado Subarea Plan less th.n less than Less than significant - significant - significant - Not Analyzed Cny of Del Mar Subarea PI.n less than less than less th.n signnicant - significant - significant - Cny of S.n Oi.go Sub.rea PI.n less than less than less than significant - significant - significant - City of San Diego IlIlplementing Action _ less th.n Progress Guide and General Plan Amendments significant - City of S.n Diego Implementing Action - Communny Plan Amendments ""' C.rmel VaUey Community Plan Less than significant - North City Future Urbanizing Area less than sign~icant - Rancho Penasquitos Community Plan less than Not Analyzed sigMicant - East Elliott Community Plan less than sign~icant - Otay Mesa Communny Plan less than significant - Tijuan. River Valley Community Plan less than significant - Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area less than significant - Cny of San Diego IlIlplementing Action _ less than Cornerstone lands significant - eny 01 Santee Subarea Plan Less than less than Less than Significant - significant - significant - less than Less than less than Not Analyzed County 01 San Diego Subarea Plan' significant - significant - significant - County of San Diego - Implementing Action: less than Biology Mitigation Ordinance significant - Dt.y W.ter District less than Not Analyzed significant - Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay VaUey less than Regional Park Concept Plan significant - TABLE ES-4 SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS ~ 08107/96 E5-15 EXHIBIT 3 Table E5-4 . MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Summary TABLE ES-4 (continued) SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Im~a.t.Le..I.br.~llemati~ Pro~oaedP,.iact ContalSate Scrub Ilielogicallyl'nllarrad ...PubU...l.lIndlSCllllriD.... MHPA Scenario Scenario Selara Alter ." Selara Allar Selor. After ... selon',lf>Altar.. Impa.tCatagliryand Ar.. . Mitioelion '. MitloeliOn Mitigation Mitlaatl~n Mitigltion . MitigatiDll l~igaliO~Mltioelion ISSUE I: Would the implementation 01 the propo.ed proje.t allecti.ely protect .pe.la. and h.bitats? (Dire.t Impa.ts to Vegetation CommunitinJ MSCP PLAN Signilicant Las. than Signnicant Significant & Signili.ant Las. than S' n- I ~ficanta .ignnicant not mitigated significant .gn ..ant notni!ig8l8l SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS City 01 Chula Vista Subarea Plan' SiDnilicant Las. than Signilicant Significant & Signilicant LIS' than significant not mitigated significant City 01 Coronado Subarea Plan Signnicant LIS' than Signnicant Significant & Signilicant LIS' than significant not mitigated significant Not Analyzed City 01 Del Mar Subarea Plan SigMicant Less than Signilicant Significant & Signilicant Las. than .ignnicant not mitigated significant City 01 San Diego Subarea Plan Signilicant Less than Signnicant Significant & Signnicant LIS' than significant not mitigated significant C~y 01 San Diego Implementing Action - Community Plan Amendments Carmel Valley Commun~y Plan Significant Less than significant North C~y Future Urbanizing Area Signilicant Las. than significant Rancho Pena.qu~o. Commun~y Plan Signilicant LIS' than significant Ea.t Elliott Commun~y Plan Significant Less than Nor Analyzed significant Dtay Me.a Commun~y Plan Signilicant LIS' than .ignificant Tijuana River Valley Commun~y Plan Significant Less than significant Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area Significant LIS' than significant C~y 01 San Diego implementing Action - Significant LIS' than Cornerstone Land. significant City 01 Santee Subarea Plen Significant LIS' than Signilicant Significant & Significant LIS' than significant Not ~ated significant Less than SiDnificant & LIS' than Nor Analylld County 01 San Diego Subarea Plan' Signnicant significant SiDnilicant Not ~ated Significant Significant County of San Diego - Implementing Actions:' Significant Less than Biology M~igation Ordinance significant Otay Water Di.trict Signnicant LIS' than No/ Analyzed significant Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley Significant Significant & Regional Park Concept Plan not mitigated ", 08107/96 E5-16 MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS EXHIBIT 3 Table E5-4 Executive Summary ""'" TABLE ES-4 (continued) SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS Propo.od Project. co..to' Sago Scrub Biologically Preforred . . MHPA Scenario S.onario [ . . . . I _ Alllr Boforo Altor Bolore Aftar Bofo.. . . ~,.tlan I. Mitigation Mitigotion Miligolion Mitigation Mitigation Mitigotioli Would tho implomontotion 01 the propo.od projo.t offo.li.oly proto.t .po.ie. and habitat.? IIndire.t Impo.t. to Co.orad Spo.ias) ...'..,....-..........,...'... Impa.t leval by Allornative ISSUE 1: MSCP PLAN SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS less than significant Signifi.ant less than Significant significant less than Significant significant less than Signni.ant significant less than Significant .ignni.ant City of San Diego Implementing Action - Communijy Pia. Amendments less than Signnicant significant Less than Signifi.ant significant Less than Significant significant less than Significant significant less than Signni.ant significant less than Significant significant Less than Significant significant less than Signnicant significant less than Signifi.ant signifi.ant less than Signni.ant significant less than Significant significant less than Significant significant SigniflClllt & Significant not mitigated City 01 Chula Vista Subarea Plan' City 01 Coronado Subarea Plan City 01 Del Mar Subarea Plan City 01 San Diego Subarea Plan Carmel Valley Convnunity Plan North City Future Urbanizing Area Rancho Penasquitos COlI'lI'amitv Plan East Elliott Conrnunijy Plan Otay Mesa Communijy Plan Tijuana River VaUey Communijy Pia. Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area Implementing A.tion - City 01 San Diego Cornerstone lands City of Sante. Subaroa Plan County of Sa. Diego Subarea Plan' County of San Diego - Implementing Actions: Biology Mitigation Ordinance Otay Water District Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley Regio.al Park Concept Plan . -. - After Mitigation SigMi.ant Significant & Significant not mitigatod less Ihan significant less than significant Significant Significant & Signni.ant less than not mitigoted signnioant Signili.ant Significant & Signnieant less than not mitigated significant Not Analyzed Signili.ant Significant & Significant less than not mitigated significant Signifi.ant Significant & Significant less than not mijigatod significant Not Analyzed Signifi.ant Significant & Significant less than not mi!igatod significant Not Analyzed Signilicant Significant & Significant less than not mitigated significant Not Analyzed "" "'" 06/07/96 ES-17 . EXHIBIT 3 Table E5-4 . MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Snmmary TABLE ES-4 (continued) SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS . .. . . ;~".... ......../.,y . · PnlpooolfPioject I . . CoastlllSaJoScrub Biologically.....f~rrlll .PubliCbmlS Scoaario ..... .... ..i .. ..../.... > >>/ ...... .MHPA '-aria Sconario .......//. ....i. ...Y / BofOre .. .Altlr . ..fOra AltOi. i iBofo.. ... . AftOi. ~~.lltf, ......... yyYY i>.. Ilili~otimI"'iligatilJ~ Miligation Mili..&tilin MitiaalillA. Miiigali~ ISSUE 1: Would Ibe implomontalion of Ibe propned project o"ocli..ly protoctopocilS and habitats? IIndirect Impacts to Vogotation Communities} MSCP PLAN Significant Less than Significant Significant & Significant Less than Less Ihan I signfficant not mitigated significant significant - SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS Cily of Chula Vista Suba..a Plan' Significant Less than Significant Significant & Significant Less than significant nol nitigatad signfficant City of Coronado Subarea Plan Significant Less than Signfficant Significant & Significant Less than signfficant not mitigated significant N.t Analyzrd Cily of Del Mar Suba..a Plan Significant Less than Significant Signifil:ant& Signfficant Less than significant not nitigated significant City of San Diego Subarea Plan Significant Less than Significant SignilicaOt 8. Significant Less than significant not nitigatod significant Cily of San Diego Implementing Actions - COllllllln~y Plan Amendml!nt Carmel Valley COlllllllnity Plan Significant Less than significant North C~y Future Urbanizing Area Significant Less than significant Rancho Pei\asqu~os Community Plan Significant Less than significant East Ellioll Community Plan Significant Lessthan N.t Analyzed significant Otay Mesa CDIIlIIlInily Plan Signfficant Less than significant Tiiuana River Valley Commun~y Plan Significant Less than signfficant Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing A"a Signfficant Less than significant C~y of San Diego Implementing Action - Significant Less than Cornerstone Lands significant C~y of Santee Suba"a Plan Significant Less than Significant Significant & Signfficant Less than significant not mitigated significant Less than Significant & Less than N.t Analyzed County of San Diego Subarea Plan' Significant significant Significant not mitigatod Significant significant County of San Diego -Implementing Actions: Less than . Biology Mitigation Ordinance Signfficant significant Otay Water District Significant Less than N.t Analyzed significant Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley Significant Significant & Regional Park Concept Pia. not ~igated " 08/07/96 ES.18 EXHIBIT 3 Table E5-4 MSCP Plan Draft EIRJEIS Executive Summary ""'" TABLE ES-4 (continued) SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS . Prap""odPIOject CQaltalSagoScrub . Biologiul!yPr.larrad - ""paolleva"byAltemaliYe UHPA Seenlri. SCenariD- -.---.-. P~bIioLa"""Scauario '; ..... .IAr~i>>. ..' ... Bolo,. Altar Befuro Altl' 'B"I,," Altai Bama/>>Altli. ..C. (...... ....... MitigatilHt Mitigalion Milioolion Mitigation,' Mititali.n Mitiglti... ~igali&QiljligalioD ISSUE 2: Would the implementation 01 Ihe propoled MSep afflol the movement 01 any r..ident or migratory wildlife Ipeci..? MSCP PLAN le.. than .. Signilicant Significant & less than .. Signilicant I=~ significant nOI mitigated significant SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS City 01 Chula Vista Subarea Plan 1 less than - Significant SigniflClnt & less than - significant not mitigated significant City 01 Coronado Suba,ea Plan le.. than - Signilicant Significant & less than - lignilicant not mitigated significant Not Analyzed City of Del Mar Subarea Plan less than - Significant Significant & le.. than - signilicant not mitigated significant City 01 San Diego Subarea Plan less than - Significant Significant & le.. than - significant not mitigated significant Implementing Actions - P,ogre.. Guide and le.. than - General Plan Amendments significant Implementing Actions - Community Plan Amendments Carmel Valley Community Plan le.. than - signilicant North Coy Future U,bani~ng Area le.. than - significant Rancho Peliasquo.. Community Plan le.. than Not Analyzed significant - East Elliott Community Plan le.. than .. significant Otay Mesa Community Plan le.. than u significant Tijuana River Valley Communny Plan less than - significant Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area le.. than - Significant Coy of San Oiego Implementing Action _ le.. than - Cornerstone lands significant Coy of Santee Subar.a Plan le.. than - Signilicant Significant & less than - significant not niligated significant less than SignifICant & le.. than Not Analynd County of San Oiego Subarea Plan' Significant significant Signfficant not mitigated significant - County of San Diego - Implementing Actions: less than - Biology Mitigation Ordinance s;gnificant Otay Water ~istrict less than Not Analyzed significant - Joint Exercise of Power Agreement 01 Olay Valley less than - Regional Park Concept Plan Significant -.., " 08/07/96 E5-19 -I , EXHIBIT 4 Table E5-5 . MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive SummAry TABLE ES-S SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES . .lmpllctLawllbYAltematin .. <i Pt.p..edPr.ject . C.aa"lSage S.rilb Bi.lagicaUyPreforrod Public LaDI!liS."....i. ..) . MHPA Scenario . S.e..,i. .' .. " .,.. ,. .......... laf... Alter Blf.... Alter Blf.re Altar Befar.< Alter lmpa.t.Cet...ry..d..Aroe Mitinati.. .Miti.ati.. M"rti.atinn Mitination Miti.ati.n .. Miti....i.n wti.alion Miri.ati.. JSSUB: Would tb. 'T1pt1sad project havl an effect up.n thl need for .r the provision of pubr.. services and utilUies Significant Significant Significant Significant MSCP PLAN Significant &11Ot Significant &.ot Signifi.ant &11Ot Signifi.ant &11Ot mitigated mitigated mitigated mitigated SUBAREA/DTHER PLANS City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan less than - less than - less than - . signfficant significant significant City of Coronado Subarea Plan less than - less than - less than - significant signifi.ant signfficant Nor Af18lyzad City of Del Mar Subarea Plan less than - less than - less than - significant significant significant City of San Diego Subarea Plan less than - less than - less than - significant significant significant Implementing Actions - Progress Guide and less than - General Plan Amendments significant Implementing Actions - Conununity Plan Amendments Carmel Valley Comnamity Plan less than - signfficant North City Future Urbanizing Area less than - significant Rancho Penasquit.s C.mnamity Plan less than - significant Nor Af18/yllHl East EIIi.tt C.mmunity Plan Signifi.ant Significant & nllt mitigated Dtay Mesa Community Plan Signifi.ant Significant & nllt mitigated Tljuana R..er Valley Community Plan less than - signm.ant Beelor Cany.n Future Urbanizing Area less than - signifi.ant City .f San Dieg. Implementing Acti.n - less than - Cornerstone lands signifi.ant City .f Santee Subarea Plan less than - less than - less than - significant Significant significant less than less than less than N.tAf18/YZlll C.unty of San Dieg. - Subarea Plan significant - significant - significant - C.unty .f San Dieg. - Implementing A.tions: less than - Bi.l.gy Mitigation Drdinance significant Dtay Water Distri.t less than - NotAf18/yllHl significant Joint Exer.ise of Power Agreement of Dtay Signffi.ant less than Valley Regional Park C.ncept Plan significant . 08/07196 ES-21 EXHIBIT 5 Table E5-6 MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS Executive Summary ""'" .....c....:~ .......... ..... ... >. >i>............. .i... C.~taISag.Scru~ Bi.logiullyPr.f8rr.d I.i<>;- cL>. .<i.. ...PubliCLlinlk.S..lJari. i ........-..................................... ...... '..i Ii> >>1 . i Sceoar_io:': ,,:: . .:Scilnlrio ..../T: Illf.lli >>Aftat'.... BItar... > Aft.ri. . Bef.r. After> . 1.I.....i!I>Alter. .. ImpOct Categ.ry aud Ai... . . .....>> Mitlaati.nMiiiir;rti.n Mitigali1ln Mitiaatian Mitigation Mitigation i.i-rtigaliDll >Mitiga~n POPULATION AND HOUSING -llIue 1: Would tho proposod MSCP Pion oRoer plonntlt/!uisting housing in tho ,.,ion ond/or odja""t eomlllunitios or oRoer tho supply? MSCP PLAN AREA less than - less than - Significant Significant & less than I - significant significant not mitigated significant SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS City .f Chala Vista Subarea Plan less than - N. change - less than - significant significant City .f C.r.nad. Subarea Plan less than - N. change - less than - significant significant Not Analyzed City .f Del Mar Subarea Plan less than - N. change - less than - significant significant City of San oieg. Subarea Plan less than - less than - Significant Si!lnificant8,. significant significant n.'mitigated Implementing Acti.ns - Pr.gress Guide and less than - General Plan Amendments significant Implementing Acti.ns - C.mmunity Plan Amendments Carmel Valley Community Plan Sign~icant Signilicantli< n.tmitigated N.rth City Future Urbanizing Area N. Change - Ranch. Periasquit.s C.lMIJn~y Plan less than - significant Significant& Not AnalYZed East Elli.tt C.mmunity Plan Significant not mitigated Otay Mesa C.mmun~y Plan less than - significant Tijuana River Valley C.mmun~y Plan N. Change - Beeler Cany.n Future Urbanizing Area N. Change - City .f San oieg. C.rnerst.ne lands N. Change - City of Santee Subarea Plan less than - less than - Less than - stgnificant significant significant Not Analyzed C.unty .f San oieg. - Subarea Plan less than - Less than - less than - significant significant significant C.unty .f San Oieg. -Implementing Acti.ns: less than - Biology Mitigation Ordinance significant olay Water District N. Change - Not Analyzed J.int Exercise .f Powet Agreement .f Otay Valley N. Change - Regi.nal Park C.ncept Plan TABLE ES-6 SUMMARY OF POPULATION/HOUSING IMPACTS """' """ 08/07/96 ES-23 . . EXHIBIT 5 Table ES-6 .. . MSCP Plan Draft EIRIEIS . Executive Summary TABLE ES-6 (continued) SUMMARY OF POPULATION/HOUSING IMPACTS . Impact Level byAltlrnativl Pr.p..ldPrajlct C...tlISagOS.rub .. Bi.lagi..llyProf....d Public Leads S.lnari. MHPA Scenano:' SCI..,i.. . .... ... ..... 111.r. ..Altlr Blllllre .. AliI' Befarl AliI' Blll....;I.......AII.r ImpactCat...r, end Area Mitiaeti.. <Mitigati.. Mitiaati.n.. ...MitigatiDII Mitigati.n Mitiallti.. ~liga~nMitigati8n POPULATION AND HOUSING - II.u.2: W.uld the p"po.ed MSCP 1'1.. .h., the pl....d _ti.n, diltributi.n, M.it" If g;,wth plttom.f tiI. popul8ti.n 'plcilie.lI, within th.ltud,.,., .ntl, ,..f1I7IIl, within the regi.n? MSCP PLAN AREA Less than - less than - Significant Sigl1iflCant & Less Ihan I - significant significant n.t mitigated significant SUBAREA/OTHER PLANS Cijy .1 Chula Visla Subarea Plan Les, than - N. Changl - Less Ihan - significant significant City .1 C.r.nad. Subarea Plan N. Change - Na Change - Less than - significant Nat Analyzed Cijy al Del Mar Sub arIa Plan less than - Na Change - Less Ihan - significant significant Cijy al San Oiega Subarla Plan Less Ihan - Less Ihan - Less Ihan - significant significant significant Implemenling Actia.. - Pragress Guide and Lessthan - General Plan Amendments significant Implementing Actia.. - C.mnwnity Plan Ameodments Carmel Valley Community Plan Less than - significant N.rth City Future Urbaniring ArIa N. Chaoge - Ranch. Penasquij.s C.mmunity Plan Les, than - significant Les, than N.t Analyzed East Elli.tt C.mnwnily Plan significant - Otay Mesa Cammunijy Plan Less than - significant Tijuana River Valley C.mmunity Plan N. Chaoge - Beeler Canyon Future Urbanizing Area N. Change - Cijy .1 San Dieg. C.rnerstane Lands. N. Change - City al Santee Subarea Plan Less than - Less than - Less than - significant significant significant N.t Analyzed C.unty .1 San Dieg. - Subarea Plan Less than - Les, Ihan - Less than - significant significant significant County of San Diego - Implementing Actions: Less than - Biology Mitigation Ordinance significant N.t Analyzed Otay Water ~istrict N. Change - Joint Exercise of Power Agreement of Otay Valley Na Change - Regional Park Concept Plan . 08/07/96 ES-24 . '. ." Attachment 2 . . . . . MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION (MSCP) SUBREGIONAL PLAN MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES for the CITY OF CHUlA VISTA for the . CHUlA VISTA MSCP SUBAREA PLAN October 12, 2000 . . .. ", . . MSCP MITIGATION AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT MONITORING . PROGRAM FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mitigation measures which would reduce or eliminate potential environmental impacts of the MSCP Subregional Plan as implemented within the City ofChula Vista ("City") by the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan ("Subarea Plan") have been incorporated into and identified throughout the Subarea Plan and the Implementing Agreement ("IA"), and have been identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") certified by the lead agencies. The project proponent is required to implement the adopted mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance, the following mitigation monitoring program has been formulated for use within the jurisdiction of the City of Chula Vista pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines.] This program consists of a checklist, including references to other documents where appropriate for more detailed descriptions of the measures. . The MCSP Mitigation and Implementing Agreement Monitoring Program for Biological Resources ("MSCP MIAMP") for the City of Chula Vista is intended to be primarily administered by the Department of Planning and Building for the City of Chula Vista ("DPB"). The City has final responsibility for signing off all satisfied mitigation measures and conditions for permitted projects within its jurisdiction, and for specific reporting obligations has detailed below. As further specified herein, the City, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS"), and the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") have joint responsibility for monitoring and management of the MSCP Preserve. The funding for the MSCP MIAMP program will likewise be a joint responsibility according to the terms of the as-yet finally executed Implementing Agreement. The following checklist is intended to be used jointly by the City and DFG. Information contained with the checklist clearly identifies the mitigation measure, identifies the source if relevant, and defines the method and timing of verification. Following is an explanation of the five columns which constitute the checklist. Mitigation Measure An inventory of each mitigation or monitoring measure is provided with a brief description. Source(s) of Requirement Each mitigation or monitoring measure includes a cross-reference to the source and more detailed description of the requirement. 1 The City of Chula Vista is not required to mitigate potential impacts within other subarea plan areas that are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, where such effects have either been addressed by such other agency, or can and should be addressed by such other agency. (See Pub. Resources Code, S 21081, subd. (a)(2).) . Chula Vista MIAMP October 12.2000 -1- . , . ~ . . . Method of Verification Timing of Verification Responsible Entity Each measure describes the manner in which the mitigation or monitoring measure will be applied. Each measure describes the time at which the mitigation or monitoring measure will be implemented or applied. The measure identifies the agency or agencies obligated to implement the mitigation or monitoring measure. This program is to be adopted by the City as a responsible agency upon formulation of findings in order to comply with the requirements set forth by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Chula Vista MIAMP October 12.2000 -2- . '" . . . ;., - <= " r.l " ;e ~ " o c. ~ " c.: - " .S! - " ... I: 'C " > ... o .. .S E E: - " .S! .. ... I: 'C " > ... o "'0 o .0 ;: :E - - o " E " .!:: = r:r " c.: ... o ~ ~ ~ " ... ... = o rfJ - ~ " ... = ~ " " :E " .S! .. ~ ~ ;z o 1= <( .. ;Z r.l :E w ...l Q. :E - ...l W > W ...l :E <( c.: '-' o c.: Q. =: - g ~ ;;: " :; .0 U ... o :0 U :< " "S; " ... ..: ry w u .. " Oi: " o E " E = u o "'0 ..: ry w u vi .. > o ... 0.. 0.. " "'0 " " " ~o.. E " E ... 0..0 o ~ 03"E > " ~ E ..."0 o " " " ~ E = " ::; ~ " .. " " .0 U " " i>: :0 '" = E E o U "'0 " " " " i>: OJ ... " " " '-' ~ .,., 'li N -.t c " 0:: 0.. U-.o rfJO :2_ - ...; 0.. eE~~ :l Q) ::::l "':::' ~E"'O,.G Q) g. @ .~ .~ ~:: o:S -- Q) ~.~ O~ '0 "u- e"'O c '-' Q) c: * ~ 5 co 'Vi Vl Oil ~ C ;;: c0.8 Ctl Cl:l :>... c: :; 0...-:::"';; c5(;55 <-~E-~ o~EceO: .0 0.0 8 .J:::: Ctl u.~ Vl e ~ i3 Ctl ~t;~~..g r-'5o..o.UJ ~ E .!!l " " .0 ... " :E .. " <= " " E " 0. ! '"l g ~ ;;: " :; .0 U ... o :0 U " ~ ... o " u ;; c = 0 .; .~ ,S't: ... 0 0.0 'C :; 0.. " oj " u o 1ii E C Q);O E Ci =... g 0 "0 C <r: .,g ryo.. w 0 uiil ~ " ... " " " :0 ... o " .S! to " - o ... Q. " ... ... = o ~ " c.: ... .$! "'0 " " .. .S " o N 1ii 0:: " " ... ,,- -g"d ~~ ~o\ .,.,::; 0.. UN {/j~ :2..,. '"' U ~ .,., o .-.j - " :!lU"'O ..cEI1.lQ)Q)c";j .s ~ 8 ~ '0' g ~ g >. Q).~ ~ t- E.. ~ .2 '00 .D ~ to) C c; "0 .- tU Q) cr-fi:..aEI1.I"Ec:.E ~...... 0.0 "'" Q) ti 0 Q) ::l o..o<o"'O~r-19UJ ~ tl ~ a 'g g :J 8 ~ ~ ~ :2 0..:; :I :I: Q) UJ ..gf;i;~..ga";j]-5:E C/'J .~ Ctl Vl _ !- ;S lU Q) Q) Q) "'0 en tB .- .s .s.s-sco t'd::...... ...... tl:l....J Vl C ~ ~~f~.~~j*~ 0._ 0 e ~ Q) ::l 'r;; OJ) 'E.5.'';:; c..:t uUJ c C o"'O~ ~~oo "0 e 'i: 5 -5; 0...... U '';: ~ Ctl 0 :::.= ..... c] CO V i-.s >. -g E:.E = .~ c ~ u .< G "i1 ~.~ .~ .~ c: g ~ ;;: " :; .0 U ... o :0 U " U C " = .1a d o 6 .~ o..N ::l'C b] " - .~ ~ "0 " "-'" E 5 .5'0 oj " U o 1ii E " Q):.a E Ci =... g 0 "'0 " <:: .g ryo.. W 0 uiil , '" , " " 0:: " ~ " -'" = rfJ ~ .,., " " 0:: 0.. u- r/lN :2-.t ... <1J Q) o.s B " "_::-:50'" ~ .seE -sg~Q)~ ;>,. Ctl 11) 'Vi" ":; =Ctl c..-= 0 ..c ..... u ~ E c go a ~ Q).~ .- .s :g co "'0 c...... u .5 _ Ctl 0:: Ctl .- 0 a ~ .9.....,.0 "'O"E OJ'J.- ..... - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~] ~~~~8~~~~ Q) E .5 c..:: ~t..2 .s 600 -g VJ .s 105 - "'0 (,o..,=Q)Ctl~"'O..s:::o~ o .~ oS ~ 3 ~ :;; E .~ .g .q = .~ ~ g E ~ ~ .~ g.u Eu(;E: CLI,J: 0 ""C (l,) E Q) U t':l ~{g Q) ce -s ""C t:O 'bi; ~ c c ~ ~ ~E"'5.22::a..::g ~ ~ 0 ~ ~] ~ ~ ~ .!a - 0.. :2 ~g ::;:~ sr--r .!!l > i; "-,,, "'5.8 .<: U uO E " 0.. o o 'C . .. . . . ,., '" - = Iol .. :;; '" = Q Cl. ~ .. ~ 5 ~ :> '" :; ..: U '- Q C U = Q ;: .. .- 0:: ';:: .. > ... Q on = '5 E:: ,. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 8.~ ~ iU .2.~ ~ ",>- (/) ~.5 '-~'" Q ~ .. =0'", o UJ.- 'Z: U ~ Cl._ Cl. .g cIj rJ) . <tE~::: = Q ;: .. .- '" ';:: .. > ... Q '" Q :: .. :?1 ~~ ii: '" ~ '" .0 '" '" '- Q c';; Q Q .- '" a.s: Q.- '" '" < .5 .,; <,-= 0' Q Q UJ ~ .~ U.9 "3 t)c..~ .~.g 1-0 e ~ ~ c.. '''._ ~ - c 5 .. e e .. Q- " Cl. .g .5 ~ - = " E " ... .s '" " ~ '- Q ~ ~ - " .- ... '" Q '" .". .,,~ ,.,V'> ~N ":~ ~~ V'> C C '" co::! a: ...0 E:co:lO Q..~- U '" ",.0 ::;;81_ ~ " ... '" ~ .. " :?1 c .S! .. ~ :?1 E Q) .E c E .!!! U Cl.Q --= 13" Q.. 01) '" "0 t':l 1-0 -.:; >Q <l.l <I):.a ;> '- Q) a .c_ o 0. C ..0 ~ c..Vl ="'0 "'0 ctI ctl CI:l c 5"'0 vi' do) ~ Ea~-=g ctI ..." ~ .s .=: I- '-' U ._ "'0 oce~_ a:€ 0.. >>JJ ..gJ:"Ou- co:l 5 a 5 ~ .- ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ c 5 E ~ c.S E 8 .- ...... 0 01) u ~.= I... d,.l ::l ::l ::l t: ~g~ .---- - '- Q) .,.; o .. oS g OJ).ci '"' .5 b ~ c _ Q) c 'i: ~ '" " Q..c..c ~"O.!::!l - c ~ c '" .. 0:0 "'0 c 0 ,.g " Q ~ E 0Jl", g.~a -'Vi <Il g ::l ~ .$J 13'~ ~ '~'E c ._ 0- ~.5 c o E.;::!) .~ ~ ~ ~ c~="'O .- e'- C u._ " '" 5 ~ :> '" :; .0 U '- Q C U fi .. ';;: " ~ < g'.i- u,;; -;; g C C 0:< t="a;' <QV'> 0' Cl. c < UJ~~- u_c...] ... co:l c... co gEUVi .~ c C/)-.i e <::E c o.Vi'oC'3 -;;E::C:N ::l d.) C CI3 ...:t "'0 E t':l ~ 'S: ::l ~ 2..!. ~gS:::l...:t .s "'0 0. (/) ..... C 0 '" 0 a:::s- ~ ." v) -C!..... ] 1.0,,0\ ~~~ ." Vi ..... -,...:0\ "'. V'>V'>'" c '" 0: 0.. U '" ::;; \Cf; .". . .N N - "';0\ "":0 ...:teO " oS ~ - c " E " ... 's '" " ~ c ,S! .. ~ ~ ~ Q ::0 -5 .5 a'~ ~ g E ~ ''=; QJ .s gb.'E - :3 e :3 E ~ ,,'0 e :. ,,'0 ria .51ii E .- " " e >>..: - " U g " t; ..c c f- " '" ...j - c .S! '" i: " ~ C Q " E :.c c: jg .. 0Jl0.. C .. ';; ~ .~ .2 ..c Q ;J", ~ " ,5 " :E Q " ,., := ;S .. Cl. E Q U " ~ ;0 '" = co ..l .". ...j - 5 ~ :> .. :; ..: U '- Q C U fi " ';;: ~ < g'.i- u,;; ';; '" C E 0:< t~" ~ 8.. ~ oCt: v 0 co:l- UJea:::-"'O u-Q..c _ ~ c.. co a$cUlr1 .~ c en...:t <: <::;; c = Vi' 0 C':l t':l--C:N :::l 5 c C'3...:t ~g~~~ "'Ou~..o...:t .s .g a05 ..... , '<T , '" " ~ .. .0 '" '" N ...00 -~o 'l:i- ~::; 0: 0.. U '" ::;; ~~ V'> C .. 0: ~ " ~ '" '" "'8';:; :.a ~ " !; ~ ~ " c ~ " ~ ~ <r:~ '00.. 1i!;r: C::;; .. " '21:.;:; :l C ~:.s .g '[< '" ~V"J ~ c" ._ 0 u~ " " ..c ~ f- '" .,; 11) vi' c t: 11) .2 ~ "'0 'E ~ ti _ 0.. (I'l 'C ,.: 0.. C (I'l 0 t:i y. .;:; co .::! 'u ~ ~ ';: ~ E g, c 'B ~ _ co (I'l ,_ co 0:.0"'0"0;>- :o~[i~'B~ .~.;:; 3: ~ co [i Cl.~ ot: gBE E 0 "'0 0 8 .~ :;g og ~ ~ ~g-.8cog~ co - ~ .- E (I'l "0 ~ co.E _ d,)~g]~o ;g 0. co :c vi' E..c I-. c ] 0'- Q) 0 co :::: .f: ti .:::: ~ c 'g ~.~ .;; g .~ 11) Bog ~ "E 11) 0.. 0 ._ (I'l _ "'0 0.. ::;; <8 SE~ $3N .~ > i; ,.!l!.o " 0 ..cu uo . " . . . ;., ;;: - = r.l .. ;e ~ = Q Q, ~ .. ~ = "51 - " ... 0.: "C .. > ... " .. .5 E E: = "51 .. ... 0.: "C .. > ... " '0 Q .c - .. :.; ;: .. E .. ... ";; <:r .. ~ ... Q ~ ~ ~ .. ... ... = Q '" ~ .. ... = ~ " .. :.; = .:: .. -!' ~ ... .. b/) .. = ~.~ :> ~ " = :; ~ .cO U .. '->,..-:., o ~:?2 o~O Uc:e:, ~ O~ :E e ... ~ ~~ ~;:: '- --;; .~ 0 0 ::I ~ ;;.. c Ceca o 0 0 C Q,.l I- ._ ._ < >. -< ~ <<i .., tI) 0' c'~ do) 0 (J.J Q) "'0 ~ .... UE~Q,)';: ..., P >. -~ c:: _ 1-.. ca 0.. 0 0.. 13) iE..s 8"B~ ~ 0;" <~ =:$ V) O'u:G ~"'O;;:$ u.:!o>-::lC __ U 0....;:; ca c. ca 1:: Q., .... CIJ (,).~ t:: VI 0 ~ t ~ ~ OJ) 0 -.ci o..Q.. 11) Q) .- 0 0.. QJ U VI '0' '- 0 -0 \1) ;; IX (/) -.:t ....<.....ooO:::c:-;;:Ec = tn" 5 ... 0() ca ::l .E (l;l ca 1: E 'Vi'.5 Q,) 2 0: ~E~~.g~<J~ ~8~(/)SC/.lV')~~ .5.g::E:$~.E~ 6.0$ ...N" ""'":..n '"' . .N '" . .'"' v:'r'"i '"' . - .. :C~ .. '"' fo- = c ca 6 caC:6 E:ca- c..e::s u .. rJJ .D 6" ::EO$I.O ~ = ~ :;; = " U .. b/) " ... .. ;> Q U ~'O .~ ~ &""E en ~ - = "'0 ~ ".g_ ~8"O ;> 0. = o . 0 u"O u <u.g-S ~'o .~ .. ;> -B ~ ~ ~ ;;;< iii"- _:I: "'2: ~ .. ;.,.<: - - U .5 ...<: ,J: :::: fo- ~ ~ = .5< t) .. '" o ~ '" .. .. ~ ~ .. "" .. Q, '" .. u = " --:- -a E ~ <5 0.. 0 C)ov u .<: .0 .~ i;: '0"0'0 .. .. = Ol)!.;: CI:l ~'o r--: .. """ E 5rl'"'i lfl r-j - .. ;> ... .. ~ e t:: "- 0 '00. = .. ....: ~ ~"1- ..,. 1,j, "7 " - = .,,: .. _2: '0 .. ... .. ;> " U ... ~ ~ o ... " -0 ... "- ;.,~ .. .. ... 'y ... .. = Q, "'''' '" r-j - c.:i "" o U '0 [;j '" ~ "" '" ::> ... o ~ .c c~ 05 C E... 0 N o'~ - .. N C (,).t: :.s~] ~.~ ~ .,; o u o o ... 0. ;., .. > ... " '" "( '"' .. :;; .. fo- = .. 0: "- u '" 2: ;., .. > ... = ~ 0. o 0; > .. '0 .,; .. ." .. 0. ~ ~"O o ~ "" .. o ~ u U "0 ... =..:: .. ~ "'0 ~ g ""0 '" ... ::>0. ri ~ :> " :; .c U ... o C U ~ .. ";;: .. ... < CI ~ U '" = <i: < CI ~ u - u .. .0' ... 0. t;c; .g .. .;;: E ~ 8 ..=-8 .,., ..;, .. :;; .. fo- = .. 0: "- u '" 2: ...'0 <E .~ ~ 0'5 u .5< .. 0.0 5.::= >.~ ~ B ... .. " .- ~ is. - 0 .. ... ~ 2: .... C';l vi " ~ .. ~ .. ~ = ~ >. (l).~ -;:j = u c .- I1.l C'O ~ ~< 0-00' .- tV U.J ua:Ju .. > .<: 0 ... t-uJ::: ri ~ :> .. :; .c U ... o C U ~ '" = = = < BcaN Eo::! ~ ~ ~ ~.o :;~:! 0. . to':::; 0""'0 0. = = .. .. .. ":0: '" t;c.."'1" =u == '" [;j <2:0: = .. 0: .. .. ... .. .0 = '" ~ .,., = .. o::~ "-~ u '" 2: rf .,., ~ = .:: t; .. - " ... "- E .C .. ;: -5... .~ 0 vi 0() OJ:) c .~ c.5 0 _ B ~'B 'R .~ 'Vi Cl:l 0 g 5.9 ~ uo__ ~] ~ ~ :.0 '" ca E e ~ ..c'i: o..t.E u I1.l C t: Q) C Q) Q) -O'~ ~ ~ 5..s E .2 = t: ~.E .~ ;;: '0 .f'~ a] ~ ~ ~.~ ,J:: I1.l <I'J,J:: f- -E .~ f- "l , V) , = ~~ 0_ '" = ~:c ~ vl'i ~ .. 0 u ~ 0. ~ ~ E t: ~ 0 :.oC':lU ... .. b/) o E = ~ ~ 'c :.a t: ~ e;gc: b/)" "'C c.f' ~ ';; U ~~] c g C ~ ftu "- 2: <8 ::i~ ~N ~ ;; ~ -"1.0 " E .<: ... uo . .. . . = .S .. ... c 'C " > "'" " "0 " .c - " ::; f-- ~ ~ " ... .. " " '" - . ,., .;: - = '" " :E .;;; = " Q, ~ " g:: - = .S - " ... c 'C " > "'" " OIl .S: Ei 1= - - = " Ei " .. .; C" " g:: "'" " ~ " .. " ~ " " ::; = .,8 " ~ ::; 1:) " "i5' .. 0.. i::f ~ ;; " :; .c U" "'" '" o ... o'E. iJ ~ '~ " 0.. !i .~ c; ~ a <..!i! CY .. w- U ~ c; e = Q, ii:~ " = 0 <S~ g-t'J~ 0'00- "'Ol.Oc~ ~I-oU S:::cgt'J~ ~~~ S~'B ~~:! cu cu (l) ''';:: i.i: 0.0\' < .~ --g -g g "'0 ~ 5 .,..; - o.~::lU'J;;cu~c.c"O <<iE~gptf;:::--g~~~ ::I 11)'-<_U_Q..V) ~ E.;: a...::2cu gc....,f :e8E~~E2~a .5.g 8..~ ~ c3 -<::E 0:: ~ '0 " 0.. .. = .. " > "0 = " ~ " ';j " Q, '" .~ Ei " "0 = '" .. " .. .. " z: r{ '" . Mo::t: .N ~~ ~~ :ONe el:l~ci 1-=- c '" C':lE:~ 0: '" Q..O";; U ~ oo:t ",.D :EJ5~ "": - B ~ ""'" "'0 ti ~ Oe a "'E ~.:: .9 2 ~ ~ ~cu~E-:5 u<ta~ 'B ~ 5.:;; .~ 'if- .~ v rA co 0. ~ ~'o VI g ~ ;g .~ -= VI U , ;> "'0 _ _, Y. 0.. ';: o Q) ;;.-. co c:: , Vl co ... ] f] ~ t : ~ ~ .~ g .~ C"'2>OVl~"'O.gl..~O cu a... (1.)._ cu 1-0 s::: ~._ 1-0 C. ~ cu 6. u 'u <( C'O cu ~ 8 0 o~Oa.J8..S:::~Vl~~~ ~ u -E ~ VI.2 cu ~ _~ .S :: l:: t: C .::! ~ < ..... ..... ""'o:.c~cEC:=5ht)cE .<:::;; OJ) cu cu 0 11) :::.g Vl ~ ~ $ .~ -g ~ ';:;.r:. 0 ~ S .2 ~ "2 "0 Q) 8 ~ S :;; ";: ::0 uc:::""Oti::: ~ c a.> ~ .- cu 0 :J: <Il t: g 'E co '0 Q) ~ '0' l:: :b g...J c.. "0 -.:t c: ?; E.. 0. ~ ~ U :I: .5 ~ ~ 5 ~ ;; '" :; -= U "'" o o U !i " .;; ~ < g',i. UOj OJ " = 2 0::< '" <1:.,..; O'8.c~ w " '" uc.::o: _(i;c.. g::lU .~ C en o e:.., 6.< .G (;1: .g " ';; E :e 8 ..=-8 "0 e: '" on .,f c '" .8C::N Ctl:l-i g e '7 ~.2- " " " 0.'" o o - ::; c '" 0: '" " .. '" .D " '" ~ e: .S Q. Ei " " '" " .9'5 ~:€ .g :0 0._ E C " .!l " ~ (l) 'Vi 25 '" ... - " ~;;::s ~ ~ (l) :; .2 -5 ~-"O C ~ c:: " " '" 0Ile: ':; e co ... Q) c:: .0;;.. (oj u]e '" '" ~~.g ~-:::V) '" ~ '" ;; '" Cl:: ...l '" > '" ...l I- U '" .., o g:: 0.. "" N ~ " OIl = .. .c U = .. 0: E = " Ei Ei " U "0 e: " = " 0: .. .. " = " [J - N 5 ~ ;; '" :; -= u "'" o o U :< " ';; ~ ..: CY w u OJ C 0:: "0 C C '" ~c.. vi OJ ,. o .. Q, Q, '" Be " E .. 0.0 " ~ oE ,. " -15 E ~"O o e: " " ~ E " '" " " E " <.) o "0 < CY W U , '-D , ::; ..: on ..0 N .,f e: '" 0: Q. U-ci "'0 ~- c_ '" ~ Ctt ~ ~ t; eo ""'.D <.) 0 " ~ U en Vlce 01) Cl:lu..:: "'=' 0 c...l ,,"'=' E c '" '" "0 e: c '" "'0:: :0 " .;; " ~ E " c " c:J ,- :oil bE.. ,- 0 u-g ~ " 1--:: -:: '~ >. <.) e: .!l ~ 'v; c o <.) ~ " ~ c " .9 0.. ~ :::;8 ~fl lSN ,~ > ~ "".D ;:: 8 - <.) uo C' c '" '" 0:0: . ~ . . . ... - ;; " Iol '" ;e ~ " " "" ~ '" == 5 ~ ;; .. -; ..c U ..... " c U " .51 - " " c .;: '" > ... " .. " 'E 1= c .52 15. - 0 il-o .=< " .. S. j,f~ ....."':::E ~ 5.,. oS"&' '';:: 0 - . ~"O u..o " ,,- t;::: < '0' ~ .- Ci 10.. ;::::l '5 ~ Q.. 2 uu~< " <> ;; " " c .;: '" > ... <> 'C <> ..c - '" :E -0 -< ~eQ)a-oBc.cn O''t:cv;(o:lcc tJJ 0 (tl . g.,w..5 u frE: v c ~ Q.. I""'l -~Q..;<::EQ.,o::t g~UCl:lNCU- '0' ::s C/J ~ . 0 r.n c.cn ""' c::E <"l ~ ',::::E ~<B~-EB~ ;::::l '~""'.o~ <1).....-g "'0 ;: ~ ::l - E S (o:l ';;.~ ;::::l r./:J eQ)~ :::I-.:t - > VJ ~ f.O? c.. V'l . :.o(l)~~<E!:i~ .50:: Q..V'"'l__ Q.V"'l - " '" 5 " .. .; C' '" == ... " ~ ~ ~ " " .. " <> '" -;;; .. " c " (;) S ~ ;; .. -; ..c U "" o - d .. ::50:: ~ " .. " ~ " " :E " ~ " .. ;; ~ B ~ .in .. or> " U .. o lU E: .D '0' (o:l ':; 5. ~ ~ , " ..c:: S-g u..!.tn :Eg-o ~.~ a " """ :~ (o:l ~ oec.. 0.00.. ,,-0 U .. "'" Q:c:E " ] E ~ c c.'- " 5..c 0._ ~ c o Q...;:: " " ~ i': c~~ o tn ~ vi a E c...~ E ~;..:: g <u].B ~ 0.. co 0_ .. _ ~ (o:l " ~ E "0 C g._ .Ee~a U u:::::: lU .5 't: .gp-g ~.2!l'i: ~ o ~ Vl~ c ODoe.!:! coo. o C >. QJ ._ 0 c > 1; ''::: e..;:; c: ~ ~ 'Vi ~ t ~ 5 c V'l 0.. V'l o~..2to- U 0.. r.Il 0 c " .- .. -;tS ell .- ~ .'t:: c E .g <1.1:.0 F: c " .; " ,,-0 'r'" (1) ;:is ]c " " 0:'9: or> " " ~ ~..c ~-5Oh Q.. :c .5 -0 ~ ~ o Ul..9 .~ ti "0 o.~~ ell 0 " g a-= lU~~ ~._ ;::::l ..c::u'U co a.5 ~ {/.) ll) .. " -g~~ '" " c 5 E d.I ~,,- >g~ .. -0 ~ -;<c ..c 0.- u",U d)U~ .su- ",..c .E.o .~ ~ g,~ il ~ '0' ti ~ ~.~';; "'Oe..c:: " 0.- t "'C "'0 :> " c o :> .. U e a gf g; 0:: " .. .. a >- e cVi2 (I) S ;::::l 5.- '" :> " "C~..c:: ~ 0..- ~"'2 E ....-0 g a .~ 'E 0:: 5- "0 gj e c .. ~ .. .. " o -g .2 '(;' C/) t; E~ ~ - ......- J::.5 "'8 0.. -0 E ~ .g ~ ><:..2 t';l UJ g OJ) _lI'J'- c 0:.0 " .. " .~ ('ju E ~ :=" c..~- 'C 5 " " " ell ... I-. E ~ '5 d,) :> 0" :> " " 0 U .. u N N - - ~ <> .Q " " '" - N N 5 ~ ;; .. -; ..c U ..... o C U <i tii go '0' ::E ..'" ..e< 0..... " " " " '~.g~ ~ E a:l 'E ~ g " " " uo:< "' Cl :::E "'-;;; < " .....-0 0';; .9 ~ ca .: ~~ Eo.. ,,~ 15.:2 .5:::E t::~ ~ 8,..,) ~1ij~ -;E:] ::50.. t'j~ c U Vi ::5 <C/')..q:c ..:::E ,,~ O:::o~ -....O"N' LIJct'jo::i U t'j e- ~ ::5 t'j I 'O'~.D- 10.0 ::5 ::5 o::i Co. Co.C/')- -..... u " .~ c 2.:2 0.10 "'-;;;E <"!.go \.0._ u... '-:.::4-0 -0 0 :;.56 ....- 1ij;:] C:I.ci5; .. ." e-o::: t'j ~ '~o .gM!::u... cnl.ciLIJU -0 " " 1ij.:2 ~ 10 ~ C ~ -; o g. ~ ..0 ~ " "..... 8-0 in t: -0 " " .. -0 C .. " .. - 00 .= " .. 10 E ';;-0 ell" ~~ e B ~o :::: u.....c .~ U ::5 1::......10.0 o 0 ~ li~ u " " .. '0' t'j .. C 0.. .:2 -010 " :> .. .. " " :> ~ o " U 0 .. u tE~ ~ E E " E E ..c ~~ '5.D 0"" ~~ ci ::;: '" < ..... o c .52 10 E " E " 15. .5 oj) .5 ';; " :::E " .g .. E " 5 " c. .5 " .. 0:: 0..", ~..,. :::E- ,,::5 :::-0 " c .. .. 5;'O:f: 3'O:f: 0. '" 5 ~ ;; .. -; ..c U ..... " c U <i tii go '0' ::E ..", ..e< 0..... " 0 <> " .~ .g--"" " .. !E a ~ 13fra uQ:< "' Cl :::E "'-;;; < " .....-0 o .;; .9 ~ c; .: 5tE 50.. ,,~ c.:::E .5::;: ~. ,,~ 0.'" ",,< ~..- -;E:] ::50..t'j-; C U Vi ::5 C cn..q: C <":::E,,~ 0:::00: G3 ::: a:l u 1ij ~- ~ ~~ ~ '8 ::5 ::l ""'1" 0. 0. '" u " .0' .. 0. '"'1-; N " . -0 '0._ . :> -~ :;-:: ,,- ..", C:I.ci .. ~N t'j~~ .gM~ cnl.ci.... c - - .. 7S~ ~ u .. 10 8 " 10 c ell li u " "0' .. 0.. -0 " .. " :> o U E e ell o .. 0. ell C ." .E c o E or> " .. vi " ;>, ~ " " :> ell.. .. " ~ ~ < 0.. '" ~ ... '" == ;; Q " ..c " " " 0:: .. <2 ~ E " E " .. .;j 0" " ~ N N N ~ ..,. oj) .5 ] ~o.. ::;: o..u '" "",..,. .52:::E - 3o~ " - ,,_-0 E 1ij a ~::l""'1" 0. ~ . E3~ _ 0.'" , r-- , 0.. ::;: <8 :Ei': ~N .'" > ~ ",or> " 2 Go . '" . . . >. - ::: " <oJ .. ;e ~ " o Q, ~ .. Cl: - " o ::: " ... I:: .;: .. > ... o OIl .5 5 E= - " .5 -; ... I:: .;: .. > ... o ." o "'" " :;; - - " .. 5 .. .!:: " 0- .. Cl: ... o ~ ~ ~ .. ... ... " o '" - ~ .. ... " ~ " .. :;; " .5 ... ~ :;; ri ~ :> " -; "'" u ..... o C- D <i Ul 'E O~ .O'~ ~'" .!:"...: 0..... " 0 o " '.g.g~ ~ e co '€ 8. E .. .. " u~< '" Q :;; "'-;; ...: " ......" o ';; .9 :a ~ ': ~~ 5"- ....: c.::E .5::E t:::~~ 8..ari <I) s::: :S ..: " ctjo:-g ""- " cu",: ""'''''' <.::E ~ ~oo:: ~ ~ co - " .. ~ :J ~ '0' ~ .D ~ " " Q, Q, '" oii .5 ] ~Q., c;;:E.c..M = cU. ~o~:!: ...:'j;i"'" ... 'E r-q .. ...,. 5 , .. c. ":.5 =- ... " " Cl: .:< .. .. ... u - ... .. .~ Q, t<'"!t; N " . ." ~ .- . > -:.0 :;-= cr{ "r- 0:1.0 ~M ~'-'io:: ..g~~ "'~- - .. '" ~ "'" ... " " Cl: .,; .. <I) ~ .~ >ou;~ ~~ 'Vi OJ} l1.l 1-0 .~ co c: Q..'- . ~ U > 'E ..9 ~ ~ ~.~ ~ en c: o Vl c s::; ..... C1.I 'e'.!:! g '5 B ~ 0... E ... g ~ ~ "'0 III ~... c: c ~5~~.gE ;> ::: I-. <I) 1S u o 0 ODJ5 (l) I.;::: U "'0 OJ}._ _~~"i)~~ J::c~~~~ E ~ c.. ~ V)" ~ _I.;::: c v E ~ 0 l- (!j ~ "._2 ~J::C.OD .= '';:: Zl 0 C ::; ~ t: c: ,_== U t:T C _ co co c: ~ 8 ~c..c~ ~ :c OIl :E '0 Cl: ..., N N .s::!: E] " " ~~ 3~ Q, '" ..... ." o .. ~ E '0. ..... Vl~..OD ..::gBo5 -VlC e-uOJ}E u _._ co 0 co Q) .~ g g. c r- c c ~ e c. ~..:2 ;>.'~'~ c Q., (l) "'0 c.. S 0"0 co "'2 .~ ;a gf 0 :.e E --_0..0.-_;'_' :u co .... '- 1-0'_ :;;.. C J:: ~ ~"'S..o 8 ~ Vl ~ ~ 5.~ I.. C E ~ t"') OJ)..o J:: co..:2 c ~.5 2 VI C. ~.2 E --g ~ 5 15 .:: E E tin ~ E'.;~5...c:u~ .~ t: f E .~ t: -_" ::l OJ}.- 0 .0 (\) O"'O~c..COVlVl <I) ~ 0 E ~ ~ g a: I... C._ IU 0.. u oj - ~ :> " -; .c U ..... o c- D <i Ul EO' '0' ::E ~'" .!:"...: 0..... " 0 o " .- 0 . ~.~ :S ~ ~ ~ '5fr~ uQ:< '" Q :;; "'-;; ...: " 4-0:2 o > g:.a .~ .5 - ~ EtE 5"- ....: c.::E .5::E ti 0-," 8.ari IU C :S ..: " c;o:-g ,,"- " "u", cC/)~ <.::E " ..: 0 " Lij-O:: c" - " .. u " ~ .. ~ " '0' I- .0 ~ " " Q, Q, '" u .. '0' ~ Q, f""lcti N " .." ~ .- . > -:.0 :;.5 eN ""': 0:100 5 ~~ ~~ .gro:~ "'~- ~ " .5 -; ... .. " " " " o Q, " ~ "'" " " " Cl: .. = OIl ~ " " '" ...,. N N oii .5 ~ 8c.. c;~c..ro: os:::u_ S:::otIJ~ ~'j;i::E ...: '''E..9 - <"!O.....""O ::! E ~ ~ l~::l~ - 0.. en . ~ES~ - _ 0..lr1 u <: 'u .. Q, ~ "' ~ " "' " .,; .2 0 U .::=: '5 ~ ~ ~ e:.o ri ~ :> " -; "'" u ..... o C- D <i Ul ~ 0" 'C)l;:E ~'" .!:"...: 0..... " 0 o " .~ .g-->- " " t;: a... <<I '-2 ~ a .. .. " uQ:<e: '" Q ::E "'- ...: ~ ~:2 s::: .~ .2 ] ~ .;: Et2 5~ c.::E .5::E tia\' 8,. vi ~~~ "'<<jE:] " "- '" s:::u~ ""'''''' <.::E " ..: 0 " ~::E: " " u <<I Q) .. " :a .=> ~ ..c 2 ::l 0 Q, Q, '" M'"'<<j ~.g "'::~ - ." -.5 .,: " " c: " ~ " .0 " '" N . ,..:..: IoO"Uj "'u ~ 0 r<'"\'0' 100 Is.. o OIl " -' ..!! .. '" ell 'E ::t ~~ " jis::: u ~ .~~ o ~ 0: 5 ""0'':: ~:.a .. " > 0 o u U ~ a... ;:.... vi t2 ~ 0 en a... '(3 E ::I Q) .. ~ 0- E <<i en o .~ .~ .!::: OJ) E " 0 .. go ""0 o::::o;j '" N N oii .5 ] 8c.. ~~c..ro: os:::u_ S:::otIJ~ ~'j;i::< ...: ." E B- <"!o_""O ~ E s::: s::: "'70 <<I ctI -Q.~~ ~ E 5 ~ - _ 0..lr1 , 00 , "- ::< ~g ::<~ l'lN ~ > ~ ".0 "'58 .c u uO . .. . ;., "" ;: fol " :is .;; = " "" ~ " " - = " ;: .. ... t: .C " > ..... " .. = .s E: - . = " ;: .. ... t: .C " > ..... " '0 " '" - " :E f-- - = " = " .!:: " 'T " " ..... " ~ ~ ~ " ... .. " " rJl - . ~ " .. " ~ .. " :E = .:: ;; ~ i ri ~ ;> '" :; '" U ..... " c U <i <il ~o .~:>- "rJl ~< 0..... = 0 .2 g ~'';:~ ~ e t';1 ._ Cl:S ::s 1:: "" c 11.l ~ c uo..< "' ~O -::;:: OrJl '0< c"" o c .- '" ";;0.. E::;:: "", =", ~ u ,,"c = '" -'" o . "- o:::t .~ u -oe::~ . '-'l 0 !"") .... c ~ ~.9 \0 '0' ~ ...: 5. E --0 -.iC':l~ .g..... ~.;; 0 o:~g ~ .5 'g ~ M~O .Dr--:~ ~I,ci" '" ... = .. " ;., .. o ~ "E "0 >. ~~;; Cl:S cecO ~.9 11.l t1) . ~ c;:j E -5 tIl I-. 11.l l-. ~ 8. ~tE .~ 0 c: o . ~ C':l .. 0.. E 0..::;:: 13 c:G ~.r .. u " .<: C > u '" o c c U C':l B 1-00:::.5 ..E ;:.... Cl:S Vl .s E EO"O " C c E .- tE! .~ "€ E g.<.E Q ~~O '" N N ~ O"I~ 8.lri (l.l s::: :$ "COo::: co ::sc;c:::-g "O::lo..C':l ';;: c: U V) :a~{/j.q: .E ..::;:: c '- 0::: 0 ~ ..8--0.. '-'l - '" 0.. tJ S ~ 0:: 11.l ::s C':l ~ '8' ~ .D :>- 0. aa E '" .. OJ) o .. "" OJ) c ." B .e o E ,,; <: " ~ c; ~ uo.. 'On .J: o u a ~ :.Eo::: "" c .'" " " OJ::;:: " c a .g < '" ." E "1 " ... E , " 0. ".5 c '" 0: 0..,., ~~ :E B:$ c] '" '" ;;;... 5~ ""'" ri ~ ;> '" :; .<: U ..... o C U <i <il ~ ci '0' :E "rJl ~< 0..... c 0 .9 g to '';:: __>. u '" t;: il '" ._ Q.::S E ~ a uo..< "' ;.,0 S:E-;; OrJlo '0<:-9 c "'O.~ .9 ~] ~ 0.. ';: E~..E E.co.. ..2uO:: 0.=::;:: .5.;;!:E t::" 0\ 8,.,..; ~~:$ t;c:-g 00.. '" cu", c{/j-.::t ~:E fii 0::00: W ~ t'j u Cl:S l1) t1) :::s 1;; ~~..c '8 :::s ::l "" 0. rJl N "';", '" - ...:'-'l -~ -.::t'0' c .. '" 0. C::c; '" 0 0:-2 il > -g:a rJl': - ... " .0' .. 0.. C .;; .. " .:: c ::l '0 " .Q"ofi 2 '" u e ~ u " c tf 0.0 lP (.) ~ too . .~c; c: c e tl .S E 0.. Cl:l't;3 u ]8bgf ~ d3 Vi ~ ~ ti e E u C':l in"..c '- ~ g :g ..E ~.- l-. In I.i-. t) .0 C 0 '5 ii 11.l C d3 ~ E.g '- c<:I .~ e ~~ g. .8 :a .-:: (l)Ul~~ 0::: e o.o..c ..... N N "" .5 ] ~o.. c;:Eo..f""i :::SeU_ S:::oCl.l~ -<.~::;:: < "'c.9 - C"'!v "'C '<:t E ~ a :Z..2::lo:::t -.::t s-g ~ _ ""'" ;.; " :~ "0 c.. '0 = .. ~ " ... = .. c :a .. o .. = ;: c " E " 0. = - c .. 0: .. " .. .. .c o rJl '" N " ... c .. .: '0 .. o ... :l :c - ..; N ri ~ ;> '" :; .c U ..... o C U " "B ..... o " u a c ~.s .~ ~ .8 'j:; .. 0 0'<: 'C; :i 0.. '" ,,; c u o fii E c 0:.0 E is 0..... g 0 '0 C <: .g cyo. '-'l 0 U~ c '" 0: '" " .. "'- 1l"<J ~~~ ~o\ "'::: 0.. UN C/J", ::;::" ...:. U ~ '" 6 ~e-g co .- co "'5 U c: OJ) " 0 "0 ~ '8"~ c .8 c.. t: ca "'0 0 d ~8e~-0..'" o e ~ 0 .....J. co ;> u c: 0 0 Q., E~u.c~ :Eoca-~ ca_c.s~ ::r: t: :.c'~ 11) - -S ca.....J.._ ~ '";:::::I: ~ - ~ __ ~ 0 ..g 11) o.:q co"':":: c: ~, '" _ c f- ~ 8 E .. 0." o c "0 [;j ;:; E "" '" c' c: .2 '" ";; 0: N Ctl ';: " 0 ...<: 25 " '" C/J " ,,-'" -519 .......... o 0 c ::J ,9 c: E.~ o ~ "'C .~ '" " B-S E .8 gl...;3';~ C"'.2.o c: lU I- .- I1J 15 ~u ~ - :::l d.l U US.n-E.5 ~ OJ o OJ) c .:: ";; :E E , 0\ , 0.. ::;:: <8 :E~ SN' ~ :; ~ "".0 " B .<: u uo . . = .S: - " ... '" .;: .. > .... o '" o ..0 - .. ~ i-- - = .. E .. .. 'S 0" .. " .... o ~ ~ - .. ... .. = o fJJ - . ;.. '" - = fOI .. :0 .;;; = o c>. ~ .. " I-- = o '= " ... I:: .;: .. > .... o OIl = 's E= ~ ~ .. .. = ~ " .. ~ = .S: ... .~ ~ is ~ ;> " ~ ..0 U .... o .0 U " " ~ = .;3 c o = .- g,il :l ';:: ..0] ,,- - = .5 (OJ '" " "~ E _ .5'0 oj = " o ~ E = <1J:.o E 15 =.... g 0 '" = < .g c;tc>. UJ 0 uiil = " 0: " " ~ " .0 = fJJ ..: or) c " 0: 0.. u- 'flN ~..,,: " ... = " = :;; .. o OIl .S '" " .. " ~.f! (l) A. (l) 0 _ ..... ......c ~ d.I .~_I1.l~ 00 -ScB-.sgOaJl- >. ca do) 'Vi ca ~-= 0 ..0 c.. u ~ .~ ~ .E_ 2 "= c c Vl IU .~ _ m.g ~ to- U ~, C I- ('j 0::: ctl .- 0 c ......- .9 -.:j- "'0 "E on.:2 oS ...... I- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~] ..g ~.5 2 8 -E = ~ ~ CI) ~ ~ on c o.'~ e-~ <u "" I- "'0'- '" -s 6.0 c: ;c B ~ 6 "'E l.-. ~ ~ ~ ~ -g -= Vl '5 o~"""c::lca~gC" c 0 .- 0 ._ .9 .0...... ~ ;c c ~:c ~ .......- ..... 11) .... t':l t: C":ll.o-. ~U ~vC;c:: 8..-:; 0 "'0 ~ E ll) U ctI 0l}"'C (l) (tl ...... "'C te 'Or; ~ c c g ~ ~~""5.Q~:.a.g ca a::.-::: E on 0 ::l r: Q,) 5l <( U ca e :.0 CFJ on ~ .:!:: - .... ..; .... .~ E " c>. o o ~ is ~ ;> " ~ ..<: U .... o .0 U '" = ~ .... o " " = oj ~E: " " > ~ c ~ 80.. s.,g ~ - o 0 ~ .5 oj = " o ~ E = QJ~ E 0 =.... g 0 '" = <( ..@ c;tc>. UJ 0 uiil = " 0: " " ~ " .0 = fJJ ..: or) c " 0: 0.. Uor) 'flN ~..,,: .. ... = " = :;; .. o .. c 'N ~ gf c: v e ......_ 0 .;onOl:on >. C':l (1) ~ .5 ;>. ..oc..-=c~t: CO"" 8 I- $! t'O"'O c: 01)_ 0:: Cl:l (1) co "'0 C':I "'0 E ~ C6.!:::.... c ~ c.. -..c'~ ~cac.. ::S-c: (OJ <l) E E ~.,g <l) ..0 1-0._ QJ .... ..... c.. ~8.oEo>,<l) 4)"""<1)-..0"::':: .so.8~c"'O~ '-:==laaugll) o ~ .5 ;:.,g ~ ;S .S b"E (l) ...... >. r.o ......_OODct::>. g. U c ~ 0 <1.1 ~. '"0 0 11) ~ C 0..._ ('j -S E ..c 'i: e ~ 10.0 . Q.) u 0 c.. Q) <l.IOroc-E>.c a:: ._ ..0 ca ::l C (1) <C:Ur;:C:r:::Ctlt':!..o - = " E .. - " .0 < OIl = 'N " .. " .., ..; .... - " " 'i5' ~ 0.. 5' ~ ;> " ~ ..<: u~ .... " o " .o'E. i:J 1ij- - E " 0.. !i .~ '"; > = ~ c <~ c;t ., UJ- u ~ c; E c c>. ~~ <E~ g.sca~ O'cno "'O~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~.g '. ..... C'j - .9 ~ 'B 3 en :! g~~t)iZ:lUc.... 'e'13 -g lU"t:l en -g ~ ::; c..L.l... ::s U') r::: 0" c.. C "'0 _l-.....n..:-ctl-OlUctlC ctl~ '-"Ju-.c~_ ctl ::s E .5 <e: :=. u -= 0.. IF) "t:l E t:: '- -. '" o....,f ~ 8'~ ~ ~ E E ~ ;3 .5 .g ~~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0: ~ '" = ~ t: ~ '" " " ~ .. '" .. c>. fJJ .~ E .. '" " fOI S o .. .. " Z ~ '" , ~~ ,N "(..,f '" ,,~ ;:ON6 ctl..,fo f- c c " ctlO:;:$ 0: " 0.. " U :;; fJJ.o ~J: .;,; ..,,: '" or) .. ..; .... B ~ '0 U ;3 13 ~,= lG!U~E-5 'u ;; a:; .~ ;f. lU c..'- CIJ 0 ~~cp~-o:=: .~ ,~.b ctl ~ .); E2~=tlr--- ~ 0...9 ~ St CIJ" c13>.cCIJ~ lU '- lU ,_ 0 .... ~ ~ 5. U 'u <1::: ~c.,g.,gg.5 ctl U _!- Vl '':: c: r::: r::: .~ ctl ""'o:..c:..ccEt:: .':::.'::: OJ) 0 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ -g ~ C Vl "t:l "'0 0 0 'B-g~t)~u ~..:::!.- lU o;f. ... >,~ t: 0 o 0 e e ctl ~ ~ c.. c.. c: ~ " -5 >> B c u< B~ =:1:-9: ~ ~ ~ " ~~ a c -g~ " " '" " " .:;: c .S: t:a .s t:: .s ~ ~t: 5...l UJ: ~c; " ~ ".g ;3~ ;;: " ,~ -5 .~ .~ =:I o.~ 0" ... E " c ~ '" '" " ':; '- c.. ~ 00 Uo :6~ .5 c ~ .g ~ ~o '':: :0 .- c ~ E C'j c>. '" .. .5 fa ~ - ~ ~ " '0 10 c ,,~ ~ - .." " S -5 , o - , 0.. ~ <8 5i~ .:::N' .~ > i; ~.o = 0 _u uo . . . . .' ;0, - ;: " '-'l " ;s ~ " o '" ~ " Ill: r- " .S: - " ... I: 'C " > ... o .. " 's i= - " .S: = ... I: 'C " > ... o "" o .c - " :0 I-- - " " e " ... 'S .,. " Ill: ... o ~ ~ ~ " ... ... " o '" - ~ " ... " ~ " " :0 " o ;: " ;E :0 li ~ :> " :; .c U ... o C U . ~ E ]:a "rn ~~c c:l '''U ~ ~ V .g'S; ..s C/:l ~.5 ~<"'O gg~ 'Z: U'u 0.._ 8- o ~ CIl . """ -< <r:t;:~_ c ~ ca <~ c E:Oo.2 c:l ~ C ~ e ~.g"'5 ~t)c..~ ~.~ 0 ~ lZl 0"'0 Ol} "'0 0.. ~",.5 ~ - cC;-c o ::l E 0 'Z"" ~ 5 0..'- c 0 o .~ B 0.. ""0 "'0 0 E <.5 "'C._ .;,; r-j .,., M" ~ .~ N . .N ~ . ." ~~ ""'cl.l:i c co c::i ceo::_ 0:: " "" ~ u " ",or> ~b5::; .,., o ~ " " is: ;0, - iJ "" " 15. o "" -< "'0 'E c ~ "0 ~ 0 "'O.~ cnCO EOUl .g;~~e:] C'J C._ 0 c.. C rn - Q) ~ 1-0 .9 'Vi ~ ~ ~ >> ~ ~ ::l .9- v_uco"'Ou ,::; '5 E ~ ""0 ~.5 c C'" _ - :>._ l- ll) (l) U)'- ? ~ c.. E i- 'Vi ::t ~ .5 c ",-" c;;..., c OJ) o ;> 0 ..... ~ .- .- ~ "i)e~U~E~ -;; ;> c.. 1-0 V ..... Q) ""0 .~ .... (l) ,..., ::I..c f.)..c "'0 ;.. ~ "'0 ;r Vi !- ~= c e 0 [) "'0 E E'- ce . O..c c 0 c .- ~ o.o.~ .- "'0 ..... <tl ..... c:l "0 ~ .5 b ~ (l) 0 O!)urE: Cl) t: c;:: C Q. ] .5 ~ ~:.6 ~ ~ ti U..g ce.;: ~ ~ .:: e 0.. 5b v ctI Ii E U ..c Q. "'0 .- ..c 0 c:l ll) e ::l "'0 (1) t: <I'l f--:50: o..o..cI.l ~-:5.!:!.g c_ " " ~ - ~ ~ " " u 0 gu ~-;;; " u "" 0 c..J """ 5 " " " "C C " " "0:: on ..; M li ~ :> " :; .c U ... o c iJ " ;. ... " ~ " ... "" " .c .. .5 ~ " ~ ;0 " :c ;: " '" 5 o u ... M ;,; o ~ '" -< ... o c .2 'i<i E " 5 " Q. .5 '^ -;;; .. o ... '" '" " .~ " '" ;,; o '^ ::E ~ '" " -< g ~ Q.. "C,,- 6.2 ~ c ~ e ol:g; .~ d.) c:l ... 5 _ fr.a 'g ~.5 8. , - - , .,., " " 0:: " ~ " or> " '" " o .~] ~ " u "' e .~ " > :~ 'c;j - ~ u " " "'- . " _ u E'Ob 5..2 " 0 ~:E c"c " C 5 " t~ ~ E CIJ .~ ~ ~ -;;; "C il QJ 8ll.l "'O~ ~~~~ ~- e;=c>o_~c E"] ~.~] ~ .s '€ o 1Il..c 0 L...... '0 <Il Q) u[G ...r- ceC/:l e :g] ~ cO c; ..c .5 coll)VJc:l~.s~""O ~ rG] ~ .~ '0 VI" ~ ~ ~ ~ E o.~ ~ ~ ~ vr 0 a..c c .... Vl~Oc:ft~E:g 8 ;>:;E ll) ;>. ll) ~ .> ~ rJ') ~ ~ = .!:: ~ i-. Vl .... ll) ::I ::1"- ll) ~< Q...c:~ C"'E ~ i~ ~ ; ~.~ ~ o c Vl..c: ~ "- t:: ~ e!J.- ~ "~ O"~ ";: Vi ll) ~ "0 Q,) "0"': C "0 EVl"O>'~UQ,)C Q,) ::l ~..c _ ee 0. ee "" ::E ~8 ::E~ Sl"i ~ ;; ~ -3~ ..<=u uo . .. . . . >> ;:: -= <ol " ;e ~ '" o 0. ~ " c.: - '" .$1 - .. ... c 0;: " > ... o OIl '" 05 E:: - '" .$1 '" ... c .;: " > ... o '" o -= " ~ - - '" " e " .. os 0- " c.: ... o ~ ~ ~ " ... .. " " '" - ~ " .. " ~ .. " ~ '" " <= .. ~ :; 5 ~ ;;: " ::; .c U ... o C U Oi " c '" " os: e :.a 8 .5 0 ...'" 0< gO' .- '" . ~U..o ~t)~ ._ G,) ;:::l 1::'~ c o e c u 0.< COQ..,V'l < ::3u~CO 0' t 2 r.I) ;:::l UJ..c<~a2 Uo'~oE:< ..... """ ~ ..... C':I ...:E c.. M ~o8E~~cuo::t 'Ql c 0 C':I C'd '<:t 0 ~ .- I-. 0 .... ::l.,c"""-,o:::;; c....;:: c.. ~ ;:::l ~ E -< -;j'so.fJ::l{/')o:::ic.s- ccc..O,_o....."O ..ag'Be._Ea~ ";;: 3 ';:: 0 V) ~ ~ ~ -.::r: ;.a u t: j:l.. fe "'0 Q. I- "'1'" .s.g ~~c: a.5 5..n " .. .. " ~ " .. .. " .c E- .:: ~ " ~ ;;> " :E <= .. 0. e o U C Oi '" :E '" '" o U on N -0 0" vi' 0" ::: 0- .,; '" " 0: " " ~ " .c " '" " ~;e ~ 10 " 0. "E g " ... '" >> ,,- ~ " ..E S III ';:: .s:.a ';;: g ::: ... o.~ '" " .!!.c c.. .~ ".c ~ " " ~ .c " " ~ '" " "", .c '" E-.!! biJ '" '0 " 0:; .= OIl '" .;;; ~ " ... o ~ 0. "0 '" " C .$1 13 ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ eiJ:~ :~ .~ ~~] oS > ~ " ~ " ~ Q.. " -5 -5 'fi . oli '" '" .- " ~Q: "0 '" " ~ ~"O .~ g :~ ~ ... a "<2 2"0 E a 0"0 ... " "0 '" o '" o " G:E: ~ a u .5 ~ " <l:: .= "0 ~ a Ol)~ Vl .5 co ~ ~ c E Sn.=: 4-0"'0 ~ G,)~a~ ? g ~ ~ ......C'd::l== ~a:;3> ~ .5 .~ >. ~ C':I t-" C':I '" ~- .= << ..: 0 , N ~ , " ~ .5.s .g "O~~~ ~~uc '~~E8.s "'C.:: ~ ~ s::: ~ ~!.o;; ~.;;; C'd a.5 ..... Q) Vl_ _.Q~ ~ c.. 0 ::l C':I""O c.."'C f1) ~ (OJ g. ~ ~ 15 e == 8- .s:: ::l >. Cl:l 0 ..... en c..c a- ~ G,):: ~~ Vl -5..E 'u- " '" ... 0 ._0_0 C':I 0_ o 'i:..c ro :.a '.~ f- 'i: c VI '- G,) tU o .o_c u i-'c i:: u OJ)._ U IU ~~:~]]~ Q.. ::E ::S8 ::Efl !3 N'" .'" > Ii; .!!.c .'2 E u uo . .. . . . - c " E " .. "; '" Qi ..... o ~ ~ - " '" .. = o 00 I-- ~ "" ;: r.l " :i5 ";;; c o Cl. ~ .. ell: - c o :;:: .. '" ... .;: .. > ..... o .. .5 E !::: - c .5: " '" ... .;: .. > ..... o "Cl o .c ;: :0 - ~ '" .. = ~ .. " :0 c .5: " ~ :; E ~ :> .. -; .c U ..... o o U -;;; = c c < c.. B N U E~~cCl) ~a I O:EM ~ .0 ._-,,- 0 .0::; 5~-.:tc-- o.~-Q)c< ~ ,,- t:: 0; -.... E ;:;!_ o lr) - (1) -. ...., 0. c"'C c..5 ~ ~ ~ ~ E Q.~ _Q..V)-oD~ ~ Q.. . cu c . :su<o::t :S'';:;Vl 2Uja2~a <:::EO:<:::EO: " 2: N < ell: " Q 2: < r.l ell: ;:> ~ ;:> U ;: " < ell: o '" r.l "' < .... ..J < .... 2: r.l Q U 2: c " 0: " " .. " .0 = 00 . N~ C'i:=: -0< c- " 0:'" Q..~ u'" OON :::E.,,: '" ..; ~ " ~.g :f -S~oc CJJ .. 0 .5 c 00 0. " C => 13 0: 'N ~ "'C ~ E! ~ .~ ~ on ~ _rn'"C- 0..0 a ~ .b~e~ "5 .5 .a ~ !;:"'C:;t 'E a u <on 0. c.. 'C ~ ::E ~~ t':jc:::~.s a....c: "C ~g~:.c ;< C<:l N."'::: UJO::o.r)~ .c "'0 '0 ~ gall) C E- C<:l c "._-_" 0::: v II I1.i ;>" ~ t3 ~ ::;.. CtI .... .- (,) ~-o..o~ ~O.o.,g_ Q) Q) 0. Cl:I o:.s:.c~-S ~.5 ~:~ ;c .... ::: .9 c'On o t'O.... <u Q) .5O:~cn~ ""OE~]t; ]E.sOll~ ~ Q) VJ.5'N o ~~ ~ E ~ a 'E on ~ a~~~~ >. V'- 0 Vl ~ OJ) 0.. v; ::: cCz~E 8~o::::.=~ , '"'"' - , OJ) .5 i:- N .. ".- OJ) Sh~ .~ _.E ll) Q) "'0 CI:l N...... C a 'Sn ~ ~ ~ -.2ce~€ 5 0"" 1-0 c<:l E:Og.:;:~ ~ ~ --g :t] ctl'z:::'ta..c: c.-.-..c ...... CtI Vl ,. .... >. E li3 :>.. Q) C Q) Vl ..... U CtI . ~-gu~~'~ Vl 0. Q).- ;;--.. t: ".. E..c"E. t:: ll) 0.'- !- 0 (\) 0.. Cl." ~.bvi'EO~ t: Q) Q) 01) I- c<:l Q);;:"~EQ.t- ~"; g~~.s c on Vl ctl .2g~~g~ c.. :::E ::;g :::E~ ~N .~ > i; ".0 "'38 .c u uO . . . " ;>, - :::: = <oJ " :;; ';;; = .. ... ~ " Cl: f-- = ,51 - " .. c ';: " > ... .. '" .. .c - " :; - - = " E " ... ';; c- " Cl: ... .. ~ ~ ~ " .. ... = .. '" - = .. :::: " .. c ';: " > ... .. .. = 'E i= - ~ " ... = ~ " " :; = .. '." " ;8 :; >- ...l CQ :; <oJ '" '" < <oJ > Cl: <oJ '" <oJ Cl: ... = ..,f E ~ 11) on 5 c S .E '';:: e 11) 11) g. "r "0 ~ ,Q E ..0 - _ "";ij e.::! t;5 0 01) C > 00"'0 > ~ >oo,-Oi-lJ,J .~ ~ E c.. 0 "0 QJ @-E~~~~~~ .g 7n ~ .~ e '; S ~ tn [5 ~ ';; 0. C'" .",,;:;" 0: 11) I- 0'- 0.. 11) - ..c:0:5u..""O co 1-0 ll) .......- .oc::=v-= .:: .Q v) ~ ~ .,g ~ 0 "C -5 'i: ~ OJ) l:l.. rI) ;:.-.. - I:1.l 'E .~ .~ E :E ~ 5' ~ ] ~ ~ ~ ~ c.. =- g. ~ (1) g;:: ~ .~ :9 10."'0 C 11) O.J: ro 0 (/) l:: > ~ (1) V I... OJ)""'" ~ E 11) .~ ; Cl):CE~c:vr>l1)l1)c;l1) C:: E ~ ;rl 't:;'-:: 5 E..o u-5 11) IU .t: '0' 0 E u 11) t; 0 "'0 .J:~CI...~(l)I-~..c:>c 1-~(\)o.,-o.O(\)Vl~ro s ~ :> " :; .c U ... o .0 U .. = E '" .. .;; E ~E~ .50'E ,,-,"'- 0<= co8 o UJ . ~ '~Ub ~uc; ''2.~ S 11) e c U ...< .~ <c:l:v-i eO 0' 8. c::: .5 [JJote _ u~O::] ~ _~Q..roc;~ ~ ::I U V"l ::I C .~ c tJJ ~ C ._0_ o c: ::E e C l5..< ro < C';l _."'0-.....-= coE- ~QJ .gQ,)E~"<:tE ';; E ~ I-. -;- 11) :.;:::::lVJ~_OO;::: '-J U '- - . - .=-8 [~:!..5 "" M -0 N' N~ .,:0 . -::; .,: "M ,,- 0: .. ,,:;; .. '" :Of- ..g~ ",-0 ~ ~ .. .. .. ... ... ;: .. E .. ;: :::: = <oJ ;: " E ... o .. .. .. Q - ..,f >< '" - .t: "'0 fd~ c: E:::c:ctl N ~~~ en"" ::E-< S~B c]E " " " ~~;;l_ 5~3~ Q.Vl 0..- ~ E .. .f' ~u Q.~ c;:; -5 0 ti(ii " .. " 2 " 0. E 0. '" " " .5 -5 .; " 'u " .. 01) < ~ "'" . " ~ '" .. = ~ 58 r<"l id c 1.0 0.- ~ ~ = " Q) E .9 e c..u ._ 0 Q) "OvCI:I ~ i; ~ "'0: .~ ~ ro 2 "'0 ~ ~] .2 'O'~ ~ _ 0 Q.. Vl.E ~.~ "'0 ~ ''::; ~ > ~ ',9 o ::l 11) -.:t U O"''''C-.o , '" ~ , - u "'" P"g ~.~ ..:;; .c~ ~ .~ 11) ~ .5 ~'" - " OJ)'~ .5 :e '" E SEe u = " g~o: Q) ro t':I u "'0 ~ ~~~ .E ~::I "'0'';::: rJj o 'E ~ r-Il)~ :J..Do :r:B~ .E-g~ - 0..0 E,~ ~ Q.. ::E ~g ::E~ -SN' .~ > :;; "'.0 "'52 -'= u uo J!l ~ " t; " .~ E e,~ 0.= - c- = " " - E " g-.g ~ ~ .. - " " '" ~ - " " 0 .c u '0 " -5 -0: S , .' . . . ;., "= - .. ~ " :;s .:;; .. o '" ~ " ~ f-- .. o ::: " '" 0.: .;: " > ... o .. .. '5 i= - .. .!2 ... '" 0.: .;: " > ... o "'" o ,: " :;; f-- - .. " E " .!:: = ~ " 0: ... o ~ ~ ~ " '" .. = o '" - ~ " .. = ~ " " :;; .. .!2 ... ;8 :;E $i ~ :> " "3 .<: u ... o C U ~ ..." = .. "'" " .;; E ~B~ .:: 0._5 ..."'" 0..: " "00 o~u '~Ub ~u"ii .- 4) =' ~.~ 2 u 5.< ,,,( <r::t:v1 O'8.c~ UJd.I~ ue>:o.. .....c;o.. ~ ::l U ''='"' c U'J o " ." '"<:"" '" .8 C;c -6 " .;; E :.a 8 ..=.g ::; .;.; " :c " f- ": ...., " " 0:::.,., ,,0 " - '" 2M' =0 "'- "i) "Vl] o ::1- b I:C 1,0 ..... .~ ~ 4- ~~E~.g~~ t:e:.p..cc on ::I ~ "'C :: ,0_ .5 U U'J ctl - C: V) Cl) c :.2 'S ~ ~:>. -:S - ,.0;:: .0 ~, .... - .....~ ::: .~ ~ U ~ .0"'0 E B.sotiU~g "'C c 't Cl) ~ c; ~:.sctl-5~S ._ -g 0 6....;:: E'~ ::l.5 u:.a g~2~.o< u .- c; ~ .~ .~ ~ ,g g Vl ri .0;;: u fa ~ 'C U~:.a-Dg~ ] e 'C ~ ~ 5 r- g .2.,0:: ;::; 2 "'" " ;. .. " ~ " .. 0.. " .Q .8 "'" .. " ...l ... .. on .5 " " -;;;:;E = " 2 .g <: " ." E "! " ..,. E , " Q. "'05 >< " l= c:.c "0 " " " 'S:::r:ctl " o..~o ~v- :;;:-<: s::;'S E] c '" " '" Bi ~ ~_ ~ ~ 5 ~ o..V) 0..- ~ .f' ;;u ..c 4) vi a.se a..J .5 g -5-SM ..g .~ eg .~ ~ <<i' - " ;., o .~~ \1) e ~ t: c.. E ~ E'~ " " 0 0: E s.. 0.. '" Q. U..9ctl f4~B "" ,,- -0 " ~ E g - 0 E .8~ro '" Z ;: 0: o 0.. ~ 0: Q Z <: '" z ;: z ;l o u u ..: o .,.; -0 " " . "" 1;;u.. .- 0 >u " - -0 = " .<: " U'" 'O~ cu.. .- '" u::> -;;; = .5 C o U .:.i " l= :E '" ::t: ... o " .!2 ] ;5 , on ~ , " '" 0::: " " '" " .Q = '" :"' ::.: .. .. - :c " ;C ~ .. .S -= = o '" '" ..: " .. " " .. '" <: - - ~~ .,., "N "0 0:::- 0..::; U "'.,., :;;:'" u .9 _ Cl),"~ _0 c c; d) ..... ~ .2 Cl) '=0 ~ c!::! ,,~ 5 ,,_0"::: ~<C.::,i 1=5 Q. - Vl C Q.. ro :> 0 >'"O..2:.a::r:.~.~ tn; .0 ~~.2:E~ ...,,~ ~ "EEo.uo::c:c'a"'O ::l ::l C.5 -S :::.... .~ E -5 8 0 ..... coo" 01.l ce Il,) .- .~ uElSe-o e..c ro c<:l ';:::: _ 'in C CtI c. >. Q) -- ." ..... ~ .::2 :: ~ --SJg"@go>.ctIl1l ] E >.C/j"'CJ2'U-::-5~ 'E~e~~Ed)~g gb~~S::V;.p~"" (,) ~ ~:E :.s ~ ~ 5.5 .~ ~ g .~ .~ ~ ~ B ~ =_"C"O....,.cs::~ ;:;.... E rn IV IV OJ) ~ 0 IV .~::l:Ei::i::s::Vl.~~ u u coo IV ~ :_8 Vl .?on e IV"O,.cVl::: IV Cl. ,.cs::,-~o ~::c ~ ce 0 Cl. u S coo 0 .~ ~ :E " ::t: .. = .s -= o U 0.. :;;: ~g ::Ef: lSN .~ > i; .!O!.Q = 0 "" u uo .,.; . . . = o :;:: .. " I: .;: " :> ... o "0 o .:: - " :; I-- - = " e " ... 'S "" " co:: ... o ~ ~ ~ " " ... = o '" I-- ,., ;:: - = o.l " ;s ~ = o CI.. ~ " co:: - = .!2 0; " I: .;: " :> ... o OIl .5 8 E: - ~ " ... = ~ .. " :; = .!2 0; ~ ~ "0 = .. . "0 1;;,,- .- Cl :>u .. -"0 = = .:: .. U", 'OSi: >>"- .-::: en u=> .i- OJ = = = ..: .s N ~~~ ~ ~ I ~ ::s o:i aU'J - t::'c>::; 8.. ~"O " .. = ~- .. 0...,., ~c...~ = U = = '" .. ..::;c:: N oi on a; .,., ": .,., = .. c:: ~ 0....,. u_ "'..: :;- OIl = :;:: ... o CI.. c:! OJ = = = ..: t1] " .. OJ '0' 00 Q) oS a..e.s o >. Q.) OJ) -t:::~bOC .... 0 ~.- Ec..oOeS -g :!: .5 ~ "'0 Vl.~ C ..... ~ "'O:CS5~ c::Iu:.c..c co Q.. U co ::s ~ co (':3..c Vl ~O ~ ~.s ~Cs ~ ~.E U.. ".:: Vi c .~ .~ ::l "'C co ~ ~ E ~ 0.0"'5-0 Oel).5 E OJ 'U-o.= > ;:> .~ B b I1.l w... c"'C t3 ~:g8~8 .... .0 ";j >-. .~ co ""-' ..coD Co c Q) >-.~O.~~ Vol <( Vl :s Vl -.. .0_ ;; ..c -. Q) ...., bOc...~ O)Q)o.. ..c Vl~UO .5 ::c. u .~ -S -S -S (1) g :::s C c; ~ a 0 -=",=:,CO,.e 0 0.0>-,-5 c ClJooc.,"Cc. e. Vl ..... I- C.L 0 0 en 11.1 ~ OJ) '-0-.. ::s CO 0 CO._ ..c E'-..c c ~ e .s u ..c s-.~"'g ~ 11) 0 -~ ~ 8.~ ~ E CO c ~ 5 8 ~ ;i S 0..0 a So -~ ~ vl ~ .~ :s U'l E Q) co E Q) c::: <( E: c. c:; -0 ~.~ co c.. ] ] .c ~ ~ oS 0.. gf ~ ~ ~ a COCO .- ;:.. I- ~ U._ c c.. =0 .: . "'0 0 '0 "CO'S: Q) co '= en -= 0 " i; ">'- ;:.. < 15 ;> c ~ . ~ '0:::' u.o'-.... Q) I- ~ u 0.. 0 t::: ..... 0 N ~ 08 OJJ'- ti; 'E :>-'0 u"'O::t cn 00-"'0 0 ccl-o -. ~.2 "'0= :; ""= fr u.. ~ a -s ~ '> ::s 51 ~ .. 0..... 1-"'" Q) c.. O,.l E t;::: u -0 ...., co 0 Vl i-I l-o -0 -S E'- E C .- 5 ~ a - -s ~ ] U OJ) 0) .- - "fi 0 0 E "';jov.8 -5l-"'Oe>~d.lCOUUiV _ _ "" ~ _ c..... .~ .."..c ...... = _ ""= u U >: Q) ......- co -..s::::: ;:..... '-"J c Vl co ~.~.~ ~ ~ en ~ C).- "'0 .E.~ co Q) S ~ ca .;; 'S Vl ~ ':> t':;I t':;I ;>.. s::: ""0 ~ s::: ~ I:::; 0 11) -;;> :::l en"Q.. co :::l ..... en 0 .;;: .u :5 E ""0 a :.0 t.L. C' s::: E s::: u ~ - t: ~~~ 8 ;;~~:g.g] 8C:~~~ ~ , \0 - , ~ u " '" Si: ,,"- " .c~-s .~ ~ ~ 0.- " o ""O.~ .::="0 ~""" -t: OC: 0'- co ~uE .~ JE ~ ::c ......- = >> e 0.'" " co"'g .!a ct)""O o ::::l 0 t .= ""0 ..... 0 u r::: 0 0- s::: 0 u.. 11) .:::., u 0 '- s.f:ug u c: "'0 c: s::: '0 c: c: _ '-' t':;I t':;I 0.. :; ::;8 :;~ 13r-f ~ > ~ "'" "'52 .:: " uo ~ . . ;: " S " .!:: " c- " C<: ... " ~ ~ 'i;" '" ... " " '" I-- . '" "= - " r.l " ;e ~ " " Cl. ~ ~ - " .50 - .. '" I,: .;: ~ ... " .. .s S E= - " .50 - .. '" I,: .;: " >- ... " '0 " .= .. :;; - ~ " ... " ~ '" " :;; " .50 .. :2 :;; ." " .. . "0 <;;;'" .- Q >-u .. -'0 " " .= .. u'" 'O~ 0'" .- '" U;:J .,,0; " '" .. " s...J ~ gp ;; '.; ~ o..lIi ::s'o c ...c::'t:.2 u.._ ~fJ,.,~ ... 0: .q~.t: Uo":: .; ... .. " '" " " ..::, ... -= 0; t- " " " " > -0: '-'l oil ~ " .5 "- 0; " ... " ." 5 " " .. 0 OIl .~ " ..: " '" " " 5 .= " .~ , 0- ::;; r-- .5 " - 0- , ::s '" on ~ ": on " .. E:: 0- U'" "'.,: ~ .. .5 .. " :;; " .50 .. ;: " 5 " 0- S 04-00l.o-.Q)OI:l-.:SIo-o ~o-5o-=-gU5"'o" ~c~c eC/.l ~c~ u ._9 l1.l ,_9 "'2 :E ~ --5 .9 > ~ "'C .:; C':l C':l gp Q) ;.: t:a 'i: "'C C a E e"5 ~];: ~"O ~;.B.._~..!2 U':l E:: E ..-. Vl 0 J:: c ~ C Vl'- IS ;: ~ ::: 2 ~ [G ~ ~ ~ 0.."::= g.f::C ~ 0.. VJ 0..'- So <<l :I: co Q) u ._ u ~ 0--., E .2 E "E 0 0 -- ..= ._ ~ t':l -' .- t:.- U a-. OJ) bJ} ::I _ - e ..... C ..c<UC':ll1)oo..cc..coo..coco -::: tti 0.. "c;; a - 0 'N -d'"E 5.. "'0 E"'E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ] .~ ~ ~ ; ~ -g Q) :B Q)....r->->....::l.=:o.c..!2~c.. EgcQ)bJ)O~cg:uVl~ae U <<l B "E ~ g.!3 .- C ;:;; "'C E 0.. (/)"00..1:::::14: u o..13.g en ~ vi S 5=a<<lo"'Coll)<<l....::l"C-cc Q) 0-0.. ..r: e <1J..c ceo Q) >. 3= .... v U >........ Cl:I "'0 .- .!3 .0_ ._ -" ...... Q) <<l'" U V'J..c 'Vi'= .......-::: C':l .u- ._> ..c - Cf) C':l "'0 ::s c c - c<:I fJl t ::l C':l ::E ::l ~ <I) 0 0 ~ OJ)'- Q) e V'J ~ g- ~ "'C U u:.E ''::; g..~ ~ B .s a -5 -g B a ~ c; ] 'E ~ 5 .. " " " -0: .., 'Ii .,: .,: ::s N '" on " .. E:: 0- U '" ~ .. " .;: .. " :: '0 " .. - ... " "- " C<: .~ :is " 0.. ;: .0 .., ~ ." ttl ~ Q) 0 0.. 0 > -s t ~ O.~ Q) ~ o~ ..c u)::c g e"t;J o~:E:::S~Q)o.."O QJ ~ QJ 0.. en "'C"'O .s -s -5 C':l .~ ::l C Q) "'O:g,-"'Oo"U.!2t/l a .g ~] -s .S: ~ .~ .q~ E m ~] ~.s u,c V'J ~ en 0 0 ~~.s].~-g~] -~c; C':lufroC':l ~ g S] .~ ~ -= ~ ~...J t:: 0.. s:::..c g:I: dol gf &."'@ 8 r- s::: ~ ~ ..= ~ S s::: t .s dol -= ~.~ .- .; 0 t; -= - 0.0.:: fr E s::: C:~.D ~ ~ ~ :f; dolt:: 5..D ca ll.It.E- ~ &: ~ ~ ~ -= .:: .~ .., 'Ii ~ " 0.0 ::I] C .sO~ -_~:.a E_ dol ~ ~ ca s::: :O~~]~~ll.I ~ 5.2 ~ ;>. 0 ~ "'0 ll.I ::l "'0 dol -= OJ) ~..c Vl ~ ~ OJ) ~ ~ - ;>..- ..c c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ E dol 0 ll.I ~ .:: u c "'0 "'0 a Vl -g .:: ._50 ca a .g -g u ~._ E dol Vl 2 ~ s:::.:!: Vl ..... ~ 0.. ~ ::l ~ ca "'0 "'@ dol 0:: 8'" E"'Os:::.........cll.l~ :.a.8~o~-=c s::: c:: Vl 0.0.- _ 0 ob ~.s ~ .:: ~ E"'E.g ;.<.t: ~'E"'O E"'O._o_ ll.I.~ ll.I ::I c:: ll.I s::: "'@ g..~ 8 ~c.~s B g -= g ~.E ~ E 0- ~ :!8 ~i": sr--r ~ > t ~.o " E -" u uo . . . .. ... - ., " "" .. :;s ';;; " " '" ~ ~ f- " " ., .. ... t:: ';: .. > ... " .. " 's != f- " o ., .. ... t:: ';: .. > ... o "0 " .c - .. ~ - - " .. 5 .. I- 'S '" .. Cl: ... o ~ ~ ~ .. ... I- " o '" - ~ .. I- " ~ .. .. :E " o ., .. ~ :; "0 ~ ~ ~ >~ " " " :; " .c E u .. ... ~ o .. o~ uti. ~ .. ... .. e -5 t- .. > '" .; t:: o '" .. I- '~ - .. bll " " " E .. > - .. ~ e 0.. .; Cl :E '" < N '" or> " " c:: 0.. U '" :E ~ - I- o '" .. Cl: c - ...E ~ ~ ~ =0 bJ)'';:: :.a .- u.. C':l't: t:: ~ 8 ~ .9 s::: ~ ~] ~ ;~~~ ,...~..... 0 ~VJ I-:@ E fr~ 1-0 ::: ~ U 11) I- > ~ l.I.. !; [; ~ ~ V ~VJE"'Oc-g"O 0...:J ~ vi' Cl:l "r: e -fivC6'3E~:~ ~ -S ;S :~ ~ ~ .~ ] ~ [E ~ t:~ ~frvc~eC':l C':la..Q)i1.l.~-5eo CC':l.EE~. C':l ..... ..... ~.~ x '.g E'- C'O'- 11) a... oECc;';"co ..c.D <1.l c<:l '';:: 11) Vi ""0 r-~~E~-S~~ .~ - .. .. .. " .. ~ .. > I- .. ~ .. I- 0.. on ori .; .. o bll .. ... - " o ~ .. - " .. E 2 g :E " .. .s "0 " " . "0 ti... .- Cl >u " -"0 " " .c .. U'" 'O~ 0'" ,- '" u=> .; l<I .. ... .. .. - -5 t- .. > '" bll c: .;: 2 '2 o E .. ... '@) . ..2'6 .9 c. o:l e .. ... 'on v-i ..2...t- 0- 00,:::: - i:.: ..,. " -.00: " bll " " 0: 'i: 0.. 0 u'a '" 0 :E:E ~ - I- " '" .. Cl: .. " ';: 2 '" o ~ '; ... 's" o '0 = .. ll).~ I- .0 'C V ~ .~ .g ~ co ] ~ ..... o..'u .s d) ~ ~ ....="og,l-~CC 8. ':; C In ~ :l 'C:; bJ)" Q) ;;>0 C':l Q) c; 0" ._ ~-g<c~c~u] c C':l'~ ;:;.,g~~tE-ci 'C ~ 11) I- C':l _ 0 .2_ (oj ""0 c.. ""0 .9 :: ~ 'G:) iU .- "'0 C I- 0 C':l c.. C;>"vi'c 0 oc..;:;.::I I- ol1)':::Cl:lE~~c;5 E 11) = 00 E C':l'- > ~ Q) 1: <I) "'0 0 (l).-::: 11) I >-'~~u~s"'O~ -Vi C ll) C ~ 11)'- C 1-0 EQ)-5'E:-~s..C':l~-5 ..c ;> tU I1.l ~..r::: 0.0"'0 bJ) ~ ~.!::! E E -;.5 0 c: c. (l) ~ 11) iU c l-o'E '6 E I- ~ on 0./)._ .s c.. 0 o (tl s:::; ce C':l 0' 'i: I- U ufrE;;~EoC':lo < 5. ~ E E 8 E ~-5 '" ori c.:i ... Cl U -0 " .. '" ~ ... '" => ~ " .. ... .. - o E - o .. .. - -5 t- .. > '" '6 " " " " c:: ~ ..,. :::: ~ '6 " .. c " .. :E '0 " < c .. 0: .. u .2 "'O.c_~ u"'Co~~.~u"'O -6&i~~<lJ.g~a 8~] ~~~.s] ~ .:::: 0'- 00 .~ I-..c.-:::.!::: bJ) t ~ ~ gf ~ 6-.:= -0 ,5 OC'OO~uQ:)3 ~ _ J: ,_ C'O (\) -on 05-e:r.nES~ U E --g (\) -g -0 '': 'il -oo..r.n-€..:::!~~U coo 0 ::: ,- e teQjo.._~o::Er.n C/:l>Eo -0>. :::. (\) ,- r.n - C QJ ;;>-occMocc u.. ,g ,g vl '': ,9 0 C/:l~__teU:::E ~ =: ~..:::! e :.a ,:!l _ QJ Sh 2 'C 5- ~ ..cc.;..; 1l.)::::l::::lU- !- 0 E _ r.n '-' C'O r<"') t- ori -0 c: " -0 c: .. c-o .. .. 5 E bllo.. '" '" C " E ,5 ,.0 c ,'t:: .g" -- ~ ~ .. ":; :E "'> g ''8 c .. o bll "'2 'E vi -0 0 ~ C ,'t::: _ ~s2 ~ E ~ , 00 - , 0.. ::E <8 ~~ 'sr-J ~ ;; ~ "'.0 ~ 0 .ow uo , .. .. I I e :> .S! ;; " -= .;: " .. - o ." o .::: t: :;: - ,., := - :> "" " :E .;; :> o Cl. ~ " g: - :> o ;: .. " -= .;: " .. - o .. :> '5 != I-- - :> " e " .. 's C" " g: - o ~ ~ ~ " " .. :> o '" - ~ " .. :> ~ .. " :;: :> .S! ;; ~ :E 5 ~ ;; .. :; .::: U - o o U ";;j :> C ." " .;; e ;;a :3 :> <.> ;,:..g 0< sO' ._ w 1<iu ~t) '€.s " .. UCl. ." ll) I- ^ <"E 2 t; 0'0 I: t;c e3~gfe 5e -i3s~"O~'~ ~ -:5'u 6:'0 c._ c: '0' 0 Cl) ttl co :3 o~ I- I- 0.. _ 0.. g- U 0.. 0 Vl C co I- _ Vl Cl) c: :> " co c - E ~ I- ;:I ll) 5 0.. ~ .2 .2 ~ E E 0 .- 10 ~ .2: ;:I ;:I v Cti OJ) ~ "'0 g g i; c:E 11,) ..:"'O"O"O~E~ , 0\ ~ , ,...: '" ;:; f- < f- '" ;.- g: < U i;: "" Z "" = ;.- f- g: < Q. ,:, g: :: f- ::s Vl co Cl) ;a __ .2 ] Vl 13.~;:I M co 0.. .s .s Vl ll) co .5 U C;; "0 co ~'.:::_~..:g EiU>c-:=" c:..c >.1: ll) ~_ctI,,""'" ~.t::: L.,. .2 100-. ~ I: iU 1) ~ :>~ 0 Cl)::: co ~ 0 ;:I .2 ...........:::: 0 .. '" "_::: 'u.:::: ::: 0 _ Q)"'" OJ)..c Vl l;:"OQ)~~ "Ovo'~""~SS iU .~.;; 1-.- ll) iU 10 (3 OJ)"'O..c I: a.. fl S iU-.~-:5-:5:.a:E'';:; ~ u".',!""' .0 '--' I- ~ E..c __ Q) 0 co I: f' -= ~_ ';::,,, >.::: N c: iU 's 0.. Vl co ,... ....... L.,' :> J;;; -S I- E '::: 5 "0 g coco ~ ...:- E .10'- t: iU co _ ll) '0 Vl ll) fl .- I: - t: iU 'E "E 9- Cl) ..c .- ;a U E t: 'C;;"O iU E Q) 0 "E-S~.o ~ ~ iU ttl.E ll) iU O-E U ._ Vl I: t: .- v Vl ttl .E:.o 0 Cl) Q) -:5 gf Vl 0100-. c.. bO~ E E Vl V ~ ;;; 100-. .- 8 u 0 E co::s c: ~ :;;. Ol.l'- o :; 0 ttl I: 0 OJ)U 0 c:; c.g <<I Cti 1:"Ol5..o..ouct:-o Ioo-.-..c .2 I- E '';:; c'';:; ,- E ~ ,g 0 5 - _ ;:I Ol.l.- CO'- I: I: iU C :?" I: E" ttlUCVlc"OooEco....... o U ''::: :.... .~ 0 E '';:; iU _ '';::: .S g..S b 0 .~ U l: t: 0 ctl I- Q) '(; ~ ~ ~ o E ,~ 0 ;:I c..'~ ':; ..c c:; -...., "'" -...., -ci ..c] d) e t; ~ E .~ g-=: ~ g ~ S _@ f- Vl 0- 0.."0 0._ c:; """ 0 .... u"O U Q. ;> ~g ;>f1 5N "~ > ~ ~-g ..cu uO <:> ..0 ... ... ... , , e >> - ., c Iol " :E .;; c o Co ~ " CI: f-- c .51 - .. " c .;: " > "- o .. .5 E E= f-- c o ., .. " c .;: " > "- o "C o .c - " :; - - c " E " .. 'S ~ " CI: "- o ~ ~ ~ " " .. = o '" - ~ " .. = ~ .. " :; c .5: '" ~ ~ ,.. Z Iol :; Iol '" -< Z -< :; Iol > CI: Iol '" Iol CI: Q. Q .-: .. " .c oC"O " C 5 .. "OIl :;p~ [ii"- e:g " . C: ~ . (l) .3 ~ ~ .~ 0 a~u " - ~ ;;: .. :; .c U "- o C U " "'" .. ,.. ..... o ~ >> .. " "C 0 ~ '.g _ N c:: '15 ~..c: ~~ '" c o <Ii '@Jc (l) " ,,'" 0:: 5 .- c " 5 o OJ) 5 C ~ 0 o "U '.g ~ "@ 0-_ .~ '0 ~ c 'E :0 -5 &::I:~ r-: ..,; ::; M ~ v; c " li: 0.. U OIl :; c .51 '" .5 "C .. o o U 0' cc C&.l .2 (l) C;.E(l)c;E"O 19 CEC:N~aB:o .2 E ~ .t:; ctI 00 C&.l ctI OJ)o~]a::::~..c ~ u = '5 E [..l... '-5 is (l)ceoctlooo (l) -5u o>;:JEu 'c ~,..:..: ti lLl 0';; .E..c::.~ ~ ",..c u "0 ~~~"'O~r-~t'13 car-cae-cn;;-g .8- c ~ '" ~ 'Vi.'::: t'I3 .~ 0 9J '_!! c .0" " c 1'::E5.',;:::.o ,..:..:.,g t'I3 lLl (l) c: I- C;; I- ca O-OJ)l-lLlOCOC ~ ~ '0 c 8.9 ~ t: ~ ~~-g(l)O~;::tElLl C _ .~ E ";.E ~ ~ 5 u..g a ~c "C~ ~ ~ .~ ~c C&.l.gEt'I3-oc""Oc('I;1 ~:r:8E..coU~E - .-: , o N , ..... o '0 S .~ <+- '_~ >.. c t:6 0 ~. .9 o .oE,::S13 I- ::l..c ~ ~ _ ~ lLl c..;.::: t: 0 'rtj .Ec:-g::~8~ ~ t'I3 0.5 .~ l- E e ~ (I) (I) ~ g Eo..:.eg"O;.u o t'I3';;"'O u gf:E C 0 's: C .5 '0 'Vi ~ a"'5 ctI OJ) c.5 .~ (I) in <+- C 0 ctI '" - (I) ooo..EaE~ Vl<+-'" -0.0 .._.!j_O~...:..:-o..E.s cE8c(l)ct1 .0.9 0 E (l) ~ ~ 'in c; E 0 E C (l) (l) cC(I)OOctl-> &.~~~~E5.ti Vl 0 a ~ a ~ E a3 ~8EgEg8a .,; 1: o Co " .. ~ '.. " OJ) " c " e 0.. ;:E ::;8 ;:Ei'i ~N ~ :> t -"'.0 = 0 .c U uO e e - .' >> .; '" - - 00 = ;; fOI '" .. :; :c ..e .;;; u = 4- Q Q Cl. ~ 00 .. U c.:: - '" 0 = ::E Q '" '= -< " 4- ... 0:: Q .1: = .. Q > .~ 4- = ~ Q .. ell E .E '" ~ " E Cl.= IE:: E = --< "- U = '" '" = ::E .5: 0.5: M '; :tIS .8 "'" ... - 0:: '" = = ~ .1: -< .. '" .. 4- E " "'" > o~ 00 ~ = 4- = Cl. " '" Q 0 E C;~ "'" '''::; - OJ)..,. '" - 0 ~ '" = . ..e '" " ....::: V) , - 0.. C (l) C - .. (l) C (l) ctI N ::E 6:-<::EC: , ~ = " c: - '" = .. " ~ E " .. ..e " . ~ ","! .S . ~ := .,. - " M ~ c.:: 4- -0 .,; 0 = ~ " -0 ~ c: ~ .. "- M ... -0 .. u " '" N Q ::E -0 '" - 00 " .. " 00 " .. ~ = .5: '; :e ~ 00 = " c: c " s " ell " = " ~ ... .. o ~ .. S " .. ... 'iij -S g O.sr (l) .~ C > C " ~ OJ) 00 ~ 0 .- " " " Q: ~ i:": III .8 ~ ~~~ -=<t:Q., '"O:Ece ]:o..,s .~ ';;' as :c t'O ;:.. ~ ~ ~ ~<-= =4- " 0 E " " " ~a c..e " " ::e :i .... ,..: ~ '" ..e ,q U " ..e f- '" " (l) 'u t " Q) <1) c....::,c Vl .c V) l... ~-~OO Q. "'0 ;:.. ~ ~ c '''::; (l) V) ctI 'm ~ ._2;:: as I- o 00 ... ~ .9- '0 cIi S~c-O u b.52 ~ eJ)c.....c -5 ~ ~ c Vl 0 E (l) 'x C -0 E OJ 0 C <u ~ .~ ~ gp en I- U c: ~ ::l l: Cl:l t:.g!'.!!E 2 c.~ "'0 .5 8 ;r; ~ o .~ bf) <.c_ ~ ..= :E "'0 ~ 6:' ~ ~ .~ Q..(l) .G>,~!-(l)..g..9:~ta .f'e ~g~c-g"'O~:E=_~ ue. g ~ctlu~4)o.. Vl E 0" -g ~ 13 ctI a: .5 ~ oS .c_o "'0 ~ ~....::".......;>O:c<:IVl.aG) C Vl - - ;> ....-, 0 (l) C -0 c: ctI .!:::2 U(l) ';; IUE 5 s.. E 1-0 ctI -g ';; .- ~s _ uat':lOg-e.gE:uro-501J c -S < ~ .,g ~ ~ U) ~ ,_2 a'~ ~ E ~ ,5 :E (l) -;: "'0 t'O (l) E ~ [i U5 ~ g - 0... ~ ~ ~ a -S (l) ;.a ~ .~ Vl g .s Vl c ~ :E.5 ~ :5 "'0 U ~ ctI ~ a-Call.)(l)"'05u...ae...... :;:EQ)::S :::- U t'O:::- ".. ",,'- OJ) UJ ...... - - -E I- N '<::" '.--_ ~"O ~ ,^ >. t'O ~ .s:: 0....... ::l ._ .G - N '<:::' v, U C U - t:: ctI 5 .5 ~ ::a ~ U N E .0::: .~ as ',:e 'x ei ~ E13 (l) E b ~g E ~:_~ gCS~ ~..c_(l)..g ~;.a~ g ~ u u ~.;: u~ '" r/JctlOuOOE(l)(l)ctI....J<<.. a ""0 (l) a .0 c "'C ctI '0' en a :E a -s :E E ~ 1@ ~ 5..= E . OJ) c .';: Q) ..c .~ .~ 0 -l;Z '" " > .9 0 ~ E ~o:: ~"'" 0:: ;j -go " ~ ~E .;; 0 ~U f- rl .n.';:; 0 00 0 ~ 8 x E ,,'" 0 ~.~ ~ :e ~ g .a::cw: ~ = " Q. " > ~ 'Vi~ ~t.:: .=05 c.. ::e :::;8 ::ei'l ~d ~ :.; ~ 21..e B 00 . .' e e - " .S: 0; " <.: .;: .. .. - " .", o '" ;; :E - - " .. e .. ... .; C" .. " - o ~ ~ ~ .. " ... " o [I) - ;., - '= " fol .. :c .;;; " o Q, ~ .. " - " .S: - .. " <.: .;: .. .. - o .. .S e 1= - ~ .. ... " ~ .. .. :E " .S: 0; .. :E :E .; - ~ ;;: .. :; '" u - o o U C "'0.5 d.I !:.c >. ;> .$:.t::.o ~ to... ::s: 15 ~ 0.,,1.:: = S t'o Ei '';:: d.I 8. E rs~Vl<t: .- .... d.I "'gj:l..Eoo "'0 0 ~- r:::-:5~ !1) ood.l:D Q..- E ~ ::J.5 '= !- oi ... .. .. ;., M " o ~ Vi"~ [rl 0 C 0.::E " ~CI)E o<c:~ " .", 0. " " e '';: eo- E iG <<i a:.a g ~ ::l r:: o..t:i<r:: 0. ;g ~ E :E M ~ ..,: " .;: .,;2 - 'e .", " e 2 E .. " ~ ... " " .. c..,. oDo::t " . .- '" " " " .. ::EO: <a <.> 'On . " t:: - " .9 0. co ~ ~ ~ Cl :E [I) .,; ~ ~ .. > '= " .. ... is V)<C , - ~r{ ;ON ..-.0 I- - -l'i "'-.0 -.0 " " .. "0: 0: .. 0. " Wad ",.10 ~J5~ - " .. e .. .. .. " .. :E " <.: '" " Q, '" .. .. ... -< " .. 0: " ..-5 ~ " .2.5 ".", '" " .S ~ v:.o :; " .", '0 ~ .~ ~.", d.I~ -5 ~ 2 .. E~ .. " " ~:o " .. 0.1- "'<a 15 g '0 5 N V IU d.I ~ .s v .~ ~ ~ ~ -5 Cl .sE Ud.lO~"'C " e E "'.-_ :: _~ 0 C >. ~ ~ .5 l1) ~ ~ eo __" CZlS.....5lE~~ov<c:_ < '-'-(l) c.r::..::.:: E""'::: ",e-~Vlo.oV'1l1)t';f .G_ i:::: 0._ ceo.... :s t: 0. 0.. I-. (1;3 U c~ 5tE.g-.g..e >,.d.I> 0..5 0)..... "" c ll).... ~-"'O,,;:E"(::I5?:uC2 0.-'- - "" '~ ~ I1.l d.I M QJ V'1 "'0 co ;>., .;; 0" '_>_ E -:S ...2 oS ~ d.I .: S ;;>0"" IU V'1 .0 '- -:5 c 0 ~:Ek:b1);::lceo Q,)- ._ r".:: ~ 0.. t ~ .~ .5 u :;:; u < "'C eo :=:- 0 a .o'~..s .G d.I ";: Z r.Il u.- V') 0.. .c a:;..:.::t-i: <uU ~_.J:: -"<C:E5CQJcoooJ2~ ~ 2: Q) ~ .!2 E ..c - V'1 eo l...o..bJ)ot)~;a-t/lClO::: ~ ..c g E l1)'- .- ..:{ .~ 2: >. IU u eo C'::IC/) 5-~:E-gCl:lS ct ~ E u: .5 ~ ~ 0.. t;; < 0 .., ,.: .", " .. . "0 t;.... .- Cl "U .. -.", " " '" .. u'" 'O~ 0.... .- '" u=> ~ .. " ;., '" C " > <<l ~ " E ~ bll " .;: 2 'e o e <a " 'On . o t:: ~ 8- co ~ , N N , " - .. ~c;: 'bQ ~ o ... S!~ ,?,,~ :; ~ -.00: c OD": ~c::-.::t Q..'i: .- 0...9< u'e - "'0", ::E::E-.o .. " .;: 2 'e o :E ;; " 's" " -= = .", bll .!! S"'O C o ....- d.I _ ~ 'i: .D tE'o .s '2'; ~ = -g ~ 8. 49 OJ}"';j ~ ff ~ ~ .~ ; .~ '5 ~ ~ ~ .~ ..2 ~ ~ : 0 E .~ ~ ~ S ~ ._"52 ~ ~ .~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ co:3 0. co:3..co-=_~utE e ~ [ ~ ~ i .~ ~ ~ 8 ] ~ .~ ] g ~ ~.s ~ ~ OJ}'s ~ E ~ en ~ E en ;.e '2 o t: co:3.5 <I) ~ E 0 -g -= ~ ~ ~ B .~ ~ ~.c S co:3 ~ OJ} en ~ .~ ._ u.. 0'2 ~ ._ [;.~ ~ .s e ~ "0 5 en ~ 0 .8 ~ .- 0 3: ~ c.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E '2 <I) -8 U E <I) tE ~ ~ '';:: c: S ~ C ~ o.~ a'3 ~"';j Cl:l~.~ ~ ~ 53 c... ~ ..... Cl:l ..... E "0. C ~ .::! ~ ~ 5 .cl- :-2 U Cl.).:6' E ~ Cl:l en'- OJ} C -- ~ I/J 0 <I) 'C .- .!d "0 "0 E 0 co:3 "0 _ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0. (;5 OJ}~Cl.)c0:30-Cl.)Cl:lcti ~ Cl:l~C o ~ "0 ~ .- u.::: c ~ o.....c <I) ~ E ~ ~=OJ}..c:.==o~ ""C ~ ~ ;;.. U 0 ~ .g C'"'61 ::I 'a:; :: c "'C ~ 0 co 8 .5 E...s a. g ~ ~ -= J2 2 ~ ~ 8 0. ::E <8 ~;::; EN .~ .. :u .."!JO " 8 '" <.> UO .,. ,.: . " .", .", " " '" '" ;., ~ g '0 e - ~u.. ;:: ~ ~ " :> ..; :> "0 <oJ '" " '" i;Pu .. " ".", :c :; :< :; '" " ..c: 0 ..c: E '" 'w; ~€ u .. '" " ..... > ~ 0 0 " 0 . Cl. .. ~ c Cl. c ~u.. " 0 f:!'" U . U IX Cl. Cl.::> e - " .S: 0; " l:: .;: .. > .... o OIl .5 E [:: " .S: 0; " l:: .;: .. > .... o .", o :: .. :; - " .. E .. ... ':; "" .. IX .... o ~ ~ ~ .. " ... " o '" ~ " ... " ~ '" .. ::>:: " .S: 0; ~ ::>:: ~ .. .;: " '<; l:: " " " == c ... '" .. 'C .!: ..c: !- on l--' -;; > o . Cl. Cl. '" t; " '0' . .. 1: " E Cl. o 0; > " .", ..... o ~ " .g C; '5 " o U -;; > o . Cl. Cl. '" .~ '" Cl. ~ ..... - ::; ""! '" -0 " " 0:; .. u '" ::;; IS >,,:.0 ~1! '" . '?-~ 'E '" ~;e '" ~ . " '" 0 o 5;- ..c: f:! :< '" ..c: .9 . Q) gp.5 0 ~ '':::"t:I'~ o celt) t: "52 E S C1.I ;>.~Q)uo.. v Cl)o..~c ..c It) E V'J ClJ ~ -5 .- en E "'0 0 "C';l 0.. C ... C"O 0 .!2 o....S! c- .- ~ ce ~ v"ffi co "ILl t:i-Q)~""O ~ ~ ~ '0 >. (1)~..o:.=c a 0 ~ 8.~ '- 2 (I) "'C 0 o~.s~~ ~ '~..s n; .g Ec""OU:.a ~.- ~ ~ c ctl c .- c 8 ~'~5-~d.l E~~o.s ~ . g~ :< :< o ~ .", '" c 'C J.2 .~ Q) ,::! ;;- > ~ 'C QJ ....c: .; -;; > o ... Cl. Cl. " ~ ~ ~ '" u '" " < Vi'Vl ~ a o ~ Cl.~ ~ ~ "V'J 'C ti .8 0./)'- vi '" "0 l;i~::;; E _ '" Cl.l.~ -( C:0Il" ~ .9 S ~ .2 fr ....c:. , '" N , '" '" ia-;; ..c: u . ::1'- en en ~o V{o:; I .- C/) "'==..: '" 0'''.... ::0 . c ,,0'" E--:C: "..: OIl .!:!-c o...o'c .. . 0 U \O.~ r/.l a S ::;;0:;::;; ~ '" .~ t; " ... .. .; Co) E E Q) C l;: OJ) <Il CI) e"'O Q) .: co E oo,.,a tl,.) E '0 C V'J" Q) 0 u..c 8.:.= c ~ E...:: ..... ~..... ~ OJ Vl t:.2 C OJ) Vl -g ~ ij 5.5 t: E"O ~ CO.S ~ co co E i- ~ Q) 11) :::l E 1-0 - "E (1)..c CI) El:::o..<uBo..cn OJ)-131-o IU 0;> .....~ IU co "'O..e 0.. -E. ~ 0. b 'g 5 ~'f: a ~ '0 ~ EI-~~EE1eftEQ)~- .- .8'u 1-0 _ Q) .:: "'0 <u E i5..5 en Q) 0. CO ~ Vl CO ;> Q) <I) Vl .;: Q) 0. 2 .::! c C <1) ''::; 0.. CO .~ ;;O-uVl_OJ)(tlQ)"'OftS<Il_ ~ '5 c; ;; .9 :E E.2 "'0 .- 0 'C vi ~ e ~ OJ).2 ~ ~ g CO ~ :E .g S ~ 0...-: e ~ s ~:: ~ = ~ 0. 0- E(tl ~ ~ oS 5 ~ co"'; E- ':; E ~ ..... _ '" Q) E.J: .... 10-0 Q).- Q) E c ~ ~ E Q) ~ ~ ~ 0 E ~ > ~ ': t.::::.-_ !J ~ > 0 .-.- C Q) Q) ~ te -0 _ (; Lt .;:: 00 00.2 00 00 ~ "" ~ ~ ~ Q) 0..::E ~ ~ .~ g g Q) ............., .J: te rJ) e e > te te ~E-=~~f-"'g<tViti~EE .. ::;; ::;:8 ::;;~ "r-i .~ > ~ -"1.0 " .9 ..c: u uo - " " E " OIl " " " ::>:: " > ;:: Cl. " 'C ..: 'C ,.: . .' e e - >> - ;: " <Ol .. :is ";;; " <> "" ~ .. =: t-- = <> ;: os " l.: "C .. > ... <> 0.0 ": Iii i= - = <> ;: os " l.: "C .. > ... <> '" <> ..c ;: :; f-- " .. Iii .. .. "; C' .. =: ... <> ~ ~ ~ .. " .. " <> rJJ f-- ~ .. .. " ~ os .. :; = <> ;: os :€ :; JS ~ ;;: '" :; ..c U ... <> c- U '" o ::E ~ rJJ '" <~ 'OM = C o .. .~ &j 5~ Iii OS ~ a ""= .5< 0.. ~ .8 N U .a "00 _=",,,,=r/) Ski ;.; ~ ~ rn 00 o ~ ~ . .2:":::; I"f"! OJ) (tl :E ~.g . E .8 :! .E a en 5,CI:l ::: 5 c <_ 5 Iii -< ~ (tl.-;:: lU t:::"O\<C:E;:!.....co> 'ootri-~v...., i- cc.q::]o.5~E~ o ~ ~ (tl E Q..-.:r 'ii ~ '';:: .... .c.. VI - tli)~ u 0.. e ~ Q.. . c; s::: .'00." vi ctI::lu~::l'':::V)ot::t:: frcCl)~CClJC:ooo ,.,'-.5~;:;- s:::~ ctI._ 0..0.. ...............G_<c:..::::;E:c:o~~ -0 -0 = '" 0: '" .. .. '" "'" " rJJ - = .. Iii .. 0.0 os = '" :; ..c ~ " .. == ~ ~ .~ V'l Cl 'c g:2 ::l VlUJ E..c .~ < "C egg do) ~~.:=:_oo ~ E u~-g] .~ ';; _ e c.. e >-. U w... _0'- en c.. 0 ::l (tl t1) _ -" ';;::;: 0.. - - ..... U tZd)<V t':l~t.20~ l1) e.S .=..g.5.5 b -5~c ctEc:@ VJ C":l iU 0""0 (I) (\) ~aE ECEE"'O -a E ~ <Il ~ ~ ~ ~] ""O..c (tl '.~_ ctI !l) (tl (tl ""0 (tl2a-a:Eaa~ "i ~ E g E gEE I oo...c E..c E..c ~ a ,f'.5 002 E ~2 E rn ::l..c U"Eco8cc8~cO:5 ~ ~ f- ~ . t- ,...: <: .. E ~ 0:0 U bJ) ~ Vl (tl .. "''' IlJ rti ctI ]]E os avs "'" " :5 .9 =01; " u "'t;: :9~ "_ 0 :i:::E ..c ~ " .. "'" >> u " " bJ) .. " E '" " '" ~ c: ~ ~ g 8...~E cegfO:Cu > ._ C 0 ]I 2 :.c .~ ~ -g :O~'"':::c=(tl m Co. ~ .- (tl "'C ..c >-. ;>.. u -S ~ 0."'::: ";:: ~ (1) (tl -5U5-Ee- c: ce t:: ~ '';:: 0.. ';; ~ B -E -D .~ C QJ "'O::l ';:; U'~ c V'lo E -;; (tl ~ ..co..c Vl ";:: ," --t):i<-d ':; c E 'f; (l) ;;:. .- lU .'"_ I1i < C >-.-5 Co "'0 ~~ :g o 'i 0.. Q) a c: ~ ~]8!~S]- JS ~ ;:; '" :; ..c U ... o c- U .,; .. '" " >> M c " > '" .b ;; " " = < $a N c~~ '" ..- 5;.,g~ 10.. ::l~ 6.VJ to;"< 0'" 0.,,'" <l.I m ~ "'0: ~~~ "u ~ c/) ~ <::EO: ""l N -0 " '" 0: '" ~ '" "'" " VJ " " Iii .. 0.0 os " os ::E Iii "C .. - .= QO ,...: 0.. :g ~ S :;M~ B:! = o bJ) .~ c .;: "EE__B ll.l m"""" _ E::l 'c <l.I VI ""0 0 c..3~E .5 c.. '"1" -;; on -.i .!:! tti c: . OJ) . ::l '';: V) 0 t:: c~coo .<~O:iii ~ , ~ N , 0.. :; <8 :;~ 13N ~ :; b -"1"'" " B ..c u UO .- .. .' e e - >> '" - " '" " ;e ~ " o '" ~ ~ f-- " .5: - .. " 1: .;: " > ... o .. " '5 1= f-- " .5: OJ " 1: .;: " > ... o 'C o ..0 - " :;; - - " " E " ... 'S or " e<: ... o ~ ~ ~ " " ... ::> o '" - ~ " ... ::> ~ " " :;; " o .;: " .. .., ~ " -" ~~ ... c;j~ ....0 0..0 U " " 0 ;] .~ ~]~ ~~O ::><"- ;::. " ~ iti :G Ii! :il " " >>~ " " " .. .Eb ~~ " " ;> " ....< eo " 'i: Vl '8_ ::> itiCti 8~t:; E fr~ ~ ~'(j .;;; ~ 0,) e 0 ~ ~Q..v ~ iti ~ vi c..t:: ::l t:: E 0 0 0 o c.. Vl c.. u~~~ c " 0:: " " ... ,,<; .c ,~ ::> eo '" 0 ;~] -.0 ,~Q.. elf'"! bll """ c Q: - 'i: c...<r:.s U - 'c rJ'J ,~ 0 ::.:2::. " Z ;: o E- Z o :;; ...l < u G o ...l o = vi ~ t':S 0,) IU "'0 OJ) .~ c; '01 ~ ~ 0,)] ~ ~"'O ~ ,- 0 -5 ..... "0 IU l:: ~ u.. "'0 ~ S .~ :E ~ Vl EQceVlEVloE e u ~ ';A- go t':S 0.. C. IU OJ)"'O.~::::.o;ou 0 E eCuoeOrJ'J-~ Q..tl:lc'=~5.~"'Oc" OJ)rJ'J IU u c ::: OJ)'- c; OJ) 0,) co ttl .E -< ~ u ,E -:S "'0 E ~ u.. .- 0 0,) .9VJ~s-Ci~;>O,) 'c ::l :.= -. 0,) .-::: 0,) 0,) .:=. OIU"'Oc;-:S8c;~o.. :E-=~g~E~c;a.g C;>' ...J::l~;>OJ)c" u .c ~ OJ) 0 u 0,) ,_ OJ) ,- "'0 _ C 10-._ 0 IU C ~ ~ >"_ -= OJ) _ .c 'i: -ttl.cc; ~o"'OO,)O,) .2 C "'0 .9- C ~ :g ;; gg CO ~ IU.~ u.c OJ) Vl 't:; ll) 0 ] t:: 0,) ~ '00 c; ::: ~ 8 2 ~ -= r- ~ ~t.8 '" 00 ..: E- '" ;; < ...l ::> :: u ... o ... E- O '" :: E- ... o '" '" i= :i = Vi z o Q. '" '" e<: " z Q z ::> ... '" '" ,; - ~ :> " :; ..0 U '- o C U .i- <; ::> c c < .s N E~~ " ...- ::> " , ~..o- ~ ::l ~ 6,rJ'J- t~~ 0'" 0.0" " " 0 "'-" "-", c; c... ' ::lu~ 2 rJ'J t':S <::'0:: o " 0:: " " ... " ..0 ::> '" M r-: or"! ,,- 0::- "-~ U VJt-: ::'-c .. o :c " ::> ... .. " o ...l ~ o'C;E 0,) OJ) 8~ ll) c:etl:lN.oEZl ~.~ ~ ~ u ~:5 ...~ '2 .c -- 0,) o-S ..... 0 ;::I O,)..s:::: _'- eocEen~r-OJ)~ " " ~ :.::::: "'0 C ttl ....;.E 0,) ..... c C'O ~ c..."'O'- .5 co 8.u5'~ -E~oO,)l,;;;'= .sO,)Q:~-:Scg "'0 Ec...o >.1:'0_ ,_'''_' ll)uV).c- C ~~enV} ~O,) Ec""'-"EE t':S .G 0 ~ IU EEIU~~-E.~ o ~..s:::: co .-, c.. C .~ g.E ] ~ ~ E >. co "'0 - co ...::.:: 0,) .-:::~~c;--~;> U E'- ~ 0 Vl t) IU'- 0 coo Vl ..s:::: ttl 8.!:! 0 Vl ~ f-EVlc..Nc;c.. - '" " ,S: 1:; '5 ~ 'C ::> '- <; 0 " 0 a .~ ~'C ~ 0 ;>:-6 " ::> :;< ..0 " U~vi '-E-... o ... " c"'" .- -:S "0 Uo..c: '- o ~ ..c: C o E " c-" B ~ C ..s::::~,52 ,~ 0 c; " " N .5 g'~ -:Sttl-:S .- ~ :::s ~,~ < >> " :.: 0 o ~ 0." ~B ~ " ~ S E ~ ..0" .~ ~ :0 >> E" ~ 0 ......0 c " 0:: " " ... " ..0 ::> '" M r--:l"'! 0_ ,,- 0:: Q..r{ u= '" ::.~ .. o :c " " ... .. " o 's. " e<: eo c '5 o c 2.S -OJ " eo S :.a '~:E ~ ...- t':S ~ 'g 5.2 ~ '0,) ~ ~ !15 ~ 'u ciS E 'E 0,) e " ..c: eo 0. ~ 0 -" ... - ,,"- '~en OJ) c >. E 'j: ,~ ttl .9 u ~ ,- 0,) 01) C ..c: 0 0 f- Q..:E .... '" vi '" c <2 " OJ " ,g <; " c " " E " c " eo , OJ') N , vi C " E " ,:: ::> .,. ~ "- ::< ::;8 ::<~ 13r-r ,~ > :v lOi..o ::> S ..c: u uo 1'.'1 .... e e e ;: " 5 " .!:: " 0- " c.: ... o ~ ~ ~ " " ... " o 'Jl ~ o <= " "" " :E .;;; " o Co ~ ~ I-- " .!O - .. " I;: .;: " :> ... o .. .5 5 E= >-- " .!O '" " I;: .;: " :> ... o "0 o :: " :; - ~ " ... " ~ .. " :E " .!O '" .. <= :E o "- Q U "0 C "' r/l ~ "- r/l :> "" ::.: < ... ..l < ... :z: "" Q U :z: - o ... ... u "" ... = ;;;> r/l r/l "" U "" ... 'Jl Q "" c.: "" :> o u "- o ... r/l ~ "" :I: ... :; o c.: "- r/l "" U "" ... r/l "- o ..l < :> o :E "" c.: ... " .<:: -0 ~ E "' 0 E- tl: . ... c >. 00= c'- to .9 ~ a ii .- C tJ S..( ~ oS ..:..~ " " ..l ~<c.. ~ ..l c.. ...or, ~..,: ~ ~ 00:: .....tON E ~ . "' "'.,. " .0 _' ~ " ~CI)~ ':'0--"- t::v-;-<c 8.l:~ ~ ~ C ~c..", ...- " "' .<:: " o E '0< cli: .9 u 1;j'" .5 ~ E 5 " 0 ...<1:: "' or, M :$u.. .oN "rrL M :Eu.. "' . ...W C :::: "'.0 O::.c c.. >< UW '" "0 ~ ~ o .,; - ~ Vlt: ""Ou:J ~.- C..c u '0 C to..... .s ~.g ~.= E U':l c .......J t: 0 "0 u I1.l c.g ~ u o...c _ :u .g -0 t: ce III ;:; .!!; f@ .g 'G"~ u I1.l ~ ,~ '€ ~ l+.."::'::: 0 "0 ce III o to c .:!l o.l+.. ..... E- ,9 5 2 0 .:!l ~ e;; -. .- ~ _ 0._ (I'J > ~ E '0 e ~ 0 ....; -5 "0 ,- 0 ce E ..... t: .- t...J C ou ou o u ce .E.....!:: (I'J.5o.gft:cg. ,~ 0 ~ ';:: ~ ~ I1.l u....._ce-.-.... ~ U c .e-...J 0: ~ (I'J.~ o.~ Q.. U >... to..ctt::<<iU':ltO ::: ~ ~~ c5 ~ E Vi ... :z: "" :; ... 'Jl ;;;> ... Q < ;.- c.: < Q Z ;;;> o = "" :> c.: "" 'Jl "" c.: ... Q :z: < '" ... :z: "" :E Q Z "" :E < =: ... '"'0 ti,,- .- Q :>u "' - "0 " C .<:: "' u", 'O~ c"- .- '" u:> c >... .9 .0 "- ~ U 0 > . ~ I1.l :9 0" ."'!'"l........ .... L.t.. e . ~ Q..~ ~Q o.ccc: tOU'OE~ E"'l:I C ::l ~ .E a .g. g..... . ....lZltO"o~b ::t ~ ~ < '0' ';j 5 L.t.,''2 O'Q: a o.lZl ou W I.i-. C :>:>uUo< B N ~"' . f@ ~ ::: " "' , >... .~ (I'J..c - ..cS::5r53~ - Co - ~Q ~O\~<r:: oUtv-;- 0.. "'l:I 8.. t: "0 0. t: ou cu c cu l:eo::_ ce '" c..or, t: ":::.. c; c.. . U::>::l 'o:::t .E L.t., c s.:: C I- lZl c..n to ~:><~O:: , \0 N , c "' 0:: "' ~ .. .0 " '" N ~ or, C "' 0:: c....., u", "'...: ~..,: - " " 5 "0 " " 5 < ... o " :E - c -5 u co t: 's: ;:!J.~ o::.:_~__ ~.;:: ......C::l 'E ~ i3 ::t c ::s III QJ ::S'C (I'J QJ"'O I1.l EUJou,'E"O..c "0 co -5 .:g, ~ ~ ~ C 1.0-0 ::l 0 0 '-..c eO<r::l5..uEVl <r::CI1.l....vl'QJ-B 0..::.::: ..8 ce ti ,_ S '"fl to ~ ""O..c c-E-g<r::u::t ;,;;; go I1.l ._ _ ..c Vl ~~C;c;e==~ ~ 8 ~ .~ E .~ g 11 .~ ~ ~] c 5. ~ ..... ::s I1.l QJ ce E I1.l ~ ff E -'ci E 0: I1.l .;; oo...."oI1.l<r::ceEu 'Vi == c ~ .... ~ ""0 .... u'- QJ (I'J 0 to t: <r:: ""0 ::t E'- C..c QJ 0 (I'J (I'J cu I1.l ~ ::s E w "Ocuc..c lZltOu ~ ~ ..:;:: C I1.l QJ ou ...J-<Cc..e-5-5-5B c.. ~ :$g ~~ .sr--r ~ :; ii .0;.0 " 0 -= u uo r .( ,4 . . , .... "= - '" Iol " ;e ~ '" CO '" ~ " ell: f-- '" CO :;::: .. ... l:: 'C " > ... CO .. '" 's E:: f-- '" .S: 0; ... l:: 'C " > ... CO 'C CO .0: <: :; f-- - '" " 5 " ... 'S "" " ell: ... co ~ ~ ~ " ... ... .. co fI) - ~ " ... .. ~ .. " :; '" .S: 0; ~ :; 'C " '" < 0' ~ U B <l " :E' " ~ " .D 0; .0: ~ .0: u :E :< ~ ~ " u o ... '" c " 5 'C '" " ~ '"'0 1;;u.. .- Q >u '" - 'C " '" .0: '" UfI) 'O~ cu.. ._ fI) U;::> '" o E 'a "ia t) 0 > ''''~~ e ~ e .,,~ 2i:o c.. C Q::; ~U'OE~ E]sg:E ,~~'=ot)>. ~CI.l~"'CI1)- ;> ~ ~ <( '0' cti s~';::O'a..s Q..CI.l 0 LIJ Q., c ;::>;::>U u'O < " -5 OIl .5 ... " 'C 'C " .5 E " <: 'C " .D .s N c~-.:t '" ...- >. '" ~ ~ I .c 0 a.. ::l -.:t _ ~ [tIJ ~ 0 "a-" <( out::..n- 0.."'08.. c:: "'0 ~;; ~..5 ~ c::tIJ Q.,V) v~ctiQ.,-.:t .~ ~ ~ ~ c:: ~CI.lC",~ ;>;::><0<;0.. .[< ~ '" " ... .. c " 8 "0 " " 8 .. ... o .'" E " -5 " :s .[< co .. Q; .. ~ .. .D =' <JJ "! ": .,., co .. Q; Q.,~ ?i: 2..,,: l!l u " .0' ... '" ... ..2 co .S! 'i;j .~ ~ ~ v 11) 11) .c -E <c::aV-E c ~ u -E .~ 11) Q., 5.5 E G',;:: ~ c -g [0; f:3 .~ ~ v .c 'C ':-::' E ::l 0 VI '" _CI.l-EtJs ........ ~ ::l V U 5 l.i-o <: '0' .=> 0 I-. ~ c:: ~ c. :E.:2 ~ a.. VlOr-r.E ~Q..~sc 13 E r.E '';:: E'~ c;Ol1.J~"'O c:: U.c.~ c C OJ) l1.J c,'':: 11) ~ 'Vi .!:: v :E E c: ~g.E ,<(ce VI V "'0 "'0 a.. ~ "'0 a.. t: vOce t: = \\.I ::l 'c;;'.c ce.- E VI "=::' ::l .....J ::: ce,~ ~ C/J " B .0:_ _ U Ol).~ ".0 .~ ~ 'C " 'CoO .5 -;j Eiii ~t~ "'C.c < 11) ~ .0 ~ ~ " u o ... '" ;: " 5 ~ ~ 5 .;; <( ~ :0< ._0.. ..~ :;:z :i " 1: .;; " " 8 ... 'C< 50' ~eJ "! - - ~ ;: " S ~ " .- 'C < .... ... .. 'C '" " co = " i: " ~ " ... 0.. "1 - ~ ~ :> .. :; .0: U ... o c i:J E- o; > co . ... .... 2i::;; .. =' co co " co .E < ... .. :<c SU "''' ;::>-5 00 .,., .,g a ~ ;t::"i5:] .c 0 Q., ~ - C.u VI ce 3 en ' 15~",'" a.. -,.,:; c o..~o~ O-c.....Q.,N .. co - c _ c ~-.:t v......... ~ ~ :;:: ." ::l ~ I 'C C ~.c.... ~ U s..~ ~ co .. c:: .. " ... .. .0 =' fI) N ~-.i ""0 co_ .. c::::s 0.. U- <JJ... 2..,,: :l ... ;;: '" co U .. '" 's. '" .. :; .... ...... 5 0 " 0." .0 " ... ... 0 ~ ~ E E ~ 11) ~ '" " ~ '~.g ~ t: I-. ce v 8.sft~ oocE~ .5 l1.J 11) c; o..~ > "'0 g.:::ooo E .c- ~ c ~ U 0: .~ VI \\.I 11) ce s;.-;: 't; .c v ] v A. V .....0 t: -0 ::: o ce ..... 11) UE~-E - "i - ~ ~ :> .. :; .0: U ... o c i:J E- O; > co . ... .... 15:= .. ~ co " " " ;:< 'C ." :<c gu 0." ;::>-5 00 .,., ~ c ::5 .., .. >.tE] .coo..ce "ia fru VI >Q::;en-.i e cti :E t: c..::l 0 ce o..c-E:N .. co - a1 <( a G-.i 'E ~ ~ 2 :?; u s..~:! , r- N , co .. c:: '" " ... '" .0 =' <JJ r{ .....,,: ..no ,,- .. E:::5 0.. UN <JJ..,,: 2..,,: ~ - '" " s ~ .. .- 'C <( .... ... .. 'C '" " co = ... co 011)__ a.. 11) ~ ('<") 0 ce ~~.~~rri'.s e r.E c.t: VI V C .- ~ 11) .c ::l e "'0 '(3 1-.-~3C:: 8Nco"SO~ tJ u .c -< ~.g 5 ~~ ce ~ VI C .- 8 E.~ lJ :0 ~ r.E'~ E ~ "8.5 t:: _ 11) 1;j58.~;Sti .2, 'en g. So S iE -g..:2on~cg C~'E g.g ~ ce III ~ ~ .5 -g ~ ~ o'~ 0- ::l ~ 'on "'O..g f;- ~:::-~]~E 0.. 2 ::;8 ::;::;;: EN ~ > ti -,,!.o " 0 .l:<l UO .... "i - ".c ". , , , .~ - = '"' " ::c; 'w; = o "" ~ " Cl: f-- = S! - " " ..: .;: " .. ... o .. .5 e E: - = .5 " " ..: .;: " .. ... o '0 o -= t: ::; - - = " e " .. 'S 0- " Cl: ... o ~ ~ ~ " " .. = o rJ) - ~ " .. = ~ " " :;: = .5 " :e :;: o '" 0:: '" " .. '" .0 = rJ) <-; ;;;~ ~~ O::::s 0.. .. u- rJ)...., :;;:..,: rJ) z o ;: ..: X '"' Z z ..: c: ""0 0 ~ .B;~.':oft ~~ .- t:: ctI 0 Cl >."E u "5lo..oeucoc/) .i: ~ J5 0 .. < 8 :E .:;.c ""0 ~ r.n s::: ctI 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .2 .5 ..s --cc~U04- o.9ct1o=:J~..co .EuC:'~ <.nc;j~ <.n .~ Q.. >( i-.~.c 0 "'0 ..c' U 00,- .--' <I) OJ) ;::Ie/) u""O-c E<I)::?1~oE~o 4-0 c:..sue.~c 0..0 ~ ctI c: ~ ~ c: ctI 5C;;~~~ctISnl\)C: .~-5io~!~ctI~ct1 ~ c :g >.~ -5 g 8 e c ,- 0 - 0 ._ ctI cU.~5"?,IlJ~o.c ctIoctl 1:.cx-E= >..c .~ C u - l\) ~ e/) =--ctI ctI""O =_""0 < ~ -8 c: e ~ s'~ ~ '" N - c:i "- Cl U '0 o '" rJ) ~ "- CIl ::> o .5 ;;; c: ~ ~ o " 8 E ... " o ~ bObO o '" .- ... @,o .- " CIl.o ... o '" .0 o .5 ~~ ,. " .. E ~ " o <U o .. u~ , 00 N , o '" 0:: '" <U .. '" .0 " rJ)"': "'", ..,: 0"'" "'- c:a.: o..::s u c/)..o :;;:"" rJ) ~ z ..: => z o ;: ..: .. Cl: '"' rJ) Z o u ~ :si ~ ~ <u-=... -E.:::a c ""O:C~ as c ~,S! "';;; '" bO E .;:: 'E .E' u '" ..; - -;; ,. o .. . Q.~ c...~ '" u -= 0 _ <U .- on ~..: 0.. :;;: ~g ;;:;;:: l"3N" .~ .. t; E-8 -=u UO \ .. .. " , , , . ;.. ~ '= " fol .. :c .;;; " '" Cl. ~ .. ~ r-- " .51 ~ .. ... 0:: .1: .. > "- '" on " .E 1= - " '" '= .. ... 0:: .1: .. > "- '" ." '" .c: ~ .. :; - ~ " .. 8 .. .. .S 0" .. ~ "- '" ~ ~ - .. ... .. = '" 00 - ~ .. .. = ~ .. .. :; = '" .:: .. on '= i 00 fol 00 00 fol U o ~ '" " z E= E- s:3 ~ fol '" ~ '" :I: E- O = ..; - ~ " .51 B ;; ~ " '" U t- = .51 (j .. 00 - ..; - 00 ~ "- 00 => ~ .>! "Q.. 0.0 ",,,- -0 i:u .;S "'0 .. " "" .. " o .~ ;; ~ " o " "- o " .51 " "Q. E '" u ,..: e .51 tl .. 00 ...: 00 ~ .9 - e '" = ~ .. " 0. ...: 00 ~ - e o .S .0. o ---'- ;:It- .- e "'0 o ._ co .- " CD 00 - ...; - 00 o' ~ <'j '" e '" 0:: "" u 00 ::; " -5 .. " ." er- = e ~ .~ -0 " " " "UOO .E Q) ~-5 "... ~ 0 ~ ~ '" " E .~ ";j~ .!:! 25 OIl" 0-0 ~ a "'" ~ 21" "':.'l " e-5 E Q) ,9 [) =-5o"'C E-5~5 .~.~'~ .~ E c~,~ Q) B u u .s II) 0 co B'~ -;; 0 "o-=oc = U 1\).!2 ~ ~ l),;so.. ~J~5.~ .9 -;; ,:: !a !a c'i: = _.J:J .o..g.2'"Sts :: c.. ~ '€ "'0 r3 ~,::! ~ a 'on..... ~ I\) 0.. ..Q E .~-f: u o......'t:: .... C/'J ~~E~~ 00 ~ "- 00 ::> .J e '" .>! "Q.. 0.0 ",,,- -0 i:u .;s "'C .. e "" .. " .S! 0; .>! "Q. 0. '" - 1" " "" I: o .~ .>! "Q. 0. '" - 1" " "" ...; 00. o' ~ "! '" e '" 0:: "" ~~ ::;::: :l .E .. .. '" ~ ." = .!! " ~ ." o ; ::c ~ ,,~.E! a >. ~ E: ,!:! "'0 - e c.. 8.. co u ~ C/'J~c ~ 6j.::! ,,'"0 U < ~ c -I\)~ 1\)-5"'0 -="'Oc -=c~ ,- co 11.1 ~ .: ~ ""'''' go::o ,~ co "II) 0.. ~ _13 E '" o.gtl UOOI: .... ..; - ." " .. '" " .c: >" ~ o..r::: II) c U ..... "._::! ~.s- ,E _ -0 gb::: ~ :'2 '';: co "'0 So's :5' ~ -.'- co E ::::.- 0 r,g E -E ,- 0 e2~~ "o::t' >: 0..1-0 o Q) II) 1-0 "o::t' "'0 0 u) c::; 2"'0 I\) .9 - U ~.u ti ..r:::_1\) ,~ '3 ~ I\) "'C 0'" 00 C/'J 11) II) ~ co <,:_:~II)~ 0.. = .~ ._ ~ g ~ ~~ -E u E C/'J ::: 00 ~ "- 00 => c '" .>! "Q.. 0.0 ",,,- -0 i:u .0' -0 .. e "" '" e o .~ .;: o " oS .::! ~ ~ I\) .!:! -"'"Q. ~~ " o .~ N .;: o I: ..c.::! '5~ ~ .!::? -"'"Q. '" 0. f- '" , 0\ N , o o' ~ '" u 00 :; s ~ ... " .~ .t:> = 00 "'Ci z '" 0 " "- oS! 0 -0 U e ." co 11) c,c.: ~~ co u 1\)5C/'JC/'J ~~~~ e ;>.C/') Q) 0..c..:J-= .00."8 .- co ..c 0 := ;>."'" 1-0 ucoEl.o;;; ~ E 0 t:: .!::? ~~ ~ :c ,!::? ~ ~ s. ~ .9 c ~~~~ 5 ~.~ e 'On ~ -E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "" ::; ~g :::;fl 5N' ~ :; ti "'"'" "3 0 ..r:::ti uO :l ... " .0 .. "" '" ..; - .. I know no safe depository of the ultimate power. of the .ociety but the people the~'elv.al end ," if v. think them not enlight,ned enough to exerel.. their eontrol with. whole.om. discretion, the r8M.dy i. not to take it fro~ them but to inform their discretion. Thollllll se;~:~~:;O~lI. 1820 30, 2000 ~, 409 Palm Ave., Suite 100, Imperial Beach, CA 91932-1121 Tel: (619J429 ?~46_. C.,) c 1" f MEMORANDUM TO: San Diego County Board of Supervisors San Diego City Council Chula Vista City Council ; ::;< (~, I'") ::,J::::!::'" :'~t~':: ")... ':"") ~ ::.(\ <J }> 1....) ~9 FROM: William E. Claycomb, President .'.:-: SUBJECT: Photovoltaic Electricity On June 3, 1999, we presented you Memorandum dated May 26, 1999. The Photovoltaic Electricity Generation." County Supervisors with a subject was "Silicon Cell Now we're going to say we told you so. Please move quickly wi th some direct action to make certain we'll never again be able to say, "We told you so." We have attached a sketchy history beginning 1973 of failed efforts to get photovoltaics off the ground. [It is identified on the first line as "SR1 (SOBI Status Report 1 dated 10/6/2000) is attachment 2 p 8 of 8, OCT 10 2000."] We mention two of these events: 1. JUNE, 1974 As previously pointed out, at least four witnesses, the National Science Foundation director, gave expert estimating that by or before the year 2000, photo- panels would sell for $500 or less per kilowatt. including testimony voltaic 2. 1991 April 3, 1991, Los Angeles Times reported that Southern California Edison and Texas Instruments, IncoI;"porated announced a solar cell system costing $1500-$2000 per kilowatt. Texas Instruments was already building a plant in Dallas to develop manufacturing techniques to produce the new material in quantity. Now we have a $550 million 500 megawatt factory producing crystalline silicon photovol taic modules proposed by a British Petroleum study. The study was described at the 14th European Photovoltaic Conference, Barcelona, July 1997. The proposed IL hAA>4>""",,"'J.~ f~ ~~ ~?;~;;o ~ 'f!>~~:1IJ~!tt~ fJ;cJriJJ .. 510 MW Otay Mesa Generating plant will cost more than half of the BP proposed plant. If you don't know where the 14th U. S. Photovol taic Conference was held, you should find out or we'll once again be left in the dust as we were with Volkswagens, Mercedes, BMWs, Toyotas, natauna, 'ubarua, 'aurua, AUdia, HYUnda~~~~ . ~ p 8 of 8 SR1 (SOBI status Report 1 dated 10/6/2000) is Attachment 2 REA D FROM A T T A C H MEN T 2 In addition to the above we submit the following for consideration by the Commission and staff. 1973 ----The Mitre Corporation reporting to the National Science Foundation in December, stated" Costs (for photovoltaics) may drop to about $0.50 per Watt (peak) by 1985, and $0.10 per Watt (peak) by 2000, _ _ _" (That's $100/peak kilowatt by 2000) 1974 ----Mobil Oil contributed $30 million to a photovoltaic solar panel project by Tyco Laboratories of waltham, MA, according to Forbes Magazine, 10/15/74. JUNE. 1974 As previously pointed out, at least four witnesses, including the National Science Foundation director. gave expert testimony estimating that by or before the year 2000, photovoltaic panels would sell for $500 or less per kilowatt. 1984 -Eileen M. Smith, SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE, noted the Amoco takeover of Solarex in 1984. 1988 - 1991 E. M. smith (above): alleged patent infringement business." "Amoco/Enron with intent sued Arco Solar for to put them out of 1991 April 3, 1991, Los Angeles Times reported that Southern California Edison and Texas Instruments, Incorporated announced a solar cell system costing $1500-$2000 per kilowatt. Texas Instruments was already building a plant in Dallas to develop manufacturing techniques to produce the new material in quantity. 2000 In S,eptember, 2000, E. M. Smith (ibid) notes that computer- grade s~l~con, the only kind manufactured today and costing $1,000 per unit is used for photovoltaics when photovoltaic- grade silicon costing $100/per unit could be used. The Commissioners and Staff should be interested in investigating the fate of all these pv development efforts and expectations especially since so many of them involved major oil companies. OCI10,Uuu ~t:~~ , Attachment 4 US Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue, West C....!&1>:>d, CA 9:10011 (760) 431-9440 FAX (760) 431-9624 :~CAiij~~Ei.4 I 113"I:U,.f '. .. California Department of FISh & Game 4949 Viewridge Avenue S"" Dioso, CA 9::: 1:::3 (858) 467-4251 FAX{8S8) 467-4299 September 25, 2000 Mr. Robert Leiter, Director Planning and Building Department City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vistl!... California 91910 Comments on the August 18, 2000 Administrative Draft ofthe City of Chuln Vista's Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan .Dear Mr. Leiter: The California Department ofFish and Game (Department), and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Senice), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, arc in the process ofreviewing the Administrative Draft of the City ofChula Vista's (City) Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (SAP) dated Allgust 1 S, 2000. It is clear that you have put great elIort into the preparation of the current draft. We commend you on your effortS toward completing the City's Subarea Plan. We are pro\iding you \"ith our comments to assist you in finalizing the plan. However, please be aware that additional revision msy be necessary in response to public comments received during the Federal Register Notification of Application of Permit public comment review period. Additionally, these comments pertain only to the August 18, 2000, SAP which did not include section 4.7, which was submitted to us sc?srately. We .will be providing our comments to that section under a separate cover. To assist you in finalizing the SAP, we.are providing the following general and specific comments: I. Additions to improve uSllbility a.. [I detailed Executive Summary would improve the readability of the S@~e also recommend including b. a listing of Tables v.-;th page numbers, and a listing of Figures with page numbers after the Table of c.. Conre~~ffi would also be beneficial if each page had a descriptive header that indicated the current d,. section and (major) subsections of the doeume!!DIDditionally, it would greatly improve the usability if the nIl3! draft included an index that allowed the reader to quickly find the page numbers for key words e.., 3.."0 spcci3]@so.pleaseattachAPpendixA(Table3-5)tothepublicand final draft and specify any a:iditio:Jal specific measures for narrow endemic covera~ \'lr Robe" Leiter :.z. AdequHtd}' Con~en'ed Specie~ language "'"" Because of the apparent confusion over the phrase "Covered Species Subject to Incidental Take" we suggest that you use "Species Adequately Conserved by the City Subarea Plan" to clarify. Alternatively, you could use "Species Adequately Conserved by the subregional MSCP," ~. Subarea plan implementation tools Please provide a description of the interrelationship of the HUT, the amended grading ordinance, ,md the narrow endemic policy and the affect these tools would have on all projects ("covered" and not "covered") within the Chula Vista Subarea. 4. Additionally, we recommend the SAP and HLIT provide guidelines foi eonducting focused surveys. We have provided an example for you to consider (attached). 6. Funding Section IO(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Endangered Species Act explicitly states: "the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided." The City has provided additional funding information in this dran. The Wildlife Agencies would like to continue to work with the dty in providing additional details for how funding for acquisition (page 213). monitoring, and management (page 210), will be ensured for the life of the permit. <0. 6. Section 3.3, Covered Species QY e recommend including the same type of information provided in the ''.Habitat and Habitat .A.ssociations" and "Conservation of Known or Potential Habitat in the Chula Vista Subarea" information (as presented in 3.3.2) in section 3.3J]5Y,e funher recommend clearly presenting the lc:gal 3.tldlor management status for each .species listed. For example, on 3. new line or to the right of the species name (or a format you deem appropriate) you could include codes for Federally-listed species (e.g., FE, FT), State-listed (e.g., SE ST) or State Species of Special Concern (e.g., SSC) and Chula Vista Narrow Endemi~ ~~." ]'I.rffi~ditionally, it may be useful if all narrow endemic species include a reference to sectIon ""T.22.J ~ "" . c. J. rseveral of the species in section 3.3.1 only reference use of the management framework as described by the Otay Ranch R.\1P, although these species occur elsewhere in the Chula Vista Subarea. Please pro-,-ide' e.. a description of how these species will be managed outside of Otay RanchJ~arly, the "Conservation ofKno,,'Il Dr Potential Habitat in the Chula Vista Subarea" part of section 3.3.2, contains statements suggesting certain species do not occur in the Subarea (e.g., Otay manzanita, p. 84; felt-leaved monardelJa, p. 86). Please add additional justification as to why these species should be included in this section or move them to section 3.3.3. 1r. @own-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) can impact several species in section 3.3 and since they are referenced in several of the species accounts in this section we are providing our comments on this species here. Cowbirds have been documented regularly "commuting" (i.e., mo-,-ing between their feedi.ng areas end the breeding/nest parasitizing areas on a daily basis) 7.5 miles (12 km). Recent studies in San Diego County have documented cowbirds commuting up to 15 miles. Thus, even distant developments that anract cowbirds may adversely impact Covered Species in the preserve, even though the developments may be much fanher away from the preserve than merely acijacent (as described in the ~ . '\1: R0~t"r; L::-iter 3 . bast Bdl's \.;reo [p, g 1] and wi.How flyc~tcher [p 98] sections). Equestrian activities i.n or near to L'le r preser;e may also attract cowbrrds. In light of these comments, please clarify the CIty'S cowb;rd management pia€] q.. [5Yith only 28 percent oftbe grassland preserved by the Chula Vista Plan, which is less thm the overall o MSCP percentage of 34 percent, we recorrup.end moving the burrowing owl (p. 70, 80) from Table 10 to Table 11 (and adjust its species account presentation accordingly). Ifthe plan conserves the major use areaslhistorical use areas, then the argument for its placement in Table 10 may be strengthened. Also. clarify the "enhancement opportunities" as presented in the management framework section. ] q.. ~. . <:J. 10. II. 1Z,. . Selected specific comments PalZe 5 (FilZure 2), The public should have the visual tools so that they may better judge what habitat is proposed to be taken and what habitat is proposed to be conserved in the preserve. Please show the existing habitat areas that are proposed to be taken (a separate figure may be appropriate, should this one appear too cluttered ",itb the addition ofthis information). Palle 120, The equivalency finding must document that the value of the off~.te preservation/acquisition provides an equal or better long-term conservation benefit to the species. Translocation should be considered as a "last resort" type of mitigation. If translocation is considered, the equivalency finding must also document that this approach provides an equal or better long-term conservation benefit to the species. This will be determined after long-term monitoring (i.e., up to ten years, or possibly, in specific circumstances, even longer) has proven that success criteria have been met. If not, contingency measures would be implemented and may include babitat acquisition to mitigate the initial impacts and temporal losses of habitat/species. Pa12e 163. The grazing section is unclear. Please darify that the grazing language on page 162 applies only in the interim (i,e., prior to conveyance) and that upon either conveyance or irrevocable offer of dedication (whichever comes first), grazing will cease "unless the POM determines, with written concurrence from the \\'Ildlife Agencies, that limited grazing activity will have a positive or neutral impact on habit yalues" (F. 163). ..!IJso, please provide an estimated time frame of when the City (or County) plans to eliminate grazing from tbe Vernal Pool Preserve prior to initiating restoration actions. Pa12e 176, Table 18 indicates that ASMDs will not be developed for nearly 1,700 acres of preserve land for at le3.st 18-24 months after the Central City PMA. Because open space in the Central City area is already designated as preserve, management can begin here immediately. The City should plan for earlier development oftbese AS:MDs. PaE!E: 207. Clarify how the inclusion of brush management Zone 2 (partial clearing) within the preserve around existing communities will be maintained without continuously impacting the preserve. Permal,ent markers to delineate this zone and standards for partial clearing should be included in the subarea plan (management section). Please clarify if acreage listings for the Preserve are included in these areas. POileD 208, The Urban-Wildland Interface Guidelines prepared by the County of San Diego, fire marshals, building community, and \Vlldlife Agencies, provided more than a plant list for the urban interface. It included building standards and setbaek guidelines for new construction. These guidelines and standards should be used by the City to the maximum extent feasible. Mr. Robe~ Leiter :. inTerface. It included building standards and setback guidelines for new constrUCtion. These guidelines and standards should be used by the City to the maximum extent fellSible. -, /3. Pal!e 210. As discussed in the City's Subarea Plan, the MSCP provided estimated preserve management costs as guidance for the implementing jurisdictions. The actual per acre management cost ""i.ll vary and be dictated by several factors including pro)(imity to urban areas, size of the preserve lands managed by each entity, and other site-specific factors (i.e., Area- specific Management Directive requirements and species-specific conservation measures for narrow endemics). The City should provide more information about how it determined that the $50/acre allotment will allow for all subarea plan management requirements to be met. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter please call Nancy Gilben or Gjon Hazard (Service) at (760) 431-9440 or Bill.Tippets or Kim Marsden (Department) at (858) 467-4212 or (858) 467-4229. respectively. Sincerely, -. - 'i ~ [, (7r ~ bJt.-;t: AssiStant Field Supervisor Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service William E. Tippets Habitat Conservation Supervisor South Coast Region California Department of Fi sh and G3lIle ~ Attachlnents: Additional specific comments Focused survey guidelines "'" . ILf. 16. 110. i lro. ICJ. ZOo '2.1. z:2.. "2.:>. . , ~1r. Roben Leiter ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC COMMEl'I'TS To assist the City ofChula Vista (City) in preparation of their final draft of the MSCP Subarea Plan (SAP), the Wlldlife Agencies are providing the following specific comments on the August 18, 2000. draft. These specific comments accompany the Wildlife Agencies' comment letter dated September 25, :WOO. The following information not only addresses roany of our substantive concerns and questions. but also provides stylistic and editorial comments. We provide these latter comments to the City to improve the document. Global Comments Capitalize "Federal" and "State~'. The abbreviations of the Latin for "for example" (e.g.) and "that is" (i.e.) should be followed by a com.."':1a the same way the English text would be ifit was used instead (e.g., this is an example). Specific Comments by Page ~ Page 10. Add a definition for "biologically functional equivalency determination" and "biologically superior preservation alternative." A page reference for the tn'"! where this is fully explained would also be useful. PalZe 10-15. Add definitions for"Implementing Agreement (lA)", "no net loss", Section 404(b)(1), CDFG 1600 (and other CDFG codes referenced in the SAP), Section 7, etc. Pages 27-28. Please specifY the correct acreage for Otay Ranch here (i.e., 11,375 acres or 10,926 acres). Pa~e 57 Figure 7 is confusing, particularly the "university site area" shown in western Otay Valle\' s;Jd t..':le "unchanged preserve area" shown just west orthe proposed university site in east Salt Creek. Please rework for clarity. Pa;ze 67 Table 9. Note font size for "Rancho Del Rey" and acreage. Page 68. Delete the reference to Section 2081 ofthe CDFG Code. Page 68. Vernal pools are not identified in the wetlands section even though they are identified as occurring within the Subarea Planning area (Terra Nova). They should be addressed separately from other weriands. Pages 70 and 76. The accepted scientific name for Hemizonia conjugens is now Dcinandra conjugclls. This change in nomenclature orlly reflects the taxonomic affiliations above the species leveL This name change does not in any way alter the definition of this species (i.e., it was not the result of "splitting" or "lumping"), nor does it affect the species' legal status. A note providing CJo..1'lanation may be appropriate. 1.~, :VIr RC'''~n Leiter 6 Pa"e 71. Table II. Insert header "Amphibians" between Srreptocephalus wootoni and Bufo microscaphtls calif amicus. Insert beader "Reptiles" between Rana aurora draytoni and Clemnz)'s marmorara pallida. .-. ;(5. Page 72. Table II. Insert "(continued)" after "Birds" in header. Change "Animals" header to "Mammals". 2fD. ~1. 2~. Zq. ?p. ?I. 32. Page 74. Insert open parenthesis between "Plan" and "see Appendix..." in first paragraph. PalZe 75 The write-up for variegated dudleya states that the Otay Ranch R1vIP is the framework management for this species. Please clarify what framework management will apply to other significant populations that do not occur on Otay Ranch, such as those on the Bella-Lago project. PalZe S I );"0 vegetation clearing should occur from February 15 (not March 1) to August 15. Please rectii)' Pa\(e 82. "Savannah" in Belding's and Large-billed savannah sparrows shoUfd not be capitalized. Page 84. The argument for coverage for Orcutt's brodiaea should be strengthened by assessing the conservation level of the suitable soil type(s) (i.e., clays) where it is likely to occur. Page 86. For willa",')' monardella, add a management roeasure that requires off site runoff to be controlled so as not to alter downstream habitat of this species (i.e., create erosion or aggradation of drainages that support/could support this species). ~ PalZe 87. The conservation of Mui/la clevelandii should not depend on preserve design for vernal pools because it "is found on dry mesas and hillsides..." Please rectify. '?'3. Page <;7 ).iountain Plovers are likely cx"tirpated from the county. 3y. 3f>. 3(0. 31. ~. Page 99. Tne habitat description for the tricolored blackbird is awkwardly written (i.e., the fact that they breed in colonies does not result in the need for water, etc.). PalZe 106. Please clarify if the proposed new City Grading Ordinance applies to Covered Projects. Ifsa, how does it affect them? Pa~e 107. Minor amendments should only require the concurrence of the Wildlife Agencies ...vith the minor amendment findings proposed by the City, not the issuance of a separate take authorization by the Wildlife Agencies. We suggest you delete "the Wildlife Agencies will issue" and insert "applies" after "Take Authorization". Pa",e ] I 1. Please clari...'Y if Section 4.2.] applies to all projects, including "Covered Projects." Page 113. The mitigation table includes scrub oak/chaparral in Tier ill; it should be noted that this does not include any maritime-influenced chaparral habitat. """\ .,. - ~1r RO::el L;:::1t:f .3. Palle 115, Table 14 Remove capitalization from '~HonrlmllS" 2..11d "LoJ/alO". 40, 41. 42. 4'3. 44. ti 4iP. 41. 4~. 4'1. . PalZe 1'24. The "automatic" provision for including annexed lands into the City's Plan must be consistent with the ~1SCP Implementing Agreement language Page 126. Not all boundary adjustments will have a CEQA or equivalent environmental document, and if not, the City must ensure that adequate documentation will be produced for Wildlife Agencies review and approval. Paoes 142-43. This description for take authorizations for future projects, ". . .future facilities which have /lot been identified as necessary to support approved development in Covered Projects will be subject to and mitigated pursuant to the HUT Ordinance" is confusing and sccms to conflict with related, and clearer, language on page 157. Please clarify. PaS/e 143. SR 125 is shown as part ofthe projects covered by the City Plan; it is not covered by this plan. It has already been addressed through the ESA's section 7 process. Please rectify. t- Palle 149. Figure 10. This shows substantial water/sewer infrastructure placed within Rice Canyon and other canyon habitat lands that will be or are part of the preserve. The City should endeavor to place these outside of the cmyons where feasible; this will reduce futurc maintenance impacts to thc prcserve. Pa2e 164. Please clarify ifthc climination of 154 acres of recreational arca from the City's part of the OVRP simply shifts this to the City or County of San Diego's portion of the OVRP, or is an actual reduction in thc size of the recreational area. Palle 173. Thc combined prcserve acreage of the three components is 4,009 acres, which is slightly jower than the acreage in Table 9 (page 67). Please rect'J.y. Pa2e ] 79. This Plan must accommodate the rece:1t Region:J Water Quality Control Board preIimina..,,' ruling that r~quires onsite control ofrunorrfrorn developm~nts as part ofthc rcgional non-point sou;cc pollutant reduction strategy. Page] 98. Recent discussions betwecn the Wildlife Agencies and thc City have resulted in the university site road a::ross Salt Creek being dcleted from consideration (at this time and as a project element under the City's Plan). This condition should be included in the discussion of the univcrsity site in the Plan. Pa>:e ] 9~. The OlaY Ranch preserve acreage is given as 2,3 84 acrcs on page 197; pleasc verifY and repan the correct number in the Plan. \Ilr. Robe:-t Leiter s FOCUSED SCR"~Y GUIDE~LS (EX...\.MPLE) -., Surve)'or qualifications Focused surveys for cenain species should be conducted only by qualified biologists with direct e"--perience with the species in question. SDme species may require the survey Dr tD cDnduct surveys under the authDrity DfapprDpriate permits [e.g., endangered species 10(a)(1)(A) permit). BiolDgists wishing to apply fDr such permits shDuld contact the appropriate U.S. Fish and Wildlife or California Depanment of Fish and Game office (if cDllections oflisted species would be made) well in advance of the survey season. Permits may take 90 days, or longer, to process. Survey Techniques Protocols & Methodologies Some species have specific protocol guidelines adopted by the one or both of the Wildlife Agencies. The most recent version of a protocol should be followed. For species that lack official Wildlife Agencies prOlOCD!S. surveys should be conducted per the guidelines described in this ;ection. Outside references (e.g., peer-reviewed documents, government publications), when available, should be used as a basis for survey methodology. Reference documents should pertain to the species that is the subject of the survey. A taxonomically or behaviorally similar species may be appropriate for a basis of survey methodology if references for the specific species is lacking. All sources for survey methodologies should be cited in the survey repon document. "'" ~ Surv"ys should be conducted at an appropriate pace. Trying to cover additional acr"age by surveying faster may reduce the chances of detecting the target species. Additional observers or spreading the survcy over several. days may be necessary to adequately survey a large area. Timin!:! Sur\'eys must be conducted at the appropriate time of year (some years might not be appropriate), season, day, elC. (oiology ofthe species (i.e., nocturnal vs. diurnal species), weather cDnditions, and ::he need for multiple visits must be taken into consideration). The timing Df a focused survey can strongly influence the quality of that survey. Timing considerations can include time of day, to time of season/year, or even over longer time frames. Long-term climatic fluctuations (e.g., droughts) can dramatically influence wildlife and plant populations or how detectable the\! are Time of day may be impona.'1.t, for example, birds are generally more active in the morning, while flowering plants may be more identifiahle later in the day when their flowers have opened, and some species are better detected with nigbttime surveys. Surveys should be conducted at the time of day appropriate to the target species. Surveys should be conducted only during appropriate weather conditions. Excess wind or rain may make some species (e.g., birds. reptiles) less detec".able, cDnversely, other species (e.g., amphibians) may be ....... more detectable during wet conditions. Temperature may also be an important factor. . . :vir Raben Lcitcr 9 . Climate may further influence the seasonal (or longer) timing of some species. Reference populations may be necessary to determine optimum survey dates. For other species for which optimum dates ca.., not be determined, or for species that arc generally difficult to detect, multiple survey visits throughout the season may be appropriate to maximize the likelihood of detecting tbe target species. All surveys should be conducted aT the appropriate time of year for the target species. How detec:tible some species arc may depend on seasonal climatic conditions, which, in southern Califomia can vary dramatically from year to year. Conditions in some years may not provide adequate information. In poor years,. surveys may detect only portions of an otherwise extant population or mav fail to detect it entirely. Information gathered at known reference populations close to the area in question may provide important corroborating information for determining whether a given year is relatively "good" or "bad" for surveying. Additional information may be useful in determining the limits of distribution for populations or individuals. For example, many plants are found only in specific physical settings (e.g., ccrtain soils, slopes, andior aspects). This information may be useful corroborating information during poor survey years. The Wildlife Agencies will work with project proponents on a case b'y case basis in such situations. . Combinimz survevs Only one type of focused sUNey should be conducted by anyone biologist at any given time. Some sUNeys use a similar technique (e.g., plants) allowing multiple species to be surveyed at a time. However, surveys that use different techniques should not be combined (e.g., surveyors should not be conducting gnatcatcher surveys at the same time as a focused plant suNey). Soecies-tvoe considerations The follo"'~ng provides general guidance in factors that should be taken into consideration for conaucti,"g sun'eys for the groups of organisms listed: Plams Annuals and geophytes (bulbs) (e.g., Otay tarplant, variegated dudleya) . highly dependent on seasonal climate conditions . may be difficult or impossible to detect in some years . use rererence populations . physical parameters (e.g., soils, slope, aspect, etc.) may provide additional information Perennials (e.g., Palmer's ericameria) . may be difficult to detect in dense vegetation if not flowering Invertebrates (e.g., fairy shrimp, butterflies) dependent on seasonal climate dependcnt on daily weather conditions may be difficult or impossible to detect in some years . Amphibians (e.g., arroyo toad) dependent on seesooal climate ,,1r. Raben Leiter 10 dependent on daily weather conditions ......... may be difficult or impossible to detect in some years, but may be minimized through adequate survey effort Reptiles (e.g., San Diego homed lizard) somewhat dependent on seasonal climate dependent on daily weather conditions may be difficult (or impossible) to detect in some years, but may be minimized through adequate survey effort Birds (e.g., Califumia gnatcatcher) somewhat dependent on seasonal climate dependent on daily weather conditions may be difficult to detect in some years, but may be minimized through adequate survey effort Mammals somewhat dependent on seasonal climate dependent on daily weather conditions may be difficult to detect in some years, but may be minimized through adequate survey effort t.. ""'" ""'" . . . ATTACHMENT 6 ~~~ ~ -=~-=~ ~-~~ CllY OF CHUIA VISfA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT October 12, 2000 Ms. Nancy Gilbert Assistant Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, CA 92008 Mr. William Tippets NCCP Field Supervisor California Department ofFish and Game 4949 Viewridge Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 RE: CITY RESPONSE TO SEPT. 25, 2000 WILDLIFE AGENCY COMMENT LETTER Dear Ms. Gilbert and Mr. Tippets: We have endeavoreli: to address all comments raised in correspondence submitted by the Wildlife Agencies to the CitY da'ted September 25, 2000. Enclosed is the Wildlife Agencies' comment letter with each comment numbered by the City. What follows is a response to each comment raised by the Agencies. The relevant strikeout and underline from the Subarea Plan is enclosed to identifY precise revised language in the Subarea Plan. To assist the reader in finding a corresponding, text revision in the strikeout/underline, the page reference to the strikeout/underline revision is contained in parentheses at the end of the City responses. Where global changes have been made, at least one page reference providing an example of the change is provided. Not all City responses have a corresponding text revision. It should be noted that Microsoft Word "Track Changes" was used to generate the Subarea Plan strikeout and underline. As a result, attention to document formatting was not possible. Tables span two pages, headings are widowed at page bottoms and some pages are only half full of text. Formatting will be addressed when the final document is produced. la. An executive summary for the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan would be helpful to the reader. We will provide one in the final Subarea Plan. 1 b. We will add tables and figures to the Subarea Plan table of contents. 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 ,,~ ~.l.Co~.u_,Ro>cyd.odP..,.( Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 2 . Ic. We will format the final document similar to the MSCP Subregional Plan. We will provide chapter headings in a header and the footer will include a page number that is preceded by the chapter number, e.g., I-I, 1-2, 1-3, etc. Id. Thank you for the suggestion of providing an index of key words and corresponding page reference. We believe the Definitions section includes the Subarea Plan key words. Page references will not be included in the Subarea Plan. Ie. Table 3-5 of the Subregional Plan has been included as Appendix A of the September II, 2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. In addition, all other appendices have been bound with the Subarea Plan, except B, C and D which are available for review at the City Planning Counter and the Main and South Chula Vista Libraries. 2. Section 1.3. Definitions and Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - The suggestion for using "Species Adequately Conserved" has been incorporated. A definition for the term has been added and the heading of Table 10 has been revised. The definition in the Subarea Plan differs slightly from the definition in the Implementing Agreement, therefore the definition in the Implementing Agreement will be need to be revised. In addition, the definition for "Covered Species Subject to Incidental Take" has been revised, and definitions have been added for "MSCP Subregional Plan Area" and "Participating Local Jurisdiction." (10,14,56) . 3. The applicability of the HUT Ordinance, amended Grading Ordinance, Grazing Abatement prdinance and narrow endemic species policy is addressed with the following matrix. Ch~k marks indicate the relevant ordinance or policy will apply. , Covered Covered Outside Covered Outside Covered 75-100% Projects I Projects I Projects I Projects 1100% Conservation Development 100% Development Conservation Areas Areas Conservation Areas Areas Areas HUT . . ./ ./ ./ Ordinance Amended Grading ./ ./ ./ ./ ./ Ordinance Grazing Abatement ./ ./ Ordinance Narrow Endemic . ./ ./ ./ ./ Policy * The HUT Ordinance and narrow endemic species policy will apply to the southern portion of Bella Lago, should additional narrow endemic species be identified . CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 3 . 4. We have added information about focused surveys to Section 4.2.2, Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance and Section 4.2.3, Protection of Narrow Endemic Species. General focused survey gUidelines will be included in the HUT Ordinance. (105, 109) 5. A response to this issue will be forthcoming. 6a. Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - We have expanded Section 3.3.1 to include the "Habitat and Habitat Association" information as recommended. We have not added "Conservation of Known or Potential Habitat in the Chula Vista Subarea" as recommended because the heading "Conservation in Chula Vista Subarea" is already provided. (63-76) 6b. Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - We have expanded Tables 10, 11 and 12 to provide the legal and management status of each species, a page reference to the species in the Subarea Plan, and a page reference to the species in Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan. Immediately prior to Tables 10, 11 and 12, we have included a key to the legal and management status of each species. We did add the code "NE" for narrow endemic species in the Chula Vista Subarea and provide a reference in the key to Section 4.2.3 of the Subarea Plan dealing with protection for narrow endemic species. It should be noted that the page reference to the Subarea Plan will not be completed in Tables 10, II and 12 until the final Subarea Plan is formatted for production. (53-62) . 6c. Section 3.3. .Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - All narrow endemic species listed in SrGtions 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 reference the narrow endemic species protection provisionsllf'Section 4.2.3 of the Subarea Plan. Because the species contained in Section 3.3.3 are not anticipated to occur in the Subarea, the reference has not been provided. (63-79) 6d. Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - The Otay Ranch RMP is one of the Framework Management Plans referenced in Section 6.0 of the Subarea Plan. Section 3.3.1 does contain more frequent references to the Otay Ranch RMP than the other framework plans, for the reason that the Otay Ranch RMP is considerably more developed than the others, and offers more relevant information regarding conservation and management of covered species than the other plans currently offer. The Otay Ranch contains habitat or potential habitat for many of the covered species, and is therefore relevant to a large number of the species discussions. It is anticipated that as the other plans develop, they will include similar detail on management of individual species, in accordance with the conditions for coverage and requirements for Area-specific management directives for those species. (65-67) . 6e. Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - The approach to the discussion of conservation for known or potential habitat in the Subarea was intended to be fairly conservative. That is, if there were believed to be habitat opportunities for a species within the Subarea, it was included on this list, for the purposes of highlighting species for which conservation and management within the Subarea should be focused. In some cases, the evidence to support the potential for a species to occur in the Subarea was less CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 4 . 6f. 6g. . . substantial than others. It should be noted that the Draft Implementing Agreement contemplates stand alone coverage for the Chula Vista Subarea Plan for all of the species on the list contained in Table 10. However, the difference between a species location on Table 11 or 12 does not necessarily relate to its coverage status with respect to other Subarea Plans. Therefore, if the Agencies feel that there is insufficient evidence to support identifying certain species (Otay manzanita and felt-leaved monardella) as having the potential to occur in the Subarea, and that these species are more appropriately discussed in the context of species that are not likely to occur within the Subarea, the City will move these discussions to the appropriate section. (62,77,79,95,98,108,109) Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - Management of wetlands within the Preserve will include brown-headed cowbird control measures and specific measures to protect against detrimental edge effects. Appropriate revisions have been made to the information for the least Bell's vireo and Southwestern willow flycatcher. (73, 92) Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Species - The fact that the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan conservation percentages of grassland habitats is lower than the MSCP Subregional Plan does not suggest that there is lower conservation for the burrowing owl in Chula Vista than in other areas of the MSCP. Much of the grassland conserved in other portions of the MSCP is not considered to be suitable habitat for this species. As noted in Section 3.3.1, Preserve design provides for conservation of 750 acres of suitable habitat, including areas of known/historical use. To further reduce potential irrwacts to the species, the City will include a condition to require, through CEQA revi~w; surveys for the species and passive relocation of any occupied burrows within development areas. (72) 7. A fig1,ll'e graphically depicting the areas of habitat take and conservation will not be provided. 8. Section 4.2.3.6. EQuivalencv Findings - The City understands the narrow endemic species equivalency finding must document that the value of the offsite preservation/acquisition provides an equal or better long-term conservation benefit to the species. A corresponding change has been made to Section 4.2.3.6(7) to reflect this comment. Any mitigation method, including translocation, will have to meet the equal or better long-term conservation benefit to the species criteria to be considered acceptable. (113-114) 9. Section 5.2.5. Agricultural and Grazing Uses - We have revised the Subarea Plan to indicate that once land is offered to or accepted by the City for dedication to the Preserve grazing must cease. In cases where grazing may have a neutral or positive benefit to the habitat values of the Preserve, the City will request written concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies. Revisions have been made to Sections 4.2.5 and 5.2.5 of the Subarea Plan. (116,152) CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 5 . 10. II. 12. . . Section 6.2.3. Implementation and Preserve Management Schedule - A response to this issue will be forthcoming. Section 6.6. Brush Management - In existing communities, the zone 2 brush management is included in the Preserve. The zone 2 / Preserve interface will not be staked in the field. However, the City will provide implementation guidance to the Fire Department and Preserve manager about Preserve boundaries and fuel modification zones in existing communities. The Subarea Plan does indicate that brush management in zone 2 will include hand clearing of dead underbrush. Section 6.6.5. UrbanlWildland Interface Code - On July I, 1999 the City adopted by reference the Urban-Wildland Interface Code, 1997 Edition, by creating a new chapter of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 15.38. The purpose of the code is to mitigate the risk to life and structures from intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposures and fire exposures from adjacent structures and to mitigate structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels. Because this information has been codified, its requirements must be followed. Section 6.6.5 has been revised to reference the code as well as the special building construction regulations and fuel modification provisions. (193) However, the plant list from the "WildlandlUrban Interface: Fuel Modification Standards" has not been codified by the City. Therefore the Subarea Plan has been revised so Section 6.6.6 addresses the plant list and "Emergency Brush Management" is addressed in'new Section 6.6.7. Appropriate language has been added to the Subarea Plan requiripg the plant list be utilized to the greatest extent feasible. In addition, the plant list wiWbe added to the Subarea Plan as Appendix H. (170, 194) I 13. A response to this issue will be forthcoming. 14. We have performed a global search and capitalized "federal" and "state." (134) 15. We have performed a global search for "e.g." and "i.e." and have added a comma where needed. (109,117,134,170) 16. Section 1.3. Definitions - A definition for "biologically superior preservation alternative" has been added to the Subarea Plan. The reference in the Subarea Plan to "biological functional equivalency" has been eliminated, therefore, the term has not been added to the Definitions. (9, 25) 17. Section 1.3. Definitions - Definitions for "Implementing Agreement (IA)," "Section 404, "Section 7" and "CDFG 1600" have been added. A Definition for "no-net-loss" has not been added. (11,14) 18. Section 2.2. Otav Ranch Planning Comoonent - The total Otay Ranch Preserve to be included in the Preserve is 11,375 acres. Table 3 references 10,926 acres of habitat. The difference in the two numbers is 449 acres of non-habitat land such as developed, disturbed, or agricultural land. A sentence has been added to the paragraph immediately CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October J 2. 2000 Page 6 . 19. 20. 21. 22. . 23. proceeding Table 3 to clarify the 449 acres are included in the Preserve but do not contain habitat. (24) Section 3.1.4. University Site - Figure 7 has been modified to increase clarity. (inserted after page 27) Section 3.2. Table 9 - The font size in Table 9 was corrected in the September 11,2000 Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. Section 3.2.1. Overall Conservation Summary - The reference to Section 2081 has been eliminated. (52) Section 3.2.2. Wetland Conservation Estimates - Although there is reference to vernal pool habitat in the Terra Nova discussion, the MSCP database does not distinguish between general wetlands and vernal pools. Therefore, the habitat summaries do not reflect a category for vernal pools. It should also be noted that the MSCP database for wetland habitats does not include all jurisdictional wetlands within the study area, due to the lack of specific information in many areas. It is however, acknowledged that vernal pools are a particularly rare form of wetlands. All applicable regulatory procedures for identifYing and treating vernal pools will be followed in accordance with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. Management considerations for vernal pool habitats found in the Preserve will incorporate appropriate measures related to the specific resources contained in those habitats. r Section 3.3. Table 10 - So noted. We have provided the new taxa after all references to Hemizonia 'conjugens in the Subarea Plan text. (27,66) 24. Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Soecies - The headers in Table 11 have been revised as suggested. (59-60) 25. Section 3.3. Chula Vista Subarea Plan Covered Soecies - The headers in Table 11 have been revised as suggested. (59-60) . 26. Section 3.3.1. Soecies that Occur in the Chula Vista Subarea and for which the Subarea Plan Provides a Significant Contribution to Subregional Conservation - The open parenthesis has been added as requested. (63) 27. Section 3.3.1. Soecies that Occur in the Chula Vista Subarea and for which the Subarea Plan Provides a Significant Contribution to Subregional Conservation - The Framework Management Plan for the Otay Ranch Planning Component is the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. The Framework Management Plan for the remainder of the City is the City Planning Component Framework Management Plan provided in Section 6.3 of the Subarea Plan. When an area-specific management directive is created for the management of specific habitats and species within Bella Lago, a species such as variegated dudleya would be addressed by combining the general requirements of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12. 2000 Page 7 . 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. . City Planning Component Framework Management Plan and any specific conditions outlined in Table 3-5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan for variegated dudleya. (65-67) Section 3.3.1. Species that Occur in the Chula Vista Subarea and for which the Subarea Plan Provides a Significant Contribution to Subregional Conservation - The date has been changed to February 15 as requested. The date was also changed in Section 6.3.2 to be consistent. (73, 170) Section 3.3.1. Species that Occur in the Chula Vista Subarea and for which the Subarea Plan Provides a Significant Contribution to Subregional Conservation - "Savannah" has been changed to lower case in the text and in Table 10. (56,75) Section 3.3.2. Species with Known Occurrences or Suitable Habitat - Identification of conservation levels for soil associations for this species would be misleading, as soil types without other habitat information would not provide an adequate assessment of potential habitat and conservation levels for this species. Section 3.3.2. Species with Known Occurrences or Suitable Habitat - Changes in runoff within the Preserve will be considered in the development of area-specific management directives for willowy monardella. (79-80) Section 3.3.2. Species with Known Occurrences or Suitable Habitat - The last sentence for San Diego goldenstar under "Conservation of Known or Potential Habitat in the Chula Vistfl' Subarea" has been revised to read, "Preserve design provides for conservation 'of this species." (81) I 33. Section 3.3.2. Species with Known Occurrences or Suitable Habitat - Thank you for the information. Because the Subarea Plan has been drafted to address all 85 species covered by the. MSCP Subregional Plan, we have chosen not to make a corresponding text revision. . 34. Section 3.3.2. Species with Known Occurrences or Suitable Habitat - The Habitat and Habitat Association information for the tricolored blackbird has been modified to state, "Tricolored blackbirds breed in large colonies. Breeding habits include the need for nearby water, a suitable nesting substrate, and open range foraging habitat of natural grassland, woodland, or agricultural cropland." (93) 35. Section 4.1.1. 100% Conservation Areas / Covered Proiects - Any amendments to the City Grading Ordinance will apply to Covered Projects. (104-105) 36. Section 4.1.3.1. Minor Amendments to the Subarea - The sentence has been revised to read, "These areas will require the processing of a Minor Amendment to this Subarea Plan before the Take Authorization applies for any of these projects." (102) 37. Section 4.2.1. Amendment to the Chula Vista Grading Ordinance - Regulations within the City's Grading Ordinance pertaining to clearing and grubbing of Sensitive Biological CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 8 . 38. 39, 40. 41. Resources and impacts to wetland habitats and species will apply to all land within the City's incorporated limits, except for parcels ofrecord that are one acre or less in size, as of the date take authorization is granted to the City, and can demonstrate that no wetland resources exist. Clarifying language has been added. (104-105) Section 4.2.2. Table 13 - All of the notes for Table 13 have been changed to footnotes. A footnote has been added to indicate that scrub oak/chaparral does not include maritime chaparral. (107) Section 4.2.3. Table 14 - "Maritimus" and "Lanata" have been changed to lowercase as requested. (108-109) Section 4.3.1. Incidental Take Authorization and Annexations - We will make sure the language in the Implementing Agreement is consistent with the Subarea Plan. Section 4.4.2. Boundary Adjustments - The City will ensure that adequate documentation will be provided to the Wildlife Agencies for review. Based on some of the changes made to the Subarea Plan as a result of the Wildlife Agencies' comment letter dated September 25, 2000, other revisions to the IA are anticipated. 42. Section 5.4.2. Roads and Infrastructure - We have deleted a sentence In the third paragraph of Section 5.4.2. (135-136) , . 43. Section 5.2,4.1. Figure 8 - The graphic depiction of SR-125 has been maintained on Figure 8, a' note will be added to indicating that SR-125 will not receive take authorizatioh through this Subarea Plan. 44. Section 5.2.4.1. Figure 10 - Some of the infrastructure referenced on Figure 10 is already existing. New infrastructure in the Preserve can only be sited pursuant to Section 5.4.2 of the Subarea Plan. 45. Section 5.2.6. Otav Vallev Regional Park Plan Uses - The Otay Ranch GDP and RMP allows for up to 400 acres of active recreation area to be sited within the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP). Two hundred forty-six acres of the active recreation areas will be sited within the City of Chula Vista. The remaining 154 acres could be sited in the Otay Ranch Preserve within the County of San Diego. However, this would be subj ect to approval by the County of San Diego. . 46. Section 6.2. Framework Management Plans and Area-Specific Management Directives - We agree there is an acreage discrepancy and will work to rectify it. 47. Section 6.3.2. Adiacencv Management Issues - Individual project compliance with new regulations requiring on-site control of runoff must be consistent with Section 5.4.2 of the Subarea Plan, which provides for limited future facilities in the Preserve. All other facilities must be located outside of the Preserve or receive concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies. CITY OF CHULA VISTA . . . Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 9 48. Section 6.4.2. Conditions of Coverage for the University Proiect - A condition of coverage discussing University Road has been added to the Subarea Plan as requested. (186-187) 49. Section 6.4.1. RMP Management Studies. Plans and Policies - The 2,384 acres of Otay Ranch Preserve identified in Section 6.4.1 is that area of the Preserve within the City's incorporated limits. In addition to Subarea Plan revisions requested in your September 25, 2000 correspondence, the City has identified other necessary revisions. These revisions fall into one of three categories: . Issues raised in correspondence on the February 16, 2000 Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan that were previously not addressed, but intended to be addressed; . Comments received by retreat participants on the August 18, 2000 Screencheck Subarea Plan; and . City-initiated revisions based on continued review of the Draft Subarea Plan. What follows is a description of each change. Corresponding text revisions may be reviewed in the attached Subarea Plan strikeout/underline pages. 50. Figure 2 - The mapping of assessor parcel number 595-050-14 in the Chula Vista MSCP Planning Area will be revised to Major Amendment Area, consistent with the County of San Diego Subarear~an. I / 51. Section 2.1. City Planning Component - We have added language prior to Table 2 to clarify acreages provided refer to conserved habitat versus the total land area conserved. (17 & 19) 52. Section 2.3. Bonita Planning Component - We have added language prior to Table 4 to clarify acreages provided refer to conserved habitat versus the total land area conserved. (27) 53. Section 3.3.2. Species with Known Occurrences or Suitable Habitat - Per suggestion by J. Whalen Associates, the first sentence for spreading navarretia has been revised to, "The primary habitats with which this species is associated are vernal pools and depressions and ditches in areas that once supported vernal pools. (81) 54. Section 3.3.3. Species Not Likelv to be Found in the Chula Vista Subarea - Per suggestion by J. Whalen Associates, the word "and" has been inserted between the words "Hodges" and "Vista" for thread-leaved brodiaea. (96) 55. Section 4.1. Preserve Assemblv - In the second paragraph, "conservation open space easement" has been changed to "biological and open space easement" to be consistent with the definition provided in Section 1.3 of the Subarea Plan. (100) CITY OF CHULA VISTA Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October J 2, 2000 Page 10 . 56. Section 4.2.1. Amendment to Chula Vista Grading Ordinance - Consistent with the proposed HUT Ordinance, there will be an exemption to the Grading Ordinance for all parcels one acre or less in size where it is demonstrated that no wetland resources exist on the parcel. The Grading Ordinance will apply to all parcels greater than one acre within the City's incorporated limits. (104-105) 57. Section 4.2.2. Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance - To clarify the intent of the sentence, the words "to the City" were added in the last sentence of the first paragraph. (105) 58. Section 4.2.3. Protection of Narrow Endemic Species - It has been clarified that any finding of non-concurrence made by the Wildlife Agencies and submitted to the City regarding impacts to narrow endemic species must be in writing. (109-111) 59. Section 4.2.6. Amendments to Adopted City Plans - In light of recent concerns raised by the California Coastal Commission pertaining to Habitat Conservation Plans, we have revised Section 4.2.6. The new language indicates that if an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) is needed, Take Authorization will not be issued by the City in the LCP Area until after the California Coastal Commission has approved the LCP amendment. (116) 60. Section 4.4.2. Boundarv Adjustments - Language has been added to clarify adjustments to the Preserve Boundary will be disclosed in "any necessary enviromnental documentation.. . ." (120-119) . 61. Section 4.7.2.2..Notification - We have changed the notification deadline for Unforeseen Circumstances ftOm 30 days to 60 days. (123) ! 62. Section 4.7.3.1. Changed Circumstances Provided for in the Subarea Plan - Consistent with the definit.ion for "appropriate managing entity," we have revised the second paragraph of Section 4.7.3.1 to reference "appropriate managing entity" instead of "the Preserve Owner/Manager or the third party managing entity." (125) 63. Figures 8. 9 and 10 - The note on Figures 8, 9 and 10 will be revised to read as follows: "This figure depicts approximate locations of major Existing, Planned and Future Facilities. It is intended for study only and should not be used for any other purpose. Information on this figure is subject to change or revision periodically. It is not intended to be an all- inclusive representation of all Existing, Planned and Future Facilities listed in Section 5.2.4 of this Subarea Plan." 64. Section 5.2.1. Existing Uses - The word "dedication" has been added. (133) . 65. Section 6.1. Management Goals and Objectives - Per suggestion by the Endangered Habitats League, the first sentence of the second paragraph has been revised to indicate the City is "responsible" for maintenance and management. This will allow the City to contract for these services if needed. (159) CITY OF CHULA VISTA . . . .L " . Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October J 2. 2000 Page 11 66. Section 6.2. Framework Management Plans and ASMDs. Section 6.3. Citv Planning Component Framework Management Plan - The description of Priority I and 2 management activities for the Preserve has been moved from Section 6.3, which relates only to the City Planning Component, to Section 6.2, a more general discussion of Preserve management. Section 6.4.3 of the Subarea Plan contains Priority 1 and 2 management activities for the Preserve and pertains to Otay Ranch._(159-168) 67. Section 6.2.1. Area-Specific Management Directives - We have added language to clarifY the interim maintenance for natural open space lands in the Central City PMA prior to the implementation of ASMDs for these areas. (164) . 68. Section 6.3.2(3)(c), Adiacencv Management Issues - Per suggestion by J. Whalen Associates, the term "toxics" has been revised to "toxic substances." Other references in the Subarea Plan to "toxics" have been revised as well. (63,169) 69. Section 6.3.2(3)(d) Adiacencv Management Issues - Per request by the Endangered Habitats League, a sentence has been added which states "Consideration should be given to the use of low-pressure sodium lighting." (170) 70. Section 6.6.2. Brush Management in Approved Communities Under Development. item 2 - Per request by Pacific Bay Homes, a sentence has been added to the Subarea Plan that states, "In responding to potential design modifications required pursuant to the Conditions for East Area Coverage l'J'Utlined in Section 6.3.6.3 of this Subarea Plan, the developer may request approval by the~tity for inclusion of the fuel modification area into a separate lot of record owned by or easement granted to a Homeowner's Association (HOA) for maintenance." (192) 71. Section 6.6.4. Brush Management in Otav Ranch - Per request by the Otay Ranch Company, the third s~ntence has been modified to read, "Specifically, a 100-foot edge will be created between development and the Otav Ranch Preserve, within which brush management may occur." (193) 72. The entire document has been spell checked. A number of misspellings have been corrected throughout the document. The City believes all iSsues raised in the Wildlife Agencies' comment letter dated September 25, 2000, with the exception of numbers 5, 10 and 13, have been fully addressed by the responses provided above and the enclosed strikeout and underline pages from the Subarea Plan. Responses to numbers 5,10 and 13 will be forthcoming. Additional changes to the Draft Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan are anticipated. CITY OF CHULA VISTA . . . . Ms. Gilbert & Mr. Tippets October 12, 2000 Page 12 Please contact me at (619) 691-5004 should you have questions or concerns. We look forward to seeing you at the joint public hearing on Tuesday, October 17, 2000. Sincerely, Wd& Robert A. Leiter, AICP Director of Planning and Building CPC/cpc Enclosures: October 9, 2000 strikeout and underline pages from the Draft Chula Vista Subarea Plan September 25, 2000 letter from the Wildlife Agencies cc: Mayor and City Council Members of the City ofChula Vista Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission of the City of Chula Vista David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Ann Moore, Senior Assistant City Attorney Ken Berg, USFWS Susan Wyn;1;' USFWS , , Sean Skaggs; USFWS I Ghon Hazard, USFWS Ron Rempel, CDFG Kim Marsden, CDFG CITY OF CHULA VISTA ALLIANCE FOR HABITAT CONSERVATION March 21, 2000 Honorable Shirley Horton Mayor, City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910-2631 RE: MSCP Sub-Area Plan Approval PLEASE SUPPORT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION Dear Mayor Horton and Members of the City Council: Over the last ten years, the Alliance for Habitat Conservation has been providing input and expertise in the development of environmental and land use policy relating to endangered and sensitive species throughout this region. The Alliance and its members were instrumental in assisting, as a landowner-based organization, the development of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) for the City of San Diego. First, we would like to commend your staff in the planning department and city attorney's office, as well as your consultant, for their development of the most current draft presented to you today for approval. Having reviewed numerous NCCP!HCP documents over the course of our existence, the Alliance believes this is the best- drafted document to date. Staff has gone to great lengths to protect the city from challenges due to preserve acquisition and maintenance funding. Staff has also worked diligently on attempting to address the multi-various issues in an effort to balance the needs of the landowner with that of the surrounding ecosystem and your jurisdiction. In terms of the draft sub-area plan, the Alliance recognizes that the approval of this document is contingent upon the successful negotiation and adoption of the attendant implementing agreement (IA). The Alliance believes that there are a number of issues that stand to be resolved in this legal document and reserve our right to comment on these issues when the IA is released for final approval. There are a number of technical concerns that we will comment upon at your subsequent hearing on this matter. There remain, however, two larger issues that have 780 WEST G STREET, SUITE NO. 372 . SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. 92101-5950 Phone: (619) 236.8397- Facsimile: (619) 236-8497 -2- October 17, 2000 yet to be resolved and merit consideration as your council proceeds with adoption of the sub-area plan. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to provide any jurisdiction in San Diego County coverage for this species. The Alliance is disturbed by this inaction on a species that could have a major impact on landowners and local governments alike. In fact, landowners have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on surveys for this species. The MSCP IA for the City of San Diego describes a process by which the Service must comply in the event of a newly listed species not covered by the plan. The Service has recently said they will comply with these provisions, despite their contention that they do not need to comply, for the Quino. The Alliance members, in conducting these surveys, have documented that the MSCP in San Diego is working in protecting the Quino despite its lack of coverage under the plan. The Alliance believes that the City should insist upon immediate coverage for this species. The Alliance believes this determination is more than warranted considering the vast amount of information achieved through the recent year's surveys that clearly show the majority of the Quino sightings to occur on land conserved under the MCSP. In fact, of all the observations made since 1997, the year the Service began requiring the surveys, 89% exist on preserved land. When the SR 125 project moves forward, the mitigation from the project for impacts to the Quino will increase the preservation rate to 93%. If you look at the MSCP covered species list for the City, you will be hard pressed to find conservation percentages this high. At a minimum, the Alliance suggests that the City protect itself from any potential disruption as a result of the listing of this species. The Alliance recommends that the City insert provisions in the IA stating that the Quino will be treated as a newly listed species under the provisions of the relevant section and insist upon an immediate time frame for inclusion. Coastal California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat Designation As you are aware, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently proposed designation of critical habitat for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher. Today, the Service announced the publication of the final rule for this species (attached). In their announcement, the Service has designated 513, 650 acres as essential for the conservation of the species. The Alliance, among others, requested that the Service either remove the proposed designation from pending plans or provide provisions by which the designation would be automatically removed. " -3- October 17, 2000 Although we have not seen the final rule, the Service's press release indicates that there will NOT be any automatic elimination of the critical habitat designation. The Alliance assumes that the Service will maintain this position with the other pending designations as well, The attached critical habitat designation map should provide enough concern to warrant immediate resolution to this issue (attached). This is very troubling to the Alliance. The purpose of the MSCP was to provide for the conservation of the species covered by the resulting preserve. Part of the interest among landowners was to get away from the project-by-project review by the Service and other resource agencies. The critical habitat designation over the entirety of eastern portions of the City of Chula Vista will have the effect of forcing landowners into the formal consultation process with the Service when the landowner seeks other federal permits. These consultations have often times resulted in additional requests for exactions from of the landowner. The Alliance believes this is contrary to both the language and intent of the MSCP and should be remedied in the IA. The Alliance requests that the City include language in the IA requmng automatic removal of critical habitat designations for species whose designations occurred prior to plan adoption. Further, the Alliance requests that language be added to stipulate that once the plan is adopted and the permits are approved, that any subsequent critical habitat designation for a species covered under the provisions of the plan and IA not apply to the City of Chula Vista. The City should reject the Service's contention that this designation is meaningless and should further reject that for financial reasons they cannot commit to immediate removal of the designation. The Service has not allowed the City or landowner to use lack of funds as an excuse. Similarly, they should not be allowed this option either. Again, the Alliance commends the City's efforts in developing this plan and recommends your approval tonight conditioned upon resolution of the aforementioned issues. The Alliance believes these issues can and should be resolved in the subsequent negotiations and approval of the IA. Thank you again for your attention to this very important matter. If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (619) 236-8397. Sincerely, Craig enedetto Executive Director Department of the Interior U Page 1 of3 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Department of the Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 Phone: 760/431-9440 Fax: 760/431-9624 00-172 Contact: Ken Berg, Jim Bartel, Nancy Gilbert, or Jane Hendron (Carlsbad, California) - 760/431- 9440 October 17, 2000 SERVICE DESIGNATES CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREATENED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SONGBIRD The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service today announced that in comnliance with a coul111rdo.;Lit has made a final determination to designate 513,650 acres ofland as critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a bird that is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The lands designated as critical habitat encompass portions of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, in southern California. "The Service designated only those lands that we determined are essential to the species' conservation, based on the best scientific evidence currently available," said Michael J. Spear, the Service's CalifornialNevada Operations Manager. "We expect to continue working cooperatively with landowners to conserve this rare bird and its habitat." Critical habitat identifies geographic areas that are essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and which may require special management considerations. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to private lands and does not close areas to all access or use. Rather, its impact is that Federal agencies must consult with the Service on activities they undertake, fund, or permit that may affect critical habitat. While the more than 500,000 acres that the Service is designating as critical habitat for the gnatcatcher may still contain some developed areas due to mapping limitations, Federal agencies will not be required to consult with the Service in these developed areas where there are none of the specific habitat elements needed by the bird. http://www.rl.fws.gov/news/crithabgnat.htm 10/17/00 Department of the Interior U Page 2 of3 In the final designation, the Service omitted approximately 289,000 acres ofland included in its proposed critical habitat designation published earlier this year. Some lands originally proposed were excluded from the final critical habitat designation because the Service was able to more precisely map areas that contain habitat essential for the conservation of the gnatcatcher. The more precise mapping made it possible to avoid including many significant urban or developed areas in critical habitat boundaries. The excluded lands also include approximately 50,000 acres on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and approximately 12,000 acres on Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. "Lands on Camp Pendleton were excluded because the benefits of excluding these lands outweigh the benefits of including them as critical habitat," Spear said. The Service currently is working with Camp Pendleton to provide long-term protection for the gnatcatcher and other species. Lands on Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar also were excluded from critical habitat designation because these lands already receive special management considerations under an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan completed by the Marine Corps. The plan includes the gnatcatcher as a covered species and provides special management measures and protections for the species. Critical habitat also is not being proposed for lands within approved Habitat Conservation Plans for which the Service has already issued a permit authorizing the "take" of gnatcatchers. Today's designation does include lands that are part of draft HCPs that have not been completed and implemented. If a draft HCP that addresses the gnatcatcher as a covered species is ultimately approved, the Service will reassess the critical habitat boundaries in light of the HCP, but funding constraints may influence the timing of such a review. The final decision to designate critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher was reached after taking into account information and additional data received during two public comment periods, including three public hearings, and the completion of an economic analysis. The coastal California gnatcatcher was listed as a threatened species under the Act in 1993. The gnatcatcher is a small, insect-eating bird that is closely associated with sage scrub in southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico. By the 1960s, gnatcatcher populations declined significantly because of habitat loss and fragmentation. Brown-headed cowbirds, a nest parasite, have also caused problems for the gnatcatcher. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 93-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System which encompasses more than 530 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 66 national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices and 78 ecological services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies. http://www.rl.fws.gov/news/crithabgnat.htm 10/17/00 '. MEMORANDUM DATE: October 16, 2000 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission SUBJECT: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager ~/ Robert A. Leiter, Director of Planning and Building A October 17, 2000 Public Hearing PCM 95-017 on Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan and Related Documents VIA: FROM: The information provided below is intended to supplement the agenda statement distributed on Friday, October 13, 2000 for Item 12. A. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On October 12, 2000 the Resource Conservation Commission (RCe) met in a Special Meeting to consider adoption of the MSCP Subarea Plan. Staff gave the commission all overview of the plan and specifically addressed species coverage and future preserve management. After questions of staff, the Commission discussed the plan. Vice-Chair Bull stated in his review of this plan, as well as the County and City of San Diego plans, that Chula Vista's plan is better than other subarea plans because it focuses on conservation rather than open space acquisition as other plans do. Commissioners Diaz, Thomas and Bensoussan concurred with Vice-Chair Bull and had no other comments. Moved, Seconded and Consensus (T. Thomas/Diaz) to support the MSCP Plan for the City of Chula Vista. Vote: (4-0-0-2) with Chair Burrascano and Commissioner S. Thomas absent. B. ADDITIONAL ISSUES On Friday, October 13, City staff met with staff from the Wildlife Agencies to discuss final MSCP issues. The following provides information about that discussion. I. Coastal Commission HCP Review Your staff report notes that the California Coastal Commission has the authority, under the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act, to request a consistency review of all HCP's which may affect coastal resources. Recent controversy regarding Coastal Commission review of the Carlsbad HCP has brought to the forefront discussion over this little- understood provision. In response to recent Coastal Commission decisions, and in consultation with Wildlife Agencies staff, we have revised language in our Subarea Plan " to provide for "phased" Take Authorization. Upon approval of our Subarea Plan and adoption of the HUT Ordinance, for land outside the LCP, the City will receive Take Authorization for all land within 'our jurisdiction located outside the LCP area. The City will pursue a HCP consistency review from the Coastal Commission for the area within the LCP. Upon completion of that review and, if necessary, completion of an LCP amendment (which may include adoption of an HUT for the LCP area), Take will be authorized within the LCP area. The amended Subarea Plan language is attached. 2. Preserve Management Ouestions Your staff report reviews several issues associated with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and discusses correspondence received from the Wildlife Agencies regarding the August 18, 2000 Screencheck Subarea Plan (attachment 4 to staff report). City staff responded to the majority of these comments in writing (attachment 6 to staff report). However, three specific comments, related to Preserve management funding and timing of special studies, needed further clarification and thus were discussed at the October 13 , ,meeting with Agency staff. The three comments, made in the September 25 Wildlife Agency correspondence, are as follows: a. Additional details were needed for how funding for acqulSltlOn, monitoring and management will be ensured for the life of the 50-year take authorization permit. b. More information must be provided about how the City determined the $50 per acre funding cap will allow for all Subarea Plan management requirements to be met. c. The phased approach for completion of the special studies is unacceptable and the City should plan for earlier development of the area-specific management directives in the Central City Preserve Management Area (PMA). The following discussion, along with documentation to be forwarded to the Agencies on the existing financing districts described in the Subarea Plan, provide a response to these final comments from the Wildlife Agencies and additional clarification regarding the Chula Vista Preserve management budget. a. Preserve Management Funding Preserve management involves three categories of activity: general maintenance, biological management and biological monitoring. . General Maintenance - includes removal of trash, maintenance of trails and fences, security programs to enforce "no trespassing" rules, curtail activities that degrade resources such as grazing, illegal dumping, off-road vehicle activity and illegal harvesting, and monitoring for illegal structures or other encroachments. 2 . Biological Management - includes the implementation of programs to maintain and manage preserve habitat values through cultivation, treatment of plant disease or injury, removal and control of invasive plant species, and special activities such as control of cowbirds through trapping. . Biological Monitoring - implementation of monitoring programs to identifY changes in the quality and/or quantity of specifically-identified, key preserve resources including wildlife species, sensitive plants and sensitive habitat types. The Chula Vista Preserve will consist of land which is currently in dedicated open space and maintained by the City of Chula Vista (the Central City Preserve Management Area), that portion of the Otay Ranch preserve which is within the City's jurisdiction, and other open space which wi\1 be dedicated to preserve status as part of the development entitlement process. Management and monitoring activities for the Preserve are broken into two levels: Priority I and Priority 2. As detailed by the Plan, the accomplishment of Priority I tasks is considered "necessary to ensure that the Covered Species are adequately protected." Priority 2 tasks are not required for Covered Species status, but "will be incorporated into area-specific management directives to the extent feasible... and will occur over the life of this Subarea Plan as funding sources become available." Specific tasks to meet Priority I and 2 management goals wi\1 be developed through area-specific management directives (ASMDs). Through its Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement, the City of Chula Vista is making key commitments to MSCP Preserve management. Consistent with other participating local jurisdictions, the City wi\1 be obligating itself to an overall Preserve maintenance and management funding level of $50 per acre (FY 2000 dollars, plus annual CPI increases). In addition, the City has committed to the Wildlife Agencies that it wi\1 seek outside funding sources to allow the City to increase its Preserve management expenditures above the obligatory level, and expand management activities whenever such funding is available. Expenditure levels for management may vary within the Preserve, in order to direct resources to the most productive activities. However, based upon review of existing preserve management budget information, staff believes that this overall funding commitment wi\1 accomplish Priority I management tasks, and may fund many of the Priority 2 activities envisioned by the Plan. The $50 per acre budget for Preserve management is based upon an extensive review of preserve management budgets which was undertaken for the MSCP Subregional Plan, combined with a current review of other budget analyses and existing Preserve management budgets within the MSCP Subregion. As is noted in the Subarea Plan, the MSCP Subregional Plan projected an average cost for preserve management of $43.49 per acre. This esti,mated budget included $39.63 per acre for general maintenance and for biological management, $1.46 per acre for biological monitoring, and $2.40 per acre for program administration. Because smaller, more 3 -- , fragmented preserve areas are more costly to maintain and manage, as are preserves surrounded by urban development, this "average" cost per acre was expected to vary from $37 per acre to $47 per acre (FY 1996 dollars). Following the MSCP Subregional Plan fiscal analysis, the County of San Diego prepared an examination of its annual operating budget for maintenance of five open space preserves in eastern San Diego County. Through its analysis, the County estimated the actual cost of operation of the five open space preserves at $37 per acre. Noting that estimated costs varied, depending primarily upon an area's public access and level of habitat degradation, the County report developed a range of six categories of open space. Maintenance cost estimates for the six categories ranged from $16 per acre for pristine open space with no public use to $105 per acre for highly degraded habitat, requiring substantial revegetation, with maximum public access. Maintenance cost estimates for the two categories of preserve most consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve land were $38-56 per acre. These reflected actual management costs for preserve land with minor habitat degradation and little public access, or with minor habitat degradation and accessible, public passive recreational use, respectively. While the County budgets approximately $37 per acre for its preserve management activities, the Chula Vista Preserve is smaller, closer to urban development, and generally reflects the two categories of open space discussed above. Thus, management costs in Chula Vista are anticipated to fall between the $38-56 per acre range. In 1997 the City formed Community Facilities District (CFD) 97-2. This CFD was created specifically to fund preserve management activities for the Otay Ranch preserve. The Otay Ranch CFD provides funding of $53.41 per acre: $44.41 for general maintenance and biological management activities, and $9 per acre for biological monitoring. This budget was based upon actual cost estimates for the provision of preserve maintenance, security activities, preserve improvements, and implementation of the adopted Otay Ranch biota monitoring and reporting program, as described in the CFD Special Tax Report. Capital and labor cost estimates for biota monitoring were provided by Dudek and Associates. Monitoring cost estimates provided for CAGN/CA WR monitoring and surveys, and special wildlife and sensitive plant surveys for coastal sage scrub, wetland/riparian habitats, valley needlegrass grassland, alkali meadow and woodlands, and wildlife corridor monitoring for both vegetation and wildlife. The Dudek cost estimates also included vegetation transects, hydrology monitoring for alkali meadow, and data analysis and annual monitoring reports for the Preserve. In the North City PMA, the future development projects of Rolling Hills Ranch, Bella Lago and San Miguel will be required to develop Preserve management budgets based upon area-specific management directives and assure funding for Preserve management activities. This \viii assure that, like Otay Ranch, Preserve management 4 budgets will be based upon onsite biological information and monitoring plans completed specifically for the project Preserve areas. In the Central City Preserve Management Area, all general maintenance tasks related to Preserve management are fully funded through existing financing districts (open space districts, landscape/lighting & maintenance districts, and/or community facilities districts) described in the Subarea Plan. Biological management and biological monitoring activities will need to be funded separately. Funding may include grants, such as the State-sponsored Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) local assistance grants, City general fund monies, or other resources. For example, the City of San Diego, which estimates that biological management and monitoring activities represent approximately $11 per acre of that City's current preserve management budget, funds a portion of its biological management and all of its biological monitoring program from tobacco funds. b. Timing of the Central City Biological Baseline Studv The Wildlife Agencies requested through their joint letter that the biological baseline study for the Central City PMA be undertaken earlier than indicated in our Subarea Plan. The City has proposed to begin this study after the completion of the Otay River Valley study, which is now underway. During the October 13 meeting with Wildlife Agencies representatives, staff indicated that the City would be willing to reverse the order of the two studies, deferring completion of the Otay River Valley study to follow the Central City study. Agencies staff indicated at that meeting that it is their preference to first complete the Otay River Valley study, then progress to the Central City study as soon as possible. In the interim the Subarea Plan has been amended to affirm that the City will continue to maintain the Central City open space to conserve existing habitat values. See Section 6.2.1 as amended in attachment 5 to the staff report. C. FISCAL IMPACT Your staff report notes that additional information regarding the fiscal impact of the MSCP program will be provided in this supplemental report. The following provides an estimate of anticipated MSCP costs for four phases: completion of Subarea Plan, short-term implementation, completion of biology studies for the Otay Valley and Central City PMA, and long-term implementation. These costs represent anticipated consultant expenses, and are exclusive of City stafftime. 1. Phase I - Comoletion of Subarea Plan Your staff report notes that a total of $314,200 of MSCP consulting and legal services have been or will be paid through development processing agreements, while a total of -$90,260 of MSCP consulting services have been paid through the City's General Fund. In addition to these costs, it is ariticipated that $35,000-40,000 will be necessary to fund 5 legal services to complete Phase 1. This will also be paid for through development processing agreements. 2. Phase II - Short-term Imolementation This Phase of work will include preparation and adoption of ordinances and guidelines necessary to implement the MSCP and to receive Take Authorization from the Wildlife Agencies, including: amendments to the City grading ordinance, a new Habitat Loss and Incidental Take permit ordinance, and a grazing abatement ordinance. Planning and legal contract services needed for this phase are estimated at approximately $90,000. 3. Phase IIl- Biology Studies The MSCP Subarea Plan commits the City to undertake two special studies and a series of area-specific management directives (ASMDs) for Preserve management. While ASMDs for the North City and Otay Ranch Preserve Management Areas will be completed as part of SPA Plans, the City will be required to fund ASMD's for the Central City PMA and the two special studies for the Central City and Otay River Valley. Funding may come from a variety of sources and, once the Subarea has been approved by the State, the City will be eligible for NCCP local assistance grants. The number and scope of the ASMDs for the Central City will be dt:termined by the biological baseline study and actual costs cannot be determined at this time. However, the City has obtained a consultant estimate for a Central City biological baseline study of $65,000-75,000 and staff estimates that ASMD preparation may range from $100,000 to $150,000. In addition, funding augmentation (est. $20,000) may be needed to complete the Otay River Valley study. Total costs for special biology studies and completion of Central City PMA area-specific management directives are expected to range from $185,000 to $245,000. 4. Phase IIl- Long-term Imolementation Long-term implementation will include review of projects seeking permits for consistency with the Subarea Plan, and ongoing Preserve management consistent with ASMDs. Funding for all Preserve management in Otay Ranch and the North City PMA is, or will be, funded through existing or future financing districts. General maintenance activities in the Central City PMA are fully funded, but new funding must be sought for the addition of biological management and monitoring activities pursuant to future ASMDs. The budget for future biological management activities in the Central City PMA will reflect ASMDs that will be developed in the future, after completion of the baseline biological study. Thus, actual costs for the biological management and monitoring activities for the Central City PMA cannot be determined at this time. However, using the Otay Ranch CFD as a bencruhark, and considering the current experience of the City of San Diego, staff estimates that the additional costs for biological management and 6 monitoring in the Central City PMA may range from $10-17 per acre, adding an overall annual cost to the City of $13,000-22,000. (H:\SharedlPlanning\Christina\Supplemental staff report.doc) 7 4.2.6 Amendments to Adopted City Plans Simultaneouslv with preparation of the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance. the City will review the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for consistencv of the LCP with the Subarea Plan and. if necessary. initiate a consistencv review with the California Coastal Commission. Take Authorization for that portion of the City which is within the LCP area will not occur until a determination of consistencv has been completed and. if necessary. appropriate amendments to the LCP have been reviewed and approved bv the California Coastal Commission. Subsequent to adoption by the City of the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance, the City will immediately initiate review of the adopted' City General Plan. If necessary, amendments will be processed to ensure consistency of the General Plan with this Subarea Plan. Completion of these amendments will not be required to implement this Subarea Plan, to receive Take Authorization from the Wildlife Agencies pursuant to this Subarea Plan, or to issue Take Authorization pursuant to this Subarea Plan. 4.3 Incidental Take The Chula Vista Subarea Plan and Implementing Agreement will provide the City the authority to permit the Take of Covered Species and their habitats associated with development. Take of Covered Species associated with development of park and related recreation facilities throughout the Otay Valley Regional Park, consistent with the Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan, is also authorized consistent with this Subarea Plan. The issuance of Take Authorization from the Wildlife Agencies will be phased as follows: a. Take Authorization for territory within the City iurisdiction that is located outside the Chula Vista Local Coastal Plan Area (LCP Area) will occur upon approval of this Subarea Plan and adoption bv the City Council of a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take Ordinance and amendments of the City Grading Ordinance. b. Take Authorization for territory within the City iurisdiction located within the LCP Area will occur upon completion of a consistencv review bv the California Coastal Commission and. if necessary. completion and approval of appropriate LCP amendments. Permits will be issued by the City, consistent with this Subarea Plan, the Federal Section IO(a)(l)(B) permit and the State Section 2835 permit, for projects within the City's incorporated limits. Permits will also be issued for projects which subsequently annex into the City, and which are subject to an annexation agreement with the City and consistent with this Subarea Plan. Take permits for projects located outside the City boundaries in the Chula Vista MSCP Planning Area will be issued by the County of San Diego, subject to the County Subarea Plan, South County Segment and County Implementing Agreement. City of Chula Vista Draft MSCP Subarea Plan October 16, 2000 s;",~.\g"\ma!>i\Srpe"'''-<l",,,,,.pdf "~ .. i.~ ~ ~ . "~ ~a .. i ~ ~ o ~o . 0 . iL[ ;-.. oF ~ . " COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Meeting Date 10/17/00 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to consider the levy and collection of assessments within Unit 26 of EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone B Resolution Declaring the results of the assessment ballot tabulation within Unit 26 of EastLake Maintenance District No. 1, ordering maintenance work therein and confirming the diagram and assessment and providing for the levy of the annual assessment therein SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works (~/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ l~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No~X) EastLake Greens Unit 26 ("Unit 26") is located within EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 (ELMD) Zone B. However, this property has not been previously assessed to finance the costs associated with the District because a final map had not yet been approved for Unit 26. On October 10, 2000 Council adopted three resolutions declaring the intent to levy annual assessments within Unit 26, setting the public hearing and initiating assessment ballot proceedings. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Open the public hearing, take testimony, close the public hearing; 2. Direct staff to tally the ballots; 3. Adopt the above resolution confirming the assessment diagram and providing for the levy of the assessment within Unit 26 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: EastLake Maintenance District (ELMD) No. 1 (the "District") was originally established in 1986 under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. On June 19, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15682 approving the annexation of EastLake Greens to Zone B of the District. A revised Engineer's Report, completed by Willdan and Associates in June 1990, including amended diagrams for Zones A, B and C, was approved by the City Council that year. The report provided Page 2, Item Meeting Date 10/17/00 in part that, "No assessments will be levied in Zone B until such time as a supplemental SPA plan and subsequent Tentative and Final Maps are approved and improvements are constructed." EastLake Greens Unit R-26 hasn't been assessed in previous years because the final map had not yet been approved for such property. However, on June 20, 2000 Council approved the Final Map for Tract No. 88-3, EastLake Greens Unit 26. All landscaping improvements for EastLake Greens have been completed. It is anticipated that building permits will be obtained for a condominium development during Fiscal Year 2000-2001. The proposed development on Unit 26 is also known as Antigua Condominiums and includes 252 condominiums located in 34 buildings plus a recreation building. The Assessment Diagram (Exhibit A) shows the parcels and boundaries of Unit 26 and the adjoining areas of ELMD No. 1. Method of Apportionment The method of apportionment of the assessments approved by the City Council in 1990 was based upon estimated vehicle trips generated for a parcel; derived from SANDAG trip generation factors by land use as related to a single family residential use. Staff believes that such a methodology remains appropriate for determining the special benefit to the properties within Unit 26~ The Engineer's Report for Unit 26 of ELMD No. 1 Zone B provides a detailed description of the method of apportionment. This report was preliminarily approved by Council on October 10, 2000 and was included as an attachment to the agenda statement (Exhibit B). This report used the same methodology as the original report, which assigned a rate of 0.8 EDUs per unit to medium density residential development. This District provides the funds to maintain the median landscaping for the major streets included in EastLake Greens, particularly Otay Lakes Road, EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. No new open space areas have been added to improvements to be maintained from the funding provided by the District with the approval of the final map for Unit 26. Therefore, the rates for the current areas of the District will not increase as a result of the recordation of the final map for Unit 26. The total cost for the existing units in Zone B for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 is $14.06 per EDU. This includes maintenance of the portion of Otay Lakes Road which benefits Zone B, currently included as part of the budget for Zone A. This cost would have been reduced to $13.27 with the inclusion of Unit 26. On July 25, 2000 Council approved the rate of $17.44 per EDU as the maximum Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 assessment amount for Zone B. This assessment amount will be approved for Unit 26 subject to increase as of July 1, 2001 by the lesser of the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the change in the estimated California fourth quarter per capita personal income as contained in the Govemor's budget. Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 10/17/00 Balloting Process The procedures required under Proposition 218 have been followed for the owners of the properties within Unit 26, which are not currently assessed for any open space district. Both property owners (the EastLake Company and Westem Pacific Homes) have signed forms waiving the minimum 45 day noticing period between the date of mailing of the notice of the public hearing and the date of the public hearing. These consent forms are on file with the Engineering Division. Assessment ballots were sent together with the notice of public hearing to the two property owners in accordance with Proposition 218 after passage of the resolutions on October 10. The assessment amounts were calculated based on the maximum assessment rate for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and the number of condominium units which are planned to be constructed on each parcel. FISCAL IMPACT: There will be no fiscal impacts for the City associated with either a "yes" or a "no" vote by the property owners, because the total amount assessed to Zone B will not differ based on the vote and the City will not need to pick up these costs. A deposit of $5000 has been paid by the property owners to cover the staff and legal costs of the Proposition 218 annexation process. Since no new improvements to be maintained by funding provided by the District will be added as a result of the approval of the final map for Unit 26 and there will not be any increased maintenance costs to be borne by the District, there are no negative impacts associated with either the approval of the final map for Unit 26 or the levy of the annual assessments within Unit 26. Exhibits: A. Assessment Diagram B. Council Agenda Statement for October 10, 2000 H:\HOME~ENGINEERXAGENDA\ELMDLEV2.EMC .EMC ~0725-30-OSD21 C COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 10/10/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Initiating proceedings for the annual levy of assessments and ordering the preparation of an Assessment Engineer' s Report for a portion of EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 Resolution Preliminarily Approving the Assessment Engineer's Report for the annual levy of assessments for a portion of the EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 Zone B Resolution Declaring the intention to provide for the levy and collection of assessments in a portion of EastLake Ma'mtenance District No. 1 Zone B, to levy and collect assessments, and setting a time and place for Public Hearing thereon and ordering the initiation of assessment ballot procedures SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ,~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes __ No X ) EastLake Greens Unit 26 ("Unit 26") is located within EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 (ELMD) Zone B. However, this property has not been previously assessed to finance the costs associated with the District because a final map had not yet been approved for Unit 26. A final map for this project was approved on June 20, 2000, and, therefore, it is now appropriate that the assessment for Unit 26 be levied. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the above resolutions, thereby: 1. Prelimma~ly approving an Assessment Engineer's Report for EastLake Maintenance Dish'ict No. 1. 2. Initiating proceedings to consider the annual levy of assessments within EastLake Greens Unit 26, including setting the time and place for the Public Heating for 6:00 p.m. October 17, 2000 in the Council Chambers and initiating assessment ballot procedures. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: EastLake Maintenance District (ELMD) No. 1 (the "District")was originally established in 1986 under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972. On June 19, 1990, the City Council adopted Page 2, Item__ Meeting Date 10/10/00 Resolution No. 15682 approving the annexation of EastLake Grdens to Zone B of the District (Attachment A). A revised Engineer' s Report, completed by Willdan and Associates in June 1990, including amended diagrams for Zones A, B and C, was approved by the City Council that year. The report provided in part that, "No assessments will be levied in Zone B until such time as a supplemental SPA plan and subsequent Tentative and Final Maps are approved and improvements are constructed." EastLake Greens Unit R~26 hasn't been assessed in previous years because the final map had not yet been approved for such property. However, on June 20, 2000 Conneil approved Resolution No. 2000-217 (Attachment B), which approved the Final Map for Tract No. 88-3, EastLake Greens Unit 26. All landscaping improvements for EastLake Greens have been completed. It is anticipated that building permits will be obtained for a condominium development during Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Method of Apportionment The method of apportionment of the assessments approved by the City Council in 1990 was based upon estimated vehicle trips generated for a parcel; derived from SANDAG trip generation factors by land use as related to a single family residential use. Staff believes that such a methodology remains appropriate for determining the special benefit to the properties within Unit 26. The proposed development on Unit 26 is also known as Antigua Condominiums and includes 252 condominiums located in 34 buildings plus a recreation building. Based on the original Engineer's Report, the development would be classified as medium density - residential and would be assessed at the rate of 0.8 EDUs, or 80 percent of the single family~ detached rate. This District provides the funds to maintain the median landscaping for the major streets included in EastLake Greens, particularly Otay Lakes Road, EastLake Parkway and Hunte Parkway. No new open space areas have been added to improvements to be maintained from the funding provided by the District with the approval of the final map for Unit 26. Therefore, the rates forthe current areas of the District will not increase as a result of the recordation of the final map for Unit 26. The current budget for Zone B of the EastLake Maintenance District 1 for Fiscal Year 2000-01 totals $36,645. This cost was divided among 33,759 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) or 3375.9 EDUs. This resulted in a net cost of $10.85 per EDU. With the addition of 201.6 EDUs from the Unit 26 condominium development, this rate would have been reduced to $10.24 per EDU. Zone B is also assessed for the portion of Otay Lakes Road which is within and/or adjacent to this zone. Otay Lakes Road has been included as a part of the budget for Zone A, a portion of which has then been apportioned to Zone B. Staffhas recently reealculated the cost ofmaintaining the portion of medians and parkways along Otay Lakes Road. This cost is $10,842. The additional budget Page 3, Item Meeting Date 10/10/00 amount would be $3.21 with the current number of EDUs or $3.03 ~ith the additional EDUs from the Unit 26 condominium development. More detailed information regarding location of the District and parcels, the District budget, and apportionment calculations is provided in Attachment C. On July 25, 2000 Council approved the rate of $17.44 per EDU as the maximum Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 assessment amount for Zone B. This assessment amount will be approved for Unit 26 subject to increase as of July 1, 2001 by the lesser of the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the change in the estimated California fourth quarter per capita personal income as contained in the Governor's budget. The procedures required under Proposition 218 will be followed for the owners of the property within Unit 26, which is not currently assessed for any open space district. Both property owners (the EastLake Company and Westem Pacific Homes) have signed forms waiving the minimum 45 day noticing period between the date of mailing of the notice of the public hearing and the date of the public hearing. These consent forms are on file with the Engineering Division. Assessment ballots will be sent together with the notice of public hearing the two property owners subsequent to passage of these resolutions in accordance with Proposition 218. A Public Hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on October 17, 2000 to take testimony and tally the assessment ballots received prior to the close of the public hearing. FISCAL I/VlPACT: A deposit of $5000 has been paid by the property owners to cover the staff and legal costs of the Proposition 218 annexation process. Since no new improvements to be maintained by funding provided by the District will be added as a result of the approval of the final map for Unit 26 and there will not be any increased maintenance costs to be borne by the District, there are no negative impacts associated with either the approval of the f'mal map for Unit 26 or the levy of the annual assessments within Unit 26. Exhibits: A. Resolution No. 15682 B. Resolution No. 2000-217 C. Proposed Engineer's Report D. Resolution No. 2000-258 H:~HOME~ENGINEER',AGENDAXELMDLEVY.EMC .EMC:0725-30-OSD21C RESOLUTION NO. 15682 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ANNEXATION OF THE AREA KNOWN AS EASTLAKE II EASTLAKE GREENS AND THE OLYMPIC TRAINING CENTER TO THE EXISTING EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 The City Council of' the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, according to Section 22608, Article 2, Chapter 2, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", EastLake Development has requested in writing that the City annex the areas known as EastLake II, EastLake Greens and and the Olympic Training Center into EastLake Maintenance District l, and WHEREAS, as a con8ition of map approval, EastLake was required to request the formation of an Open Space District for their prop6sed developments, and WHEREAS, staff recommends an annexation to the existing EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 rather than formation of a new maintenance district as EastLake District I presently includes a portion of EastLake Greens, and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will allow the remaining portion of EastLake II, EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training--Center to be annexed into the existing district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that.the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby, pursuant to Section 22608 of the Street and Highways Code, approve annexation of the area known as EastLake II ~ EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training Center to the existing EastLake Maintenance District No. 1. Presented by Appro as to form y J works city ,ttor. aar"' Resolution No. 15682 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 21 st day of June, 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers:. Malcolm, McCandli~s,~Moore, Nader, Cox NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Grego~ R~ Cox, MayOr ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City o~ Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 15682 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, at a Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of said City Council held on the 21st day of June, 1990. Executed this 21st day of June, 1990. thelet, City ClerkA A RESOLUTION NO. 2000-217 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHLrLA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 88-3, EASTLAKE GREENS UNIT 2_6, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE PUBLIC EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDM SION, ACKNOWLEDGING THE IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST FOR TRANSPORTATION AND OPEN SPACE PURPOSES AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, REJECTING A PORTION OF EASTLAKE PARKWAY RIGHT- OF-WAY AS SHOWN ON~ SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDMSION, VACATING CERTAIN EXISTING EASEMENTS AS INDICATED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Co~incil. of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds that that certain map survey entitled CHULA VISTA TRACT 88-3, EASTLAKE SOUTH GREENS, UNIT 26, and more particularly described as follows: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. , in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of Califomia, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, _ as File No. of official records being a portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 17628 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County December 19, 1995, a portion of that property described in deed to Otay Water District recorded February 28, 1990 as File No. 90-106597 of official records and a portion of that property described in deed to Otay Water District recorded March 19, 1993 as File No. 1993 -0172611 of o ~cial records. Area: 30.851 No. of Lots: 2 Numbered Lots: 1 Lettered Lots: 1 is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted upon receipt by the City of Chula Vista of all improvement securities described in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BE IT FLIRTHER RESOLVED that a deed granting an irrevocable offer of fee interest in Lot A is hereby presently rejected, but the Council reserves the right, pursuant to Section 7050 of the Califomia Government Code, to accept ~lhid irrevocable offer at some future time. Resolution 2000-217 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 20th day of June, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Shirley ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City ~r~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-217 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 20th day of June, 2000. Executed this 20~h day of June, 2000. Susan Bigelow, City Clerl~ ENGINEER'S REPORT UNIT 26 LEVY EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ZONE B September 27, 2000 Background EastLake Maintenance District (ELMD) No. 1 was originally established in 1986 under the 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act to pay the cost of maintaining the landscaping and electrical energy for the decorative street lighting planned for various streets in the EastLake area. The district was divided into two zones. Zone A (north of Otay Lakes Road) was dssessed a total of $10,000 and Zone 13 (south of Otay Lakes Road) was not initially assessed, as there were no affected improvements in Zone 13 at that time. A revised Engineer's Report was prepared in 1988. The special lighting was not installed as planned and the improvements basically consisted of landscaped medians and maintenance casements (parkways) in/adjacent to major streets in the EastLake development. On July 26, 1988 a public hearing was held to consider the confirmation of the spread of assessments for EastLake Ma'mtcnance District No. 1. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 13704 at that meeting, which levied the assessments for this district. At that time, ELMD No. 1 consisted of Zones A and B but did not include the area covered by EastLake Greens. On June 19, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 15682, which approved the annexation of EastLake Greens (including Unit 26) and the Olympic Training Center to ELMD No. 1.. EastLake Greens was included in Zone B, while the Olympic Training Center became Zone C. An addtional revised Engineer's Report was conipleted by Willdan and Associates in June 1990, including amended diagrams for Zones A, B and C. The description of improvements to be mainta'mcd is included in Exhibit A. The report doesn't separate out these improvements by zone. It states, "No assessments will be levied in Zone B (or Zone C) until such time as a supplemental SPA plan and subsequent Tentative and Final Maps are improved and improvements are constructed." During Fiscal Year 1990-91 the entire assessment was apportioned to Zone A because Tentative or Final Maps had not yet been approved in these zones. During subsequent fiscal years, Zones D and E were created and approved. Properties within Zones B and C began to be assessed during the fiscal year subseq?~ent to Tentative or Final Map approval. These properties were added prior to passage of Proposition 218, which changed this process. Apportionment of Costs The final map for EastLake Greens Unit 26 was approved during the year 2000. The proposed development is known as Antigua Condominiums and includes 252 condominiums located in 34 buildings plus a recreation building. As shown on the attached map (Exhibit B), this area is with'm the boundaries of Zone B of ELMD No. 1 and includes the following parcels: 643-020-44-00 643-020-21-00 643 - 020-35 -00 643 -020-38 -00 643-020-37-00 In determining the method of apportionment, the revised Engineer' s Report prepared 'in June 1990 was reviewed. The trip generation rates by land use developed by SANDAG were used. According to the Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region prepared by SANDAG in July 1998, the following generation rates should be used for residential housing: Housing Tvpe Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Single Family Detached 10 per dwelling unit (Average 3-6 units/acre) Condominium 8 per dwelling unit (Or Multi-family 6-20 units/acre) Apartment 6 per dwelling unit (Or Multi-family > 20 units/acre) In terms of density, the five parcels in this area consist of approximately 36.43 Acres. Since 252 condominiums are anticipated to be built, the density will be 6.92 dwelling units per acre. Thus, based on both housing type and density, the rate of 8 trips per dwelling unit should be used. This means that the condominium rate would be 80 percent of the single family rate (or rate per EDU). This agrees with the rate established per dwelling unit for Medium Density - Residential in the June 1990 Engineer's Report. The main improvements included within Zone B are the medians and maintenance easements along the following streets: Hunte Parkway between Clubhouse Drive and Otay Lakes Road Greensview Drive within EastLake Greens Eastlake Parkway between Clubhouse Drive and Otay Lakes Road Clubhouse Drive between Eastlake Parkway and Hunte Parkway Greensgate Drive between Eastlake Parkway and Greensview Drive Otay Lakes Road from Eastlake Parkway to 500 feet east of Salt Creek Note that the Otay Lakes Road improvements also include the landscaped area surrounding and to the west of the Otay Lakes Road sewage pump station. : The budget for Zone B was prepared in two parts. Most of the expenses for the above facilities are included in the separate Zone B budget (Exhibit C). These costs include water, the City's landscaping contract, City staff costs, other utilities and supplies. The total cost for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 was $36,645. This amount was divided among the total existing 33,759 Average Daily Trips, or 3375.9 EDUs, in EastLake Greens. This resulted in a net cost of $10.85 per EDU. Unit 26 would add 201.6 more EDUs, based on 80 percent of 252 units. This would have resulted in a decrease of the allocated cost to $10.24 per EDU. EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 includes the maintenance of medians on Otay Lakes Road from Rutgers Avenue east to 500 feet east of Salt Creek. This is included in both Zones A and B, although the largest portion is in Zone A. In order to simplify the contracting process, all the improvements on Otay Lakes Road had been placed in the budget for Zone A. During the annual 2 rate setting process, a portion of the budget for Zone A has been included in the rate for Zone B to account for the portion of Otay Lakes Road improvements in Zone B. For Fiscal Year 2000-2001, this amount was estimated to be 24.6 percent of $31,316, or $7703.74. This increased the total cost per EDU by $2.28 to $13.13. The calculation of costs associated with Otay Lakes Road landscape~maintenance has recently been revised to reflect actual costs of the landscaping contract and water consumption, as well as the actual portion of the landscaping attributable to each zone. This cost has been calculated as $10,842, which includes $6768 for the landscaping contract and $4074 for water costs, as shown in Exhibit D. This would amount to a cost per EDU of $3.21 with the current number of EDUs or $3.03 with the additional EDUs from Unit 26. Since this change relates to a correction of previous calculations and not to any changes in areas to be ma'mtained, existing property owners do not need to be balloted for this change. The total cost in Zone B for Fiscal Year 2000-2001based on the corrected calculations for Otay Lakes Road improvements is $14.06 per EDU for the currently billed properties or $13.27 per EDU including the additional EDUs in Unit 26. Since each condominium unit is 80 percent of an EDU, the cost to each condominium owner would actually have been $10.62. The maximum assessment amount approved for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting was $17.44 per EDU. Since the actual cost does not exceed the maximum assessment amount, the balloting process will only apply to the newly assessed prdperties in Unit 26. 3 .MAINTENANCE ITEMS I. Definitions "Maintain" or "maintenance" means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation, and servicing of any improvement, including: 1. Repair, removal, or replacement of all or any part of any improvement. 2. Providing for the' life, gowt_h, health, and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or injury.. 3. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris, and other solid waste. 4. Providing administration for the maintenance of improvements. B. 'Improvement" means one or any combination of the following: 1. The installation or planting of landscaping. 2. The installation or construction of statuary,, fountains, and other ornamental structures and facilities. 3. The installation or construction of supplemental public lighting facilities. 4. The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including grading, clearing, removal of debris, the installation or constructiqn of curbs, guners, walls, sidewa!'ks, k or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. 'g 5. The maintenance or servicing, or both, of any of the foregoing. II. Description of Items The facilities and items of maintenance included within the District are as follows: A. Maintain landscaping and irrigation system improvements in designated public street median areas. Designated streets where median maintenance will be required include: Otay Lakes Road Rutgers Ave. east to 500 feet east of Salt Creek EastLake Parkway - SR-125 to Orange Ave. 6 /2? -.I/ East '~-I" Street 5,000 feet southwest of SR-125 to 3,000 feet northeast of SR-125 EastLake Drive EastLake I Hills and Shores Hunte Parkway Otay Lakes Road to Orange Avenue Orange Avenue Eastlake Parkway to Wueste Road Easflake Parkway within "Greens~ SPA Boundary Clubhouse Drive within "Greens" SPA Boundary Greengate Drive within "Greens~ SPA Boundary Greenview Drive within "Greens" SPA Boundary Masters Ridge Road * within "Greens" SPA Boundary - Silverado within "Greeus~ SPA Boundary Golfcrest Drive within "Greens" SPA Boundary 1. Maintain landscaping including grass, ground cover, shrubs, trees, and other ornamental vegetation improvements in designated public street median areas. 2. Maintain irrigation water supply and sprinkler system improvements in designated public street median areas. Maintenance to include necessary repairs to the water supply and sprintler system. · * Does not include irrigation. Maintain landscaping and irrigi~tion system improvements in designated maintenance easements adjacent to streets. Designated streets where there may be maintenance easements include: SR-125 Corridor 5,000feet south of Otay Lakes Road to 1,800 feet north of East "H" Street. This mainte'nance easement is temporary and in- cludes the area set aside for the SR-125 right- of-way until such time that CALTRANS accepts maintenance on this area East %1" Street - 5,000 feet southwest of SR-125 to 3,000 feet northeast of SR-125 EastLake Parkway - SR-125 to Otay Lakes Road Otay Lakes Road Rutgers Road east EastLake Parkway to 3,200 feet east of Lane Avenue Fenton Street EastLake Parkway to 500 feet west of Lane Avenue Lane Avenue Otay Lakes Road to 350 feet north of Boswell Road Miller Drive EastLake Parkway to 500 feet north of Boswell Road Boswell Road East '~-I" Street to 600 feet east of Lane Avenue EastLake Drive Hillside Drive to Lakeshore Drive and Lakeshore Drive'to SR-125 Hillside Drive EastLake Hills Lakeshore Drive EastLake Shores Hunte Park~vay Otay Lakes Road to Orange Avenue Orange Avenue Eastlake Parkway to Wueste Road Eastlake Parkway within "Greens" SPA Boundary, Greengate Drive within "Greens" SPA Boundary, Greenview Drive within "Greens" SPA Boundary ! Clubhouse Drive - within "Greens" SPA Boundary Masters Ridge Road - within "Greens" SPA Boundary G01fcrest Road within "Greens" SPA Boundary Silverado within "Greens" SPA Boundary. Golf Course within "Greens" SPA Boundary Vista Drive 1. Maintain landscaping including grass, Hound cover, shrubs, trees, and other on3amental vegetation in maintenance easements adjacent to designated streets. 2. Mainlain irrigation water supply and sprinkler system improvements in maintenance easements. Maintenance to include necessary repairs to the water supply and sprinkler system. C. Maintain supplemental lighting improvements and. provide for additional costs associated with operating supplemental lighting. Maintenance will include necessary repair and replacement of fixtures, luminaries, bulbs, and appurtenances. Designated streets where there may be supplemental lighting include: East '1t" Street - 5,000 feet southwest of SR-125 to 3,000 feet northeast of SR-125 EastLake Parkway - SR-125 to Orange Avenue Otay Lakes Road - Rutgers Road east to 3,200 feet east of Lane Avenue Hunte Parkway Otay Lakes Road to Orange Avenue ~ Orange Avenue Eastlake Parkway to Wueste Road Eastlake Parkway within "Greens" SPA Boundary ? Greengate Drive within "Greens" SPA Boundary : Greenview Drive - M~hln "Greens" SPA Boundary : Clubhouse Drive - within "Greens" SPA Boundary Masters Ridge Road - within "Greens~ SPA Boundary ~ Golfcrest Road within "Greens" SPA Boundary ~ - Silverado within "Greens" SPA Boundary - Golf Course within "Greens" SPA Boundary Vista Drive D. Maintain proposed open space lots. Maintenance will conform to approved landscape plans for subject area. Area will include: - dedicated open space lots owned in fee by the City of Chula Vista, including slopes adjacent to SR 125, the community park site and High School Site, all within the "Greens" SPA Boundary. 8 ~,4~'._/Detail REPORT -'~. ,..'.: >*', ~' '~- Eastlake Maintenance Distl UNIT 35320 - EL Maint Dist Zone B Finance It~m~ s I Unit Debt Reouest Baseline Difference 5852 Transfer In EL Maint Dist Zn B $ 98 98 FINAJ~ICE BASELINE 1 98.00 98.00 6401 Other Contractual Services $13,389 ~- 13,274 115 FINANCE BASELINE I 13,274.00 13,274.00 Contrd~ plus CP] I 12,874.00 13,388.9~ En~rg irrg sys rapairs trans to 6621 -4C0.00 BUdget adjustment I -13~74.00 ' -13,274.00 6501 Specialized Services $160 * 180 6572 Gas and Electrfc $1,102 ~ 1,102 6574 Water $15,082 '~ 13,642 1,440 6621 Maint- Building $ 0 _ 160 -180 6814 Landscape Supplies $ 640 "' 240 400 6911 Matis to Main-Bldgs &Grounds $ 500 - 500 7003 Ci~y Staff Services $5,752"' 5,752 R1T' Exhibit D Otay Lakes Road Landscape Maintenance COsts EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 Fiscal Year 2000-2001 [ Cost Category IZone A I Zone B Code 1 Water Costs 3.91 Ac x $2190 = $8563 1.44 Ac x $2190 = $3154 Code 2 Water Costs 0.89 Ac x $2440 = $2172 N/A Water Service Fees $3 136 $920 Code 1 Landscape 0.27 + 0.18 + 2.53 + 0.93 =0.44'+ 0.30 + 0.70 = Maintenance Contract 3.91 Ac x $4700; $18,377 1.44 Ac x $4700 = $6768 Code 2 Landscape 0.62 + 0.27 = N/A Maintenance Contract 0.89 Ac x $9575 = $8522 TOTAL $40,770 $10,842 H:LI-IOME~ENGINrEER~ASMTDIST~ELMDI\TABLE4.EMC I i T RESOLUTION NO. 2000-258 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDERING CERTAIN OPEN SPACE AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES TO BE MAINTAINED, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, AND LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 FOR OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 1-9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, BAY BOULEVARD, TOWN CENTRE AND EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this resolution, the City Council has caused the formation of various districts under and pursuant to either the Chula Vista Open Space District Procedural Ordinance ("Procedural 0rdinanee"), as contained in Chapter 17.07 (adopting in substantial part the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping Act CAet'') as contained in Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq., or pursuant to the Act itself designated as follows: 1. Open Space District Nos. 1-9, 11, 15, 17, 18,20,23,24,26,31 and33. 2. Bay Boulevard, Town Centre axfd EastLake Maintenance District No. 1. WHEREAS, the districts are exempt lirom the provisions of Proposition 218 because 1) the assessments were raised by an amount equal to or below the CPI; 2) the districts were either formed at the request of 100% of the land owners; or 3) the improvements are within the street fight-of-way; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance, the City Engineer has prepared a report on the spread of assessments for said Open Space and Maintenance Districts CEngineer's Report"); and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2000, the City Council approved the Engineer's Reports and set June 20, 2000 and July 25, 2000, as the dates for the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the proposed individual assessments for Fiscal Year2000/2001 as they compare to the last year are shown on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as to all Open Space and Maintenance Districts herein referenced that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find that written protests against the proposed assessment adjustment has not been made by ownen representing more than one-half of the area of the land to be assessed ~'om the improvement and confirms the diagram and assessment contained in the modified Engineer's Report, and orders the open space, and maintenance facilities to be maintained. The adoption of this resolution shall constitute the levy of the assessments as proposed in the modified Engineer's Report for the 2000/2001 fiscal year and set forth hereinabove for Open Space Districts 1-9, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, Bay Boulevard, Town Centre and EastLake Maintenance District No. 1. EXHIBIT A R2000-258 PRIOR FISCAL YEAR'S VS. FISCAL YEAR :1000/2001 ASSESSMENT/COLLECTIBLE FY 00/01 Proposed Proposed - FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 99/00 CAP: FY 00/01 FY 00/01 FY 00/01 ! OSD Assrants' Collection/ Assrant/ FY 99/00 Assmnff Collection/ Revenue · EDU EDU EDU Assmnt EDU EDU +CpI~2) 1 $90.60 $40.00 $93.86 $96.25 $96.25 $47.00 $31,104 2 42.04 33.00 43.55 44.66 44.66 35.00 8,715 3 287.74 286.00 298.10 305.67 305.67 288.00 36,576 4 303.92 223.00 314.86 322.86 322.86 235.00 49,350 5 296.37 175.00 307.04 314.84 314.84 180.00 21,960 6 146.56 76.00 151.84 155.69 155.69 76.00 12,312 7 102.38 88.00 106.07 108.76 108.76 89.00 9,256 8 467.72 363.00 484.56 496.86 496.86 362.00 39,820 9 132.55 132.00 137.32 140.81 140.81 134.00 51,456 11 90.52 53.00 93.78 96.16 96.16 61.00 80,583 15 279.17 213.00 289.22 296.56 296.56 221.00 12,597 17 133.63 42.00 138.44 141.96 141.96 43.00 1,978 18 315.77 221.00 327.13 335.45 335.45 223.00 97,005 20 908,621 Zone 1 DB 48.80 0.00 50.56 51.84 51.84 0.00 Zone 2 RC 3.71 3.84 3.84 3.94 3.94 3.93 Zone 3 H 5.28 4.38 5.47 5.61 5.61 4.27 Zone 4 BC 19.66 20.37 20.37 20.88 20.88 20.85 Zone 5 I 296.53 307.20 307.20 315.00 315.00 310.80 Zone 6 II 227.84 163.23 236.04 242.03 242.03 134.41 Zone 7 III 140.64 145.70 145.70 149.40 149.40 149.39 Zone 8 NDB 32.42 0.00 33.59 34.44 34.44 0.00 Zone 9 TCC 25.75 13.23 26.65 27.35 27.35 13.23 23 361.03 85.00 374.03 383.53 383.53 94.00 8,272 24 541.01 447.00 560.48 574.72 574.72 448.00 17,920 26 424.61 228.00 439.90 451.07 451.07 229.00 4,351 31 438.62 1.00 454.41 465.95 465.95 1.00 321 33 1,084.01 0.00 1,123.03 1,151.55 1,151.55 0.00 0 Bay Boulevard 1,391.30 815.33 815.33 845.07 845.07 845.07 5,400 (4) Town Centre (5) 48.50 0.023443 0.095222 0.098688 0.098688 0.034804 17,841 ELMD # 1 Is) 217,967.10 Zone A 10.04 9.07 10.40 10.67 10.67 9.70 EastLake I Zone B Greens 16.42 12.13 17.01 17.44 17.44 12.92 Zone C OTC 136.00 6.12 140.90 144.47 144.47 5.80 Zone D Salt 181.38 175.44 187.91 192.68 192.68 177.80 Creek Zone E TC 25.86 13.28 26.79 27.47 27.47 12.88 Channel (1) Represented average residential assessment in SPA I. (2) FY 1999/2000 assessment may be set at or below this cap without being subject to a majority protest. (3) Revenue for all zones included in overall District 20 amount. (4~ Bay Boulevard rates based on acres for FY 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. (5~ Town Centre rates based on lot square footage for FY 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. (6) Revenue for all zones included in overall ELMD I amount /3 RESOLUTION NO. .. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ASSESSMENT BALLOT TABULATION WH[THIN UNIT 26 OF EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1, ORDERING MAINTENANCE WORK THEREIN AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT AND PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT THEREIN WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL' of the CiTY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, has initiated proceedings for the levy of the annual assessment on property known and designated as EastLake Greens Unit R-16 ("Unit 26") which is a part of an existing maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia (the "Landscaping Act"), Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIIID") and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act (Government Code Section 53750 and following) (the 'qmplementation Act") (the Landscaping Act, Article XIIID and the Implementation Act may be referred to collectively herein as the "Assessment Law"), such maintenance district known and designated as EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 (the "District"), and, WHEREAS, at this time all notice, public hearing and assessment ballot procedural requirements have been met relating to the levy of the annual assessments within Unit 26, and, WHEREAS, the City Council previously received and preliminarily approved a report from the Assessment Engineer (the "Assessment Engineer's Report") and this City Council is now satisfied with the assessment and diagram and all other matters as contained in the Assessment Engineer's Report as now submitted for final consideration and approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. PROCEDURES. This City Council hereby finds and determines that the procedures for the consideration of the levy of the assessments within Unit 26 have been undertaken in accordance with the Assessment Law. SECTION 3. ASSESSMENT BALLOT PROCEDURES Assessment ballots were mailed as required by Assessment Law to the record owners of all properties within Unit 26 which are proposed to be assessed. The assessment ballots that were completed and received by the City Clerk prior to the close of the public hearing have been tabulated in accordance with the procedures established by Assessment Law and this City Council and the results of such tabulation have been submitted to this City Council. This City Council hereby finds that the assessment ballots submitted in favor of the levy of assessments as shown in the Assessment Engineer's Report as weighted in accordance with Assessment Law exceed the assessment ballots submitted in opposition to such levy also as weighted in accordance with Assessment Law. Therefore, no majority protest to the levy of assessments within Unit 26 has been found to exist. I SECTION 5. DETERMINATION AND CONFIRMATION. Based upon the Assessment Engineer's Report and the testimony and other evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council hereby makes the following determinations regarding the assessments proposed to be imposed on the properties within Unit 26 for Fiscal Year 2001-2002: a The proportionate special benefit derived by each individual parcel assessed has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the operations and maintenance expenses. b The assessments do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each parcel from the improvements to be maintained. c Only the special benefits have been assessed. d There are no parcels within the District that are owned or used by a local government, the State of California or the United States. The assessments for the properties within Unit 26 contained in the Assessment Engineer's Report for the next fiscal year are hereby confirmed and levied upon the respective lots or parcels in Unit 26 in the amounts as set forth in such Assessment Engineer' s Report. Assessments may be increased in next Fiscal Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter without further compliance with the assessment ballot procedures required under the Assessment Law by the lesser of the January to January San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or the change in the estimated California fourth quarter per capita personal income as contained in the Governor' s budget. SECT1ON 6. ORDERING OF MAINTENANCE. The public interest and convenience requires, and this legislative body does hereby order the maintenance work to be made and performed as said maintenance work is set forth in the Assessment Engineer' s Report and as previously declared and set forth in the Resolution of Intention. SECTION 7. FILING WITH CITY CLERK. The above-referenced diagram and assessment shall be filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Said diagram and assessment, and the certified copy thereof, shall be open for public inspection. SECTION 8. FILING WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to immediately file a certified copy of the diagram and assessment with the County Auditor. Said filing to be made no later than the 3rd Monday in August. SECTION 9. ENTRY UPON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL After the filing of the diagram and assessment, the County Auditor shall enter on the County assessment roll opposite each lot or parcel of land the amount assessed thereupon, as shown in the assessment. SECTION 10. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT. The assessments shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as County taxes are collected, and all laws providing for the collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to the collection and enforcement of the assessments. SECTION 11. FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002. The assessments as above confirmed and levied for these proceedings will provide revenue to finance the maintenance of authorized improvements in the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2001 and ending June 30, 2002. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt John Kaheny Public Works Director City Attorney SAVE OUR BAY , William E. Claycomb Photovoltaic Electricity 1 know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people thems.lve., end if we think the~ not enllqhtened enough to exercl.. their control with a wholeaome discretion, the reMedy is not to take it froM theM but to inform their dillcntlon. Th01llu se~~;~:~:O~8. 1820 30, 2000 ~, 409 Palm Ave., Suite 100, Imperial Beach, CA 91932-1121 Tel: (619)429 7~46_ " , , !"'") :,'") MEMORANDUM .....,;e.. r./i \,,,i) TO: San Diego County Board of Supervisors San Diego City Council Chula Vista City Council ,c._ ~'~.~:::~ :-- :.":: r:~':: ~ I) ... '':''"1 ~ ::-:::\ u J> ~9 FROM: William E. Claycomb, President -~ '-': :") SUBJECT: Photovoltaic Electricity On June 3, 1999, we presented you Memorandum dated May 26, 1999. The Photovoltaic Electricity Generation." County Supervisors with a subject was "Silicon Cell Now we're going to say we told you so. Please move quickly wi th some direct action to make certain we'll never again be able to say, "We told you so." We have attached a sketchy history beginning 1973 of failed efforts to get photovoltaics off the ground. [It is identified on the first line as "SR1 (SOBI Status Report 1 dated 10/6/2000) is attachment 2 p 8 of 8, OCT 10 2000."] We mention two of these events: 1 . JUNE, 1 974 As previously pointed out, at least four witnesses, the National Science Foundation director, gave expert estimating that by or before the year 2000, photo- panels would sell for $500 or less per kilowatt. including testimony voltaic 2. 1991 April 3, 1991, Los Angeles Times reported that Southern California Edison and Texas Instruments, Incol:"porated announced a solar cell system costing $1500-$2000 per kilowatt. Texas Instruments was already building a plant in Dallas to develop manufacturing techniques to produce the new material in quantity. Now we have a $550 million 500 megawatt factory producing crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules proposed by a British -Petroleum study. The study was described at the 14th European Photovoltaic Conference, Barcelona, July 1997. The proposed JCh~~.L.,f~~~ ~?;;;;o ~ TfJ~u-:Ji!IJ~!tt.~ fJ:cf5J~< < 510 MW otay Mesa Generating plant will cost more than half of the BP proposed plant. If you don't know where the 14th U. S. Photovol taic Conference was held, you should find out or we'll once again be left in the dust as we were with Volkswagens, Mercedes, BMWs, Toyotas, Datauns, Subarua, Iaurua, Audia, .Yunda~~~~ ~ P 8 of 8 SR1 (SOBI status Report 1 dated 10/6/2000) is Attachment 2 REA D FROM A T T A C H MEN T 2 In addition to the above we submit the following for consideration by the commission and staff. 1973 -The Mitre corporation reporting to the National Science Foundation in December, stated" Costs (for photovoltaics) may drop to about $0.50 per Watt (peak) by 1985, and $0.10 per Watt (peak) by 2000, _ _ _" (That's $100/peak kilowatt by 2000) 1974 -Mobil Oil contributed $30 million to a photovoltaic solar panel proj ect by Tyco Laboratories of waltham, MA, according to Forbes Magazine, 10/15/74. .-' ,-- --. -- JUNE, 1974 As previously pointed out, at least four witnesses, including the National Science Foundation director, gave expert testimony estimating that by or before the year 2000, photovoltaic panels would sell for $500 or lesS per kilowatt. 1984 -Eileen M. smith, SOLAR DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE, noted the AmOco takeover of Solarex in 1984. -------.--- 1988 - 1991 E. M. smith (above): alleged patent infringement business." "Amoco/Enron with intent sued Arco Solar for to put them out of lW.- April 3, 1991, Los Angeles Times reported that southern California Edison and Texas Instruments, Incorporated announced a solar cell system costing $1500-$2000 per kilowatt. Texas Instruments was already building a plant in Dallas to develop manufacturing techniques to produce the new material in quantity. -- 2000 -In s~ptember, 2000, E. M. Smith (ibid) notes that computer- grade s~l~con,. the only kind manufactured today and costing $1,000 per un~t ~s used for photovoltaics when photovoltaic- grade silicon costing $100/per unit could be used. The commissioners and Staff should be interested in investigating the fate of all these pv development efforts and expectations especially since so many of them involved major oil companies. O(;llillUUU ~t.~~ ! PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development NAME (PRINT) J / ~4-/~ .?L ADDRESS Civ;A Vlm<J C, 9/9/ SIGNATURE DATE /6,#.)~O . ADDRESS Cl/fA 9/9/(' t DATE IO-/~-oO ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE tn lis-roo NAME (PRINT) MOI~ /I. /d~ ! ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE /D-iS -06 PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned . zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) <"~I'~ C"""\ ~'('n,-, \ SIGNATURE}tA?AL- ,If MY NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS ~C. ~}~e..5 SIGNATURE ~{~ NAME (PRINT) oIlV'. ~~bM\l SIGNATURE~ ADDRESS DATE In-/5-nD DATE I t)-{S~o DATE \;I::>~ \<.~ co ADDRESS . DATE /l}/;(ploa , ( PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) ----- ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE 1015/a 0 I ( NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS - 1a//~ C",rNle~ Jorcfa~ d. SIGNATUR--:!J7 ~ ~ DATE /0 [-r /~'-' NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS l)oNAI-/J ,/JDt./"/6iJ/I/'/'jA SIGNATURE& ad j[ ~/ DATE lo-;'5-ad NAME (PRINT\ () ADDRESS ~~~\ ~\,(~~7.; SIGNATURE ~~ili o DATE ~ /!; J tJ 7J . PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them" These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) Alt45P!.J fEfEZ SIGNATURE fjL ~ NAME (PRINT) ~OtJ .f3 ADDRESS DATE /o/;rloo { ( ADDRESS NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS ~frS~/; /I tl1K.JlJP- . SIGNATURftt' .;!--~ NAME (PRI ) ADDRESS rLJ;;14 G, 41'f1f/eiA._ SIGNATURE Ji/uaJ J1M~.J . ----------------~ - VldTA- CA 9/f(ljL SIGNATUR DATE /o/tfoo DATE I tJ //~-jt)O / I DATE / 1S/(CtF'-t> I I PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) 0Z~~'-f 7o~~Ij)~ SIGNATURE ~ NAME (P~: fi/vr. ~ Wf/l7k SIGNATu~~F NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS E2:Jl--./AR...!;? E. f,ppe'z- ADDRESS ,4 t/IS rrr9 / ~ V/ DATE /crIJ~-c::rV ADDRESS DATE jrJj/6'/17D / / SIGNATURE {:': f>{J DATE /171''1'''''' NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS J2Ja r)' :Jane. I!u;;/cr SIGNATUR;q*, ~?t- DATE It! ^/S-o" PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. . They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS <])f\VI j) f"'( -\-\1\ Qh SIGNATUR~ ~ ~~1-t. RVl,c DATE /0 -/~- ()() NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS -1dI7J-f/i{ WrCLJ _ SIGNATURE U!!JL!d7J1IJl~ DATE 16-/S~L0 NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS I"\\O'l>o.6-"L W~A'( SIGNATURE ~ ~ DATE 10 - \") -u 0- ~NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS ~1J~~r~ SIGNATURE ~f-~ DATE jb ~I '5 ~{JtJ PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) L l~ Lon rrfo SIGNATURE~~ NAME (PRINT) y,AJ-J1 CL I-flPlfJw ADDRESS DATE IO./~-.OO ADDRESS - SIGNATURE ~~ p DATE /.s-C'?? C'o NAME (PRINT) t ~/'ekY~nn;~ ADDRESS SIGNATU~...d--9 ~-.:... ~AME (PRINT) ADDRESS 11/ c(...f /.1-f=L.- "'7 v4 LA)C Z SIGNATURE ~b DATE / S- O?-f DO DATE (J/5/ ('6 , PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NtMJ (PRINT) ADDRESS 'tD- f 0. ~,J q C CAY J Ul tU SIGNATURE:l)J:""JO C~?-~ DATE /D-/~-di) DC! NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS Ftr2 C ~R SIGNATURE -=s NAME (PRINT) Ji ---' ;/OV,V\ SIGNATUR NAME (PRINT) VftNS ~y-JpD7 .ftf;c / It; <t DATE I c-, - I S-- 0 () ADDRESS ~ DATE \ 0 - t":J 'CG ADDRESS DATE 10 - K -/)() PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise. We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) ADDRESS S;t1f7, (A I d <2.-L SIGNATURE ~A--r ~ I Y DATE JD-'s:.~ NAME (PRINT) \jlt1'bl. )J;1ev t~ ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE /b-lfs,~oo , NAME (PRINT) --iAlbX!Efr V*relF@L/' , SIGNATUR~W ^ NAME (PRINT) DATE )tl~p/62<J f / 1 ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE . , PETITION TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned, residents of Rolling Hills Ranch, petition the City Council of the City of Chula Vista to enforce the existing zoning codes on the owners of the property occupied by the Con Way Western Express, a trucking company, located at 2420 Boswell Road in the Eastlake Business Center. They have been in violation of their Conditional Use Permit with excessive operating hours and also in violation of the City's Eastlake II SPA Plans with excessive lighting and noise We understand they are going to request an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit which would allow them to operate 24 hours a day. If this is allowed, a precedent would be set allowing many other companies in this area, the option of having similar round the clock hours of operation adjacent to our homes. We further request the City to curtail any future amendments or variances to the originally planned zoning limitations placed upon the Eastlake Business Center. The recent additions of excessively tall and large square footage buildings (at 2360 and 2390 Boswell Road) and the giant structure under construction above Boswell and Lane are in direct opposition to the City of Chula Vista's Eastlake II SPA Plans Section IV.O, Purpose - "To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by restricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them." These new buildings are turning the planned "Business Center" into a heavy industrial, overly-lighted, noisy, heavy truck traffic, eye-sore. These factors all adversely affect the quality of life of our adjoining residential development. NAME (PRINT) Sche l-r-- u. .J SIGNATURE <)~ NAME (PRINT) JE::At-Jt..>/IS JE.SS6 ADDRESS /;~ /0 /;7/1:0 I ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE /D/;relo J , , NAME (PRIN ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE jO!/(P/od . . NAME (PRIN ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE ~V~ ~ ~~~~ CllY OF CHUlA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT October 6, 2000 Con Way Western Express John Labrie Vice President of Operations P.O. Box 5010 Buena Park CA 90622 RE: 2420 Boswell Road Dear Mr. Labrie: Our office has received an inquiry regarding excessive noise, lighting, and the hours of operation of the Con Way Western Express Business at the above address. It has been reported that this business may be operating as a twenty-four hours service. You were previously notified about the situation at which point you indicated that you would immediately look into this matter. Be advised that our office has been contacted again regarding the same inquiry. A Conditional Use Permit was approved with conditions for the operation of this business. There were other attached documents to the conditions. One document limited the hours of operation from 4:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This business should not be operating prior to 4:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. (see attached copies). In addition, the business must comply with the performance standards of the East Lake Business Center II regulations. The regulations address lighting and noise issues (see attached copies). Please see to it that you comply with the performance standards and hours of operation. If these problems continue, we may investigate modification or revocation of the permit. A follow-up investigation will be conducted on or after October 16, 2000, to assure that corrective action has occurred. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (619) 691-5280 between the hours of 8:00-9:00 a.m., Monday through Friday. ~n;MrO. . Cordell Chave~ Code Enforcement Officer xc PIO 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910 ".~h:o",.......r 'l..O\'<leO I>~~' , SECTXON XV: BUSXNBSS CENTER DXSTRXCTS XV.O Purpose In addition to the objectives outlines in Section I.O (Purpose and Scope), the Business Center Districts are included to provide for a quality working environment and to achieve a harmonious mixture of uses which might otherwise be considered incompatible when located in close proximity. Activities are intended to promote employment opportunities in manufacturing, service, research and development, engineering and wholesale trade. In addition, the Business Center Districts are included to advance the following objectives: To reserve appropriately located areas for industrial use and protect these areas from intrusion by dwellings and other non-harmonious uses; To protect residential and commercial uses from noise, odor, dust, smoke, light intrusion, truck traffic and other objectionable influences and to prevent fire, explosion, radiation and other hazards incidental to certain industrial activities; .~- To promote sufficient open space around industrial structures to protect them from hazard and to minimize the impact of industrial operations on nearby residential or commercial districts; and , To minimize traffic congestion and avoid overloading utilities by re- stricting construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the amount of land around them. A. Business Center Manufacturina Park District This district is intended as an area for modern industrial, research, and administr~tive facilities which can meet high performance and development standards. B. Business Center Manufacturina Service District , This district is intended as an area for light industrial and limited service commercial uses which can meet high performance and development standards. IV-1 Chapter II - Section II.3 EastLake II SPA Plans 10/01/98 rV.l Permitted and Conditional Oses: Business Center Districts The following uses shall be permitted uses where the symbol "P" appears and shall be permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit where the symbol "C" appears. Uses where the symbol "A" appears shall be subject to an Administrative Review. Uses where the svmbol "Nil anoears are not nermitted USf!:S where the sYmbol Da" aUDears are only nermitted as an accessory use to a basic nermitted ~ Land Use Land Use District BC-1 (Manufacturing Park) BC-2 (Manufacturing Service) A. Manufacturina 1. 10/01/98 Manufacturing, compounding, assembly or treatment of articles or merchandise from the following previously prepared typical materials such as canvas, cello- phane, cloth, cork, felt, fiber, fur, glass, leather, paper (no mill- ing), precious or semi-precious stones or metals, plaster, plastics, shells, textiles, tobacco, wood, and yarns; novelty items (not including fireworks or other explosive type items) " P C 2. Electrical and related parts; electrical appliances, motors and devices; radio, television, phopograph and computers; elec- tronic precision instruments; medical and dental instruments; timing and measuring instruments; audio machinery; visual machinery; cosmetics, drugs, perfumes, toiletries and soap (not including refining or rendering of fat or oils) C P 3. Furniture upholstering C P 4. Rubber and metal stamp manufac- turing C P 5. Laboratories; chemical C C 6. Laboratories; dental, electrical, optical, mechanical and medical P P 7. Bottling plants P P IV-2 Chapter II - Section Ir.3 EastLake Ir SPA Plans 8. Land Use Cement products manufacturing B. Storaae and Wholesale Trades 1. 2. 3. 4. Mini-storage, public storage and storage warehouses Moving and storage firms Building materials and lumber storage yards and/or contractors' yards Building equipment storage, sales, rentals 5. Automobile fleet storage 6. Trailer, truck, or bus terminal C. Services ~ 10/01/98 1. Animal hospital or veterinary clinic and/or office 2. Automobile and/or truck services including but not limited to: sales, rental agencies, body repair, paint- ing and car washes 3. ,rF Blueprinting and photocopying 4. Cleaning and dyeing plant 5. Distributors, showrooms and automobile offices 6. Eating and drinking establishments: a. Bars b. Restaurants, coffee shops, delicatessens: 1) With alcoholic beverages 2) Without alcoholic beverages c. Snack bars, take-out only; refreshment stands within a building IV-3 Land Use BC-1 (Manufacturing Park) H C C H H C C p H p H p C C A p District BC-2 (Manufacturing Service) C P P C C C C " P C P C P C C A P Chapter II - Section II.3 EastLake II SPA Plans Land Use 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. d. Fast food restaurants with drive-in or drive-through Furniture sales, new and used (no outdoor sales or display) Gasoline dispensing and/or automobile service station Kennels Heliports Motels, hotels and convention centers Newspaper publishing, printing, and distribution, general printing and li thography Offices, businesses, medical, pro- fessional, real estate and research Retail commercial when in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use D. Public and Semi-Public Uses 1. 2. Day nurseries, day care schools and nur~ry schools Post offices and post office terminals 3. Public utility pumping stations, equipment building and installation 4. Public utility service yards 5. Educational institutions, public or private including vocational schools E. Accessorv Uses 10/01/98 1. Accessory structures and uses located on the same lot as permitted or conditional use IV-4 Land Use District BC-l (Manufacturing Park) C P C H C C P P P A A A H C P BC-2 (Manufacturing Service) C P C C C C '" P P P A C A C C P Chapter II - Section 11.3 EastLake II SPA Plans Land Use 2. 3. Incidental services for employees on a site occupied by a permitted or conditional use, including day care, recreational facilities, showers and locker rooms Watchman's or caretaker's living quarters only when incidental to and on the same site as a permitted or conditional use F. TAmnorarv Uses 1. ... 10/01/98 Temporary uses as prescribed in Section VI.O .Jr'. IV-S Land Use District BC-1 (Manufacturing Park) P A P BC-2 (Manufacturing service} P A P " Chapter II - Section II.3 EastLake II SPA Plans IV.2 Property Development Standards: Business Center Districts The following property development standards apply to all land and buildings other than accessory buildings authorized in this district. Any legal lot may be used as a building site, except no building permit shall be issued for any lot having a lot size less than 6,000 square feet. Each building site shall have a minimum 20 foot wide vehicular access to the street. A. Gp-neral Reauirements The following requirements are minimums unless otherwise stated: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. ... 6. 7. 8. BC-1 Manufacturing Park} BC-2 Manufacturing service) Lot area, net 1 ac. * 1 ac.' Lot width (in feet) 150 100 Lot depth (in feet) 150 150 " Front yard setback (in feet) 20 25 Side yard setback each side (in feet) 10 15 Public street setback (in feet) 20 20 Rear yard setback (in feet) 10" 10" Building height, maximum 35 feet or 2 stories whichever is less 9. Lot;,.coverage (percent, net) 60 70 'Map for condominium development does not need to meet lot area require- ment. Minimum lot area may be reduced to 10,000 sf for master planned building complexes, subject to approval of a Precise Plan. Such Precise Plan shall be for a total site of no less than 60,000 sf. "May be reduced to zero (0) with Site Plan approval. B. Snecial Reauirements 10/01/98 1. Along all street frontages situated across from any residentially zoned property, a minimum three foot high landscaped earthen berm shall be constructed. long all other lot lines adjacent to residen- tial districts, a maximum eight (8) foot high wall may be construct- ed if required following Director of Planning review. Fences should blend in with the site's architecture. 2. Streetscapes shall be enhanced to provide an easy transition from the street to the building. Patios, circulation and parking spaces IV-6 Chapter II - Section 11.3 EastLake II SPA Plans can be included in setback areas to help buffer adjoining parcels from one another. 3. Reciprocal ingress and egress, circulation and parking arrangements shall be required where possible and feasible to facilitate vehic- ular movement between adjoining properties and to limit superfluous driveways. IV.3 Performance Standards: Business Center Districts A. In all Business Center Districts the required setbacks shall be land- scaped. Landscaping shall consist predominantly of plant materials and shall be irrigated by automatic sprinklers. All planting and irrigation shall be in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual. All landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a clean, healthy and thriving condi- tion, free of weeds, trash and debris. B. All ground mounted mechanical equipment, including heating and air condi- tioning units and trash receptacle areas, shall be completely screened from surrounding properties by use of a parapet, wall or fence, or shall be enclosed within a building. Exposed gutters, downspouts, vents, , louvers and other similar elements shall be painted to match the surface to which they are attached unless they are used as part of the design theme. C. All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the archi- tectural elements of the site so as not to be exposed except where required by utility provider. Pad-mounted transformers and/or meter box locations shall be included in the site plan with an appropriate screening treatment. D. Lighting. All light sources shall be shielded in such a manner that the light is d~rected away from streets and adjoining properties. Illumina- tors shall be integrated within the architecture of the building. The intensity of the light at the boundary of any Business Center District shall not exceed seventy-five (75) foot lamberts from a source of re- flected light. E. Electrical Disturbance, Heat and Cold, Glare. No use except a temporary construction operation shall be permitted which creates changes in tem- perature or direct glare, detectable by the human senses without the aid of instruments, beyond the boundaries of the site. No use shall be per- mitted which creates electrical disturbances that affect the operation of any equipment beyond the boundary of the site. F. Fire and Explosive Hazard. All storage of and activities involving in- flammable and explosive materials shall be provided with adequate safety and fire fighting devices to the specifications of the Uniform Fire Code. All incineration is prohibitl'd. Adequate smoke detectors shall be installed in all new construction. G. Noise. property The acceptable outdoor noise exposure levels, measured at the line, for the Business Center districts are given in the table IV-7 Chapter II - Section II.3 EastLake II SPA Plans 10/01/98 ... below. (See amended Chapter 19.66 CVMC for definitions and additional details.) '" ,,1"''' 10/01/98 Chapter II - Section 11.3 EastLake II SPA Plans IV-8 Exterior Noise Limits. Receivina Land Use District 7 a m - 10 D m 10 D m. - 7 a.m. BC-l, BC-2 70 <iliA 70 clbA -Environmental Noise - L~ in any hour -Nuisance Noise - not exceeded at any time H. Odor. No use shall be permitted which created odor in such quantities as to be readily detectable beyond the boundaries of the site. I. Radioactivity. In all Business Center Districts, the use of radioactive materials shall be limited to measuring, gauging and calibration devices, and medical X-ray diagnostic equipment. J. Vibration. No use except a temporary construction operation shall be permitted which generates inherent and recurrent ground vibration percep- tible, without instruments, at the boundary of the lot on which the use is, located. K. In any Business Center District, the conversion of a project to condo- minium ownership shall meet all the requirements of the zone to the maxi- mum extent possible. Specific City Council waiver shall be required where the zone requirements cannot be met. ... L. Air Pollution. There shall be no emission on any site, for more than one minute in any hour, of air contaminants which, at the emission point or within a reasonable distance of the emission point, which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelman Chart as publishe~.in the United States Bureau of Mines Information Circular 7718. M. Outdoor Storage Areas shall be entirely enclosed by solid walls not less than eight (8) feet in height to adequately screen views from the external boundaries of the property. N. Energy Conservation. Buildings shall be located on the site to provide adjacent buildings adequate sunlight for solar access when practical. Buildings should be designed to minimize energy consumption, including, but not necessarily limited to the following conservation measures: cogeneration; South facing windows; Eave covering for windows; Earth berming against exterior walls; and, Deciduous shade trees. o. Toxic Materials. No land or building shall be used or occupied in any manner which creates an unhealthful, dangerous, noxious or otherwise objectionable condition due to the use, storage or proximity to toxic materials. 10/01/98 IV-9 Chapter II - Section II.3 EastLake II SPA plans P. Liquid or Solid Waste. The discharge or deposit of liquid or solid wastes shall be subject to the provisions of Section 19.66.150 CVMC. ~ ~ ,. 10/01/98 Chapter II - Section 11.3 EastLake II SPA Plans IV-10