Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.
SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the RFEIR submitted prior to its certification for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, SWRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq., and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code sections 21092.2 and 21167(f) and California Government Code section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
The City should require that the Applicant provide additional community benefits such as requiring local hire and use of a skilled and trained workforce to build the Project. The City should also require the utilization of workers who have graduated from a joint labor-management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a program, or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.
Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful in reducing the negative environmental impact and improving the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site, for example, can reduce the length of vendor and worker trips, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and provide localized economic benefits from saved time and costs associated with commuting. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai regarding Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Skilled and trained workforce requirements also promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investment rather than a cost—and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.1
On May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward’s 2040 General Plan requires the city to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-onthe-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.haywardca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General Plan FINAL.pdf.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
In fact, the City of Hayward has even incorporated a skilled labor force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code. The policy contributes to the stabilization of regional construction markets by motivating applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require that contractors utilize apprentices from stateapproved joint labor-management training programs. 4 The City of Hayward mandates
the same measure on all projects that are 30,000 square feet or larger. 5 Locating jobs closer to residential areas can also have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.6
Moreover, local hire mandates and skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan note, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match to those held by local residents.7 Some municipalities have gone as far as linking local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf. 5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020, subd. (C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobshousing.pdf 7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: JobsHousing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT825.pdf.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
Therefore, the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
The City should also require the Project to be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts and to advance progress towards the State of California’s environmental goals.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act has two basic purposes. First, it is designed to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project through an EIR. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002, subd. (a)(1) (“CCR” or “CEQA Guidelines”).
8 “Its purpose is to inform the public
and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (emphasis added) (internal citation and quotation omitted) (hereafter Citizens of Goleta). The EIR has been described as “an environmental alarm bell whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return.” Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v. Bd. of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (internal citation and quotation omitted) (hereafter Berkeley Jets); see County of Inyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810.
8 The CEQA Guidelines, codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq., are regulatory guidelines promulgated by the California Natural Resources Agency for the implementation of CEQA. Pub. Resources Code, § 21083. The CEQA Guidelines are given “great weight in interpreting CEQA except when . . . clearly unauthorized or erroneous.” Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62Cal.4th 204, 217.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
Second, CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the U. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400 (hereafter Laurel Heights). The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in CEQA section 21081. CEQA Guidelines, § 15092 subds. (b)(2)(A) & (B).
While the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position.’ A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (emphasis added) (quoting Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12). Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355:
A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs “if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a thorough understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured that those consequences have been considered. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. See Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80; see also Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449–450).
B. CEQA Requires Revision and Recirculation of an EIR When Substantial Changes or New Information Comes to Light
Section 21092.1 of the California Public Resources Code requires that “[w]hen significant new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant to Section 21092 . . . but prior to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092 and consult again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report” in order to give the public a chance to review and comment upon the information. See also CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.
Significant new information includes:
• Changes in the project or environmental setting;
• The discovery of new or additional data that “deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative);
• New significant environmental impacts from the project or from a new mitigation measure;
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact; • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that is considerably different from others previously analyzed; or • When the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
An agency has an obligation to recirculate an EIR for public notice and comment due to “significant new information” regardless of whether the agency opts to include it in a project’s EIR. See Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 95 [finding that in light of a new expert report disclosing potentially significant impacts to City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
groundwater supply “the EIR should have been revised and recirculated for purposes of informing the public and governmental agencies of the volume of groundwater at risk and to allow the public and governmental agencies to respond to such information.”]. If significant new information was brought to the attention of an agency prior to certification, an agency is required to revise and recirculate that information as part of the EIR.
For all of the reasons outlined in SWRCC’s original comment letters dated July 13, 2020, and September 23, 2020—in addition to those listed below—significant new information has been raised that mandates revision and recirculation of the FEIR.
The FEIR failed to adequately describe the Project, include all feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions, or analyze potentially significant environmental impacts relating to the Project’s infrastructure requirements. Additionally, it deferred formulation of numerous mitigation measures. And in some areas, the FEIR suffers from several procedural and substantive flaws and omissions which preclude informed and meaningful public participation where it offered inaccurate information about the Project’s scope and resultant impacts. As such, the FEIR’s omissions are prejudicial, as detailed below.
Furthermore, the DEIR and FEIR were prepared in 2020, thus requiring substantial revisions considering that they rely on now potentially outdated data. Such a flaw has prevented the FEIR from capturing the various Project impacts given that the comments submitted and analyses included relied on the Project description as it was first introduced roughly two years ago. Additionally, SWRCC has revealed the Project’s inconsistencies with the City’s General Plan, the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, and the State Subdivision Map Act.
Applicant has made substantial revisions to the Project since the Revised Draft EIR (“RDEIR” or “DEIR”) was released in May 2020. In the Errata – Revisions or Clarifications to Volume I, Draft Revised EIR, the FEIR includes significant revisions to the Project’s mitigation measures on air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and transportation. And these revisions are not simply clarification or explanation—as Applicant claims—but rather are substantive changes to the Project’s mitigation measures. For example, TRA-1 adds limits to the number of medium and heavy truck trips on Fanita Parkway; and BIO-14 changes the parameters of the nesting bird survey. Additionally, the Project’s air quality AIR-2 mitigation measure was also significantly revised to include further supplemental dust control measures.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
The first errata also outlines numerous changes to the EIR’s environmental impact analyses and includes, for example, significantly more information relating to the EIR’s water supply analysis than was previously included in the RDEIR.
The RFEIR’s Second Errata also includes significant new information requiring recirculation given that the Magnolia Avenue extension has been deleted from the Project—contributing a substantial impact and a constituting a significant change to the EIR’s GHG, transportation, air quality, and energy analyses. Even if removal of the Magnolia Avenue extension reduces the Project’s impacts, this still constitutes significant new information.
For all of the reasons described above and in previous comments submitted by SWRCC, the RFEIR must be revised and recirculated with the proposed changes for additional and adequate review and public comment.
C. The City Failed to Adequately Respond to SWRCC’s Comments SWRCC submitted comments on both the DEIR and FEIR on or about July 13, 2020, and September 23, 2020—neither of which were addressed by the City.
D. The RFEIR Does Not Adequately Describe the Project
An EIR must be “prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” Dry Creek Citizens Coalition v. County of Tulare (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 20, 26. An EIR’s description of the project should identify the project's main features and other information needed for an assessment of the project's environmental impacts. Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City & County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1053.
Here, the FEIR inaccurate and misleading and it fails to adequately describe the Project because it fails to identify a specific project proposal for construction on the site. The FEIR proposes “a community consisting of approximately 2,949 residential units . . . or 3,008 units . . . [with] up to 80,000 square feet of commercial uses . . . .” While one of the plans proposes a new school be built as a part of the Project, another plan does not. Additionally, the RFEIR proposes the deletion of the extension of Magnolia Avenue—the north-south City street that currently terminates at the northern edge of existing development at the southeastern edge of the Project site.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
The RFEIR is proposing two different projects and fails to describe, with any degree of specificity, how much commercial space will be constructed, including only a maximum figure dependent on whether the school is to be built. Further, what may replace the commercial square footage if it is not used, or whether the maximum number of residential units be constructed if the maximum commercial space is not used, the EIR’s description is not clear or complete.
Additionally, the Project consists of three villages centered around a farm space with an approximate number of units per village, but the description fails to describe with specificity what type of residential units will be constructed beyond residential units of “varying densities and housing types.” Without a description of the affordability levels, and the height and type of housing proposed to be built, the environmental analysis cannot meaningfully evaluate the Project’s GHG, transportation, land use, or aesthetic impacts.
For the reasons described above and in previous Comment Letters submitted to the City, the Project description is not accurate, stable, or finite and should be amended to include additional requisite details.
E. The FEIR’s Baseline is Fatally Inaccurate
An inaccurate baseline taints the entire EIR analysis, as occurred here. Based on CEQA, the EIR’s baseline must be set as of the time the NOP was circulated, here, 2020. CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)(1). In this instance, the EIR provides baseline conditions without specifying any timing and instead generally refers to “recent” conditions despite the fact that much has changed since 2020, both with the Project and at the Project site.
F. Due to the COVID-19 Crisis, the City Must Adopt a Mandatory Finding of Significance that the Project May Cause a Substantial Adverse Effect on Human Beings and Mitigate COVID-19 Impacts
The California Environmental Quality Act requires that an agency make a finding of significance when a project may cause a significant adverse effect on human beings.
PRC, § 21083, subd. (b)(3); CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a)(4).
Public health risks related to construction work requires a mandatory finding of significance under CEQA. Construction work has been defined as a lower- to highrisk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
Administration. Recently, several construction sites have been identified as sources of community-wide spreads of COVID-19.9
SWRCC recommends that the City adopt additional CEQA mitigation measures to reduce public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWRCC requests that the City require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project site.
In particular, based upon SWRCC’s experience with safe construction site work practices, it recommends that the City require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project site, certain measure be enforced, including:
Construction Site Designs
• The Project site be limited to two controlled entry points. • Entry points have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
• The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows details regarding access to the Project site and Project site logistics for conducting temperature screening.
• A 48-hour advance notice be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
• The perimeter directly adjacent to the entry points clearly indicate the appropriate 6-foot social distancing position for when individuals approach the screening area. Reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details.
• There be clear signage posted at the project site directing workers through temperature screening.
• There be hand washing stations throughout the Project site.
Testing Procedures
• Temperature screening devices used are non-contact.
9 Santa Clara County Public Health (June 12, 2020) COVID-19 Cases at Construction Sites Highlight Need For Continued Vigilance in Sectors That Have Reopened, available at https://www.sccgov.org/sites/
covid19/Pages/press-release-06-12-2020-cases-at-construction-sites.aspx.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
• Temperature readings not be recorded.
• Personnel be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
• Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen, or any other cosmetics be removed from the forehead before temperature screening.
• Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperature screening or does not answer the health screening questions be refused access to the Project site.
• Should the temperature screening device measure a temperature above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading be taken to verify accuracy.
• Should the second reading confirm this temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter the Project site, and will instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supervisor and his/her human resources representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.
Planning
• Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that includes basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prompt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches), communication and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health, or applicable local public health agencies.10
10 See also The Center for Construction Research and Training, North America’s Building Trades Unions (April 27, 2020) NABTU and CPWR COVIC-19 Standards for U.S Constructions Sites, available at https://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/ City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The City should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 training and certification before being allowed to conduct construction activities at the Project site.
G. The EIR Must Describe All Feasible Mitigation Measures That Can Minimize the Project’s Significant and Unavoidable Impacts One fundamental purpose of the EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project’s significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21061. To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must describe any feasible mitigation measures that can minimize the project’s significant environmental effects. PRC §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a).
If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency may approve the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible”11 and find that ‘specific overriding economic, legal, social, technology or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.”12 “A gloomy forecast of environmental degradation is of little or no value without pragmatic, concrete means to minimize the impacts and restore ecological equilibrium.” Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1039.
1. The EIR Does Not Mitigate the Project’s Significant and Unavoidable Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The EIR concludes that the Project will have significant impacts on GHG emissions given that the estimated total emissions from the Project’s construction and operation and from mobile sources will exceed annual per capita emissions of 1.77 MT CO2e—a threshold developed pursuant to the Sustainable Santee Plan or the data accumulated in the development of that plan. (RDEIR, p. 4.7-12.)
The Project proposes to follow certain regulatory requirements to reduce operational NABTU CPWR Standards COVID-19.pdf; Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2020) Guidelines for Construction Sites During COVID-19 Pandemic, available at https://dpw.lacounty.gov/building-and-safety/docs/pw guidelines-construction-sites.pdf. 11 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(A). 12 PRC §§ 21002; 21002.1, 21081; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15091, 15092(b)(2)(B).
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
emissions and proposes GHG mitigation measures 1-6 to further reduce operational emissions; however, these measures are not the only feasible means of mitigating GHG emissions. (See RDEIR, pp. 4.7-15~19, 4.7-24~26.)
The Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG”) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“2016 RTP/SCS”) and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (“2017 Scoping Plan”) outline numerous measures for reducing Project GHG emissions which the present RFEIR fails to consider.
In September 2008, SB 375 (Gov. Code § 65080(b) et seq.) was instituted to help achieve AB 32 goals through strategies such as the requirement that regional agencies prepare and incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”) into Regional Transportation Plans (“RTP”). The RTP connects land use planning with the regional transportation system in order that the region may grow efficiently and sustainably while also demonstrating how the region can meet CARB targets that reduce per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles in the region. To comply with SB 375, SANDAG’s 2050 RTP includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy to guide the San Diego region toward meeting California’s regional GHG emissions reduction targets.13 As outlined in SANDAG’s 2050 RTP Plan, the California’s targets for the San Diego region are a 13 percent reduction, per capita, in GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks by 2035. These targets were set by the CARB on September 23, 2010.
In April 2012, SCAG adopted its 2012-2035 RTP/ SCS (“2012 RTP/SCS”), which proposed specific land use policies and transportation strategies for local governments to implement with the aim of assisting the region in achieving GHG emission reductions of 16 percent per capita by 2035. And in April 2016, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (“2016 RTP/SCS”)14, which incorporates and builds upon the policies and strategies in the 2012 RTP/SCS15. Both SCAG’s and SANDAG’s RTP/SCS plans are based upon the same requirements outlined in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan and SB 375. SWRCC points to SCAG’s plan as an example of GHG emissions reduction measures that can be taken during execution of the Project. 13 SANDAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), p. 2-11, https://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp all.pdf 14 Compare with SANDAG 2050 RTP. 15 SCAG (Apr. 2016) 2016 RTP/SCS, p. 69, 75-115,
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS.pdf City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
For both the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG prepared Program Environmental Impact Reports (“PEIR”) that included Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs (“MMRP”) listing project-level environmental mitigation measures that relate to a project’s GHG impacts.16 These environmental mitigation measures serve to help local municipalities when identifying mitigation measures to reduce impacts on a project-specific basis that can, and should be, implemented when project-specific environmental impacts are identified and mitigated.
17 The sections below, though not exhaustive, outline applicable land use policies, transportation strategies, and project-level GHG measures identified in the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS and PEIRs which the EIR should consider and/or incorporate:
Land Use and Transportation
• Providing transit fare discounts18;
• Implementing transit integration strategies19; and
• Anticipating shared mobility platforms, car-to-car communications, and automated vehicle technologies.20
GHG Emissions Goals21
16 Id., p. 116-124; see also SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, supra fn. 38, p. 77-86. 17 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, supra fn. 38, p. 77; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, supra fn. 41, p. 115.
18 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS, supra fn. 38, Tbls. 4.3 – 4.7; see also SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, supra fn. 41, p. 75-114.
19 Id.
20 Id. 21 SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2012) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 6-2—6-14 (including mitigation measures (“MM”) AQ3, BIO/OS3, CUL2, GEO3, GHG15, HM3, LU14, NO1, POP4, PS12, TR23, W9 [stating “[l]ocal agencies can and should comply with the requirements of CEQA to mitigate impacts to [the environmental] as applicable and feasible …[and] may refer to Appendix G of this PEIR for examples of potential mitigation to consider when appropriate in reducing environmental impacts of future projects.” (Emphasis added)]), http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/peir/2012/final/
Final2012PEIR.pdf; see also id., Final PEIR Appendix G (including MMs AQ1-23, GHG1- 8, PS1-104, TR1-83, W1-62),
http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/peir/2012/final/2012fPEIR_AppendixG_Example Measures.pdf; SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS (Mar. 2016) Final PEIR MMRP, p. 11–63 (including MMs AIR-2(b), AIR-4(b), EN- 2(b), GHG-3(b), HYD-1(b), HYD-2(b), HYD-8(b), TRA1(b), TRA-2(b), USS-4(b), USS-6(b)), http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/peir/final/2016fPEIR_ExhibitB_MMRP.pdf.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
• Reduction in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines,22 such as:
o Potential measures to reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction,
operation, maintenance and/or removal. The discussion
should explain why certain measures were incorporated in the project and why other measures were dismissed.
o The potential siting, orientation, and design to minimize energy consumption, including transportation energy.
o The potential for reducing peak energy demand.
o Alternate fuels (particularly renewable ones) or energy systems.
o Energy conservation which could result from recycling efforts.
• Off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emissions.
• Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
o Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; o Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission
technologies;
o Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions
from solid waste management through encouraging solid
waste recycling and reuse;
22 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix F-Energy Conservation,
http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/Appendix_F.html.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
o Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
o Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; o Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
o Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; • Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs.
• Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles;
• Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
o Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon
content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or
neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and
o Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
Hydrology & Water Quality Goals
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating water quality/supply requirements, such as:
o Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should promote reductions in private homes and
businesses, by shifting to drought-tolerant native landscape plantings(xeriscaping), using weather-based irrigation
systems, educating other public agencies about water use, City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
and installing related water pricing incentives.
o Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and provide information on where these can be
purchased. Use of reclaimed water especially in median
landscaping and hillside landscaping can and should be
implemented where feasible.
o Implement water conservation best practices such as lowflow toilets, water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection and repair.
o Ensure that projects requiring continual dewatering facilities implement monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that
prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the project. Comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and
preserve wildlife habitat. Minimized new impervious
surfaces to the greatest extent possible, including the use of in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Where feasible, do not site transportation facilities in groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
• Incorporate measures consistent in a manner that conforms to the standards set by regulatory agencies responsible for regulating and enforcing water quality and waste discharge requirements, such as:
o Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) before initiation of
construction.
o Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater runoff from the project site to the maximum
extent practicable.
o Comply with the Caltrans stormwater discharge permit as applicable; and identify and implement Best Management
Practices to manage site erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control.
o Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban
Stormwater Management Plan, prior to occupancy of
residential or commercial structures.
o Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to support stormwater runoff from new or
rehabilitated structures or buildings.
o Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for construction within the vicinity of a watercourse (e.g., Army Corps § 404 permit, Regional
Waterboard § 401 permit, Fish & Wildlife § 401 permit). o Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net loss of impervious surface as a result of the project.
o Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels, detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where required by applicable urban stormwater runoff discharge permits, on new facilities.
o Provide structural stormwater runoff treatment consistent with the applicable urban stormwater runoff permit where Caltrans is the operator, the statewide permit applies.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
o Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter control, and catch basin cleaning are
implemented to prevent water quality degradation in
compliance with applicable stormwater runoff discharge
permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as possible, such as during the acquisition process for rightsof-way, not just later during the facilities design and construction phase.
o Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge permits as well as Caltrans’ stormwater discharge permit including long-term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff.
o Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the rightof-way acquisition process. o Design projects to maintain volume of runoff, where any downstream receiving water body has not been designed and maintained to accommodate the increase in flow velocity, rate, and volume without impacting the water's beneficial uses. Pre-project flow velocities, rates, volumes must not be exceeded. This applies not only to increases in stormwater runoff from the project site, but also to hydrologic changes induced by flood plain encroachment. Projects should not cause or contribute to conditions that degrade the physical integrity or ecological function of any downstream receiving waters.
o Provide culverts and facilities that do not increase the flow velocity, rate, or volume and/or acquiring sufficient storm drain easements that accommodate an appropriately
vegetated earthen drainage channel.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
o Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in peak flow rates from current levels.
o Encourage Low Impact Development (“LID”) and
incorporation of natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate and manage stormwater runoff flows in all new
developments, where practical and feasible.
• Incorporate measures consistent with the provisions of the Groundwater Management Act and implementing regulations, such as:
o For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that
prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes, to the greatest extent possible, adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the project, Construction designs shall comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices
including the Uniform Building Code.
o Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and
preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize to the greatest extent possible, new impervious surfaces, including the use of inlieu fees and off-site mitigation. o Avoid designs that require continual dewatering where feasible.
o Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
o Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge as appropriate.
• Incorporate mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all federal, state, and local floodplain regulations, consistent with the provisions of the National Flood Insurance Program, such as:
o Comply with Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain
Management, which requires avoidance of incompatible
floodplain development, restoration and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values, and maintenance of consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program.
o Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial fan flooding
should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan boundaries should attempt to account for future
hydrologic changes caused by global climate change.
Transportation, Traffic, and Safety
• Institute teleconferencing, telecommute and/or flexible work hour programs to reduce unnecessary employee transportation. • Create a ride-sharing program by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. • Provide a vanpool for employees.
• Provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan containing strategies to reduce on-site parking demand and single occupancy vehicle travel. The TDM shall include strategies to increase bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and carpools/vanpool use, including:
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
• Inclusion of additional bicycle parking, shower, and locker facilities that exceed the requirement.
o Direct transit sales or subsidized transit passes.
o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Pre-tax commuter benefits (checks).
o On-site car-sharing program (such as City Car Share, Zip Car, etc.).
o On-site carpooling program.
o Distribution of information concerning alternative
transportation options.
o Parking spaces sold/leased separately.
o Parking management strategies; including attendant/valet parking and shared parking spaces.
• Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles, providing larger parking spaces to accommodate vans used for ridesharing, and designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas.
• Encourage the use of public transit systems by enhancing safety and cleanliness on vehicles and in and around stations, providing shuttle service to public transit, offering public transit incentives and providing public education and publicity about public transportation services.
• Build or fund a major transit stop within or near transit development upon consultation with applicable CTCs.
• Work with the school districts to improve pedestrian and bike access to schools and to restore or expand school bus service using lower-emitting vehicles.
• Purchase, or create incentives for purchasing, low or zero-emission vehicles.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
• Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles.
• Promote ride sharing programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including:
o Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles. o Designate adequate passenger loading, unloading, and
waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles.
o Provide a web site or message board for coordinating shared rides.
o Encourage private, for-profit community car-sharing,
including parking spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transit.
o Hire or designate a rideshare coordinator to develop and implement ridesharing programs.
• Support voluntary, employer-based trip reduction programs, if determined feasible and applicable by the Lead Agency, including:
o Provide assistance to regional and local ridesharing
organizations.
o Advocate for legislation to maintain and expand incentives for employer ridesharing programs.
o Require the development of Transportation Management
Associations for large employers and commercial/ industrial complexes.
o Provide public recognition of effective programs through awards, top ten lists, and other mechanisms.
• Implement a “guaranteed ride home” program for those who commute by public transit, ridesharing, or other modes of transportation, and encourage employers to subscribe to or support the program.
• Encourage and utilize shuttles to serve neighborhoods, City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
employment centers and major destinations.
• Create a free or low-cost local area shuttle system that includes a fixed route to popular tourist destinations or shopping and business centers.
• Work with existing shuttle service providers to coordinate their services.
• Facilitate employment opportunities that minimize the need for private vehicle trips, such as encourage telecommuting options with new and existing employers, through project review and incentives, as appropriate.
• Organize events and workshops to promote GHG-reducing activities.
• Implement a Parking Management Program to discourage private vehicle use, including:
• Encouraging carpools and vanpools with preferential parking and a reduced parking fee.
• Institute a parking cash-out program or establish a parking fee for all single-occupant vehicles.
Utilities & Service Systems
• Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (Title 24, part 11), U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated Homes, and the California Green Builder Program into project design including, but not limited to the following:
o Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities.
o Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes
maximum C&D diversion.
o Development of indoor recycling program and space.
o Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
the SCAG region during the construction and
implementation of a project. Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much as possible.
Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and 2016 RTP/SCS policies can and should be
required.
o Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and
recycling activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement programs; and developing
opportunities to divert food waste away from landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities.
o Develop alternative waste management strategies such as composting, recycling, and conversion technologies.
o Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts.
o Require the reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
o Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional and commercial projects.
o Provide recycling opportunities for residents, the public, and tenant businesses.
o Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
o Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting programs for residents and businesses. This
could include extending the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling) and City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
providing public education and publicity about recycling services.
The EIR fails to mention or demonstrate consistency with any of the above-listed measures and strategies of the SCAG RTP/SCS Plan. Thus, the EIR fails to demonstrate that all feasible mitigation measures were considered. To the extent that the Project fails to comply with the measures here mentioned, the Project EIR has failed to mitigate GHG emissions to the extent feasible.
Furthermore, the EIR has failed to integrate or consider many GHG reduction measures outlined in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (“CAPCOA”) August 2010 Report which the South Coast Air Quality Management District has recognized as a “comprehensive guidance document for quantifying the effectiveness of GHG mitigation measures.”23
Lastly, SWAPE’s comments have also identified a number of feasible mitigation measures that are available to reduce emissions on pages 23-34 of its letter—all of which the EIR has failed to consider and incorporate to further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.
The EIR must analyze the effectiveness and feasibility of a number of GHG mitigation measures proposed by the CAPCOA Report, including GHG mitigation measures for building energy use, lighting, alternative energy generation, land use, landscaping, waste, vegetation, construction and miscellaneous measures including carbon sequestration or other off-site mitigation measures.
H. The EIR Improperly Defers Formulation and Imposition of Performance-Based Mitigation Measures
The California Environmental Quality Act mitigation measures proposed and adopted into an EIR are required to describe what actions will be taken to reduce or avoid a given environmental impact. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B) [providing “[f]ormulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.”]. While the same Guidelines section 15126.5(a)(1)(B) acknowledges an exception to the rule against deferrals, but such exception is narrowly proscribed to 23 South Coast Air Quality Management District (2019) “Greenhouse Gases, accessed on March 22, 2019, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airquality-analysis-handbook/mitigation-measures-and-control-efficiencies/greenhouse-gases; California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) August 2010 Report.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
situations where “measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way.” Id. Courts have also recognized a similar exception to the general rule against deferral of mitigation measures where the performance criteria for each mitigation measure is identified and described in the EIR. Sacramento Old City Assn. v.
City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011.
Impermissible deferral can occur when an EIR calls for mitigation measures to be created based on future studies or describes mitigation measures in general terms, but the lead agency has failed to commit itself to specific performance standards. Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 260, 281 (city improperly deferred mitigation to butterfly habitat by failing to provide standards or guidelines for its management); San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 671 (EIR failed to provide and commit to specific criteria or standard of performance for mitigating impacts to biological habitats); see also Cleveland Natl. Forest Found. v. San Diego Assn. of Govs. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, 442 (generalized air quality measures in the EIR failed to set performance standards); California Clean Energy Comm. v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 195 (agency could not rely on a future report on urban decay with no standards for determining whether mitigation required); POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 740 (agency could not rely on future rulemaking to establish specifications to ensure emissions of nitrogen oxide would not increase because it did not establish objective performance criteria for measuring whether that goal would be achieved); Gray v. County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1119 (rejecting mitigation measure requiring replacement water to be provided to neighboring landowners because it identified a general goal for mitigation rather than specific performance standard); Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 794 (requiring report without established standards is impermissible delay).
Additionally, a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance. In Californians for Alternatives to Toxics v.
Department of Food & Agric. (2005) 136 Cal.App.4th 1, the court set aside an EIR for a statewide crop disease control plan because it did not include an evaluation of the risks to the environment and human health but simply presumed that no adverse impacts City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
would occur from the pesticides when used in accordance with the registration and labeling program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. See also Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch v Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 43 Cal. App. 4th 936, 956 (that Department of Pesticide Regulation had assessed environmental effects of certain herbicides in general did not excuse failure to assess effects of their use for a specific timber harvesting project).
Here, the EIR identifies potentially significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts relating to accidental release of hazardous materials from an existing groundwater well on the Project site and provides mitigation measure HAZ-1 to reduce that impact to less than significant. Nevertheless, no plan is provided for the groundwater well abandonment other than a provision that “the applicant shall provide documentation to the City of Santee Development Services Department showing the proper abandonment…in accordance with the County of San Diego’s Well Ordinance.” (RDEIR, p. 1-53.) The EIR defers formulation of a well abandonment plan until after certification of the EIR. Mere statements of future compliance with regulatory requirements is inadequate and may accurately be constituted as deferred mitigation.
Second, the EIR defers formulation of noise impact mitigation measures NOI-4 and NOI-8. Proposing a nighttime noise sound management plan, NOI-4 relies upon a sound management plan that is deferred until such time it will be “included in the construction documents.” The sound management plan lacks objective performance criteria and defers any details as would be “deemed necessary by a qualified acoustical engineer, to minimize noise at nearby receptors.” (RDEIR, pp. 1-58~59.) Further details necessary for adequate evaluation are deferred until after certification of the EIR.
Regarding mitigation measure NOI-8 for vibration, the EIR defers any detail and formulation of a plan to such time as a “qualified acoustician [identifies] best management practices to be implemented…to reduce vibration levels to below 80 vibration decibels at the nearest residence.” (RDEIR, p. 1-61.) Once again, objective performance criteria for a plan is lacking, and there is no plan to reduce vibration noise other than stating that “best practices” will be utilized.
Lastly, the EIR defers mitigation of significant impacts to aesthetics. The EIR admits that the Project would involve “extensive excavation and grading into the native terrain” causing significant impacts to aesthetics. (RDEIR, p. 4.1-55.) Fatally, the EIR City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
has failed to demonstrate how the extensive excavation and grading required would conform to the City’s hillside development guidelines, or how the methods or areas chosen for grading and excavation will minimize, to the maximum extent feasible, the damage to the nearby hills, canyons, and outcroppings. The EIR has failed to demonstrate consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan where it simply states that it plans to comply with municipal code and General Plan guidelines.
See RDEIR, p. 4.1-56.)
The EIR must be amended to include specific noise and aesthetic mitigation measures based on objective performance criteria that are not deferred until after the EIR is already certified.
I. The EIR’s GHG and Air Quality Analyses are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
SWAPE’s comments outline several deficiencies with the Project EIR’s GHG emissions and air quality analyses. The RDEIR failed to adequately evaluate GHG impacts and failed to conduct a health risk assessment (“HRA”) in support of its analysis on air quality impacts.
First, there are numerous deficiencies in the EIR’s GHG analysis, including, but not limited to24:
• Failure to adequately evaluate greenhouse gas impacts; • Unsubstantiated input parameters used to estimate project emissions;
• Failure to model all proposed land uses;
• Failure to evaluate the feasibility of obtaining tier 4 final equipment; and
• Failure to demonstrate consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan.
When SWAPE updated the GHG analysis with the correct input parameters, it found that “the proposed Project may result in a potentially significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the [EIR].”25 An updated GHG analysis must be prepared and incorporated into the FEIR.
24 Ex. J, pp. 1-21.
25 Id. at 19.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
Second, the EIR’s air quality analysis is deficient and unsupported by substantial evidence given that the EIR concludes that the Project’s excess cancer risk would not exceed the SDAPCD threshold of 10 in 1 million, and the Project would have a less than significant health risk impact. See DPEIR for the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation at p. 4.2-24. However, SWAPE points out that this is incorrect for several reasons, namely that:
26 • The EIR’s construction HRA is incorrect and underestimates DPM emissions;
• The EIR’s reliance on MM AIR-3 is unsubstantiated because the EIR does not analyze the feasibility of obtaining tier 4 final equipment; • The EIR failed to conduct a quantified operational HRA; and • The HRA failed to evaluate the cumulative lifetime cancer risk to nearby existing receptors as a result of Project construction and operation together.
The FEIR must be amended to address these deficiencies and conduct and incorporate a new HRA that adequately evaluates the health impacts and lifetime cancer risk from the Project.
J. The Project May Have Traffic, Air, Noise, and Water Quality Impacts There is substantial evidence in the record that the Project—with its mass and scale— will have significant impacts on traffic, air, noise, and water usage. The City’s contrary findings are unsupported and clearly erroneous, as is the City’s reliance on regulatory compliance measures.
K. Mitigation Measures to Reduce Impacts of New Utilities Infrastructure is Inadequate and Not Based on Substantial Evidence
An EIR must propose and describe mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 requires that mitigation measures be identified for each significant effect described in the EIR.
The substantial evidence test applies to any conclusions or findings in the EIR’s analysis of a topic. See, e.g., Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside (2017) 9 Cal.App5th 941, 968. Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant 26 Id. at 22.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” CEQA Guidelines §15384(a); Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.App.3d 376, 393, 409; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1446. Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts, but does not include argument, speculation, or unsubstantiated opinion. Cal. Pub.
Res. Code §§21080(e), 21082.2(c).
Here, the EIR identifies potentially significant impacts relating to the construction of infrastructure for the proposed Project yet fails to address any mitigation measures for these impacts. (RDEIR, p. 4.17-21.) Instead, without any analysis whatsoever, the EIR states that mitigation measures developed for other resource topics will also ameliorate the impacts of new infrastructure to less than significant levels and no additional mitigation is required. While that may be the case, the EIR fails to include any fact-based and individualized analysis of how “other” mitigation measures can reduce impacts to less than significant. The EIR must be amended to either include additional mitigation measures that cover these impacts, or else analyze—using substantial evidence—how mitigation measures for other resource topics apply to reduce the level of the impact for a different topic.
II. THE PROJECT VIOLATES THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING
LAW AS WELL AS THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN
A. Background Regarding the State Planning and Zoning Law Every city and county in California must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan governing ongoing development. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov. v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 352 (citing Gov. Code §§ 65030, 65300). The general plan sits at the top of the land use planning hierarchy, DeVita v. County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal. App. 4th 763, 773), and serves as a “constitution” or “charter” for all future development. Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.App.3d 531, 540.
General plan consistency is “the linchpin of California’s land use and development laws; it is the principle which infused the concept of planned growth with the force of law.” Debottari v. Norco City Council (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 1204, 1213.
State law mandates two levels of consistency. First, a general plan must be internally City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
or “horizontally” consistent in that its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” Gov. Code § 65300.5; Sierra Club v. Bd. of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704.
A general plan amendment thus may not be internally inconsistent, nor may it cause the general plan as a whole to become internally inconsistent. See DeVita, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 796 fn. 12.
Second, state law requires “vertical” consistency, meaning zoning ordinances and other land use decisions must also be consistent with the general plan. Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2) (land uses authorized by zoning ordinance must be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan.); see also Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184. A zoning ordinance that conflicts with the general plan or impedes achievement of its policies is invalid and cannot be given effect. Lesher, 52 Cal.App.3d at 544.
State law requires that all subordinate land use decisions, including conditional use permits, be consistent with the general plan. See Gov. Code § 65860(a)(2); Neighborhood Action Group, 156 Cal.App.3d at p. 1184.
A project cannot be found to be consistent with a general plan if it conflicts with a general plan policy that is “fundamental, mandatory, and clear,” regardless of whether it is consistent with other general plan policies. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782-83; Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 1332, 1341-42 [“FUTURE”].
Additionally, even in the absence of such a direct conflict, an ordinance or development project may not be approved if it interferes with or frustrates the general plan’s policies and objectives. Napa Citizens, 91 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 378-79; see also Lesher, 52 Cal. App. 3d at p. 544 (zoning ordinance restricting development conflicted with growth-oriented policies of general plan).
B. The Project is Inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Housing Element
Since 1969, California has required that all of its city and county governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in their respective communities. California’s local governments meet this requirement, for example, by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state).
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
General plans serve as the local government’s “blueprint” for how it will grow and develop. It includes seven elements, including: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as “housing-element law.” California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements.
Current law requires the housing element to contain a program that sets a five-year schedule of actions to implement the goals and objectives of the housing element under RHNA allocations. Current law also requires that cities and counties review and revise their housing elements at least every five years for compliance. Gov. Code § 65584.
The City of Santee General Plan includes the following objectives and policies in its Housing Element:
• Objective 3.0: Expand affordable housing options within Santee; • Objective 5.0: Provide a wide range of housing types; and • Program 10: Facilitate affordable housing development.27 The General Plan Housing Element also lists the City’s quantified housing objectives per the RHNA allocation assessment for Santee, with requirements to build, through 2021, 457 units for extremely low income, 457 units for very low income, 694 units for low income, 642 units for moderate income, and 1,410 units for above moderate income.28 Per SANDAG’s latest available RHNA progress report, the City of Santee is woefully behind schedule in units permitted for very low-, low-, and moderateincome housing.29 The City’s plan to construct approximately 3,000 housing units, and not include any 27 Fanita Ranch General Plan – Housing Element, pp. 6-8, 6-12, and 6-10. Available at https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showdocument?id=8551. 28 Id. at 4-1. 29 SANDAG 2017 Regional Housing Progress Report, p. 37. Available at https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid 2132 22605.pdf.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
affordable housing units on the Project site is not only unconscionable, it is blatantly inconsistent with the City’s own General Plan. Fanita Ranch is one of the largest undeveloped tracts of land in the City and offers an easy opportunity for the City to make some progress toward its RHNA allocation from SANDAG. The City should not only seriously consider including a fair share of affordable housing on the Project site, it must do so if it has any hope of meeting its RHNA obligations under the state housing law and to comply with the City’s General Plan.
C. The Project is Inconsistent with the City’s General Plan Conservation Element and the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program The City of Santee’s General Plan – Conservation Element30 stipulates the following objectives and policies applicable to the Project:
• Objective 1.031:
o Policy 1.1: The City shall encourage significant natural landforms to be maintained during development whenever
possible.
o Policy 1.2 The City should encourage, through the
environmental review process, the preservation of hillsides with steep slopes as appropriate to minimize danger from landslides and mudslides, as well as to protect key visual resources.
o Policy 1.3 To protect and wisely manage hillsides and topographic resources, the City shall use the following hillside development guidelines: Percent Natural Slope
Guideline Less than 10% This is not a hillside condition.
Conventional grading techniques are acceptable. 10% -
19.9% Development with grading will occur in this zone, but existing landforms should retain their natural character.
Padded building sites are permitted on these slopes, but contour grading, split level architectural prototypes, with stacking and clustering are expected. 20% and over Special 30 City of Santee, General Plan – Conservation Element, available at https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showdocument?id=7199. 31 Id. at 6-18.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
hillside grading, architectural and site design techniques are expected, and architectural prototypes should conform to the natural landform Compact development plans should be used to minimize grading footprints.
• Objective 2.032: Protect floodways to reduce flood hazards, protect biological resources and preserve the aesthetic quality along water corridors.
o Policy 2.1 The City shall encourage the protection of the San Diego River Corridor and all other City water corridors to reduce flood hazards, protect significant biological resources and scenic values, and to provide for appropriate
recreational uses.
o Policy 2.2 The City should promote open space in
conjunction with other appropriate land uses along the San Diego River corridor and other water corridors found in the City.
• Objective 10.0: Preserve significant natural resources such as mineral deposits, biological resources, watercourses, groundwater, hills, canyons, and major rock outcroppings such as part of a Citywide open space system.
o Policy 10.2: The City should encourage the preservation of significant natural features, such as watercourses, ridgelines, steep canyons, and major rock outcroppings through the
Development Review process.
The Project site is located within the 1998 San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Plan (“SD MSCP” or “MSCP”) area33, and hence is subject to that plan, as well as the draft Fanita Ranch Subarea MSCP. The MSCP is a regional, landscape-level plan to preserve San Diego’s unique, native habitats and wildlife for future generations.
Projects and subarea plans within the MSCP should support the goals and objectives 32 Id. at 6-19.
33 San Diego MSCP, available at
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/FinalMS CPProgramPlan.pdf.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
of the 1998 umbrella plan and should also address the conservation needs of any sensitive species federally or State listed or proposed since the MSCP was completed.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“UFWS”) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“CDFW”) both submitted a comment letter on the Applicant’s previous attempt in 2016 to certify an EIR for this Project, and their concerns remain valid to the EIR.34 As proposed, the Project fails to comply with the SD MSCP and the General Plan’s Conservation Element for at least the following reasons:
• The Project’s fragmented and broad footprint across Fanita Ranch; • The Project’s fragmented reserve areas;
• The reserve design fails to adequately minimize edge effects; • The Project should be located closer and concentrated near existing development;
• The Project fails to minimize damage to the habitats of multiple species, including but not limited to, the coastal cactus wren, Quino checkerspot butterfly, Hermes copper butterfly, and western spadefoot toad;
• The Project fails to expand acreages of reserve and habitats safe from construction or disturbance, edge effects, fires, or fragmentation as designed to adequately protect biological resources;
• The Project’s proposed development and reserve areas are not fully buffered from each other and all buffer areas should be unlit, and areas adjacent to development or roadways should have minimal lighting shielded away from buffer zones and natural areas; • The Project does not attempt to adequately minimize the use of roadways, or roadways crossing habitat or reserve areas; • Recreational trails do not utilize wildlife corridor road crossings to reduce the total extent of development infrastructure and increase corridor crossing function and size for wildlife;
34 UFWS and CDFW December 20, 2016 Comment Letter on the Proposed Fanita Ranch Project (attached as Exhibit A).
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
• The Project does not minimize and mitigate impacts to impacted species to the maximum extent feasible with a goal of no net loss of sensitive biological resources; and
• Vernal pools and their watersheds are not avoided to the maximum extent feasible. High-function vernal pools and their watersheds should be avoided and conserved. Moderate function vernal pools on site should be restored or enhanced.
With respect to Objectives 1.0 and 10.0 of the General Plan – Conservation Element, the Project site consists mostly of canyons, hillsides, ridgelines, rock outcroppings, and other similar natural features. The EIR admits that the Project would involve extensive excavation and grading into the native terrain. The EIR fails to demonstrate how the extensive excavation and grading required would conform to the City’s hillside development guidelines, or how the methods or areas chosen for grading and excavation will minimize to maximum extent feasible the damage to the hills, canyons, and outcroppings. The EIR simply states it plans to comply with municipal code and General Plan guidelines, but that fails to demonstrate consistency with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. (See RDEIR, p. 4.1-56.) D. The Vesting Tentative Map Fails To Comply With The State Subdivision Map Act
The Subdivision Map Act, Government Code section 66410, et seq. (“Subdivision Map Act” or “Act”) requires local agencies to review and approve all land subdivisions. The Act regulates both the process for approving subdivisions and sets substantive requirements for approval of land subdivisions. The Act requires that a local agency deny approval of a land subdivision, referred to as a tentative map or a parcel map, if it makes a determination that “the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans” or that “the design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans.” Cal. Gov. Code, § 66474(a–b).
Here, Applicant has applied for (and the Project requires) a Vesting Tentative Map.
However, the Project is inconsistent with all of the aforementioned goals, policies, and/or objective’s in the City’s General Plan, therefore, any approval of the Vesting Tentative Map violates the Subdivision Map Act.
City of Santee – Fanita Ranch
September 14, 2022
III. CONCLUSION
In light of the aforementioned defects in the Staff Report and FEIR, and the environmental concerns, SWRCC request that the City, at a minimum, revises and recirculates the Project’s FEIR or otherwise deny the Project as proposed and deny the certification of its EIR.
Given these defects, the City’s statements of overriding considerations are inadequate and unsupported by substantial evidence. Stated otherwise, the decision-makers cannot properly weigh whether the Project’s significant impacts would be acceptable as compared to its benefits without knowing what those impacts or what their severity levels are. Should the City have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.
Sincerely,
________________________
Reza Bonachea Mohamadzadeh
Attorneys for the Southwest
Regional Council of Carpenters
Attached:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife December 20, 2016 Comment Letter on the Proposed Fanita Ranch Project (attached as Exhibit A); and
SWAPE Comments on RDEIR’s Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Analyses (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
EXHIBIT A
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250
Carlsbad, California 92008
760-431-9440
FAX 760-431-9624
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, California 92123
858-467-4201
FAX 858-467-4299
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016
December 20, 2016
Sent by Email
Mr. Jeff O’Connor
HomeFed Corporation
1903 Wright Place, Suite 220
Carlsbad, California 92008
Ms. Melanie Kush
Director of Developmental Services
City of Santee
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Subject: Proposed Fanita Ranch Project within the City of Santee Draft MSCP Subarea Plan, City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. O’Connor and Ms. Kush:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) have been working with the City of Santee (City) on development of the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) draft Subarea Plan, including review of HomeFed Corporation’s (HomeFed) proposed Fanita Ranch project. Per a request from the City and HomeFed, we have reviewed the maps of the most recent proposed footprint for the project, which were provided by HomeFed in July 2016 (hard copy) and September 2016 (digital), along with relevant biological information previously provided or in our records. The maps included basic development features of the proposed Fanita Ranch project. In the interest of providing a timely response to HomeFed and the City, we reviewed only the limited suite of fundamental components of the proposed Fanita Ranch project that were available at this early stage of project and MSCP draft Subarea Plan development and design.
We analyzed the proposed development polygons for the Fanita Ranch project in view of regional and area-wide protection and management of natural wildlife diversity, proposed covered species, and overall reserve design to provide a preliminary assessment of whether the project would meet permit issuance criteria pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and findings pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act) of 1991, as amended. We did not compare the current proposal with various former footprints proposed by previous owners of the property over the past 18 years.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) 2 Consistent with the issues we have raised at our meetings with the City and HomeFed over the past several months and in our letter of September 16, 2016, we continue to be concerned about the proposed Fanita Ranch project’s development footprint and reserve design. These concerns are based on current ecological information and baseline resource conditions, including development within and adjacent to the City of Santee, the effects of past wildfires and future threats including edge effects and from proposed development and the potential effects associated with climate change, the status of proposed covered species and associated habitats, and the overall status of reserve assembly under the MSCP in southwestern San Diego County. As more specifically explained by the analyses provided in the Enclosure, our preliminary conclusion is that the proposed Fanita Ranch project will not meet the issuance criteria for a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit or support corresponding positive findings under the NCCP Act.
The proposed Fanita Ranch project would develop nearly 40 percent of the project site, and the proposed footprint would spread development across the project site landscape within multiple polygons. The project proposal would also have long connecting roads that would pass through and encircle intervening undeveloped reserve areas and require considerable extension of public facilities and services. The proposed road and development polygons would combine to fragment a large undeveloped and mostly intact open space area of high ecological integrity into a series of natural areas with new, high-level edge effects. Despite their absolute size, the resultant reserve areas would reduce the likelihood of maintaining sensitive species’ numbers and viabilities, including the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes), western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii), coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), and the San Diego golden star (Bloomeria clevelandii).
We suggest the proposed project footprint be reconsidered and modified with an improved reserve design. To that end, we have the following recommendations at this time for redesign of the proposed Fanita Ranch project:
1. The project should be redesigned to consolidate proposed development into a single polygon located largely in the southern portion of the site. This would reduce the amount of new development edge adjacent to remaining natural areas by eliminating “island” or “peninsula” types of development zones and fragmentation associated with infrastructure within surrounding natural areas.
2. The proposed reserve areas on site should be designed to be more contiguous across the property and with functional linkages to surrounding areas. Reserve areas should not be fragmented by roads or structure development.
3. A new modified reserve design should include a main reserve area with minimal new or existing edge effects.
4. Proposed project development should be sited closer to existing development in Santee in the southern portion of the site. This configuration would effectively provide for more inherent protection of new development from wildland fire (reducing concerns and conflicts Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) 3 regarding natural fire in reserve areas) and much more effectively ensure/accommodate natural fire frequencies within remaining reserve areas.
5. The proposed project should provide improved conservation of habitats used by coastal cactus wren, Quino checkerspot butterfly, Hermes copper butterfly, and western spadefoot toad, through increasing the acreages of respective habitats conserved that would not be subject to proposed construction or ongoing operational disturbance, modified natural fire cycles, edge effects, and/or fragmentation.
6. Proposed development and reserve areas should be fully buffered from each other using:
fuel modification and stormwater detention zones with native landscaping, passive use areas such as strip parks with minimal irrigation, single-loaded roads, and peripheral trails. All buffer areas should be unlit; adjacent development/road areas should have minimized lighting that is directed and shielded away from buffer zones and natural areas.
7. Any roadways that would otherwise cross natural/reserve areas should be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Such roads that cannot be avoided should be: a) as short and as narrow as possible (including any sidewalks) and without medians or curbs/gutters; b) consolidated with existing development by aligning them adjacent to developed areas where practicable (except as needed to avoid concentrations of sensitive species); c) designed for and requiring low maximum speed limits; d) unlit; e) landscaped only with native plants; f) designed to reduce wildlife roadkill, including appropriate fencing and native landscaping to direct wildlife movement to safe and functional ground corridors (as determined by the specific target/covered species) or to adequate heights above the roadway to avoid vehicle strikes (for birds and bats using tall native vegetation); and g) signed to raise awareness of wildlife corridors/crossings. Any recreational trails in the area should use some of these same wildlife corridor road crossings, such as bridges and large soft-bottomed culverts, to reduce the total extent of development infrastructure and increase corridor crossing function and size for wildlife.
8. The main east-west running riparian drainage through the project site should be fully conserved for ecosystem functions, including it as (at least) a wide, high-function eastwest linkage for both covered species and typical target wildlife corridor species.
9. The project should be revised to minimize and mitigate impacts to listed species to the maximum extent practicable with a goal of no net loss of sensitive biological resources and their values, services, and functions resulting from proposed activities.
10. Vernal pools and their watersheds should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
High-function vernal pools and their watershed should be avoided and conserved.
Moderate function vernal pools on site should be restored or enhanced, as practicable.
We maintain that our previously suggested reserve/footprint designs for the Fanita Ranch project are consistent with the MSCP Subregional Planning goals and address the reserve design and species and habitat conservation needs identified above.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) 4 Our comments herein are directed by changes in conservation challenges and practices over the last decade, including accelerated loss of many habitats, effects of wildfire and climate change, and advances in conservation science. We continue to be available to work with representatives from HomeFed and the City on a revised project footprint for the Fanita Ranch project that would fully minimize and mitigate the loss of proposed covered species and habitats.
The literature cited in the Enclosure in support of our conclusions is available upon request. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Carol Roberts of the Service at (760) 431-9440 or David Mayer of the Department at (858) 467-4234.
Sincerely,
Karen A. Goebel Gail Sevrens
Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife Enclosure
cc:
James Whalen, J. Whalen Associates, Inc.
ENCLOSURE
Proposed Fanita Ranch Project Footprint
The proposed Fanita Ranch project footprint generally includes the following features: 1) a 2,666-acre site, including proposed road rights of way; 2) two large disjunct development polygons in the northern portion of the site; 3) two main access roads through existing habitat areas that would provide north-south connections between the two main development polygons; and 4) two access roads through existing habitat areas that would connect the more southerly development polygon to existing development and transportation corridors to the south. The proposed development polygons would include residential housing, a town center, a school site, a community farm and orchard, and neighborhood parks; the southern portion of the property would include the development of a special use area adjacent to the proposed regional park/trail system.
The proposed development would have a direct disturbance footprint of about 1,025 acres (about 904 acres permanent, 121 acres temporary), or 38 percent of the site. We estimate that the project as proposed would have an indirect effects footprint of roughly 592 acres within the site. This was calculated by applying a 150-meter “buffer” zone from the edge of proposed permanent development to proposed reserve areas on site that are not currently within 150 meters of existing development. Combined, this would make the direct and indirect footprint of permanent effects total about 1,496 acres (about 56 percent) of the project site.
Proposed reserve areas on site that would remain essentially undisturbed directly by development, outside of proposed trails, would consist of about 1,641 acres, or about 62 percent of the site. About 338 acres of this proposed reserve area is currently subject to indirect edge effects from existing development occurring within 150 meters of the property boundary. As noted above, 592 acres of this reserve area would be subject to new indirect edge effects from proposed development. Combined, about 930 acres (57 percent) of the 1,641-acre proposed reserve area would be subject to indirect edge effects.
The proposed reserve areas would consist of one relatively large polygon in the southwestern portion of the site and a series of remaining undeveloped areas of the site encircling the proposed development polygons. The proposed main reserve area would end up mostly surrounded by existing (to the south, east, and west) and proposed project (to the north) development, and would be fully encircled by roads/development. The proposed main reserve area polygon in the south would also include a regional park and a trail system, the specifics of which were not provided in the project footprint.
MSCP, ESA, and NCCP
In order for Santee’s proposed Subarea Plan to integrate with the MSCP, the plan and the projects within it must meet the issuance criteria under section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA and the findings under the NCCP Act, and the Subarea Plan must be consistent with, and fulfill the requirements for, Subarea plans under the MSCP. The required criteria under section 10(a) are:
1) the taking will be incidental; 2) the Applicant(s) will, to the maximum extent practicable, Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 2 minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking of covered species; 3) the Applicant(s) will ensure that adequate funding for the plan and procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances will be provided; 4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery for species in the wild; 5) other measures, as required by the Director of the Service, as necessary or appropriate for purposes of the plan will be met; and 6) the Director has received such other assurances as he or she may require that the plan will be implemented.
Per the NCCP Act, a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) must identify and provide for the regional or area-wide protection and management of natural wildlife diversity while allowing for compatible and appropriate development and growth. A NCCP is intended to provide comprehensive management and conservation of multiple species, including but not limited to, species listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Federal ESA.
Reserve Design
Habitat loss is a leading cause of decline for many species worldwide, particularly in highly urbanized areas such as the coastal slope of southern California (Delaney et al. 2010).
Urbanization in southern California over the last several decades has resulted in loss of large areas of native ecosystems, particularly in coastal regions. The coastal sage scrub natural community has been reduced to as little as 10 percent of its former extent by conversion to human uses and now supports around 100 animal and plant species considered by the Wildlife Agencies to be sensitive (Atwood 1993; McCaull 1994; Dobson et al.1997; Rundel 2007). The reserve design component of projects, such as the proposed Fanita Ranch project, is key to minimizing the local and regional effects of habitat loss.
Reserve design is the process of planning an ecological reserve in a way that effectively accomplishes the goals of the reserve (Possingham et al. 2000). Almost all nature reserves have a primary goal of protecting biodiversity from harmful activities and processes, both natural and anthropogenic (Noss 1994). To achieve this, reserves must extensively sample biodiversity at all taxonomic levels and enhance and ensure long-term survival of the organisms (Margules and Pressey 2000).
When evaluating the currently proposed Fanita Ranch project, we must consider the NCCP Conservation Guidelines, November 1993. Following these Guidelines is imperative to the successful incorporation of the Fanita Ranch Subunit into the Santee Subarea Plan because of the Fanita Ranch site’s undeveloped condition, overall configuration and size, and its geographic location and in recognizing that it is the largest undeveloped area (with the largest area of chaparral and coastal sage scrub) remaining in the Subarea. Several basic tenets of reserve design are central to the Guidelines, including:
1. Conserve target species throughout the planning area (species that are well-distributed across their native ranges are less susceptible to extinction than are species confined to small portions of their ranges);
2. Larger reserves are better (large habitat blocks containing large populations of the target species are superior to small habitat blocks containing small populations); Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 3
3. Keep reserve areas close (blocks of habitat that are close to one another are better than habitat blocks far apart);
4. Keep habitats contiguous (habitats that occur in less fragmented, contiguous blocks are preferable to habitats fragmented or isolated by urban lands);
5. Link reserves with corridors (interconnected habitat blocks serve conservation purposes better than do isolated blocks, and corridors or linkages function better when the habitats within them resemble habitats that are preferred by target species);
6. Reserves should be diverse (blocks of habitats should contain a diverse representation of physical and environmental conditions); and
7. Protect reserves from encroachment (habitat blocks that are roadless or otherwise inaccessible to human disturbance serve to better conserve target species than do accessible habitat blocks).
Our preliminary evaluation (based on general principles and the needs of a subset of the proposed covered species) is that the current Fanita Ranch project proposal is not consistent with NCCP Conservation Guidelines for the following reasons: 1) the proposed project footprint and associated reserve areas fail to conserve sufficiently large habitat areas for several of the proposed covered species including the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes), western spadefoot toad, (Spea hammondii), coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus), and San Diego goldenstar (Bloomeria clevelandii); 2) it does not provide reserve areas that are functionally contiguous so as to allow for unobstructed species movement and recolonization for the proposed covered species; 3) it does not provide reserve areas that are free from substantial edge effects and fragmentation for these species; and 4) it does not ensure reserves are protected from future encroachment that could disturb covered species and/or degrade their habitats.
Further, the increase in the number of housing units within the proposed Fanita Ranch development from the number of units contemplated/analyzed in the City of Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003) would likely lead to an additional increase in human-caused disturbances from unauthorized uses in the proposed reserve areas, such as off-trail use, trespass, and the presence of uncontrolled domestic pets. The current general plan guidelines would permit the development of around 1,300 residential units on the Fanita Ranch project site (City of Santee 2003). The Fanita Ranch project would include on the order of 3,000 residential units according to our discussions with the City of Santee and HomeFed.
We also reviewed the proposed Fanita Ranch project footprint in view of the MSCP’s Biological Preserve Design Checklist (Section 3.6 of the MSCP). The checklist incorporates these basic tenets of reserve design:
1. General Preserve Design: a) High biodiversity lands as indicated by spatially representative examples of extensive patches of sensitive vegetation communities ranked as Very High and High biological value by the MSCP habitat evaluation map Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 4 (Figure 2-3 of the MSCP) or as identified through subsequent fieldwork; b) Large blocks of unfragmented habitat, following natural topography (ridges and watersheds); c) Large, interconnected blocks of habitat that contribute to the preservation of wideranging species; d) Key existing linkage areas between core habitat blocks, with connections to other private or public open space lands and to other subareas and/or habitat patches outside the subarea restored or enhanced as necessary; and e) Configuration that minimizes edge effects between habitat preserves and development and the edge-to-preserve area ratio.
2. Habitat Criteria: a) Total acreages and vegetation communities equivalent in conservation value to those conservation targets listed in the MSCP Plan (Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the MSCP); b) Representation of sensitive vegetation communities and their geographic subassociations containing priority species in large, functioning ecosystems; c) High-quality vernal pools (primarily but not exclusively supporting sensitive species) and no net loss of wetland habitats per state and federal policies and regulations; and d) High habitat quality including microhabitats (e.g., soil type, host plant, drainages, rock outcrops) important to sustain long-term viable populations of individual covered species as identified in the MSCP habitat evaluations map (Figure 2-3 of the MSCP) and subsequent fieldwork.
3. Species Criteria: a) Core coastal California gnatcatcher and coastal cactus wren populations and key linkage areas between them as identified in Figure 2-2 of the MSCP or through subsequent fieldwork; b) Federal and State endangered and threatened species and species proposed for listing; and c) Key regional populations of proposed covered species within the subarea, as coverage for the entire MSCP study area is dependent on the retention and maintenance of adequate populations of these species and their habitat within the subarea.
4. Management and Biological Monitoring Criteria: a) Appropriate management within the preserve to minimize edge effects from adjacent land uses; b) Appropriate uses within the preserve that are compatible with and complement the biological function of the area; and c) Biological monitoring of habitat and species should reflect priorities as determined in categories 2 and 3 above.
Our evaluation of the proposed Fanita Ranch project is that it is inconsistent with the MSCP’s Biological Preserve Design Checklist, as follows:
1. General Preserve Design: The existing large blocks of habitats on the site that contribute to the preservation of important/indicator wide-ranging species (such as golden eagle, mountain lion, and bobcat) would be fragmented by the project; boundaries of the project reserve areas, as currently designed, would not follow natural topographic features, which would be expected to exacerbate edge effects; key existing linkage areas between core habitat blocks on the site (for species such as coastal cactus wren, Hermes copper butterfly, and Quino checkerspot butterfly) would not be maintained given the configuration of the proposed project; functional connections to other private and public open space lands within/outside the Subarea would be reduced Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 5 or lost with the current configuration, potentially reducing the ability for species to recolonize the area; and the project as currently designed would have a high edge-topreserve area ratio because it does not minimize the edges of the proposed development that are in contact with the habitat preserve areas.
2. Habitat Criteria: The proposed project reserve areas would consist of representative sensitive vegetation communities containing priority species, but the configuration would not result in conservation of large, functioning ecosystems (as currently exist or have the potential to exist on the site); the project would result in net loss of vernal pool wetland habitat functions and values; and due to reserve design and resultant edge effects, the project as proposed would not conserve high quality habitats and microhabitats (e.g., host plants, drainages, rock outcrops) important to sustain viable populations of some covered species, such as coastal cactus wren, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Hermes copper butterfly, in the long term.
3. Species Criteria: Coastal cactus wren, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Hermes copper butterfly occurrences, habitats and linkage areas across the project site and broader MSCP area would not be functionally conserved by the project.
Edge Effects and Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation and edge effects are among the principal threats to persistence of biological diversity (Soulé 1991). Harrison and Bruna (1999) did a review of a suite of studies dealing with fragmentation and edge effects and concluded that there is a general pattern of reduction of biological diversity in fragmented habitats compared with more intact ones, particularly in regards to habitat specialists. While physical effects associated with edges were predominant among species impacts, they found evidence for indirect effects including altered ecological interactions. Fletcher et al. (2007) found that distance from edge had a stronger effect on species than habitat patch size, but they acknowledged the difficulty in separating those effects empirically. Many southern California plant and animal species are known to be sensitive to fragmentation and edge effects; i.e., their abundance declines with fragment size and proximity to an edge (Wilcove 1985; Soulé et al. 1992; Bolger et al. 1997a,b; Suarez et al. 1998; Burke and Nol 2000; Henle et al. 2004).The development/reserve design proposal for Fanita Ranch, if implemented, would have very high levels of development to reserve edge boundary, in part due to the unconsolidated/multiple development and road polygons proposed and their resultant large perimeter to area ratios.
Edges are often defined ecologically as places where: natural communities meet, vegetation or ecological conditions within natural communities interact (Noss 1983), or patches with differing qualities abut one another (Ries et al. 2004). Edge effects are spillover effects from the adjacent human-modified matrix that cause physical gradients in light, moisture, noise, etc. (Camargo and Kapos 1995; Murcia 1995, Sisk et al. 1997) and/or changes in biotic factors such as predator communities, density of “edge species,” and food availability (Soulé et al. 1988; Matlack 1994; Murcia 1995; Ries et al. 2004).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 6 Urbanization is typically comprised of residential, commercial, industrial, and road-related development; urbanization is the “built” environment. At the perimeter, or edge, of the built environment is an area known as the urban/wildland interface. When development is configured in a manner that creates a high ratio of development edge to wildland, an increase in the potential impacts caused by human use occurs. Land managers and planners have for decades relied on island biogeographic theory (see Reserve Design above) to plan for large natural open space reserves with connections to other reserves in order to preserve biodiversity (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Quammen 1996). However, it has recently become clear that relatively large connected reserves are often not enough. Because of adverse effects to these wildlands from adjacent developed areas, it has become evident that, in order to maintain viable ecosystems and biodiversity, enhanced attention must be given to minimizing indirect impacts to wildlands from adjacent urban areas.
Wildlife populations are typically changed in proximity to edges, either by changes in their demographic rates (survival and fecundity), or through behavioral avoidance of or attraction to the edge (Donovan 1997; Sisk et al. 1997; Ries et al. 2004). For example, coastal sage scrub areas within 250 meters of urban edges consistently contain significantly less bare ground and more coarse vegetative litter than more “intermediate” or “interior” areas, presumably due increased human activity/disturbance of the vegetation structure near edges (Kristan et al. 2003).
Increases in vegetative litter often facilitate non-native plant (particularly grass) growth, resulting in a positive feedback loop likely to enhance plant invasion success (Wolkovich et al. 2009). In another coastal southern California example, the abundance of native bird species sensitive to disturbance is typically depressed within 200 to 500 meters of an urban edge, and the abundance of the disturbance-tolerant species is elevated up to 1000 meters from an urban edge, depending on the species (Bolger et al. 1997a).
A few of these specific indirect edge impacts are as follows:
1. Introduction/expansion of invasive exotic vegetation carried in from vehicles, people, animals or spread from backyards or fuel modification zones adjacent to wildlands;
2. Higher frequency and/or severity of fire as compared to natural fire cycles or intensities;
3. Companion animals (pets) that often act as predators of, and/or competitors with, native wildlife;
4. Creation and use of undesignated trails that often significantly degrade the reserve ecosystems through such changes as increases in vegetation damage and noise;
5. Introduction of or increased use by exotic animals which compete with or prey on native animals; and
6. Influence on earth systems and ecosystem processes, such as solar radiation, soil richness and erosion, wind damage, hydrologic cycle, and water pollution that can affect the natural environment.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 7 Any of these impacts individually or in combination can result in the effective loss or degradation of habitats used for foraging, breeding or resting, with concomitant effects on population demographic rates of sensitive species.
Habitat fragmentation is usually defined as a landscape scale process involving habitat loss and breaking apart of habitats (Fahrig 2003). Habitat fragmentation is among the most important of all threats to global biodiversity; edge effects (particularly the diverse physical and biotic alterations associated with the artificial boundaries of fragments) are dominant drivers of change in many fragmented landscapes (Laurance and Bierregaard 1997; Laurance et al. 2007).
Fragmentation decreases the connectivity of the landscape while increasing both edge and remnant habitats. Urban and agricultural development often fragments wildland ecosystems and creates sharp edges between the natural and human-altered habitats. Edge effects for many species indirectly reduce available habitat use or utility in surrounding remaining areas; these species experience fine-scale functional habitat losses (e.g., see Bolger 2000; Kristan et al. 2003; Drolet et al. 2016). Losses of coastal sage scrub in southern California have resulted in the increased isolation of the remaining habitat fragments (O’Leary 1990).
Fragmentation has a greater relative negative impact on specialist species (e.g., the coastal cactus wren) that have strict vegetation structure and area habitat requirements (Soulé et al. 1992).
Specialist species have an increased risk of extirpation in isolated habitat remnants because the specialized vegetative structures and/or interspecific relationships on which they depend are more vulnerable to disruption in these areas (Vaughan 2010). In studies of the coastal sage scrub and chaparral systems of coastal southern California, fragment area and age (time since isolation) were the most important landscape predictors of the distribution and abundance of native plants (Alberts et al. 1993), scrub-breeding birds (Soulé et al. 1988; Crooks et al. 2001), native rodents (Bolger et al. 1997b), and invertebrates (Suarez et al. 1998; Bolger et al. 2000).
Edge effects that emanate from the human-dominated matrix can increase the extinction probability of isolated populations (Murcia 1995; Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998). In studies of coastal sage scrub urban fragments, exotic cover and distance to the urban edge were the strongest local predictors of native and exotic carnivore distribution and abundance (Crooks 2002). These two variables were correlated, with more exotic cover and less native shrub cover closer to the urban edge (Crooks 2002). The increased presence of human-tolerant “mesopredators” in southern California represents an edge effect of development; they occur within the developed matrix and are thus more abundant along the edges of habitat fragments, and they are effective predators on birds, bird nests, and other vertebrates in coastal sage scrub and chaparral systems and elsewhere (Crooks and Soulé 1999). The mammalian carnivores more typically detected in coastal southern California habitat fragments are resource generalists that likely benefit from the supplemental food resources (e.g., garden fruits and vegetables, garbage, direct feeding by humans) associated with residential developments. As a result, the overall mesopredator abundance [of species such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), and domestic cats (Felis catus)] increases at sites with more exotic plant cover and closer to the urban edge (Crooks 2002). Although some carnivores within coastal sage scrub natural community fragments seem tolerant of disturbance, these fragments have (either actually or effectively) already lost an entire suite of predator species, including mountain lions (Puma concolor), bobcats (Lynx rufus), spotted skunks (Spilogale gracilis), long-tailed weasels (Mustela Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 8 frenata), and badgers (Taxidea taxus) (Crooks 2002). Most “interior” sites within such fragments are still relatively near (less than 250 meters) urban edges (Crooks 2002).
Fragmentation generally increases the amount of edge per unit land area, and species that are adversely affected by edges can experience reduced effective area of suitable habitat (Temple and Cary 1988), which can lead to increased probability of extirpation/extinction in fragmented landscapes (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998). For example, native bee (Hung et al. 2015) and native rodent (Bolger et al. 1997b) species diversity is lower, and decomposition and nutrient cycling are significantly reduced (Treseder and McGuire 2011), with the fragmentation of the coastal sage scrub ecosystem as compared to larger core reserves. Similarly, habitat fragmentation and alterations of sage scrub habitats likely have reduced both the genetic connectivity and diversity of coastal cactus wren populations in southern California (Barr et al. 2015). Both sage sparrows (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) and California thrashers (Toxostoma redivivum) show strong evidence of direct, negative behavioral responses to edges in coastal sage scrub [i.e., they are edge-averse (Kristan et al. 2003)], and California thrashers and California quail were found to be more vulnerable to extirpation with smaller fragment size of the habitat patch (Bolger et al. 1991), demonstrating that both behavioral and demographic parameters can be involved. Other species in coastal sage scrub ecosystems, particularly the coastal cactus wren and likely the coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego pocket mouse, are likely vulnerable to fragmentation, but for these species the mechanism is likely to be associated only with extirpation vulnerability from habitat degradation and isolation rather than aversion to the habitat edge (Kristan et al. 2003). Bolger (et al. 1997b) found that San Diego coastal sage scrub and chaparral canyon fragments under 60 acres that had been isolated for at least 30 years support very few populations of native rodents, and they suggested that fragments larger than 200 acres in size are needed to sustain native rodent species populations.
The penetration of exotic species into natural areas can reduce the effective size of a reserve in proportion to the distance they penetrate within the reserve: Argentine ants (Linepithema humile) serve as an in-depth example of edge effects and fragmentation. Spatial patterns of Argentine ant abundance in scrub communities of southern California indicate that they are likely invading native habitats from adjacent developed areas, as most areas sampled greater than 200 to 250 meters from an urban edge contained relatively few or no Argentine ants (Bolger 2007). The extent of Argentine ant invasions in natural environments is determined in part by inputs of urban and agricultural water run off (Hollway and Suarez 2006). Native ant species were more abundant away from edges and in areas with predominately native vegetation. Postfragmentation edge effects likely reduce the ability of fragments to retain native ant species; fragments had fewer native ant species than similar-sized plots within large unfragmented areas, and fragments with Argentine ant-free refugia had more native ant species than those without refugia (Suarez et al. 1998). They displace nearly all surface-foraging native ant species (Hollway and Suarez 2006) and strongly affect all native ant communities within about 150 to 200 meters from fragment edges (Suarez et al. 1998; Hollway 2004; Fisher et al. 2002; Bolger 2007). Argentine ants are widespread in fragmented that coastal scrub habitats in southern California, and much of the remaining potential habitat for coastal horned lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum) is effectively unsuitable due to the penetration of Argentine ants and the subsequent displacement of the native ant species coastal horned lizards need as prey (Fisher et al. 2002).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 9 Similarly, the invasion of Argentine ants into coastal sage scrub has also shown a strong negative effect on the abundance of the gray shrew [Notiosorex crawfordi (Laakkonen et al. 2002)].
Although the direct effects of habitat loss to urbanization are fairly obvious and typically irreversible, the indirect effects of urbanization on adjacent remaining habitats can be more subtle to detect. While very intensive reserve management activities such as invasive plant and animal removal and repeated/continuous restoration/enhancement of the native vegetation can partially reduce some edge effects, these activities are often quite difficult and expensive and would have their own repeated impacts, making them impracticable on a large scale.
The proposed Fanita Ranch project’s development design would result in substantial fragmentation of the existing habitats and natural communities on and around the property. The substantial edges and related effects associated with the current proposal would extend the zone of impacts from new development deeply into the reserve areas that would remain. While these edge effects would not strictly eliminate all potential covered species use and ecosystem function in the identified edge effect zone we have evaluated herein (i.e., reserve areas 150 meters from urban edge), these effects would very likely greatly reduce the utility of these reserve areas for the covered species. In addition, much of the area proposed as reserve is currently subject to edge effects from existing development.
Fire and Nitrogen Deposition
Fire affects animal species composition (at least temporarily) in California grassland and shrub communities by shifting vegetation structure and composition (Clark et al. 2008). The increase in urbanization of the project region is expected to lead to a subsequent increase in the ignition rate of wildfires (Keeley and Fotheringham 2001). Research in southern California suggests that the frequency and intervals of fire in coastal sage scrub and chaparral are likely more important than fire severity and size, largely because of the potential to convert native vegetation from shrubs to grass communities dominated by non-natives (Diffendorfer 2008).
Increasingly, it has become evident that fire-prone ecosystems of southern California can be highly vulnerable both to exotic plant invasion during the immediate post-fire period and to alterations of fire regime by altered fuel bed properties after invasion (Keeley et al. 2010). This is important, as vegetation is a key driver of wildlife diversity. When native shrublands are invaded by exotic grasses, many changes take place: rooting depths, canopy cover, habitat and ecosystem functions, species heterogeneity, water use, and fire regimes are radically altered (Wilcox et al. 2011).
Invasions resulting in the type transformation of one vegetation community to another are an increasingly widespread problem in coastal southern California shrub and grassland systems (Talluto and Suding 2008). While it is clear that these conversions, particularly between grassland and shrubland systems, have severe ecological consequences (Minnich 2008), it has only recently become relatively clear which factors are primarily associated with these conversions (e.g., see Talluto and Suding 2008; Flemming et al. 2009; Fenn et al. 2010; Keeley and Brennan 2012).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 10 Anthropogenic sources of fixed nitrogen (N) are also having unintended consequences in ecosystems across the globe. Nitrogen inputs in the United States from human activity doubled between 1961 and 1997, mainly from inorganic N fertilizer use and emissions from burning fossil fuels (Howarth et al. 2002; Clark et al. 2013). Since the 1930s, coastal sage scrub cover in remaining extant areas has declined by about 49 percent, being replaced predominantly by exotic grassland species (Talluto and Suding 2008). Exotic grassland encroachment in coastal sage scrub is positively correlated with increased fire frequency and/or air pollution (measured as percent fossil carbon, which is likely correlated with nitrogen deposition), depending on location (Talluto and Suding 2008; Fenn et al. 2010; Cox et al. 2014). It is now understood that increases in fire frequency and nitrogen deposition combined over the last several decades have likely facilitated the conversion of coastal sage scrublands to exotic grasslands in southern California in many areas (Egerton-Warburton et al. 2002; Talluto and Suding 2008; Cox et al. 2014). It is also likely that the changes in climate that the San Diego region is experiencing will increase the frequency and intensity of fires in the future, making the region more vulnerable to large intense wildfires such as the ones that occurred in the project area in 2003 and 2007 (Messner et al. 2016).
Climate Change
Climate change is defined as any significant change in climate metrics, including temperature, precipitation, and wind patterns, over a period of time (NASA 2011). Climate change may result from natural or human activities that change atmospheric composition (IPCC 2007). There is now broad scientific consensus that humans are changing the chemical composition of the earth’s atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Activities such as fossil-fuel combustion, deforestation, and other changes in land use are resulting in the accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013). Substantial increases in GHG emissions likely result in an increase in the earth’s average surface temperature, commonly referred to as global warming (Lockwood 2009; IPCC 2013, NASA 2016). Global warming is expected, in turn, to affect weather patterns, average sea level, chemical reaction rates, precipitation rates, and other climatic conditions; such changes, taken collectively, are commonly referred to as climate change (Melillo et al. 2014; EPA 2016). Human-caused climate change is now thought to have likely begun in the late 19th century coinciding with industrialization; the earth’s climate is now changing rapidly, affecting species and natural communities (MEA 2003; Li et al. 2016).
Observed rapid vertebrate wildlife declines over the last century are likely linked to climate change (Li et al. 2016). Climate change is likely having adverse effects on the ecosystems that many of southern California’s sensitive species depend upon, and it is important to address in the context of regional plans (Messner et al. 2009).
The western United States has warmed at a faster rate compared to the national average (Moser et al. 2009). Over the twentieth century, California has experienced an increase in this average of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F), with some variability in the rate of warming within the state. The warming trends are asymmetrical, with nighttime minimum temperatures rising faster than daytime maximum temperatures, and winter/spring seasonal temperatures experiencing greater warming compared to summer/fall (Nemani et al. 2010; Gershunov et al. 2009).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 11 The United States government did not officially acknowledge that global climate change was a significant issue until 2008 (National Science and Technology Council 2008), resulting in a lack of emphasis on climate change in federally regulated conservation planning before 2008. Natural communities, species, and their habitats are vulnerable to climate change based on their ecology and natural history. While temperature rise in itself will have direct consequences on species viability and natural community distribution and composition, the effects of climate change on the amount and timing of precipitation and the frequency of severe weather and related disturbance events are also likely to affect natural communities and the proposed covered species in southern California. California saw 2015 as the warmest year on record (USGS 2016).
Climate is a major driver of species distributions, and rising temperatures over the last 100 years have already resulted in significant shifts in species ranges worldwide (Parmesan 2006). One consequence of climate disturbance in California is a shift of many species to the north and to higher elevations (Loarie et al. 2008). Most southern California scrub and chaparral native plant species models show potential northern habitat expansion and southern habitat contraction due to projected climate change, assuming the potential for dispersal (Riordan and Rundel 2014).
Native plant and animal dispersal would, without barriers, likely play an important role moderating losses from both climate change and land use; however, land use currently restricts dispersal of many species in coastal southern California (Riordan and Rundel 2014). High geographic overlap in habitat losses driven by projected climate change and existing and projected land use on the coastal slope of southern California underscores the potential for compounding negative impacts of both drivers (Riordan et al. 2015). Limiting habitat conversion and maintaining ecosystem linkages is likely a broadly beneficial strategy under climate change (Collingham and Huntley 2000; Riordan and Rundel 2014).
Addressing projected land use as part of climate change assessments is particularly important for coastal southern California, where multiple drivers of environmental change are projected to cause some of the highest proportional biodiversity losses worldwide by the year 2100, chief among which is land use (Sala et al. 2000; Conlisk et al. 2013; Riordan and Rundel 2014). We emphasize the importance of maintaining linkages for dispersal in moderating future habitat loss for vulnerable species and addressing comprehensively the drivers of climate change, habitat loss, fire, nitrogen deposition, and land use in conservation and resource management planning.
Preliminary Consistency Determinations and Findings on Proposed Covered Species In the interest of providing a timely response to the City of Santee and HomeFed, the Service and Department’s preliminary consistency determinations and findings for the proposed Fanita Ranch project herein focus on a subset of the proposed 22 covered species being considered by the City of Santee as discussed below. While we performed a basic review of all the proposed covered species for the proposed Fanita Ranch project, a more detailed analysis was prepared for the following species based on the most important concerns that were apparent: Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino), Hermes copper butterfly (Lycaena hermes), western spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii), coastal cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis), and the San Diego golden star (Bloomeria clevelandii).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 12 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly:
Status: The Quino checkerspot butterfly (Quino) was listed as federally endangered in 1997. It was historically distributed throughout the coastal slope of southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, western Riverside, San Diego, and southwestern San Bernardino counties and also northern Baja California, Mexico (Mattoni et al. 1997). Quino occurs in coastal sage scrub vegetation, and it was once one of the most abundant species of butterflies in southern California but is now very rare. By the mid-1980s, Quino was thought to have fully disappeared, and a petition to list the species in 1988 suggested that it might be extinct (Service 1997). However, “new” populations were subsequently discovered in Riverside County, the butterfly was rediscovered in San Diego County, and it continued to survive in northern Baja California, Mexico (Parmesan 1996). As an important indicator of existing threats, Quino has likely been extirpated from Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties (Service 2003).
Threats and Conservation Needs: More than 75 percent of the habitat in Quino’s former range has been converted to agriculture or urban development (Service 1997). In addition, Quino is threatened by non-native plant species, increased fire frequency, increased nitrogen deposition, drought, fire management practices, climate change, off-road vehicle use, and grazing (Service 1997; Service 2009; Anderson et al. 2014). Conversion from native vegetation to non-native annual grassland is the greatest threat to habitat on legally-protected lands, and a high magnitude threat to all extant habitat that is not managed (Service 2009). Increased dominance of nonnative plant species reduces the abundance (by competition) and suitability (by shading) of host plants upon which Quino depends (Service 2003; Service 2009).
Butterflies are especially sensitive to environmental change, and extinction rates for these species are accelerating (Forister et al. 2010; Potts et al. 2010; Warren and Bourn 2010). Quino is likely increasingly vulnerable to prolonged and intense droughts predicted by climate change models, particularly when synergized with other threats (Parmesan 1996; Preston et al. 2012; Anderson et al. 2014). Other threats include direct mortality from vehicle collisions along roads and human use of extant habitat areas causing trampling of larvae and host plants and compaction of soils [San Diego Management and Monitoring Program (SDMMP) 2013].
Essentially, any activity that appreciably fragments Quino habitat or removes or excludes host or nectar plants increases the probability of extirpation/extinction of Quino (Service 2003; Fenn et al. 2003). In addition, the wildfires that burned much of the natural vegetation of San Diego County during 2003 and 2007 burned many areas of Quino habitat. It is unclear what the longterm impacts of these fires will be on the Quino populations. We have recently determined that Quino’s decline as well as its shifting distribution is a complex multi-scale process related to agricultural history, urban development, climate variability, and wildflower host and nectar source declines (Preston et al. 2012). Observed northward range shifts by Quino are largely blocked by urbanization, and range shifts to higher elevations may require additional shifts in host plant by the species (Parmesan et al. 2015). Projections indicate that much of Quino’s current range in the USA is becoming uninhabitable (Parmesan 2015).
Metapopulation: A metapopulation is composed of a number of local populations; to remain viable, individuals interact among local populations within a larger metapopulation enough to effectively reduce the extinction probability of the metapopulation as compared to the extinction Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 13 probability of any local population (Service 2009). The distribution of Quino is patchy at several geographic scales; habitats are patchily distributed and naturally form networks of connected habitat patches, which are variably occupied over time. Most Quino populations display this metapopulation structure, and it is essential to conserve temporarily unoccupied patches of habitat for metapopulation resilience (Service 2009).
Host plant availability affects butterfly diet, which in turn affects habitat colonization rates and local population persistence; important aspects of Quino metapopulation dynamics are likely emergent properties (i.e., resulting from the complex interplay of factors) affected by this and other host plant and butterfly characteristics (Service 2003). Interaction of Quino populations specifically refers to emigrants re-colonizing neighboring habitat patches where the local population has been extirpated, not just occasional exchanges of individuals and thus genetic material. Long-term persistence of species with metapopulation dynamics likely depends on maintenance of geographically intermediate habitat patches and rare long-distance dispersal events that link local populations across the larger metapopulation (Service 2003).
Quino metapopulations experience marked fluctuations in density and geographic distribution on a scale of about 5 to 10 years (Service 2003). The survival and recovery of the Quino depends on landscape-level protection, restoration, and management of metapopulations and ecosystems associated with the distribution of those metapopulations, including conservation of temporarily unoccupied habitats. Success will require the augmentation of extant populations, and the reestablishment of one or more populations in the coastal portion of its former range (Service 2003; Service 2009).
The long-term survival strategy for Quino includes protecting and managing remaining population distributions in habitat configurations designed to support resilient metapopulations (Service 2003). Using metapopulation theory, regional reserves must be designed to provide sufficient numbers of habitat patches such that: 1) only a small number of habitat patches will likely be extirpated in a single year; and 2) patches are close enough such that natural recolonization can occur at a rate sufficient to maintain a relatively constant number of patches supporting larval development (Service 2003).
Drought: The Quino checkerspot butterfly has likely undergone a limited increase in abundance and distribution following its extreme reduction before and during the prolonged 1980’s drought.
However, current species abundance and distribution remain far below the pre-drought 1970’s levels, and there is no evidence that the long-term decline due to human impacts has slowed (Service 2003). California is currently entering a sixth year of drought (USGS 2016). A zone of “extreme drought” has persisted in the current range of Quino since 2014 (NASA 2016). During this current drought period the species has again likely declined based on rangewide survey data.
Quino checkerspot could be increasingly vulnerable to prolonged and intense droughts predicted by climate change models (Parmesan 1996; Preston et al. 2012).
Fragmentation and Edge Effects: Habitat fragmentation establishes barriers to important dispersal and colonization processes when intervening habitat is degraded and unusable to Quino individuals. Fragmentation-induced isolation of populations greatly reduces the likelihood that immigrants from other populations will re-colonize adjacent, extirpated populations (Bleich et al.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 14 1990). Habitat fragmentation also changes the environment and ecological functions at the fragment edge.
As noted elsewhere herein, important edge effects include increased frequency of fire and changes in light, temperature, wind, and humidity (Schelhas and Greenberg 1996; Laurance and Bierregaard 1997). Habitat fragmentation, and the associated increase in edge-to-area ratios, also increases the vulnerability of fragments to invasion by exotic species and ultimately to vegetation type conversion. Development edges typically provide high-energy, high-nutrient, disturbed environments where exotic species increase in numbers and then disperse or invade various distances from the edge into habitat areas (Janzen 1983; Paton 1994). Other causes (some synergistic) of vegetation type conversion include fire, off-road vehicle activity, and increased nitrogen deposition (Service 2009).
Nitrogen Deposition: Quino’s host plant, dots-eed plantain (Plantago erecta), was at one time abundant in the open interspaces that commonly existed among coastal sage scrub shrubs, but these sites are increasingly now occupied by exotic grasses (Fenn et al. 2003). Biological response studies in western North America demonstrate that some natural communities are significantly altered by N deposition, including increases in exotic grass invasion in coastal sage scrub (Fenn et al. 2003). Quino has become locally extirpated in the southern edge of its range by a combination of N deposition, drought, and exotic grass invasion (Service 2002; Fenn et al. 2003). The continued existence of this butterfly is problematic considering these exotic grass invasions and the concomitant decline of the P. erecta host plants; this problem could potentially be solved by restoration efforts, but this restoration would likely be an expensive and continual process in the face of continued artificially high N deposition and other anthropogenic influences that promote exotic grass invasion and productivity (Service 2002; Fenn et al. 2003). Chronic N deposition in parts of southern California is also implicated in increased fire frequency (Fenn et al. 2003).
Climate Change: Climate change is an environmental factor that is likely influencing the current and future condition of many of the proposed covered species such as Quino, including their reproduction, numbers, and distribution. Worldwide, climate change may cause future large-scale extinctions and interact with other drivers to accelerate extinction and biodiversity loss (Purvis et al. 2000; Brook et al. 2008; Wiens 2016). Insects are especially vulnerable to climate change as ambient temperature controls body temperature that influences metabolic reaction rates and life history phenology (Parmesan 2006; Memmott et al. 2007; Wilson and Maclean 2011). Climatic data and predictions indicate that almost all California state climate divisions show a substantial increase in predicted mean daily temperatures and a considerable predicted decrease in mean precipitation for the 21st century (Karl et al. 1996; IPCC 2014).
Increasing climate variability can lead to phenological mismatches between butterflies and their host plants, affecting reproductive success and potentially causing population extinctions (Parmesan 2006; Hegland et al. 2009; Singer and Parmesan 2010). In addition, differential shifts in space between butterflies and their host plants, as a result of climate change imposed on narrow habitat requirements may lead to reductions in overall range, population distributions, and abundance of the butterflies. Quino is vulnerable to these effects, although one shift of host Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 15 plants with the elevational shift has been observed, with Quino shifting to Chinese houses (Collinsia sp.) as its host plant at higher elevations in some areas (Parmesan 2015).
Many population extinctions of Edith's Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha) have been associated with particular climatic events (Singer and Thomas 1996; Ehrlich et al. 1980; Singer and Ehrlich 1979). The 1975-77 severe drought throughout California caused the extinction of 5 out of 21 surveyed populations (Ehrlich et al. 1980; Singer and Ehrlich 1979). Extremely wet years caused opposite responses in two subspecies: following winters with 50–150 percent more precipitation than the average, Bay checkerspot butterfly (E. editha bayensis) suffered population crashes in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay (Dobkin et al. 1987), while Quino exhibited population booms in northern Baja, Mexico (Murphy and White 1984). The observed northward and upward range shift of E. editha during the 20th century has occurred as a result of increased numbers of population extinctions at the southern range boundary and at lower elevations, with a symmetrical tendency toward population stability along the northern range boundary and at the highest elevations (Parmesan 1996). Thus, infrequent and severe climatic events, via short-term responses at the population level, appear to have driven a gradual range shift in this species.
Proposed Project: Surveys were conducted on the Fanita Ranch site by Dudek in 2004, 2005, and 2016. The species was detected on the project site in 2005. Although Quino was not detected on the project site in 2016, the drought conditions over the past few years have created unfavorable conditions for Quino and negatively affected Quino populations in San Diego County. Based on survey data from throughout San Diego County, conditions in 2016 for Quino were once again below average. We expect that Quino are in low numbers on site or the site is currently temporarily unoccupied.
The proposed Fanita Ranch footprint would directly and indirectly impact most of the remaining habitat for Quino (mapped by host plant occurrences) within the project site, including fragmenting what would be the largest remaining habitat patch within the project site. The largest area of extant mapped Quino habitat onsite would, following project implementation, be located between two closely adjacent development polygons; these proposed adjacent development areas would include a community farm and orchard as well as urban development, and two surrounding paved access roads.
Specifically, about 48 percent of the available Quino habitat (mapped as Quino host plant polygons) on the Fanita Ranch project site would be directly affected by the currently proposed project footprint. About 25 percent of Quino habitat would be indirectly affected within a 150- meter edge effect zone we have mapped around the proposed development footprint. About 28 percent of the Quino habitat occurs outside the proposed direct footprint or edge effect zone. The one survey point occurrence known from the site in 2005 occurs within the noted edge effect zone (not within the direct project footprint) within a small area that would be completely surrounded by the proposed development.
Pursuant to the Recovery Plan for Quino, a Possible Future Central San Diego Recovery Unit was contemplated for the species. This potential future recovery unit in San Diego County includes vernal pool habitat on Kearny Mesa, Mira Mesa, Del Mar Mesa, and Lopez Ridge. The unit also includes inland/upland habitat in the vicinity of Sycamore and Little Sycamore Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 16 Canyons, Iron Mountain, San Vicente Reservoir, the Fortuna Mountain area, El Capitan Reservoir, the community of Alpine, and south to the Southwest San Diego Recovery Unit border near the community of Jamul. The unit location described includes Fanita Ranch, and this general area is expected to be the only suitable location in the coastal metapopulation’s distribution available and expected to support the species. Loss of the Quino habitat, per the current proposal on the Fanita Ranch site, may preclude recovery of the species. Moreover, based on the current declining status of the species, Quino habitat on Fanita Ranch should be conserved to provide for the Quino metapopulation in the area. As noted above, Quino requires conservation of temporarily unoccupied patches of habitat essential to maintain population resilience (Service 2009). The edge effects and habitat fragmentation that would likely result from the proposed development would eliminate or considerably reduce the long-term viability of the Quino in the project area and limit the species ability to expand or re-populate the area locally.
Conclusion: After our review of the current status of the species, current and future threats, and the proposed project footprint and reserve areas, we conclude that the Fanita Ranch proposed project would not fully minimize and mitigate its impacts on Quino, would result in a net loss of Quino habitat function, and would have a high potential to preclude recovery of the species. As such, absent modifications to the Fanita Ranch project design, we recommend that the Quino be deleted from the proposed covered species list for the overall Subarea Plan.
Hermes Copper Butterfly:
Status: Hermes copper butterfly (Hermes copper) became a Federal candidate species in 2011.
In the United States, the current range of Hermes copper is entirely within San Diego County and consists of approximately 29 percent Federal land, 4 percent State land, 15 percent local government land, and 52 percent private land. Most occurrences of the species are concentrated in the southwest portion of the County (Marschalek and Klein 2010). Two or three occurrences have been identified in Baja California, Mexico, within an area approximately 100 miles south of the International Boundary (Brown et al. 1992; Marschalek and Klein 2013); this species has not been reported from Mexico since the 1980s (Marschalek and Klein 2013). The species occupies less than half of its former range in San Diego (Brown 1991).
Hermes copper is an extremely rare butterfly that inhabits coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral (Marschalek and Deutschman 2008; Marschalek 2016a). Hermes copper larvae use only spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) as a host plant (Thorne 1963; Emmel and Emmel 1973).
The range of spiny redberry extends throughout much of coastal California, as far north as Sonoma County (Calflora 2016); however, Hermes copper has never been documented north of San Diego County (Marschalek and Klien 2013; Service GIS database 2016). Therefore, some factor(s) other than host plant availability limits the range of the species. Researchers report adults are rarely found far from spiny redberry (Thorne 1963) and take nectar almost exclusively from California buckwheat [Eriogonum fasciculatum (Marschalek and Deutschman 2008)]. The densities of larval host and nectar plants required to support a Hermes copper population are not known. Natural wildfire regimes for the species in the past likely included occasional large fires, but recolonization events following large fires in 2003 and 2007 have been rare, suggesting that current dispersal of the species is quite limited (Strahm et al. 2012). However, historical Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 17 dispersal data do not exist, thus the expected length of time for recolonization is unknown (Strahm et al. 2012).
Hermes copper range and population distributions likely consist of 59 historical populations, of which 21 are extant, 27 are extirpated, and 11 are of unknown status. In 2000, 37 populations were thought to be extant. Between that time and 2014, 10 populations have been extirpated (1 by development, 1 by fire and development, and 8 by fire alone), and 6 are of unknown status.
In the northern portion of the range, most remaining suitable habitat is limited to the relatively isolated and fragmented undeveloped lands between the cities of San Marcos, Carlsbad, and Escondido and the community of Rancho Santa Fe, and the habitat islands containing occurrences on Black Mountain and Van Dam Peak. In the southern portion of the range, all extant populations except Lopez Canyon, the southern portion of Mission Trails Park, Lakeside Downs, and Boulder Creek Road (isolated from other extant populations by development and fire) are within relatively well-connected undeveloped lands east of the City of El Cajon that are between the perimeters of the 2003 Cedar Fire and 2007 Harris Fire. The Mission Trails Park Hermes copper population remains extant even after approximately 74 percent of the occupied area burned in 2003, presumably because burned areas were recolonized (after host plant and nectar sources regrew) by butterflies from nearby unburned areas.
Marschalek and Klein (2010) studied intra-habitat movement of Hermes copper using markrelease-recapture techniques. They found the highest median dispersal distance for a given site in a given year was 146 feet (ft) (45 meters), and their maximum recapture distance was 0.7 mile (mi) (1.1 kilometer) (Marschalek and Klein 2010). They also found no adult movement across non-habitat areas, such as type-converted grassland or riparian woodland (Marschalek and Klein 2010).
Threats and Conservation Needs: The current distribution of Hermes copper habitat in San Diego County is largely a result of urban development within coastal and interior San Diego County, which has resulted in the loss and fragmentation of Hermes copper habitat (CalFlora 2010; Consortium of California Herbaria 2010; San Diego County Plant Atlas 2010). Habitat loss due to urbanization and impacts of recent wildfires has greatly restricted its range (Marshalek 2016a). Of the 27 known extirpated Hermes copper populations, loss and fragmentation of habitat as a result of development has contributed to the extirpation of 13 populations (48 percent).
The combined impacts of existing development, limited future development, existing dispersal barriers, increasing wildfire frequency, and megafires (wildfires that encompass atypically vast areas) could further fragment Hermes copper habitat and likely threaten the species (Service 2011). These threats are evidenced by the relatively recent loss or isolation of many populations throughout the range and the fact that remaining extant populations occur within areas of high megafire risk.
Fire: The coastal sage scrub and southern mixed chaparral natural communities experience relatively frequent fires, so the long-term survival of most species post-fire depends on the rate of recolonizations exceeding the rate of local extirpations. Recolonization of these post-wildfire habitats often requires long-distance dispersal events, but these movements can also counter Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 18 detrimental impacts associated with inbreeding (Marschalek 2016a). Marschalek’s (2016b) research has documented several recent extirpations of Hermes copper, due to the 2003 and 2007 wildfires, but few recolonizations despite what appears to be extant suitable habitat. Although a few small populations exist within and north of the City of San Diego, the majority of Hermes copper individuals are currently found to the east and southeast of the City between the footprints of 2003 and 2007 fires (Marschalek 2016b). Historic occurrences within the adjacent Marine Corps Air Station Miramar are presumed to have been temporarily extirpated as a result of the 2003 wildfire that burned in that area (SDGE and SCG 2015).
The recolonization rate for Hermes copper appears to be quite slow, indicating that this species is vulnerable to long-term effects from fires (Marschalek and Klein 2013). However, dependence on a fire-prone vegetation community provides evidence that Hermes coppers have been able to coexist with fire in the past (Marschalek and Klein 2013). With vegetation recovering to suitable conditions for the butterfly, habitat function does not appear to be limiting them currently.
Restricted dispersal is likely the reason for slow recolonization of the post-wildfire areas (Marschalek and Klein 2013). The long-term persistence of Hermes copper in a fire-prone landscape depends on them dispersing and reestablishing populations following a fire, but this has to happen before another fire kills the source population/occurrences that would provide those dispersing individuals (Marschalek and Klein 2013). Habitat fragmentation due to human activities, resulting in restricted movement of Hermes coppers and limited dispersal into burn areas, is a possible reason for the current slow recolonization rates despite the historic ability to persist with fire (Marschalek and Klein 2013; Marschalek 2016b). Fire (given recent sizes and return intervals) poses a substantial threat to the Hermes copper (Marschalek and Deutschman 2016); given its current extremely restricted distribution, the species is highly vulnerable since one large fire could cause further extirpations or extinction (Marschalek 2016b).
Fragmentation and Edge Effects: Habitat fragmentation typically results in smaller, more vulnerable Hermes copper populations (Service 2011). The presence of suitable habitat on which the Hermes copper depends often determines the size and range of the local population (Service 2011). Wildfires and past development have caused habitat fragmentation that separates populations and inhibits movement by creating a gap in area that Hermes copper are not capable of traversing (Service 2011). The connectivity of habitat occupied by a butterfly population is not defined by host plant distribution at the scale of host plant stands or patches, but rather by adult butterfly movement that results in effective interbreeding (Service 2003). Fragmentation can include prevention of movement by a barrier, or by distances between remaining host plants where larvae develop ending up greater than adult butterflies will functionally move to mate or deposit eggs. Deutschman et al. (2010) concluded that Hermes copper individuals are likely capable of long-distance movement, but developed areas and natural landscape features may enhance or restrict dispersal (Service 2011). It is important to note that although movement of the species may be possible, the habitat must be suitable at the time Hermes copper butterflies arrive to ensure successful recolonization, which is difficult with many predicted post-wildfire and mega-fire conditions (Service 2011).
Based on genetic research, Marschalek (2016a) concluded that historically Hermes copper butterflies were able to move among habitat patches prior to recent changes in the landscape.
More recently, low post-fire recolonization rates suggest limited dispersal is occurring currently, Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 19 probably due to recent habitat fragmentation as discussed above. This fragmentation is a relatively new event, as the human population in San Diego County experienced substantial growth in the late 20th century (Marschalek 2016a).
Drought: Drought is a stochastic weather event. Few Hermes copper adults have been observed rangewide during the last 2 years due to the drought, particularly west of the Cleveland National Forest (Marschalek and Deutschman 2016). It is likely that the continued drought conditions suppress adult emergence (Marschalek and Deutschman 2016). Researchers have documented adult numbers rebounding following a 1-year drought (Marschalek and Deutschman 2015), but it is unclear how multiple years of extremely dry conditions have and will impact the species (Marschalek and Deutschman 2016). It is expected that Hermes copper individuals typically enter diapause during droughts and may emerge when the area receives adequate winter precipitation.
Climate Change: Butterfly species are typically sensitive to climate change due to their larval host plant and nectar-source dependence (Murphy and Weiss 1992). If the timing of host-plant availability changes without equal shifts in life-cycle timing, the phenological mismatch would likely affect reproductive success. In addition, the narrow habitat requirements of butterflies and host plants may lead to shifts in range, distribution, and abundance as a result of climate change.
Nevertheless, given the temporal and geographical availability of their relatively widespread perennial host and nectaring plants, Hermes copper and its host and nectar plants are not likely to be negatively affected throughout the majority of the species' range by predicted phenological shifts in development of a several days (unlike species such as Quino checkerspot that depend on annual host plants) (Service 2011). While it is possible the species' climatic tolerance, such as temperature thresholds for activity, could result in a change in the species niche and distribution of suitable habitat as the climate changes, predicting such changes would be speculative because we currently do not understand what limits the species' range to a much smaller geographic area than its host and nectaring plants (Service 2011).
Conversely, expected increases in fire frequency and intensity (described herein), as well as increased extended drought frequencies/intensities/durations predicted under climate change for the region, are likely threats to Hermes copper. This is largely due to increased direct individual mortality from fire and increased potential for extirpation of occurrences through megafire and invasion of exotic grasses (noted above) causing suppression of nectar plants. These conditions could be worsened by the potential synergistic effects with extended suppression of emergence of adults during continued droughts.
Proposed Project: Surveys were conducted on the project site for the Hermes copper in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2014, and 2016, and the species was observed on the Fanita Ranch project site in 2001, 2003 , 2004, and 2005 (Service GIS database 2016). Hermes copper was not detected in the 2014 and 2016 surveys conducted on the Fanita Ranch the site. As noted above, rangewide surveys conducted on sites known to support the species over multiple years (sentinel monitoring sites) observed greatly reduced numbers of Hermes copper over the past 2 years due to drought conditions. The drought conditions experienced in San Diego County are likely suppressing adult emergence (Marschalek and Deutschman 2016). A lack of detection on the Fanita Ranch site in 2014 and 2016 is expected considering current conditions.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 20 Pursuant to the Draft City of Santee Multi-Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Conservation Strategy for the Hermes Copper [Conservation Strategy (EDAW 2009)] prepared for the City of Santee, it was envisioned that the City of Santee would maintain a viable Hermes copper population and potential for natural recolonization of Hermes copper butterfly by conserving large blocks of habitat and supporting conservation efforts. The Conservation Strategy anticipated work with private landowners to conserve existing known populations within Santee, including associated host plant and nectar sources on occupied as well as unoccupied habitat. Based on the Conservation Strategy, two historical colonies occur on Fanita Ranch. The goals and objectives in the Conservation Strategy for habitat recommend the preservation of 100 percent of occupied Hermes habitat.
Based on the vegetation, habitat, and footprint maps provided to us by HomeFed, and after applying a 150-meter edge effect zone around the proposed direct development footprint, the currently proposed Fanita Ranch footprint would impact directly or indirectly through edge effects much of the Hermes copper habitat within the project site. It would also fragment almost all remaining habitat patches within the site. Specifically, about 23 percent of the available Hermes copper habitat (mapped spiny redberry shrub polygons) on the Fanita Ranch project site would be directly affected by the currently proposed project footprint, and about 23 percent of Hermes copper habitat would be indirectly affected within the 150-meter edge effect zone around the proposed development footprint. About 54 percent of the Hermes copper habitat would occur in open areas remaining outside of the direct footprint or edge effect zone. Based on survey point data collected from the site over the years, 50 percent of known occurrences occur within the proposed direct project footprint, none occur within the 150-meter edge effect zone, and 50 percent occur outside either of these areas.
The combined direct effects, edge effects, and habitat fragmentation resulting from the project as currently proposed would considerably reduce the viability of the Hermes copper population in the project region and likely greatly limit the species’ ability to repopulate locally following a large fire or other substantial disturbances. The end result would not be consistent with the City’s 2009 Conservation Strategy for the species.
As is the case for Quino checkerspot butterfly, the Hermes copper displays a metapopulation structure, and it similarly requires conservation of temporarily unoccupied patches of habitat for population resilience and viability. Maintaining unfragmented suitable habitat areas contiguous with occupied habitat for recolonization is essential for the long-term survival of the species. The Wildlife Agencies maintain that conserving a Hermes copper population that includes the Fanita Ranch site is essential for the Hermes copper due to site’s demonstrated ability to support this narrow endemic species and its rangewide poor status.
Conclusion: After our review of the current status of the species, current and future threats, and the proposed project footprint and reserve areas, we conclude that the current proposed Fanita Ranch project would not fully minimize and mitigate its impacts on Hermes copper, would result in a net loss of function of its habitat, and would have a high potential to preclude recovery of the species. As such, absent modifications to the project design, we recommend that the Hermes copper butterfly be deleted from the proposed covered species list for the overall Subarea Plan.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 21 Coastal Cactus Wren:
Status: The coastal cactus wren is a former Federal candidate species, a California State Species of Concern, and a NCCP Focal Species (a target of conservation planning). Survival of the coastal cactus wren is considered one of the great challenges in bird conservation for southern California (Unitt 2004). A year-round resident of the dry landscapes of southern California’s Pacific-slope, the coastal cactus wren has historically maintained a limited distribution in coastal southern California and extreme northwestern Baja California (Harper and Salata1991). The subspecies is unique in that it occurs exclusively within the subset of the coastal sage scrub plant community with sizable cactus, ranging from Ventura County south into San Diego County, California, and northwestern Baja California, Mexico.
The coastal cactus wren, a habitat specialist of southern cactus scrub, builds its nests almost exclusively in mature stands of coastal cholla (Cylindropuntia prolifera) and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia littoralis and O. oricola) that are tall enough to support and protect their nests. These well-protected nests serve as roosts for adults and juveniles throughout the year.
The decline of coastal cactus wren populations rangewide is indicative of the significant loss of the coastal sage scrub plant communities that contained cactus (Solek and Szijj 2004).
Populations of coastal cactus wrens have declined dramatically over the past couple decades, with extirpation from many locations as a result of habitat loss from development and agricultural conversion, habitat fragmentation, edge effects of development, and catastrophic fires (O’Leary 1995; Solek and Szijj 2004); major declines for the species have occurred as a result in Orange and San Diego counties (Rea and Weaver 1990). Some populations in Los Angeles County are declining or may be extirpated, and Ventura County populations have been severely reduced by development. Geographic isolation of coastal and interior populations has also been considerably increased by urbanization, and this may be facilitating genetic differentiation between these segments of the population (Rea and Weaver 1990; Eggert 1996).
Based on information from historical and more recent accounts, the species has been extirpated from many locations where it previously bred (Dawson 1923; Willet 1933; Grinnel and Miller 1944; Rea and Weaver 1990; Eggert 1996).
Extensive urban development in coastal southern California has led to habitat loss and fragmentation resulting in small, isolated coastal cactus wren populations. Population viability analyses suggest that the small size of the remaining coastal cactus wren subpopulations coupled with habitat fragmentation likely constrains the long-term viability of species (Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 1992). Dispersal between remaining populations is likely constrained by development and/or distance, increasing the potential for local extinction and limiting recolonization. Remnant patches of cactus scrub are also subject to edge effects that likely impact coastal cactus wren reproduction and survival and affect population dynamics (Preston and Kamada 2012). Exotic plant species often invade habitat fragments and can alter the structure and composition of native cactus scrub, potentially affecting wren foraging and breeding (Preston and Kamada 2012). Mortality and nest predation may also be high within habitat fragments because of changes to the predator community associated with urban development and human activities, which subsidize mesopredators in particular (Preston and Kamada 2012).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 22 Most dispersing cactus wrens are known to move less than 1 kilometer, with some individuals moving up to 10-11 km (Barr et al. 2012; Preston and Kamada 2012; Kamada and Preston 2013).
Genetic analysis shows that individuals in the Otay coastal cactus wren population tend to move less than 5 km (Barr et al. 2012).
Threats and Conservation Needs: Coastal cactus wren occurrences face many threats in southern California. A primary threat is altered fire regime that causes direct mortality of birds and often temporarily destroys cactus scrub, which can take many years to recover (Bontrager et al. 1995; Mitrovich and Hamilton 2007; Hamilton 2008; Leatherman BioConsulting 2009).
Other threats include invasive plant species reducing open habitat for foraging , declines in productivity during drought, and predation by domestic cats, roadrunners, snakes, loggerhead shrikes, corvids, and Cooper’s hawks (Preston and Kamada 2012; Kamada and Preston 2013; The Nature Conservancy 2015). Recent declines of coastal cactus wrens in areas of Orange and San Diego counties that have not recently burned have been attributed to reduced annual productivity and survivorship and increased population isolation resulting from urban development and new road construction, impacts of edge effects from development, low productivity corresponding with food limitation during multiple years of below average rainfall, high predation rates, and mortality from West Nile Virus. (Preston and Kamada 2012;The Nature Conservancy 2015).
Small, isolated populations are vulnerable to local extinction, likely due to insufficient habitat and limited ability of coastal cactus wrens to disperse through habitat fragmented by urbanization (Barr et al. 2015). Small populations affected by habitat degradation from urban edge effects are often subject to low productivity (# fledglings/pair/year) related to limited food resources and nest predation, high juvenile mortality with low levels of recruitment into the breeding population, and potentially higher levels of predation on fledglings and adults (Preston and Kamada 2012; The Nature Conservancy 2015). These factors may combine, and be exacerbated by regional variables such as drought, such that sustaining small populations is less likely. In one monitoring study, sites with fewer than four coastal cactus wren territories were highly variable in occupancy between 1999 and 2004, whereas sites with more birds tended to remain occupied over time (Hamilton 2004). During the extreme 2007 drought, birds disappeared from some sites with small numbers of pairs, and most of these sites have not been re-colonized (The Nature Conservancy 2015).
Fire: While urbanization is the primary driver of habitat loss and fragmentation in coastal southern California, wildfires can also temporarily eliminate cacti and cactus wren habitat (Bontrager et al. 1995; Preston and Kamada 2012). Coastal sage scrub habitat and many obligate species can recover rapidly and indeed benefit from wildfire (Westman 1981); however, burned areas may remain unsuitable for cactus wrens for years. Over the past two decades, unusually large and intense wildfires caused significant loss or degradation of coastal sage scrub habitat in coastal southern California, including large expanses of cactus scrub; this has reduced the abundance of cactus wrens and adversely affected cactus wren populations across the region (Mitrovich and Hamilton 2006; Hamilton 2008; Preston and Kamada 2012). One of the very large recent fires in San Diego County included the Fanita Ranch project area in 2003. Wildfires are prevalent in the project area and represent a primary threat to cactus wren populations (Barr et al. 2015).
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 23 Wildfires are natural disturbances for coastal sage scrub, but their frequency, size, and intensity have been increased over the last several decades as a result of urbanization and human activities (Syphard et al. 2007). Recent wildfires have become a major threat to cactus wrens in coastal southern California, and fires can be particularly harmful when combined with artificially small and isolated populations (Barr et al. 2015). An altered wildfire regime coupled with other effects of urbanization are likely acting in concert to amplify loss of genetic diversity and connectivity for coastal cactus wrens in some sites (Barr et al. 2015). Major losses in cactus wren territories have been documented after recent fires, including central and coastal Orange County (Mitrovich and Hamilton 2006; Leatherman BioConsulting 2009), San Pasqual (Hamilton 2008), and Palos Verdes (Cooper 2010).
The slow recovery of the coastal cactus wrens in many southern California reserves and undeveloped areas post-fire has been attributed to the habitat specialization of the species. The southern cactus scrub plant community is susceptible to high intensity fires; with the slow growth rates of cactus and the coastal cactus wren’s need for mature cactus structure, recovery times for this habitat following a wildfire are sometimes on the order of decades. Following a wildfire, it often takes many years for cactus to grow back to a size sufficient to again support breeding cactus wrens (Proudfoot et al. 2000; Solek and Szijj 2004).
Fragmentation and Edge Effects: Coastal cactus wrens are known as an interior species, and edge effects typically have negative impacts on the population dynamics of interior species (Kristan et al. 2003). Kristan et al. (2003) found considerable reductions in coastal cactus wren abundance within 10 m and at 250 m from development-wildland edges as compared to sites more than 1000 m from edges, at locations in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties. This species is poorly adapted to cope with edge-related conditions, such as increased predation and vegetation degradation, that they rarely encounter in their common interior habitats (Temple and Cary 1988; Vaughan 2010), but cactus wrens do not appear to be subject to reductions in habitat use through edge aversion (Kristan et al. 2003). Given their limited dispersal capabilities (Preston & Kamada 2012; Kamada & Preston 2013) and their tendency to be one of the first species to become locally extinct in recently isolated habitat patches (Crooks et al. 2001), cactus wrens appear to be highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation and edge effects.
Proposed Project: Surveys were conducted on the project site for the coastal cactus wrens in 1992, 1997, 1998, and 2002. The species was detected on the site in all of those years in the center and southern center portions of the project site (Service GIS database).
Based on the vegetation, habitat, and footprint maps provided to us by HomeFed, and after applying a 150-m edge effect zone around the proposed development footprint, the currently proposed Fanita Ranch footprint would directly, or indirectly through edge effects, impact much of the coastal cactus wren habitat within the project site. It would also fragment almost all remaining (and passively restoring) cactus scrub habitat patches within the site. Based on survey point data collected from the site available in our database, about 72 percent of occurrences fall within the proposed direct project footprint, 9 percent occur within the 150-m edge effect zone, and 18 percent occur outside either of these areas. The combined direct effects, edge effects, and habitat fragmentation of the project as currently proposed would considerably reduce the Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 24 viability of the coastal cactus wren population in the project region and likely greatly limit the species ability to repopulate locally following a large fire.
As is the case for Quino checkerspot and Hermes copper butterflies, the coastal cactus wren displays a metapopulation structure, and it similarly requires conservation of both occupied and temporarily unoccupied patches of habitat for population resilience and viability. Maintaining unfragmented suitable habitat areas contiguous with occupied habitat for recolonization is essential for the long-term survival of the species. Conserving a coastal cactus wren population that includes the Fanita Ranch site is essential for this species due to its rangewide poor status.
Conclusion: After our review of the current status of the species, current and future threats, and the proposed project footprint, we conclude that the Fanita Ranch project as proposed would not fully minimize and mitigate its impacts on coastal cactus wren, would result in a net loss of function of its habitat, and would have a high potential to preclude the long-term survival of the species. As such, absent modifications to the project design, we recommend that the coastal cactus wren be deleted from the proposed covered species list for the overall Subarea Plan.
Western Spadefoot Toad:
Status: The Service was petitioned to list the western spadefoot toad (spadefoot) in 2012. In 2015 the Service determined the spadefoot petition contained substantial information and initiated in-depth reviews of the species. The spadefoot is a California Species of Special Concern and California Protected Species (California Protected are taxa that fall under special protection within the California Fish & Game Code; §5050 for reptiles and amphibians).The spadefoot is nearly endemic to California, and historically ranged from the vicinity of Redding in Shasta County southward to Mesa de San Carlos in northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Stebbins 1985).
The western spadefoot toad currently occurs east of the coastal ranges southward from Ventura County, California, to northern Baja California, Mexico, south and west of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges. The species also occurs along the valley floors and foothills of the Central Valley and the coastal valleys of western Santa Barbara, eastern San Luis Obispo and Monterey, and western San Benito counties of California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). The spadefoot has been extirpated throughout most of the lowlands of southern California (Stebbins 1985). Estimates of loss of historical habitat range from 30 percent in northern California to 80 percent in southern California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Throughout most of the year the spadefoot is found in areas of open vegetation and short grasses (typically coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands) where the soil is sandy or gravelly. It breeds during the winter (January through May) in ephemeral ponds and vernal pools, formed by heavy winter rains that are devoid of bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), fish, and crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and/or Procambarus clarkii) (SDGE & SCG 2015). During the dry season of the year, spadefoots live beneath the soil surface in burrows in upland habitats relatively near to breeding pools (AMEC 2003).
Threats and Conservation Needs: Spadefoot toads are threatened by habitat loss (urbanization, road construction, etc.), off-road vehicular traffic, drying of pools for agricultural uses, modified Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 25 hydro-period of temporary pools associated with irrigation, illegal dumping, livestock grazing and other direct or edge effects that degrade or eliminate habitat function. Road construction/use often results in direct mortality of spadefoots (e.g., driving through breeding pools) and can cause direct loss and fragmentation of habitat. Non-native aquatic animals, such as mosquito fish and bullfrogs, have been implicated in the decline of the spadefoot, either through competition or predation in some breeding habitats (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Mosquito control measures (e.g., introduced mosquito fish in detention basins) in occupied spadefoot habitat can harm spadefoots (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Fisher and Shaffer 1996; AMEC 2003).
Activities that produce low frequency noise and vibration, such as grading for development and seismic exploration, in or near habitat for spadefoots, may be detrimental to the species. Dimmitt and Ruibal (1980) determined that spadefoots were extremely sensitive to such stimuli and would break dormancy and emerge from their burrows at inappropriate times in response to these disturbances. Spadefoots often breed in road ruts and other depressions with pooled water along dirt roads, and vehicles traversing through occupied pools likely results in the loss of spadefoots.
Spadefoots require two distinct habitat components in order to meet their life history requirements, and these habitats likely need to be unconstrained, intact, and in close proximity for long-term viability. Spadefoots are primarily terrestrial, and require upland habitats for feeding and for constructing/utilizing burrows for their long dry-season dormancy. However, little is known regarding the distance that spadefoots typically range from aquatic (breeding) resources for dispersal, foraging, and estivation. Current research on amphibian conservation suggests that average habitat utilization falls within 370 m of aquatic habitats (Semlitsch and Brodie 2003). Typical of amphibians, wetland habitats are required for reproduction. Spadefoot eggs and larvae have been observed in a variety of permanent and temporary wetlands including rivers, creeks, pools in intermittent streams, vernal pools, and temporary rain pools (California Natural Diversity Database 2000), indicating a degree of ecological plasticity. However, it appears that vernal pools and other temporary wetlands may be optimal for successful breeding due to the absence or reduced abundance of both native and non-native predators, many of which require more permanent water sources. Fisher and Shaffer (1996) reported an inverse relationship between the presence of western spadefoot toads and that of nonnative predators.
It is likely that functional connectivity corridors or linkages between populations are essential for the conservation of spadefoot metapopulations (Service 2004). In any given spadefoot metapopulation, it is expected that some subpopulations will disappear, but the habitat they occupied will eventually be recolonized if it remains acceptable (Service 2004). To enable natural recolonization of unoccupied habitat, and to allow for gene flow that is vital for preventing inbreeding, effective opportunities for dispersal and interbreeding among subpopulations of the spadefoot need to be maintained (Service 2004).
Roads: Roads represent a threat to the spadefoot (Service 2005). Road construction can result in direct mortality of the western spadefoot toad, and can cause direct loss and fragmentation of habitat (Service 2005). Mortality of western spadefoot toads from motor vehicle strikes has been observed by multiple researchers (Morey and Guinn 1992; Jennings 1998; California Natural Diversity Database 2000). For instance, Jennings (1998) reported road mortality at all seven sites that he surveyed in Kings and Alameda counties. Roads can be a barrier to spadefoot movements Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 26 and effectively isolate populations (Service 2005). Roads are significant barriers to gene flow among common frogs (Rana temporaria) in Germany, which has resulted in genetic differentiation among populations separated by roads (Reh and Seitz 1990). Similarly, Kuhn (1987, in Reh and Seitz 1990) determined that approximately 24 to 40 cars per hour on a given road resulted in mortality of 50 percent of common toads (Bufo bufo) attempting to migrate across the road. In another study, Heine (1987, in Reh and Seitz 1990) identified that 26 cars per hour resulted in 100 percent mortality of common toads attempting to cross a road.
Fragmentation and Edge Effects: Fragmentation of spadefoot habitats through habitat loss typically produces small populations that are increasingly isolated and limited in space, which reduces the movement of individuals and genetic exchange between populations (Butte County Association of Governments 2011). Small, isolated populations are highly susceptible to extinction caused by catastrophic or stochastic events. Isolation also limits the ability of the population to recolonize areas with suitable habitat where western spadefoot toads may have been present in the past (Butte County Association of Governments 2011).
Climate Change: Amphibians’ permeable skin, biphasic life cycles, and unshelled eggs make them sensitive to small changes in temperature and moisture (Carey and Alexander 2003). In most cases, amphibians in temperate climates can tolerate wide variations in temperature, but their dependence on aquatic environments for reproductive success could be compromised by changes in seasonal and regional climatic patterns. Decreases in precipitation or shifts in timing of precipitation would have an effect on reproductive success and adult survivorship due to increased risk of desiccation, reduced food supply, and increased predation due to reduced habitat availability. Such changes could lead to shifts/changes or net reductions in range, distribution, and/or abundance.
Proposed Project: The spadefoot was detected on the proposed Fanita Ranch in the surveys conducted for this species in 2004 and 2005, primarily in the area of northern portion of the project site. The currently proposed Fanita Ranch footprint would directly or indirectly impact most of the remaining habitat within the site. Based on spadefoot survey point data for the site, about 29 percent of occurrences occur within the proposed direct project footprint, 39 percent occur within the 150-m edge effect zone, and 32 percent occur outside either of these areas. The edge effects due to the proposed development, and habitat fragmentation would reduce the viability of the spadefoot on the Fanita Ranch project site.
Conclusion: Within the MSCP, the spadefoot has not received coverage under any of the subarea plans. After our review of the current status of the species, current and future threats, and likely effects of the proposed project footprint, we conclude that the Fanita Ranch project as proposed would not fully minimize and mitigate its impacts on spadefoot and would result in a net loss of function of its habitat. As such, absent modifications to the project design, we recommend that the spadefoot be deleted from the proposed covered species list for the overall Subarea Plan.
San Diego Goldenstar:
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 27 Status: San Diego goldenstar is a native geophytic (emerges from an underground storage structure, e.g. bulb, corm, tuber, etc.) perennial herb that is restricted to southern San Diego County and northern Baja California, Mexico. It is a Federal Species of Concern. San Diego goldenstar is currently a covered species in the Subregional Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), and is covered by a series of regional subarea plans, including the City of San Diego, City of Poway, and the County of San Diego. The City of Santee is currently proposing to cover San Diego goldenstar as a Rare and Narrow Endemic species under its proposed Subarea Plan.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) currently estimates that there are 101 populations presumed extant, five which are possibly extirpated, and nine which are presumed extinct within the species’ range (CNPS, 2010-14). The San Diego Management and Monitoring Program (SDMMP) notes that there are 33 populations on conserved lands in Management Units 3, 4, and 6 (SDMMP 2010). Current SDMMP data shows that on conserved lands within the MSCP there are nine large occurrences (> 10,000 individuals), 13 small occurrences (<10,000 individuals) including Rattlesnake Mountain in Santee, and two populations of unknown size (SDMMP, unpublished data 2016).
The MSCP originally rationalized coverage for San Diego goldenstar based on conservation of eight of 11 populations with >500 individuals within the MSCP, conservation of 125 of the 144 known occurrences (86 percent conservation), and conservation of 38 percent of its grassland habitat. It was strongly considered for categorization as a narrow endemic species in the MSCP subregional plan, which would have necessitated higher level of conservation for individual projects as they came forward. Undeveloped lands in the City of Santee support a major population of the species, as documented in the conservation analysis performed in 1995 and 1996 and surveys on the Fanita Ranch site. Current data show that there are more populations than originally identified in the MSCP, with nine conserved populations exceeding 10,000 individuals.
Threats and Conservation Needs: The primary threats identified relative to this species are habitat loss from various urban development and landfill expansion projects expected in southwestern San Diego County. Additional threats to this species include impacts from habitat degradation, exotic plant competition, trampling, vehicular traffic, road construction, illegal dumping, edge effects, and bulb collecting (SDCWA 2010). Drought, fire regime changes, and herbivory burrowing mammals such as pocket gophers (Thomomys sp.) also likely exacerbate the noted anthropogenic impacts.
Edge Effects: Similar to the threats mentioned above, competition from annual plants is likely increased adjacent to development edges. Increased runoff and irrigation from development can also promote competition from invasive exotic plants, which is a major threat to goldenstar populations through displacement and competion (Cione et al. 2002; Cox et al. 2008; Hillerislambers et al. 2010). Non-native species of particular concern are annual grasses such as wild oats (Avena sp.) and herbaceous weeds including storksbill (Erodium sp.), as they are very widespread. Trampling due to public use is also a threat near developed areas.
Mr. Jeff O’Connor and Ms. Melanie Kush (FWS/CDFW-16B0244-17CPA0016) Enclosure Page 28 Nitrogen deposition: As noted elsewhere herein, N deposition is implicated in the increased exotic grass invasions occurring in the vegetation communities where San Diego goldenstar occurs. N deposition and the resultant exotic grass competition for light and water poses a significant threat to San Diego goldenstar.
Climate Change: As noted elsewhere herein, climate change, as modeled for the region, is predicted to result in an increase in both fire frequency and intensity in the project area. Increases in fire frequency are associated with invasion of exotic plants into coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and native grasslands in the project region (Zedler et al. 1983; Hamilton 1997; D’Antonio et al. 1999; Keeley et al. 2005; Baker 2006; Talluto and Suding 2008; Keeley and Brennan 2012), and the resultant exotic grass competition for resources poses a significant threat to San Diego goldenstar.
Proposed Project: Fanita Ranch is the largest remaining block of habitat for the species within the Santee subarea. San Diego goldenstar has been consistently observed on the property during surveys performed from 2002-2016. The most recent surveys mapped areas of San Diego goldenstar as polygons of occupied habitat as well as other smaller occurrences as individual points. Over 1,000 individuals were counted in the course of the surveys. Based on mapped goldenstar occurrence data/habitat polygons for the Fanita Ranch site, about 40 percent of goldenstar habitat occurs within the proposed direct project footprint, 12 percent occurs within the 150-m edge effect zone, and 48 percent occurs outside either of these areas.
The City reportedly plans to identify San Diego goldenstar as a narrow endemic species in their forthcoming Subarea Plan. As such, this designation would require a minimum of 80 percent conservation (avoidance) of newly discovered populations per the requirements of the MSCP.
This would theoretically help conserve goldenstar across the Santee Subarea. However, because very few large undeveloped parcels other than Fanita Ranch remain for development in the City, it is unlikely that additional major populations are likely to be discovered in the Santee Subarea.
Conclusion: The Fanita Ranch project, as proposed, would apparently not be consistent with the Narrow Endemic policy standard, which typically requires conservation (avoidance) of a minimum of 80 percent of a population. After our review of the current status of the species, current and future threats, and likely effects of the proposed project footprint, we conclude that the Fanita Ranch project as proposed would not fully minimize and mitigate its impacts on San Diego goldenstar and would result in a net loss of function of its habitat. As such, absent modifications to the project design, we recommend that the San Diego goldenstar be deleted from the proposed covered species list for the overall Subarea Plan.
Service and CDFW letter dated 12-20-2016 Reference List in Alphabetical Order by Topic (there may be repetition across topics)
Reserve design
Atwood, J.L. 1993. California Gnatcatchers and Coastal Sage Scrub: The Biological Basis for Endangered Species Listing. In: J.E. Keeley (ed.). Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, California.
Delaney, K.S., S.P.D. Riley, and R.N. Fisher. 2010. A Rapid, Strong, and Convergent Genetic Response to Urban Habitat Fragmentation in Four Divergent and Widespread Vertebrates. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12767. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012767 Dobson, A.P., J.P. Rodriguez, W.M. Roberts, and D.S. Wilcove. 1997. Geographic Distribution of Endangered Species in the United States. Science 275: 550-553.
Margules, C.R. and R.L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243-253.
McCaull, J. 1994. The Natural Community Conservation Planning Program and the Coastal Sage Scrub Ecosystem of Southern California. In: R. E. Grumbine (ed.). Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 426pp.
Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy, Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California. 416pp. (Note: this was cited as Noss 1994.)
Possingham, H.P. and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. In: S. Ferson and M. Burgman (eds.). Quantitative methods for conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, New York. (Note: this was cited as Possingham et al. 2000.)
Rundel, P.W. 2007. Sage scrub. In M.G. Barbour, T.Keeler-Wolf and A.A.Schoenherr (eds.): Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Pp. 208–228. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Santee, City of. 2003. General Plan 2020. Adopted August 27, 2003, Resolution 63-2003.
Edge Effects and Fragmentation
Barr, K.R., B.E. Kus, K.L. Preston, S. Howell, E. Perkins, and A.G. Vandergast. 2015. Habitat fragmentation in coastal southern California disrupts genetic connectivity in the cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). Molecular Ecology 24: 2349–2363.
Bolger, D.T. 2007. Spatial and temporal variation in the Argentine ant edge effect: Implications for the mechanism of edge limitation. Biological Conservation 136: 295-305.
Bolger, D.T., A.C. Alberts, and M.E. Soulé. 1991. Occurrence patterns of bird species in habitat fragments: sampling, extinction, and nested species subsets. The American Naturalist 137(2): 155-166.
Bolger, D.T., A.C. Alberts, R.M. Sauvajot, P. Potenza, C. McCalvin, D. Tran, S. Mazzoni, and M.E. Soulé. 1997b. Response of rodents to habitat fragmentation in coastal southern California. Ecological Applications 7(2): 552-563.
Bolger, D.T., T.A., Scott, J.T. Rotenberry. 1997a. Breeding bird abundance in an urbanizing landscape in coastal southern California. Conservation Biology 11(2): 406–421.
Bolger, D.T., A.V. Suarez, K.R. Crooks, S.A. Morrison, and T.J. Case. 2000. Arthropods in urban habitat fragments in southern California: area, age, and edge effects. Ecological Applications 10(4): 1230–1248. (Note: this was also cited in text as Bolger 2000.) Burke, D.M. and E. Nol. 2000. Landscape and fragment size effects on reproductive success of forest-breeding birds in Ontario. Ecological Applications 10(6): 1749–1761.
Camargo, J.L.C., and V. Kapos 1995. Complex edge effects on soil moisture and microclimate in central Amazonian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 11(2): 205-221.
Crooks, K.R. 2002. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to habitat fragmentation.
Conservation Biology 16(2): 488–502.
Crooks, K.R. and M.E. Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avian extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400:563-566.
Crooks, K.R., A.V. Suarez, D.T. Bolger, and M.E. Soulé. 2001. Extinction and Colonization of birds on habitat islands. Conservation Biology 15(1):159-172.
Donovan, T.M., P.W. Jones, E.M. Annand, and F.R. Thompson III. 1997. Variation local-scale edge effects: mechanisms and landscape context. Ecology 78(7): 2064–2075. (Note: This was cited as Donovan 1997.)
Drolet, A., C. Dussault and S.D. Côté. 2016. Simulated drilling noise affects the space use of a large terrestrial mammal. Wildlife Biology 22(6):284-293.
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487-515.
Fisher, R.N., A.V. Suarez, and T.J. Case. 2002. Spatial patterns in the abundance of the coastal horned lizard. Conservation Biology 16(1):205-215.
Fletcher, Jr., R.J., L. Ries, J. Battin, and A.D. Chalfoun. 2007. The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined? Can. J. Zool. 85:
1017–1030.
Harrison, S. and E. Bruna. 1999. Habitat fragmentation and large-scale conservation: what do we know for sure? Ecography 22(3): 225-232.
Henle, K., K.F. Davies, M. Kleyer, C. Margules, and J. Settele. 2004. Predictors of species sensitivity to fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 207–251.
Holway, D.A. 2005. Edge effects of an invasive species across a natural ecological boundary.
Biological Conservation 121:561–567. (Note: this was cited as Hollway 2004.) Holway, D.A. and A.V. Suarez. 2006. Homogenization of ant communities in Mediterranean California: The effects of urbanization and invasion. Biological Conservation 127:319- 326 (Note: this was cited as Hollway and Suarez 2006.)
Hung, K.J., J.S. Ascher, J. Gibbs, R.E. Irwin, and D.T. Bolger. 2015. Effects of fragmentation on a distinctive coastal sage scrub bee fauna revealed through incidental captures by pitfall traps. Journal of Insect Conservation DOI 10.1007.
Kristan, W. B. III, A.J. Lynam, M.V. Price, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2003. Alternative causes of edge-abundance relationships in birds and small mammals of California coastal sage scrub. Ecography 26: 29–44.
Laakkonen, J., R.N. Fisher, T.J. Case. 2001. Effect of land cover, habitat fragmentation and ant colonies on the distribution and abundance of shrews in southern California. Journal of Animal Ecology 70(5):776-788 (Note: this was cited as Laakkonen et al. 2002.) Laurance, W.F., and R.O. Bierregaard Jr. (eds.). 1997. Tropical forest remnants: ecology, management, and conservation of fragmented communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 632pp.
Laurance, W.F., H.E.M. Nascimento, S.G. Laurance, A. Andrade, R.M. Ewers, K.E. Harms, R.C.C. Luizão, and J.E. Ribeiro. 2007. Habitat fragmentation, variable edge effects, and the landscape-divergence hypothesis. PLoS ONE 2(10): e1017 MacArthur, R.H., and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of island biogeography. Monographs in Population Biology, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Matlack, G.R. 1994. Vegetation dynamics of the forest edge--trends in space and successional time. Journal of Ecology 82(1):113-123.
Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10(2):58-62.
Noss, R.F. 1983. A regional landscape approach to maintain diversity. BioScience 33(11):700- 706.
O’Leary, J.F. 1990. California coastal sage scrub: general characteristics and considerations for biological conservation. In: A.A. Schoenherr (ed.). Endangered Plant Communities of Southern California, Southern California Botanists Special Publication No. 3.
Quammen, D., and K. Ellingsen. 1996. The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinctions. Scribner, New York, New York. 704pp.
Ries, L., and T.D. Sisk. 2004. A predictive model of edge effects. Ecology 85(11):2917–2926. (Note: this was cited as Reis et al. 2004.)
Sisk, T.D., N.M. Haddad, and P.R. Ehrlich. 1997. Bird assemblages in patchy woodlands:
modeling the effects of edge and matrix habitats. Ecological Applications 7(4):1170– 1180.
Soulé, M.E. 1991. Theory and strategy. In: W.E. Hudson (ed.). Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Covello, California.
Soulé, M.E., A.C. Alberts, and D.T. Bolger. 1992. The effects of habitat fragmentation on chaparral plants and vertebrates. Oikos 63(1):39-47.
Soulé, M.E., D.T. Bolger, A.C. Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sorice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed dynamics of rapid extinctions of chaparral-requiring birds in urban habitat islands.
Conservation Biology 2(1):75-92.
Suarez, A.V., D.T. Bolger and T.J. Case. 1998. Effects of fragmentation and invasion on native ant communities in coastal southern California. Ecology 79(6):2041-2056.
Temple, S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 2(4):340-347.
Treseder, K.K., and K.L. McGuire. 2009. Links Between Plant and Fungal Diversity in Habitat Fragments of Coastal Sage Scrub. The 94th ESA Annual Meeting, 2009. (Note: This was cited as Treseder and McGuire 2011.)
Vaughan, J.R. 2010. Local Geographies of the Coastal Cactus Wren and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Master of Science thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 97 pp.
Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracks and the decline of migratory songbirds.
Ecology 66(4):1211-1214.
Wolkovich, E.M., D.T. Bolger, and K.L. Cottingham. 2009. Invasive grass litter facilitates native shrubs through abiotic effects. Journal of Vegetation Science 20: 1121–1132.
Woodroffe, R., and J.R. Ginsberg. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:2126-2128.
Fire and Nitrogen Deposition
Clark, R.E. 2008. When Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub Burn: Consequences for Mammals, Management, and More. U.S. Joint Fire Science Program Briefs, Paper 78. (Note: this was cited as Clark et al. 2008)
Clark, C.M., P.E. Morefield, F.S. Gilliam, and L.H. Pardo. 2013. Estimated losses of plant biodiversity in the United States from historical N deposition (1985–2010). Ecology 94(7):1441–1448.
Cox, R.D., K.L. Preston, R.F. Johnson, R.A. Minnich, and E.B. Allen. 2014. Influence of landscape-scale variables on vegetation conversion to exotic annual grassland in southern California, USA. Global Ecology and Conservation 2:190-203.
Diffendorfer, J. 2008. When chaparral and coastal sage scrub burn: consequences for mammals, management, and more. Fire Science Brief 28:1-6.
Egerton-Warburton, L.M., R.C. Graham, E.B. Allen and M.F. Allen. 2001. Reconstruction of the historical changes in mycorrhizal fungal communities under anthropogenic nitrogen deposition. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 268(1484):2479-2484. (Note: this was cited as Egerton-Warburton et al. 2002.)
Fenn, M.E., E.B. Allen, S.B. Weiss, S. Jovan, L.H. Geiser, G.S. Tonnesen, R.F. Johnson, L.E.
Rao, B.S. Gimeno, F. Yuani, T. Meixner, and A. Bytnerowicz. 2010. Nitrogen critical loads and management alternatives for N-impacted ecosystems in California. Journal of Environmental Management 91:2404-2423
Flemming, G.M., J.E. Diffendorfer, and P.H. Zedler. 2009. The relative importance of disturbance and exotic-plant abundance in California coastal sage scrub. Ecological Applications 19(8):2210–2227.
Howarth, R.W. E.W. Boyer, W.J. Pabich, and J.N. Galloway. 2002. Nitrogen use in the United States from 1961–2000 and potential future trends. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31(2):88-96.
Keeley, J.E., and T.J. Brennan. 2012. Fire-driven alien invasion in a fire-adapted ecosystem.
Oecologia 169:1043–1052.
Keeley, J.E., and C.J. Fotheringham. 2001. Historic fire regime in southern California shrublands. Conservation Biology 15(6):1536-1548.
Keeley, J.E., J. Franklin, and C. D’Antonio. 2011. Fire and Invasive Plants on California Landscapes. In: D. McKenzie, C. Miller, and D.A. Falk (eds.). The Landscape Ecology of Fire, Ecological Studies 213. Springer, New York, New York. 312pp. (Note: this was cited as Keeley et al. 2010.)
Messner, S., S.C. Miranda, K. Green, C. Phillips, J. Dudley, D. Cayan, and E. Young. 2009.
Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. CEC-500-2009- 027. (Note: this was cited as Messner et al. 2016.)
Minnich, R.A. 2008. California’s fading wildflowers: Lost legacy and biological invasions.
University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 360 pp.
Talluto, M.V., and K.N. Suding. 2008. Historical change in coastal sage scrub in southern California, USA in relation to fire frequency and air pollution. Landscape Ecology 23:803–815.
Wilcox, B.P., L. Turnbull, M.H. Young, C.J. Williams, S. Ravi, M.S. Seyfried, D.R. Bowling, R.L. Scott, M.J. Germino, T.G. Caldwell, and J. Wainwright. 2011. Invasion of shrublands by exotic grasses: ecohydrological consequences in cold versus warm deserts.
Ecohydrology 5:160-173.
Climate Change
Collingham, Y.C. and B. Huntley. 2000. Impacts of habitat fragmentation and patch size on migration rates. Ecological Applications 10(1):131–144.
Conlisk, E., A.D. Syphard, J. Franklin, L. Flint, A. Flint, and H. Regan. 2013. Uncertainty in assessing the impacts of global change with coupled dynamic species distribution and population models. Global Change Biology 19:858–869.
Gershunov, A., D.R. Cayan, S.F. Iacobellis. 2009. The Great 2006 Heat Wave over California and Nevada: Signal of an Increasing Trend. Journal of Climate 22(23):6181-6203.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z.
Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 996 pp.
IPCC. 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M.
Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 28pp.
Li, H., J. Xiang-Yu, G. Dai, Z. Gu, C. Ming, Z. Yang, O.A. Ryder, W. Lie, Y. Fu, and Y. Zhang. 2016. Large numbers of vertebrates began rapid population decline in the late 19th century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(49):14709-14084.
Loarie S.R., B.E. Carter, K. Hayhoe, S. McMahon, R. Moe, C.A. Knight, and D.D. Ackerly. 2008. Climate Change and the Future of California’s Endemic Flora. PLoS ONE 3(6):
e2502/doi:10.1371.
Lockwood, M. 2009. Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0519.
Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W. Yohe (eds.). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.
Messner, S., S.C. Miranda, K. Green, C. Phillips, J. Dudley, D. Cayan, and E. Young. 2009.
Climate Change Related Impacts in the San Diego Region by 2050. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. CEC-500-2009- 027.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. A Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group. Island Press, Covelo, California. 245pp.
Moser, S., G. Franco, S. Pittiglio, W. Chou, and D. Cayan. 2009. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response Options for California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. CEC‐500‐ 2008‐071.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2011. What are climate and climate change? NASA Knows! (Grades 5-8) series.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-climatechange-58.html _________. 2016. Drought continues to grip California. NASA Earth Observatory Image of the Day, November 16, 2016. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=89110 National Science and Technology Council. 2008. Scientific Assessment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States. A Report of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. 261pp.
Nemani, R.R., M.A. White, D.R. Cayan, G.V. Jones, S.W. Running, J.C. Coughlan, and D.L.
Peterson. 2001. Asymmetric warming over coastal California and its impact on the premium wine industry. Climate Research 19: 25–34. (Note: this was cited as Nemani et al. 2010.)
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 37:637–69.
Riordan, E.C., T.W. Gillespie, L. Pitcher, S.S. Pincetl, G.D. Jenerette, and D.E. Pataki. 2015.
Threats of future climate change and land use to vulnerable tree species native to Southern California. Environmental Conservation 42 (2): 127–138.
Riordan, E.C., and P.W. Rundel. 2014. Land use compounds habitat losses under projected climate change in a threatened California ecosystem. PLoS ONE 9(1):
e86487/doi:10.1371.
Sala, O.E., F.S. Chapin III, J.J. Armesto, E. Berlow, J. Bloomfield, R. Dirzo, E. Huber-Sanwald, L.F. Huenneke, R.B. Jackson, A. Kinzig, R. Leemans, D.M. Lodge, H.A. Mooney, M.
Oesterheld, N.L. Poff, M.T. Sykes, B.H. Walker, M. Walker, D.H. Wall. 2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 287:1770-1774.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Climate change indicators in the United States, Fourth edition. EPA 430-R-16-004.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. California Water Science Center, https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/ (Note: California saw 2014 (not 2015 as stated) as its warmest year on record. However, the three warmest years (from highest to lowest) were 2014, 2015 and 2016.)
Quino Checkerspot
Bleich, V.C., J.D. Wehausen, and S.A. Holl. 1990. Desert-dwelling mountain sheep:
conservation implications of a naturally fragmented distribution. Conservation Biology 4(4):383-390.
Brook, B.W., N.S. Sodhi, and C.J.A. Bradshaw. 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23(8):453-460.
Dobkin, D.S., I. Olivieri, and P.R. Ehrlich. 1987. Rainfall and the interaction of microclimate with larval resources in the population dynamics of checkerspot butterflies (Euphydryas editha) inhabiting serpentine grassland. Oecologia 71(2):161-166.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.D. Murphy, M.C. Singer, C.B. Sherwood, R.R. White, and I.L. Brown. 1980.
Extinction, reduction, stability and increase: the responses of checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas) populations to the California drought. Oecologia 46(1):101-105.
Fenn, M.E., J.S. Baron, E.B. Allen, H.M. Rueth, K.R. Nydick, L. Geiser, W.D. Bowman, J.O.
Sickman, T. Meixner, D.W. Johnson, and P. Neitlich. 2003. Ecological effects of nitrogen deposition in the western United States. BioScience 53(4):404-420.
Forister, M.L., A.C. McCall, N.J. Sanders, J.A. Fordyce, J.H. Thorne, J. O’Brien, D.P. Waetjen, and A.M. Shapiro. 2010. Compounded effects of climate change and habitat alteration shift patterns of butterfly diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107(5):2088-2092.
Hegland, S.J., A. Nielsen, A. Lázaro, A. Bjerknes, and Ø. Totland. 2009. How does climate warming affect plant-pollinator interactions? Ecology Letters 12: 184–195.
IPCC. 2014: IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
Janzen, D.H. 1983. No park is an island: increase in interference from outside as park size decreases. Oikos 41(3) Island Ecology, pp. 402-410.
Karl, T.R., R.W. Knight, D.R. Easterling, and R.G. Quayle. 1996. Indices of Climate Change for the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 77(2):279-292.
Laurance, W.F., R.O. Bierregaard (eds.). 1997. Tropical Forest Remnants: Ecology, Management, and Conservation of Fragmented Communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Mattoni, R., G.F. Pratt, T.R. Longcore, J.F. Emmel, and J.N. George. 1997. The endangered quino checkerspot butterfly, Euphydryas editha quino (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae).
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 34:99–118.
Memmott, J., P.G. Craze, N.M. Waser, and M.V. Price. 2007. Global warming and the disruption of plant–pollinator interactions. Ecology Letters 10: 710–717.
Parmesan, C. 1996. Climate and species’ range. Nature 382:765-766. _________. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology and Evolution and Systematics 37:637–669.
Parmesan, C., A. Williams-Anderson, M. Moskwik, A. S. Mikheyev, M. C. Singer. 2014.
Endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly and climate change: Short-term success but long-term vulnerability? J. Insect Conserv. 19, 185–204. (Note: this was inadvertently cited as Anderson et al. 2014 and Parmesan 2015. It is also cited as Parmesan et al. 2015, which is actually a separate publication of the same article.) Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8(1):17-26.
Potts, S.G., J.C. Biesmeijer, C. Kremen, P. Neumann, O. Schweiger, and W.E. Kunin. 2010.
Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25(6):345-353.
Preston, K.L., R.A. Redak, M.F. Allen, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2012. Changing distribution patterns of an endangered butterfly: linking local extinction patterns and variable habitat relationships. Biological Conservation 152:280–290.
Purvis, A., J.L. Gittleman, G. Cowlishaw, and G.M. Mace. 2000. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 267:1947-1952.
San Diego Management and Monitoring Program (SDMMP). 2013. Management Strategic Plan for Conserved Lands in Western San Diego County, Vol. 2: Regional and Management Unit Goals and Objectives. 3 Volumes. Prepared for the San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego. Version 08.27.2013.
Schelhas, J., and R. Greenberg. 1996. Forest patches in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Covelo, California.
Singer, M.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. 1979. Population dynamics of the checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha). Fortschritte der Zoologie 25(2/3):53-60.
Singer, M.C., and C. Parmesan. 2010. Phenological asynchrony between herbivorous insects and their hosts: signal of climate change or pre-existing adaptive strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365, 3161–3176.
Singer, M.C. and C.D. Thomas. 1996. Evolutionary responses of a butterfly metapopulation to human- and climate-caused environmental variation. The American Naturalist 148(Supplement):S9-S39.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Determination of Endangered Status for the Laguna Mountains Skipper and Quino Checkerspot Butterfly; Final Rule. Federal Register 62(11): 2313–2322. _________. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino); Final Rule.
Federal Register 67(72): 18356-18395.
_________. 2003. Recovery Plan for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino). Portland, Oregon. x + 179 pp.
_________. 2009. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. Issued by the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 56pp.
Warren, M.S. and N.A.D. Bourn. 2010. Ten challenges for 2010 and beyond to conserve Lepidoptera in Europe. Journal of Insect Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10841-010-9356-5.
Wiens J.J. 2016. Climate-related local extinctions are already widespread among plant and animal species. PLoS Biology 14(12): e2001104. doi:10.1371/ journal.pbio.2001104.
Wilson, R.J. and I.M.D. Maclean. 2011. Recent evidence for the climate change threat to Lepidoptera and other insects. Journal of Insect Conservation 15:259–268.
Hermes Copper
Brown, J.W. 1991. Sensitive and Declining Butterflies Species (Insecta:Lepidoptera) in San Diego County, California. A draft report provided by Dudek and Associates, Encinitas, California. 15pp.
Brown, J.W., H.G. Real, D.K. Faulkner. 1992. Butterflies of Baja California. Lepidoptera Research Foundation. Beverly Hills, California.
Calflora. 2010. Website accessed on November 30, 2010. http://www.calflora.org/ ______. 2016. Website accessed on November 14, 2016. http://www.calflora.org/cgibin/species_query.cgi?where-taxon=Rhamnus+crocea Consortium of California Herbaria. 2010. Website accessed on November 30, 2010. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/
Deutschman, D.H., M.E. Berres, D.A. Marschalek, and S.L. Strahm. 2010. Initial Evaluation of the Status of Hermes Copper (Lycaena hermes) on Conserved Lands in San Diego County. Prepared for the San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, California. iv+36pp.
EDAW, Inc. 2009. Draft City of Santee Multi-Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan Conservation Strategy for the Hermes Copper. Prepared for the City of Santee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. San Diego, California. 32pp.
Emmel, T.C. and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Series 26:1-148.
Marschalek, D.A., and D.H. Deutschman. 2016a. Rare butterfly management studies on conserved lands in San Diego County: Hermes copper (Lycaena hermes), Translocation Final Report. Final Report for the San Diego Association of Governments. iv+14pp. (Note: this was cited as Marschalek 2016a and as Marschalek and Deutschman 2016.) Marschalek, D.A., and D.H. Deutschman. 2016b. Rare Butterfly Management and Conservation Planning Task 3: Hermes Copper Adult Surveys At South County Sites (Sentinel Sites & Fire Sites) 29 September 2016. Final Report for the San Diego Association of Governments. 23pp. (Note: this was cited as Marschalek 2016b.) Marschalek, D.A., and D.H Deutschman. 2015. Rare butterfly management studies on conserved lands in San Diego County: Hermes copper (Lycaena hermes), Hermes Copper Survey and Rearing Final Report. Final Report for the San Diego Association of Governments. v+55pp.
Marschalek, D.A. and D.H. Deutschman. 2008. Hermes copper (Lycaena [Hermelycaena] hermes: Lycaenidae): life history and population estimation of a rare butterfly. Journal of Insect Conservation 12:97–105.
Marschalek, D.D. and M. Klein. 2013. Don’t Shoot the Messenger! American Butterflies, Fall/Winter 20-25.
Marschalek, D.A., and M.W. Klein. 2010. Distribution, ecology, and conservation of Hermes copper (Lycaenidae: Lycaena [Hermelycaena] hermes). Journal of Insect Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10841-010-9302-6.
Murphy, D.D., and S.B. Weiss. 1992. Effects of Climate Change on Biological Diversity in Western North America: Species Losses and Mechanisms. Chapter 26 in: Global Warming and biological diversity, R. L. Peters and T. E. Lovejoy (eds.). Hamilton Printing, Castleton, New York.
San Diego County Plant Atlas. 2010. Website viewed on December 20, 2010, for records of Rhamnus crocea.
http://www.sdplantatlas.org/(S(0eeky055ph34ryjjpgwmeuyj))/index.aspx.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCG). 2015.
Proponent’s Environmental Assessment for the Pipeline Safety & Reliability Project, Section 4.4 Biological Resources and Attachment 4-4.C. Application to the California Public Utilities Commission to construct, operate, and maintain an approximately 47- mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline.
Strahm, S.L., D.A. Marschalek, D.H. Deutschman, and M.E. Berres. 2012. Monitoring the Status of Hermes Copper (Lycaena hermes) on Conserved Lands in San Diego County: 2010 – 2012. Prepared for the San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, California. 61pp.
Thorne, F. 1963. The distribution of an endemic butterfly Lycaena hermes. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 2(2):143-150.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2016. Queried locality information on the Hermes copper in the Service GIS database.
_________. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register 76(72):20918-20939.
Coastal Cactus Wren
Barr, K.R., A.G. Vandergast, and B.E. Kus. 2012. Genetic Connectivity in the Coastal Cactus Wren. Data Summary Report prepared for SDMMP. 30pp.
Barr, K.R., B.E. Kus, K.L. Preston, S. Howell, E. Perkins, and A.G. Vandergast. 2015. Habitat fragmentation in coastal southern California disrupts genetic connectivity in the cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). Molecular Ecology 24: 2349–2363.
Bontrager, D.R., R.A. Erickson, and R.A. Hamilton. 1995. Impacts of the October 1993 Laguna Canyon Fire on California Gnatcatchers and Cactus Wrens. In: J.E. Keeley and T. Scott (eds.). Brushfires in California Wildlands: Ecology and Resource Management.
International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, Washington.
Cooper, D.S. 2010. Post-fire survey for the California gnatcatcher and the cactus wren at the Portuguese Bend Reserve, Palos Verdes Peninsula. Final report prepared for the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy.
Crooks, K.R., A.V. Suarez, D.T. Bolger, and M.E. Soulé. 2001. Extinction and colonization of birds on habitat islands. Conservation Biology 15(1):159-172.
Dawson, W.L. 1923. Birds of California, Volume 2. South Moulton Company, San Diego, California.
Eggert, L.S. 1996. A Phylogenetic Approach to Management of Coastal California Cactus Wrens (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). A Thesis presented to the Faculty of San Diego State University. vi+65pp.
Grinnel, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27. Cooper Ornithological Club, Berkeley, California.
Hamilton, R.A. 2009. 2008 Surveys, Cactus Wrens and California Gnatcatchers, San Dieguito River Valley, San Diego County. Prepared for: Conservation Biology Institute, Encinitas, California. 112pp. (Note: this was cited as Hamilton 2008.) _________. 2004. Target bird monitoring study, Nature Reserve of Orange County, 2004. Report prepared for: the Nature Reserve of Orange County, Santa Ana, California. 119pp.
Harper, B., and L. Salata. 1991. A Status Review of the Coastal Cactus Wren [Draft]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southern California Field Station, Laguna Niguel, California. 90pp.
Kamada, D., and K. Preston. 2013. Nature Reserve of Orange County: coastal cactus wren dispersal and survival surveys, genetics, and parasite sampling, and arthropod foraging ecology in 2012. Final Report prepared for California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Kristan, W. B. III, A.J. Lynam, M.V. Price, and J.T. Rotenberry. 2003. Alternative causes of edge-abundance relationships in birds and small mammals of California coastal sage scrub. Ecography 26: 29–44.
Leatherman Bioconsulting. 2009. Central Reserve Cactus Wren Habitat Assessment and Survey, 2008. Report prepared for: the Nature Reserve of Orange County, Irvine, California. 27 pp.
Mitrovich, M.J. and R.A. Hamilton. 2007. Status of the Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) within the Coastal Subregion of Orange County, California. Report prepared for: Nature Reserve of Orange County, Irvine, California. 18pp. (Note: this was also cited as Mitrovich and Hamilton 2006.)
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. 1993. Population viability analysis for coastal cactus wrens within the MSCP Study Area. Prepared for: The Clean Water Program, City of San Diego. 19pp. (Note: this was cited as Ogden Environmental and Energy Services 1992.)
O’Leary, J.F. 1995. Coastal sage scrub: threats and current status. Fremontia 23(4):27-31.
Preston, K. and D. Kamada. 2012. Nature Reserve of Orange County: Monitoring Coastal Cactus Wren Reproduction, Dispersal and Survival, 2009-2011. Final Report prepared for:
California Department of Fish and Game. iv+85pp.
Proudfoot, G.A., D.A. Sherry, and S. Johnson. 2000. Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). In: The Birds of North America, No. 558 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).
The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Rea, A.M. and K.L. Weaver. 1990. The taxonomy, distribution and status of coastal California Cactus Wrens. Western Birds 21(3):81-126.
Solek, C.W. and L.J. Szijj. 2004. Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus). In: The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coastal scrub and chaparral habitats and associated birds in California.
California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/scrub.html Syphard A.D., V.C. Radeloff, J.E. Keeley, T.J. Hawbaker, M.K. Clayton, S.I. Stewart, and R.B.
Hammer. 2007. Human influence on California fire regimes. Ecological Applications 17(5):1388–1402.
Temple, S.A., and J.R. Cary. 1988. Modeling dynamics of habitat-interior bird populations in fragmented landscapes. Conservation Biology 2(4):340-347.
The Nature Conservancy. 2015. South San Diego County Coastal Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) Habitat Conservation and Management Plan.
Prepared for: San Diego Association of Governments. 150pp with appendices.
Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History 39:411-414 (Cactus Wren account).
Vaughan, J.R. 2010. Local Geographies of the Coastal Cactus Wren and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. Master of Science thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, California. 97 pp.
Westman, W.E. 1981. Diversity relations and succession in California coastal sage scrub.
Ecology 62(1):170-184.
Willet, G. 1933. A revised list of the birds of southwestern California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 21. Cooper Ornithological Club, Los Angeles, California.
Western Spadefoot
AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., and Conservation Biology Institute. 2003. Final MHCP Plan, Volume II Biological Analysis and Permitting Conditions. Prepared for: Multiple Habitat Conservation Program for the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista. Western spadefoot toad account, 4-215 – 4-221. (Note: this was cited as AMEC 2003.)
Butte County Association of Governments. 2015. Butte Regional Conservation Plan, Formal Public Draft. Appendix A: Covered Species Accounts, Western spadefoot toad account, A.16-1 – A.16-10. Available at: http://www.buttehcp.com/BRCP-Documents/FormalPublic-Draft-BRCP-/index.html (Note: this was cited as Butte County Association of Governments 2011.)
California Natural Diversity Database. 2000. Rarefind 2, Version 2.1.2. Records search.
Sacramento, California: California Department of Fish and Game. Cited in: U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation/State Water Resources Control Board. 2003. Battle Creek Salmon and Steelhead Restoration Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. July. Jones and Stokes Report 03-035. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/water_quality_cert/do cs/battlecreek_salmon_ferc1121/draft_eir/ch9.pdf
Carey, C., and M.A. Alexander. 2003. Climate change and amphibian declines: is there a link? Diversity and Distributions 9:111–121.
Dimmitt, M.A., and R. Ruibal. 1980. Environmental correlates of emergence in spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus). Journal of Herpetology 14(1):21-29.
Fisher, R.N., and H.B. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California's Great Central Valley. Conservation Biology 10(5):1387-1397.
Jennings, M.R. 1988. Natural history and decline of native ranids in California. In: H. F. De Lisle, P. R. Brown, B. Kaufman, and B. M. McGurty (eds.). Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. Pp 61-72. Southwestern Herpetol. Soc., Van Nuys, California. (Note: this was cited as Jennings 1998.) Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final Report submitted to: California Department of Fish and Game. Western spadefoot account, pp 94-97.
Morey, S.R., and D.A. Guinn. 1992. Activity patterns, food habits, and changing abundance in a community of vernal pool amphibians. In: D.F. Williams, S. Byrne, and T.A. Rado (eds.). Endangered and Sensitive Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California: Their Biology, Management, and Conservation. Pp. 149–158. California Energy Commission and The Wildlife Society, Western Section, Sacramento, California.
Reh, W., and A. Seitz. 1990. The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana temporaria. Biological Conservation 54:239-249.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDGE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCG). 2015.
Proponent’s Environmental Assessment for the Pipeline Safety & Reliability Project, Section 4.4 Biological Resources and Attachment 4-4.C. Application to the California Public Utilities Commission to construct, operate, and maintain an approximately 47- mile-long, 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline.
Semlitsch, R.D., and J.R. Brodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17(5):1219–1228. (Note: this citation refers to habitat usage within 370 m of aquatic habitats but did not clarify that this distance was for frogs rather than amphibians in general.) Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York, New York.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. II. Biology of Covered Species, Western spadefoot toad, pp II-220 – II-235. (Note: the draft (2004) of this document was also cited in text.) San Diego Goldenstar
Baker, W.L. 2006. Fire and restoration of sagebrush ecosystems. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34(1):177-185.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2016. Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory; Bloomeria clevelandii. Webpage accessed on November 29, 2016.
http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/detail/649.html
Cione, N. K., P.E. Padgett, and E.B. Allen. 2002. Restoration of a native shrubland impacted by exotic grasses, frequent fire, and nitrogen deposition in southern California. Restoration Ecology, 10: 376–384. doi:10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.02038.x.
Cox, R. D. and E.B. Allen. 2008. Stability of exotic annual grasses following restoration efforts in southern California coastal sage scrub. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45: 495–504. (Note: this was cited as Cox et al. 2008.)
D’Antonio, C.M., T.L. Dudley, and M.C. Mack. 1999. Disturbance and biological invasions:
direct effects and feedbacks. In: L.R. Walker (ed.). Ecosystems of disturbed ground.
Elsevier, Amsterdam. Pp 413–52.
Hamilton, J.G. 1997. Changing perceptions of pre-European grasslands in California. Madroño 44(4):311-333.
HilleRisLambers, J., S.G. Yelenik, B.P. Colman, and J.M. Levine. 2010. California annual grass invaders: the drivers or passengers of change? The Journal of Ecology 98(5):1147–1156. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01706.x
Keeley, J.E., and T.J. Brennan. 2012. Fire-driven alien invasion in a fire-adapted ecosystem.
Oecologia 169:1043–1052.
Keeley, J.E., C.J. Fotheringham, and M. Baer-Keeley. 2005. Determinants of postfire recovery and succession in Mediterranean-climate shrublands of California. Ecological Applications 15(5):1515-1534.
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). 2010. San Diego County Water Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan; Appendix B. San Diego County Water Authority and RECON Environmental, Inc. http://www.sdcwa.org/nccp-hcp
http://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/files/environmental-docs/nccp/volume-IIfinal/appendices/AppB.pdf San Diego Management and Monitoring Program (SDMMP). 2016. San Diego goldenstar, Bloomeria clevelandii, species profile. Website accessed Nov. 28, 2016. http://portal.sdmmp.com/species profile.php?taxaid=509575 (Note: this was cited as SDMMP 2010.)
_________. 2016. Copy of Rare Plant MSP [Management Strategy Plan] 2016 Occurrence Table. Excel spreadsheet file. Unpublished data: attachment to email from Kris Preston to California Department of Fish and Wildlife on October 4, 2016. (note: this was cited as SDMMP 2016 unpublished data.)
Talluto, M.V., and K.N. Suding. 2008. Historical change in coastal sage scrub in southern California, USA in relation to fire frequency and air pollution. Landscape Ecology 23:803–815.
Zedler, Paul H., C.R. Gautier, and G.S. McMaster. 1983. Vegetation change in response to extreme events: the effect of a short interval between fires in California chaparral and coastal scrub. Ecology 64(4): 809-818. doi:10.2307/1937204
EXHIBIT B
for the land use plan without school (p. 4.7-26, 4.7-27). As a result, the RDEIR concludes that the Project's GHG emissions would not exceed the per capita GHG significance threshold of 1.77 MT CO,e/SP/year, and the Project's GHG impact would be less than significant (p. 4.7-26, 4.7- 27). Furthermore, the RDEIR concludes that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact as a result of the Project's consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan (p. 4.7-31). However, the RDEIR's GHG analysis should not be relied upon for three reasons. (1) The DEIR's quantitative GHG analysis relies upon an incorrect and unsubstantiated air model; (2) The DEIR fails to demonstrate the Project's consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan; and (3) Updated analysis demonstrates significant impacts.
1) Unsubstantiated Input Parameters Use to Estimate Project Emissions According to the RDEIR, the Project's GHG analysis relies on emissions calculated from the California Emissions Estimator Model Version CalEEMod.2016.3.2 ("CalEEMod") (p. 4.7-14).1 CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.2 Once all of the values are inputted into the model, the Project's construction and operational emissions are calculated, and "output files" are generated. These output files disclose to the reader what parameters were utilized in calculating the Project's air pollutant and GHG emissions and make known which default values were changed as well as provide a justification for the values selected.3 When we reviewed the Project's CalEEMod output files, provided as Appendix H to the RDEIR, we found that several of the values inputted into the model are not consistent with information disclosed in the RDEIR and associated documents. As a result, emissions associated with the Project are underestimated.
An updated EIR should be prepared that adequately assesses the potential impacts that construction and operation of the proposed Project may have on regional and local air quality.
Unsubstantiated Reductions to CH4, N20, and CO2 Intensity Factors The Project's CalEEMod output files demonstrate that both the mitigated and unmitigated models for both plans incorrectly include several changes to the Project's CH4, N20, and CO2 intensity factors. As a result, the models may underestimate the Project's emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Review of the Project's Cal EE Mod output files demonstrates that both the unmitigated land use plan with school and land use plan without school models include manual changes to the Project's CH4, N20, and CO2 intensity factors (see excerpt below) (Appendix H, pp. 408,435). 1 CalEEMod website, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 2 CalEEMod User Guide, p. 2, 9, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ 3 "CalEEMod User's Guide." CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/ (A key feature of the CalEEMod program is the "remarks" feature, where the user explains why a default setting was replaced by a "user defined" value. These remarks are included in the report.) , p. 7, 13.
2 Unmitigated Land Use Plan with School and Land Use Plan without School:
Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value
l ............... ili'
f
ProJe
eicfiaracieiis\lcs"·""'"""""'""""""l
"""'"""""'cf-i4iiiiaisii;;;Fa·aoi"""'"'""""l
'""""""""'""""""o:o:l'§'"'"'""'"""""""" 0.001
.............................. iii.r, iolec
ictiar.ic
i
ert
'
s
i
lc's'""'"""""'""""'""'f"'"""""""co2iiii'ensiiyi=ai:\oi""'"'"""'"'i """'"""'""""'"""l
2 il
'
49 '""'"""'""'""'"" ........................... 2
as2"""'""""'"""""
.............................. i
i
iPioieciciiariiciei\s
i
i
cs ................................ l ............ ifioi iii'ensi
/yFa
'dcii""""'""'""l
· ............................. ii:aa·
1 r .... ...................... ..................... ........ ii ............................ .. 1111111111111111111,1111,n11u11111111111111111111111111111111111111111u11111111111111111111111111u111l11111u11u11,1t11111111111,11111111111111111111111111111111111111111,h111111111111111111111111111n11111111111111111111111111111111111111 As you can see in the excerpt above, the CH4, CO2, and N20 intensity factors were reduced by approximately 97%, 60%, and 100%, respectively. Furthermore, review of the Project's CalEEMod output files demonstrates that both the mitigated land use plan with school and land use plan without school models include manual changes to the Project's CH4, N20, and CO2 intensity factors (see excerpts below) (Appendix H, pp. 463, 491)
Mitigated Land Use Plan with School and Land Use Plan without School:
Table Name I
Column Name I Default Value New Value
tblProjectCharacteristics l CH41ntensityFactor l 0.029 0.004 ....................................................................... j ................................................................. ,,,t, .................................................................. ........................................................... . tblProjectCharacteristics ! C021nlensit>;Factor ! 720.49 29 602 "'""''"•''''""""''·"""H'"''·""""'"""·""" .. ''"'•""i""''"·"'"'•uuoHuoo,HouoHno,u•••n•••"''''"''""•'•••i••"••••""" ... '"''"'"'""'"'""'""'•'""n•n.,,.,.,.,,.,. ••••••••••"'"'"''"""''"''"'''"'"""''"'"'''"'""' .. tblProjectCharacteristics ; N201ntensityFactor ; 0.006 0.001 .......................................................................... .i .................................................................... i .................................................................. ---------1111 As you can see in the excerpt above, the CH4, CO2, and N20 intensity factors were reduced by approximately 86%, 96%, and 83%, respectively. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.4 According to the User Entered Comments and NonDefault Data table, the justifications provided for this changes are: "60% renewable" and "Santee CCA in combination with SDG&E for year 2035 (SDG&E Renewabe Portfolie = 60%)"5 (Appendix H, pp. 404, 431, 458,487). However, these justifications are insufficient for two reasons. First, as demonstrated above, the CH4, CO2, and N20 intensity factors were reduced by far more than 60%. Second, assuming the justification is referring to the state's renewable portfolio standard ("RPS"), just because the state has a 60% renewable goal does not guarantee that it will be achieved. Furthermore, without a substantial justification, the proposed Project cannot claim that the statewide RPS goal will result in a project-level reduction of the Project's actual emissions. Finally, the RDEIR acknowledges that this goal is for 2035, which is 15 years away. As a result, we cannot verify the model's use of the reduced CH4, CO2, and N20 intensity factors.
This presents an issue, as the CH4, CO2, and N20 intensity factors are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's GHG emissions associated with electricity use. 6 As such, by including unsubstantiated changes to the Project's CH4, CO2, and N20 intensity factors, the model underestimates the Project's GHG emission and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. 4 Cal EE Mod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 5 *Note: The rest of the justification was not legible. 6 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 3 Failure to Evaluate the Feasibility of Obtaining Tier 4 Final Equipment Review of the Project's CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the Project's emissions were modeled assuming that construction equipment would be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines (see excerpt below) (Appendix H, pp. 61-62, 143-144, 220-221, 315-316).
Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value
tblConstEquipMitigation j NumberOfEquipmentMitigated J 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation J NumilerOfEquipmentMitigated J 0.00 .........................
44. oo
........................ .
tblConstEquipMitigation ( NumberOfEquipmentMitigated ( 0 00 ' 33.00 . .
,,,.,,,.,,.,,,,.,.,,,,,,.,,,.,,.,,.,,..,,11,n11110,•1••u•••••u••u• ,.,.,,.,.,.,,,,.,.,,,,.,,,.,,.,.,,,, • .,,,,,.,,,,,,.,.,.,,.,,,.,,.,, ,..,.,,,,.,,.,,,.,.,,,,.,,.,,,.,,..,,.,,,,,,.,,.,,, • .,,,,,,,,,,u, tblConstEquipMitigation 1 NumberOfEquipmentMitigated � 0.00 1
0.00 tblConstEquipMitigation � NumberOfEquipmentMitigated j 0.00 '
""""""'""
"'"' 1
26.o
O"
"""'"""
""
""
'
"
tblConstEquipMitigation j NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation j NumberOfEquipmentMitigated j 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation : NumberOfEquipmentMitigaled ( 0.00 3.00 . .
lblConstEquipMitigation j NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 1 0.00 .........................
14.00 ........................ .
tblConstEquipMitigation [ NumberOfEquipmentMitigated j 0.00 ............ ............
2 1
00 ........................ .
' tblConstEquipMitigation ! NumberOfEquipmentMitigaled 1 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation j NumberOfEquipmentMitigated j 0.00 .........................
32.oo
"
'
"'"'""'''"'"""""
tblConstEquipMitigation J NumberOfEquipmenfMitigaled j 0.00 .........................
25.00 ........................ .
'··" ' tblConstEquipMitigation ( Tier ' ' ( ' ' ' 'No Change ' ' ' " • """"""""""Tier'4' Finai"'""""'"""" . .
tblConstEquipMitigation i Tier j
No Change · Tier 4
' Final
................... .
tblConstEquipMitigation 1 Tier j
No Change · • Tier'i Final
.......
............ .
lblConstEquipMrtigation i Tier ! No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMrigation · Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation j Tier j
No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation ( Tier j No Change Tier 4 Final ' •• . .
tblConstEquipMitigation j Tier 1 No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMiligation t Tier j No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation 1 Tier � No Change Tier 4 Final ' " " """"" tblConstEquipMitigation j Tier : No Change · · Tier 4
'
Final
" ..
.
. ........... .
tblConstEquipMitigation J Tier j No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMrtigation ( Tier ( No Change I Tier 4 Final ,,,,,.,,..,,.,,,,.,,.,.,.,,,,,.,,,,.,.,,.,,.,.,,,,,.,.,,.,,.,,..,,,.,.,,.,,.,,,:,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,..,.,,,,.,,.,,,.,.,,.,.,,..,,.,,:,, • .,,,, •• ,,,.,, • .,,,,,.,,.,,,.,,.,. •• ,,,.,,.,..,, ••• ,,.,,,,,.,,,.,.,.,,.,.,..,.,,,.,,.,,,.,, • .,,,,,.,,.,.,.,,,,,,.,,..,, • .,,.,u As you can see in the excerpt above, the model assumed that 317 pieces of off-road construction equipment would be equipped with Tier 4 Final mitigation. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.9 According to the RDEIR, MM AIR-3 requires the use ofTier 4 construction equipment (p. 1-9 1-10). Specifically, MM AIR-3 states:
"AIR-3: Tier 4 Construction Equipment. The City of Santee shall require heavy-duty, dieselpowered construction equipment used on the project site during construction to be powered by California Air Resources Board-certified Tier 4 (Final) or newer engines and diesel-powered haul trucks to be 2010 model year or newer that conform to 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection 9 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 5 Table Name I Column Name I Default Value
UJIGrading j AcresOfGrading j 1,671.00
. -
New Value
208.50
tblGrading j AcresOfGrading j 1,091.25 253.00
tblGrading i AcresOfGrading 1 3,102.00 240.00
tblGrading � AcresOfGrading � 0.00 253.00
....................................................................... • ......................... ,,.,H,0,,, ............................... ........................................... H,oo,,, ............... ........................................... ,H,,, .......... . tblGrading � AcresOfGrading ) 0.00 208.50
tblGrading i AcresOfGrading ! 0.00 240 00
""''''''''''''"''''''''''''''"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''',,,,.,,,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,Ho•o,u,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,, ,,,.,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,.,.,,,.,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Fanita Ranch Construction Phase 3-4:
Table Name I Column Name I Default Value New Value I
tlllGrading j AcresOfGrading ! 1,671 00
-�·'••••nu,,,..,,. •• ,..,�,...,.LO_.,..._,.,,,,,,.,, ,,.,.,u,.__.•••• tblGrading l AcresOfGrading �
1,671.00 208.50
,, .. u,,, ................................................................ - ..................................................................... ......................................................................... ................................................................ . tblGrading j AcresOfGrading � 0.00 208.50
...........................
tblGrading
"""""""""""""! """""" """
AcresOfGrading
'""""" "'"" � ........... " ""' '""""
0 00
"'""""""' "" " ' ' ' 208.50
"
'
""
'
""""
"
"""
............................................................................... -....................................................................... -........................................................................... ................................................................. .
As you can see in the excerpts above, both models for Construction Phases 1-2 and 3-4 included reductions to the Project's Acres of Grading. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.11 According to the "User Entered Comments & NonDefault Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "grading acreage provided by developer" (Appendix H, pp. 61,143,220, 315). However, this change is unaddressed in the Grading Plan (p. 3-78). Furthermore, the Acres of Grading is not just the Project site acreage, but the "cumulative distance traversed on the property by the grading equipment, assuming a blade width of 12 feet."1 2 As a
result, we cannot verify the revised Acres of Grading values, and the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Off-Road Construction Equipment Horsepower and Usage Hours Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that both models for Construction Phase 1-2 and Construction Phase 3-4 include manual changes to the Project's anticipated off-road construction equipment usage hours and horsepower values (Appendix H, pp. 66-74, 148-156, 225-233, 320-328). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.13 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "construction equipment list provided by developer" (Appendix H, pp. 65, 143, 220, 315). However, while the Air Quality Analysis, provided as Appendix Cl to the RDEIR, provides a construction equipment list, many of the usage hours and horsepower values are provided in ranges (see excerpt below) (Appendix Cl, p. 18-20, Table E).
11 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 1 2 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 33 13 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 7 Table E: Diesel Construction Equipment Utilized by Construction Phase Phase Off-Road Off-Road Equipment Hours Used Horse- load No. Phase Name Equipment Type Unit Amount per Day power Factor Rubber-Tired 1 Dozers 5.1 436 0.4
1 Site Preparation
Rubber-Tired 1 5.1 249 0.36 Loaders
Excavators 1 0.2 760 0.38
Graders 2 0.2-2.3 275 0.41
Off-Highway Trucks 8 0.2-8.0 300-1025 0.38
Plate Compactors 1 2.3 554 0.43
1 Grading Rubber-Tired
Dozers 6 0.2-2.3 35�600 0.4
Scrapers 10 2.3 600 0.48
Trractors/loaders/ 1 0.6 249 0.37 Backhoes
Excavators 15 0.2-3.0 85-417 0.38
As you can see in the excerpt above, many of the usage hours and horsepower values are provided in ranges. As such, and in order to conduct the most conservative analysis, the RD El R's modeling should have included the greatest usage hours and horsepower values provided in the Air Quality Analysis.
However, review of the Project's CalEEMod output files demonstrates that this is not the case. Until an updated EIR is prepared to provide a revised equipment list specifying the usage hours and horsepower for each piece of equipment, the models may underestimate the Project's construction-related emission and should not eb relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Vendor and Worker Trips
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the models for both Construction Phase 1-2 and Construction Phase 3-4 include manual changes to the Project's anticipated vendor and worker trip numbers (see excerpts below) (Appendix H, pp. 75,157,234,329).
Fanita Ranch Construction Phase 1 2:
Table Name I Column Name I Default Value
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 858.00
I New Value
1v;.,.UU
tlllTripsAndVMT j VendorTripNumber j 858.00 312.00
...................... tlJITr
ipsAndVMT ' ( WorkerTrip umber ( 15.
00 5.00
. -
tlJITripsAndVMT j WorkerTlip umber § 15.00 5.00
tblTlipsAndVMT 1 WorkerTlipNumber 1 3,050.00 588.00
tlJITlipsAndVMT i WorkerTlipNumber 1 3,050.00 1,099.00
tlJITlipsAndVMT j WorkerTlipNumber j 15.00 5.00
Fanita Ranch Construction Phase 3-4:
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
8 tblTripsAndVMT J VendorTripNumber J 858.00 312.00
tblTripsAndVMT j VendorTripNumber � 858.00
...... .. · ·
147.00
...................... .
tblTripsAndVMT j VendorTripNumber � 858.00 235.00
tblTripsAndVMT j VendorTripNumber j 858.00 165.00
tblTripsAndVMT \ WorkerTripNumber \ 3,050.00 1,099.00
......................
lb
lTripsAndVMT"""
"""
'"'"" ("'" '"'' WorkerTripNumber ('' 3,050.00 " 525.00 ' ''' - -
tblTripsAndVMT j WorkerTripNumber i 3,050.00 838.00
tblTripsAndVMT t WorkerTripNumber ! 15.00 5.00
"
""'"""'" • 'tb1TripsAndVMT
0 '" 1 WorkerTripNumber � 3,050.00 588.00
tblTripsAndVMT j WorkerTripNumber j 15.00 5.00
As you can see in the excerpt above, the models for both Construction Phase 1-2 and Construction Phase 3-4 include manual reductions to the Project's anticipated vendor and worker trip numbers. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 14 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justifications provided are:
"assume 1 hauling trip per day, 10 miles per trip (cut and fill balanced onsite)" (Appendix H, pp. 61, 143, 220, 315). However, this justification fails to address any change to the Project's vendor and worker trip numbers. Furthermore, the Air Quality Analysis, provided as Appendix Cl to the RDEIR, states:
"[B]ased on CalEEMod defaults and the number of residential units and floor area of commercial buildings to be built during each phase, the project would generate a maximum of approximately 1,099 worker trips and 312 vendor trips per day" (Appendix Cl, 21).
However, this statement is contradictory to the changes in the model, as the model did not rely upon default vendor and worker trip numbers, but instead on manually reduced vendor and worker trip numbers. Furthermore, it should be noted that the vendor and worker trip numbers indicated in the Air Quality Analysis are per day, while the "Trips and VMT" table in the CalEEMod model should include total vendor and worker trips throughout Project construction. As such, the manual reductions to the vendor and worker trip numbers are unsubstantiated. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the Project's vendor and worker trip numbers, the model may underestimate the Project's constructionrelated emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Incorrect Application of Construction Dust Mitigation Measures Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the models for both Construction Phase 1-2 and Construction Phase 3-4 include unsubstantiated construction-related mitigation measures. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project's construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
The following construction-related mitigation measures were included in the models: "Water Exposed Area" and "Water Unpaved Roads," (see excerpt below) (Appendix H, pp. 86, 167, 247, 340). 14 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http:
//www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9
9 tblFireplaces ( NumberGas j 244.75 0.00
.
....
.......
..............................
...
...................
.....
... j .............
...
....
......
...............
.................
...
....... i, .. , .......................
...
......................................... .
..............
.............................
........
.......
... .
tblFireplaces 1 NumberGas 1 661.65 0 00
........................................................................ .; ....................................................................... r ................................................................... ............................................................. . tblFireplaces ; NumberNoFireplace ; 130.10 0.00
= =
...................................................................... , .................................................................... , .................................................................. ........................................................... , tblFireplaces ! NumberNoFireplace ! 44 50 0.00
: :
tblFireplaces j NumberNoFireplace j 120.30 0.00
.
............................
.......
........
..
.......
......
........
.........
. j ...........
......
.
........
..........
...
..........
...
...
..
..........
...
...
. , ....
.........
...................
........................
...
................
..
..
.......................................
......... .
tlJIFireplaces j NumberWood j 455.35 0.00
...................................................................... J ... , ................................................................ , ............................................................................................................................ .. tblFireplaces 1 NumberWood 1 155. 75 0.00 ........................................................................... ; .......................................................................... , .......................................................................... ............................................................. .. tblFireplaces j NumberWood j 421.05 0.00 tblFleetMix j HHD j 0.03 0.02
................................................................................................................................................................................................................ -. ................. _"""""'"""=-"' As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified. 16 However, no justification was provided in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for these models (Appendix H, pp. 458-459, 487-488). Furthermore, the GHG Analysis contradictorily states:
"The project has been designed to prohibit wood stoves and fireplaces and to allow a total of six natural gas fire pits / fireplaces within the community areas of the villages (Project Design Feature (PDF)-AQ/GHG-1)" (p. 22).
As such, the Project is expected to include 6 natural gas fire pits/fireplaces, while the models include 0.
This presents an issue, as CalEEMod uses the number of fireplaces to calculate the Project's area-source operational emissions. 17 Thus, by including unsubstantiated reductions to the Project's anticipated number of fireplaces, the model underestimates the Project's area-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Energy Use Values
Review of the Project's CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the mitigated land use plan with school and mitigated land use plan without school included several changes to the Project's energy use values, including the Nontitle-24 Electricity Energy Intensity ("NT24E"), Nontitle-24 Natural Gas Energy Intensity ("NT24NG"), Title-24 Electricity Energy Intensity ("T24E"), and the Title-24 Natural Gas Energy Intensity ("T24NG") (see excerpt below) (Appendix H, pp. 459,488).
Table Name Column Name Default Value
16 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 17 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 41 11 New Value
tblEnergyUse / NT24E f 3,172.76 3,490.04
•••u1u11111,,,.,11u1•11ouo11u1111111011111uoo111011111111111011uj1,01u1111,111111111011u11,1,n111111n1111n1111,11un1n1u11111i,111011111111u11u1101,11111uu1n110no,.,,,.,,1,01,u11111111,1 1H11t1111111111111u111111 .. 11u1u111111101u11t111n1u10 tblEnergyUse l NT24E i 3,172
.
76 3,490.04
,,.,,,,.,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,.,,,,,.,.,,,.,,,,,,.,,, . .,,,,,,.,,.,, .. ,.,,, .. ,,.,j • .,,,.,.,.,,.,.,,,.,,.,,,.,,.,,,.,,.,.,,,..,,,.,, .. ,,,,,HooooHoHoi•uo,,.e,uoooaoo,,,,.,,.,,..,,,.,, • .,,,.,.,,.,,,.,,,.,, .. .,,,..,. ''"'''"'"''"''""''"'"'"''"''"'"'""'''"'"'''"'" .. ""'''"' tblEnergyUse j NT24E j 6,155.97 6,771.57
......................................................................... ; ......................................................................... i, ..................................................................... ............................................................... . tblEnergyUse !
NT24NG !
4,180.00 0.00
"""""'"""""""
tblEnergyUse
""""""""""""" l
"""""""""'""'"""
NT24
"
G
""""""'"'"""""""
l """""""""""""'"
4, 180
.
00 '""""""' """"""" """" •" """ "'" '
O
.
oo
"'"""""""""""""'
tblEnergyUse i NT24 G l 4,180.00 0.00
tblEnergyUse !
T24E j
260.86 300.04
..................................................................... ,1 ... , ................................................................ , ................................................................... ........................................................... . tblEnergyUse l T24E i 260.86 300 04
........................................................................ j .......................................................................... ( ..................................................................... .............................................................. .. tblEnergyUse j T24E j 331 .
07 380.75
tblEnergyUse i T24NG r 7,045.49 0.00
tblEnergyUse j T24NG j 7,045 49 0.00
.......................
tblEnergyUse
...•......•......•... L .................
T24NG
..•......•......•......•.... L ................. 1
9 ,
206
.
92 •......•......•......•..
o.oo
As you can see in the excerpt above, the natural gas energy intensity values, including NT24NG and T24NG, were reduced to zero, while the electricity energy intensity values, including NT24E and T24E, were minimally increased. As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.18 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justifications provided for these changes are: "All electric homes increased electrical usage an natural gas usage set at zero" and "All Electric homes" (Appendix H, pp. 459,488). Furthermore, the RDEIR states that the Project would include:
"All-Electric Homes. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant or its designee shall provide evidence to the City of Santee that the proposed project will include all-electric homes.
No natural gas shall be provided to the residential portion of the proposed project" (p. 4.7-25).
However, the RDEIR and associated appendices fail to disclose any information to demonstrate how the above energy use values were calculated, or even substantiate their inclusion in the model. Until an updated EIR is prepared to provide calculations for the revise energy use values, we cannot verify these changes. This presents an issue, as the energy use values are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's emissions associated with building electricity and non-hearth natural gas usage. 19 Thus, by
including unsubstantiated energy use values, the models may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Vehicle Emission Factors
Review of the CalEEMod output files for both the land use plan with school and the land use plan without school demonstrates that the operational vehicle emission factors were manually altered (Appendix H, pp. 408-410, 435-437, 463-465, 493-493). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.20 However, the RDEIR and associated appendices fail to justify these changes for three reasons. 18 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 19 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 43 2 ° CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 12 First, while no justification was provided in the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table for the changes to the Project's vehicle emission factors, the justification provided for the changes to the Project's fleet mix is: "from EMFAC for SD air basin 2035" (Appendix H, pp. 404-405, 431-432, 458-459, 487-488). However, this justification is insufficient, as EMFAC refers to an entire database, not a specific set of vehicle emission factors.21 Thus, the RDEIR and associated appendices should have specified which input parameters were used to obtain the vehicle emission factors inputted in the model. Without specific input parameters, we cannot verify the altered vehicle emission factors, and the changes may be incorrect.
Second, the GHG Analysis, provided as Appendix H to the DEIR, states:
"Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2035 were used to estimate emissions associated with full buildout of the project" (Appendix H, p. 4).
However, this justification fails to justify the specific changes made the Project's anticipated vehicle emission factors. As such, we cannot verify the altered vehicle emission factors, and the changes may be incorrect.
Third, contradictorily, the GHG Analysis states:
"Accounted for in EMFAC 2016 vehicle emission factors as part of CalEEMod Version 2016
3.2.25" (Appendix H, p. 25, Table H).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the RDEIR's GHG Analysis indicates that CalEEMod default values for vehicle emission factors were utilized to estimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions.
As such, the changes made to the Project's operational vehicle emission factors are inconsistent with the information provided in the GHG Analysis.
As discussed above, we cannot verify the changes made to the Project's operational vehicle emission factors. This presents an issue, as the vehicle emission factors are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's emissions associated with operational on-road vehicles.22 Thus, by including unsubstantiated changes to the Project's operational vehicle emission factors, the models may underestimate the Project's operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Underestimated Daily Vehicle Trips
According to the Transportation Impact Analysis ("TIA"), provided as Appendix N to the RDEIR, the Project is estimated to generate 26,272 daily vehicle trips, including pass-by and internal trip reductions, throughout the Project's operation (see excerpt below) (Appendix N, p. 53, Table 7-2). 21 "EMFAC2017 Web Database." (ARB, available at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/. 22 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 13 provided in the TIA. As a result, the models underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Unsubstantiated Changes to Vehicle Fleet Mix
Review of the CalEEMod output files for the land use plan with school and the land use plan without school demonstrates that the fleet mix percentages values were manually altered, including reductions to the percentage of heavy-heavy duty trucks ("HHD") anticipated (Appendix H, pp. 405-408, 432-434, 459-462, 488-491). As previously mentioned, the CalEEMod User's Guide requires any changes to model defaults be justified.23 According to the "User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data" table, the justification provided for these changes is: "from EMFAC for SD air basin 2035" (Appendix H, pp. 405, 432). However, this justification is insufficient, as EMFAC refers to an entire database, not a specific set of fleet mix percentages values.2
4 Thus, the RDEIR and associated appendices should have specified which input parameters were used to obtain the vehicle fleet mix percentage values inputted in the model. Without specific input parameters, we cannot verify the altered fleet mix, and the changes may be incorrect.
Furthermore, contradictorily, the RDEIR states:
"CalEEMod default emissions factors and vehicle fleet mix were conservatively used for the model inputs to estimate daily emissions from proposed vehicular sources" (emphasis added) (Appendix H, p. 4).
As you can see in the excerpt above, the RDEIR's GHG Analysis indicates that CalEEMod default values were utilized to estimate the Project's mobile-source operational emissions. Furthermore, the GHG Analysis states:
"Emission factors representing the vehicle mix and emissions for 2035 were used to estimate emissions associated with full buildout of the project" (Appendix H, p. 4).
However, this justification only relates to emission factors, not the Project's operational vehicle fleet mix. As a result, the RDEIR and associated appendices fail to justify any change to the Project's anticipated operational vehicle fleet mix. This presents an issue, as the fleet mix percentages are used by CalEEMod to calculate the Project's emissions associated with operational on-road vehicles.25 By including unsubstantiated changes to the Project's operational vehicle fleet mix, the model may underestimate the Project's mobile-source operational emission and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
2) Failure to Demonstrate Consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan As discussed above, the RDEIR relies upon the Project's consistency with the Sustainable Santee Plan in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less than significant GHG impact (p. 4.7-31). 23 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 24 "EMFAC2017 Web Database." CARB, available at: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017/. 25 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 2, 9 15 However, review of the Sustainable Santee Plan reveals that the proposed Project is inconsistent with numerous checklist measures required by the plan, including but not limited to those listed below:
Sustainable Santee Plan26
Energy Efficiency
Land Use Sector-Residential
Measure 2.1: New residential construction meet or Here, the RDEIR states: "The proposed project exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 would comply with 2019 Title 24, Part 6, Standards Voluntary Measures, such as obtaining green and implement Mitigation Measure AIR-8, which building ratings including LEED, Build it Green, or requires the use of high-efficiency equipment and Energy Star Certified building certifications in fixtures that exceed 2016 California Green Building scoring development and explain the measures Standards Code and 2019 Title 24 standards by 14 implemented. percent. Mitigation Measure AIR-8 would apply to the entire residential portion of the proposed
project" p. 4.7-29, Table 4.7-12). However, while
the Project commits to exceeding the 2019 Title 24
Standards by 14%, the RDEIR fails to mention
whether or not the Project would obtain any green
building certifications, such as LEED or Build it
Green. As such, we cannot verify that this measure
would be fully implemented, monitored, and
enforced on the Project site. Furthermore, the
RDEIR fails to mention green building ratings
including LEED, Build it Green, and Energy Star
Certified. Thus, the RDEIR's consistency evaluation
should not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
Land Use Sector-Commercial ,,
Measure 4.1: New commercial units meet or Here, the RDEIR states: "The proposed project exceed California Green Building Standards Tier 2 would comply with 2019 Title 24, Part 6, Standards Voluntary Measures such as obtain green building and implement Mitigation Measure AIR-8. ratings including: LEED, Build it Green, or Energy Implementation of this goal would result in the Star Certified buildings certifications in scoring proposed project increasing the energy efficiency development and explain the measures of commercial buildings by an additional 14 implemented. percent, consistent with the City's performance metric. Therefore, after mitigation, the proposed
project would be consistent with Goal 4" (p. 4.7-29,
Table 4.7-12). However, while the Project commits
26 "Sustainable Santee Plan: The City's Roadmap to Greenhouse Gas Reductions." City of Santee, December 2019, available at: https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showdocument?id 18422, pp. 195-199. 16 to exceeding the 2019 Title 24 Standards by 14%,
the RDEIR fails to mention whether or not the
Project would obtain any green building
certifications, such as LEED or Build it Green. As
such, we cannot verify that this measure would be
fully implemented, monitored, and enforced on
the Project site, and the RDEIR's consistency
evaluation should not be relied upon to determine
Project significance.
-
Advanced Goals Measures
Land Use Sector-Commercial
Measure 5.2: Project uses light-reflecting surfaces Here, while the RDEIR states that the Project would such as enhanced cool roofs on commercial "encourage the use of light-colored, semibuildings. reflective, or cool-roof technology for all roofing within the proposed project, including at least
60,000 square feet of commercial rooftops," the
RDEIR fails to require this measure (p. 4.7-29, Table
4.7-12}. As such, we cannot verify that this
measure would be implemented, monitored, and
enforced on the Project site, and the RDEIR's
consistency evaluation should not be relied upon
to determine Project significance.
Transportation
Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Measure 7.1: Install electric vehicle chargers in all Here, the RDEIR states: "Mitigation Measure AIR-7 new residential and commercial developments. requires the proposed project to include electric vehicle chargers, consistent with the City's goal to
a. For new Single-Family Residential, install install 4,500 EVSE by 2035. The proposed project complete 40 Amp electrical service and would install a total of 1,572 electric vehicle one e-charger. chargers (e-chargers) as follows: the proposed b. For new Multifamily Residential, install e- project would install 1,203 240-volt Level 2 EVSE in chargers for 13 percent of total parking. each low density residential garage; a total of 354 c. c. For new Office Space, Regional Shopping EVSE within the parking areas of Medium Density Centers, and Movie Theaters, install e- Residential, Village Center, and Active Adult chargers for 5 percent of total parking residential uses; and 15 EVSE within the proposed spaces. project's commercial parking lots. Additionally, d. d. For new Industrial and other Land Uses Mitigation Measure GHG-6 would provide 100 employing 200 or more employees, install electric vehicles to project residents" (p. 4.7-30, e-charges for 5 percent of total parking Table 4.7-12}. However, the RDEIR fails to spaces. demonstrate that the Project would install
complete 40 Amp electrical service and one e17
charger for new single family residences; install echargers for 13 percent of total parking for new multifamily residences; install e-chargers for 5
percent of total parking spaces for office space,
regional shopping centers, and movie theatres; and
install e-charges for 5 percent of total parking
spaces for new industrial and other land uses
employing more than 200 employees, as is
required for this measure. As such, we cannot
verify that this measure would be implemented,
monitored, and enforced on the Project site, and
the RDEIR's consistency evaluation should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance.
Measure 8.1: Implement traffic flow improvement Here, the RDEIR states: "[t]he proposed Project program. would include roundabouts at key intersections" a. Install smart traffic signals at intersections
warranting a traffic signal, OR
b. Install roundabout.
Solid Waste 1
Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Measure 9.1: Reduce waste at landfills.
and "Mitigation Measure TRA-16 requires
installation of Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (e.g.,
smart signals) along Mission Gorge Road between
Fanita Drive and Town Center Parkway to improve
traffic flow and reduce project transportation
impacts along that roadway" (p. 4.7-30 & 4.7-32,
Table 4.7-12 & Table 4.7-13). However, the RDEIR
fails to specify where the roundabouts would be
located and how this measure would be
implemented, monitored, and enforced on the
Project site. As such, the RDEIR's consistency
evaluation should not be relied upon to determine
Project significance.
.I'
Here, the RDEIR states: "Mitigation Measure GHG2 requires the applicant to institute recycling and composting services to divert at least 90 percent of
the proposed project's operational waste,
consistent with the City's performance metric. The
proposed project would also recycle or reuse at
least 70 percent of the construction waste, soil,
and debris by 2030 and 80 percent starting in 2030.
Therefore, after mitigation, the proposed project
would be consistent with Goal 9" (p. 4.7-32, Table
4.7-13). However, the RDEIR fails to demonstrate
18 Clean Energy
Land Use Sector-Residential and Commercial
Measure 10.1: Increase distributed energy
generation within City of Santee by implementing
the following applicable photovoltaic solar
systems:
a. Single-family residential to install at least
2kW per unit of PV solar systems, unless
the installation is infeasible due to poor
solar resources established in a solar
feasibility study prepared by a qualified
solar consultant submitted with an
application
b. Multifamily residential to install at least
lkW per unit of PV solar systems, unless
the installation is infeasible due to poor
solar resources established in a solar
feasibility study prepared by a qualified
solar consultant submitted with an
applicant's formal project submittal to City.
c. On commercial buildings, install at least 2
kW per square foot of building area (e.g.,
2,000 sq. ft. 3 kW) unless the installation
is infeasible due to poor solar resources.
how this measure would be implemented,
monitored, and enforced on the Project site. As
such, the RDEIR's consistency evaluation should
not be relied upon to determine Project
significance.
!
Here, the RDEIR states: "The proposed project
would implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and
supply at least 12.147 megawatts for the preferred
land use plan with school or 12.083-megawatt
capacity for the land use plan without school by
buildout, consistent with the City's performance
metric. Therefore, after mitigation, the proposed
project would be consistent with Goal 1011 (p. 4.-32,
Table 4.7-13). However, the RDEIR fails to
demonstrate that at least 2kW of PV solar systems
would be installed per single family residential unit;
at least lkW of PV solar systems would be installed
per multifamily residential unit; and at least 2 kW
per square foot of building area (e.g., 2,000 sq. ft.=
3 kW) would be installed for commercial land uses,
as is required for the measure. As such, we cannot
verify that this measure would be implemented,
monitored, and enforced on the Project site, and
the RDEIR's consistency evaluation should not be
relied upon to determine Project significance.
As the above table indicates, the RDEIR fails to provide sufficient information and analysis to demonstrate the Project's consistency with numerous measures required by the Sustainable Santee Plan. Thus, we cannot verify that the Project would be consistent with the Sustainable Santee Plan. As a result, we recommend that an updated EIR be prepared to include further information and analysis demonstrating the Project's consistency.
3) Updated Analysis Indicates Significant CHG Impact
Applicable thresholds and modeling demonstrate that the proposed Project may result in a potentially significant GHG impact not previously identified or addressed by the RDEIR.
The CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project-specific information as disclosed in the RDEIR, disclose the land use plan with school's mitigated emissions, which include approximately 19 129,240 MT C02e of total construction emissions (sum of 2021 through 2033 construction emissions for Construction Phase 1-2 and Construction Phase 3-4) and approximately 67,343 MT C02e/year of annual operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile, waste, and water-related emissions). When we compare the land use plan with school's amortized construction and operational GHG emissions to the threshold of 1.77 MT C02e/SP/year, we find that the land use plan with school's GHG emissions exceed the threshold (see table below).
SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions with School
Proposed
Project Phase Project {MT
C02e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 43,07.99
Area 46.18
Energy 13,351.49
Mobile 50,174.08
Waste 0.00
Water 3,771.49
Total 71,651.23
Service Population 8,424
Efficiency 8.51
Threshold 1.77
Exceed? Yes
Furthermore, the CalEEMod output files, modeled by SWAPE utilizing Project-specific information as disclosed in the RDEIR, disclose the land use plan without school's mitigated emissions, which include approximately 129,240 MT C02e of total construction emissions (sum of 2021 through 2033 construction emissions for Construction Phase 1-2 and Construction Phase 3-4) and approximately 68,536 MT C02e/year of annual operational emissions (sum of area, energy, mobile, waste, and waterrelated emissions). When we compare the land use plan with school's amortized construction and operational GHG emissions to the threshold of 1.77 MT C02e/SP/year, we find that the land use plan with school's GHG emissions exceed the threshold (see table below).
SWAPE Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions without School
Proposed
Project Phase Project {MT
C02e/year)
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 4,307.99
Area 46.89
Energy 13,411.99
Mobile 51,311.70
Waste 0.00
Water 3,765.61
20 Total 72,844.17
Service Population 8,424
Efficiency 8.65
Threshold 1.77
Exceed? Yes
As the above tables demonstrate, when correct input parameters are used to model emissions associated with both the land use plan with school and the land use plan without school, we find a significant impact not previously assessed or identified in the RDEIR. As a result, an updated GHG analysis should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated into the Project, such as those listed below.
Diesel Particulate Matter Health Risk Emissions Inadequately Evaluated The RDEIR conducts a health risk assessment ("HRA") for Project construction, and concludes that, after the implementation of MM AIR-3 and MM AIR-4, the maximum mitigated cancer risk posed to off-site sensitive receptors would be 2.84 in one million (see excerpt below) (Appendix C2, p. 19).
Table C: Project Construction Mitigated Cancer Risk (in one million) Receptor 3,d 0-2 2 16 16-30 ProJed Cons�ruction
No. Description Trimester Years Years Years hposure•
12 On-site- 0.22 Highest/Southwest Comer 5.40 6.56 1.00 9.96 22 On° site - z•• Highest 0.20 4.86 5.91 0.90 8.97
13 On site 3"' Highest 0.19 4.64 5.64 0.86 8.56
23 On-site -4"' Highest 0.18 4.38 5.33 0.81 8.08
4 On site -5"' Highest 0.18 4.27 5.19 0.79 7.87
72 On site - Northwest Co mer 0.08 1.88 2.28 0.35 3.46
75 On-site - Northeast Gomer 0.05 1.17 1.42 0.22 2.16
11 On site -Southeast Comer 0.05 1.31 1.60 0.24 vu
1 Off site - Southwest 0.06 1.37 1.67 0.25 2.37
2 Off-site - Southeast 0.06 1.42 1.72 0.26 2.23
3 Off-site -Southeast 0.08 1.86 2.27 0.35 2.84
As a result, the RDEIR concludes that the Project's excess cancer risk would not exceed the SDAPCD threshold of 10 in one million, and the Project would have a less than significant health risk impact (p. 19). Regarding the Project's operational health risk impact, the RDEIR states:
"[T]he commercial component of the Fanita Ranch Project does not include specific uses or tenants but does allow the types of businesses, such as gasoline dispensing stations, that could emit TACs. However, location and operational detials of those facilities are currently unknown" (Appendix C2, p. 20).
As such, instead of conducting an HRA for the entire Project's operation, the RDEIR implements MMAIR-12, which states:
"The City of Santee shall require the applicant to avoid siting new on-site toxic air contaminant sources in close vicinity of residences and schools. Gasoline dispensing facilities with a throughput of less than 3.6 million gallons per year must have the gasoline dispensers at least 21 50 feet from the nearest residential land use, day care center, or school. In addition, gasoline dispensing facilities with a throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year, distribution centers, and dry cleaning operations are prohibited within the project" (Appendix C2, p. 20).
However, the RDEIR's HRA and less-than-significant impact conclusion is incorrect for four reasons.
First, the RDEIR's construction HRA is incorrect, as it relies upon exhaust PM10 estimates from an incorrect and unsubstantiated CalEEMod model, as discussed above (Appendix C2, p. 10). Thus, the HRA utilizes an underestimated DPM concentration to calculate the health risk associated with Project construction. As a result, the Project's construction HRA is underestimated and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Second, the RDEIR's reliance on MM AIR-3, which requires the use of Tier 4 Final equipment during construction, is incorrect (Appendix C2, p. 18). As discussed above, the RDEIR failed to evaluate the feasibility of obtaining Tier
4 Final equipment. As the RDEIR fails to demonstrate that MM AIR-3 is feasible for the proposed Project, we cannot verify that the Project's health risk impact would be reduced to a less than significant level as claimed.
Third, the RDEIR failed to conduct a quantified operational HRA. By failing to prepare an operational HRA, the Addendum is inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment's ("OEHHA") most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, as referenced by the RDEIR (Appendix C2, p. 10). Once construction of the Project is complete; the Project will operate for a long period of time. The RDEIR's Transportation Impact Analysis ("TIA"), provided as Appendix N to the RDEIR, indicates that the Project would generate 26,272 daily vehicle trips throughout operation, including pass-by and internal trip reductions, which will result in additional exhaust, thus continuing to expose nearby sensitive receptors to emissions (Appendix N, p. 53, Table 7-2). The OEHHA document recommends that exposure from projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident ("MEIR").27 Even though we were not provided with the expected lifetime of the Project, we can reasonably assume that the Project will operate for at least 30 years, if not more. Therefore, we recommend that health risk impacts from Project operation also be evaluated, as a 30-year exposure duration vastly exceeds the 6-month requirement set forth by OEHHA. These recommendations reflect the most recent health risk policy, as referenced by the Addendum, and as such, we recommend that an updated assessment of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project operation be included in an updated EIR for the Project.
Fourth, review of the RDEIR demonstrates that, while the Project did conduct a construction HRA that evaluates the health risk impacts to nearby, existing receptors, the HRA fails to evaluate the cumulative 27 "Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments." OEHHA, February 2015, available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf p. 8-6, 8-15. 22 Range of Effectiveness: 0-100% of GHG emissions associated with electricity use.
AE-3 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy System Wind Power Range of Effectiveness: 0-100% of GHG emissions associated with electricity use.
AE-4 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System
Range of Effectiveness: 0-46% of GHG emissions associated with electricity use.
AE-5 Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills
Range of Effectiveness: 73-77% reduction in GHG emissions from landfills without methane recovery.
AE-6 Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants Range of Effectiveness: 95-97% reduction in GHG emissions from wastewater treatment plants without recovery.
Measures - Transportation
I , ,, ,! ,j
land Use/location
LUT-1 Increase Density
Range of Effectiveness: 0.8-30% VMT reduction and therefore a 0.8-30% reduction in GHG emissions.
LUT-2 Increase Location Efficiency
Range of Effectiveness: 10% VMT reduction and therefore 10-65% reduction in GHG emissions.
LUT-3 Increase Diversity of Urban and Suburban Developments (Mixed Use) Range of Effectiveness: 9-30% VMT and therefore 9-30% reduction in GHG emissions.
LUT-4 Increase Destination Accessibility
Range of Effectiveness: 6.7-20% VMT reduction and therefore 6.7-20% reduction in GHG emissions.
LUT-5 Increase Transit Accessibility
Range of Effectiveness: 0.5-24.6% VMT reduction and therefore 0.5-24.6% reduction in GHG emissions.
LUT-6 Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing Range of Effectiveness: 0.04-1.20% VMT reduction and therefore 0.04-1.20% reduction in GHG emissions.
LUT-7 Orient Project Toward Non-Auto Corridor
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see LUT-3).
LUT-8 Locate Project near Bike Path/Bike Lane
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see LUT-4).
Neighborhood/Site Enhancements
SDT-1 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements, such as:
• Compact, mixed-use communities
• Interconnected street network
• Narrower roadways and shorter block lengths
• Sidewalks
• Accessibility to transit and transit shelters
• Traffic calming measures and street trees
• Parks and public spaces
• Minimize pedestrian barriers
Range of Effectiveness: 0-2% VMT reduction and therefore 0-2% reduction in GHG emissions. 24 SDT-2 Provide Traffic Calming Measures, such as:
• Marked crosswalks
• Count-down signal timers
• Curb extensions
• Speed tables
• Raised crosswalks
• Raised intersections
• Median islands
• Tight corner radii
• Roundabouts or mini-circles
• On-street parking
• Planter strips with trees
• Chicanes/chokers
Range of Effectiveness: 0.25-1% VMT reduction and therefore 0.25-1% reduction in GHG emissions.
SDT-3 Implement a Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) Network.
Range of Effectiveness: 0.5-12.7% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction since NEVs would result in a mode shift and therefore reduce the traditional vehicle VMT and GHG emissions. Range depends on the available NEV network and support facilities, NEV ownership levels, and the degree of shift from traditional.
SDT-4 Create Urban Non-Motorized Zones
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see SDT-1).
Parking Policy/Pricing
PDT-1 Limit Parking Supply through:
• Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking requirements • Creation of maximum parking requirements
• Provision of shared parking
Range of Effectiveness: 5-12.5% VMT reduction and therefore 5-12.5% reduction in GHG emissions.
PDT-2 Unbundle Parking Costs from Property Cost
Range of Effectiveness: 2.6-13% vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction and therefore 2.6-13% reduction in GHG emissions.
PDT-3 Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) Range of Effectiveness: 2.8-5.5% VMT reduction and therefore 2.8-5.5% reduction in GHG emissions.
PDT-4 Require Residential Area Parking Permits
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see PPT-1, PPT-2, and PPT-3).
Commute Trip Reduction Programs
TRT-1 Implement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program - Voluntary • Carpooling encouragement
• Ride-matching assistance
• Preferential carpool parking
• Flexible work schedules for carpools
25 •
•
•
•
•
•
Half time transportation coordinator
Vanpool assistance
Bicycle end-trip facilities (parking, showers and lockers) New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options Event promotions and publications
Flexible work schedule for employees
Transit subsidies
Parking cash-out or priced parking
Shuttles
Emergency ride home
Range of Effectiveness: 1-6.2% VMT reduction and therefore 1-6.2% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
TRT-2 Implement Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Program Required Implementation/Monitoring •
•
Established performance standards (e.g. trip reduction requirements) Required implementation
Regular monitoring and reporting
Range of Effectiveness: 4.2-21% VMT reduction and therefore 4.2-21% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
TRT-3 Provide Ride-Sharing Programs
•
•
Designate a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides Permanent transportation management association membership and funding requirement .
Range of Effectiveness: 1-15% VMT reduction and therefore 1-15% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
TRT-4 Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program Range of Effectiveness: 0.3-20% VMT reduction and therefore a 0.3-20% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
TRT-5 Provide Ent of Trip Facilities, including:
•
•
•
Showers
Secure bicycle lockers
Changing spaces
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TRT-1 through TRT-3).
TRT-6 Encourage Telecommuting and Alternative Work Schedules, such as:
• Staggered starting times
• Flexible schedules
• Compressed work weeks
Range of Effectiveness: 0.07-5.5% VMT reduction and therefore 0.07-5.5% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
TRT-7 Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing, such as:
• New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options Event promotions
Publications
Range of Effectiveness: 0.8-4% VMT reduction and therefore 0.8-4% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions. 26 TRT-8 Implement Preferential Parking Permit Program
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TRT-1 through TRT-3).
TRT-9 Implement Car-Sharing Program
Range of Effectiveness: 0.4-0.7% VMT reduction and therefore 0.4-0.7% reduction in GHG emissions.
TRT-10 Implement School Pool Program
Range of Effectiveness: 7.2-15.8% in school VMT reduction and therefore 7.2-15.8% reduction in school trip GHG emissions.
TRT-11 Provide Employer-Sponsored Vanpool/Shuttle
Range of Effectiveness: 0.3-13.4% VMT reduction and therefore 0.3-13.4% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
TRT-12 Implement Bike-Sharing Programs
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see SDT-5 and LUT-9).
TRT-13 Implement School Bus Program
Range of Effectiveness: 38-63% School VMT reduction and therefore 38-63% reduction in school trip GHG emissions.
TRT-14 Price Workplace Parking, such as:
• Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
•
Implementing above market rate pricing;
• Validating parking only for invited guests;
• Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and • Educating employees about available alternatives .
Range of Effectiveness: 0.1-19.7% VMT reduction and therefore 0.1-19.7% reduction in trip GHG emissions.
TRT-15 Implement Employee Parking 11Cash-Out11
Range of Effectiveness: 0.06-7.7% VMT reduction and therefore 0.6-7.7% reduction in commute trip GHG emissions.
Transit System Improvements
TST-1 Transit System Improvements, including:
• Grade-separated right-of-way, including bus only lanes (for buses, emergency vehicles, and sometimes taxis), and other Transit Priority measures. Some systems use guideways which automatically steer the bus on portions of the route.
• Frequent, high-capacity service
• High-quality vehicles that are easy to board, quiet, clean, and comfortable to ride . • Pre-paid fare collection to minimize boarding delays . • Integrated fare systems, allowing free or discounted transfers between routes and modes . • Convenient user information and marketing programs .
• High quality bus stations with Transit Oriented Development in nearby areas . • Modal integration, with BRT service coordinated with walking and cycling facilities, taxi services, intercity bus, rail transit, and other transportation services.
Range of Effectiveness: 0.02-3.2% VMT reduction and therefore 0.02-3% reduction in GHG emissions.
TST-2 Implement Transit Access Improvements, such as:
• Sidewalk/crosswalk safety enhancements
27 • Bus shelter improvements
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TST-3 and TST-4) TST-3 Expand Transit Network
Range of Effectiveness: 0.1-8.2% VMT reduction and therefore 0.1-8.2% reduction in GHG emissions.
TST-4 Increase Transit Service Frequency/Speed
Range of Effectiveness: 0.02-2.5% VMT reduction and therefore 0.02-2.5% reduction in GHG emissions.
TST-5 Provide Bike Parking Near Transit
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TST-3 and TST-4).
TST-6 Provide Local Shuttles
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see TST-4 and TST-5).
Road Pricing/Management
RPT-1 Implement Area or Cordon Pricing
Range of Effectiveness: 7.9-22% VMT reduction and therefore 7.9-22% reduction in GHG emissions.
RTP-3 Required Project Contributions to Transportation Infrastructure Improvement Projects Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see RPT-2 and TST-1 through 7).
RTP-4 Install Park-and-Ride Lots
Range of Effectiveness: Grouped strategy (see RPT-1, TRT-11, TRT-3, and TST-1 through 6).
Vehicles
VT-1 Electrify Loading Docks and/or Require Idling-Reduction Systems Range of Effectiveness: 26-71% reduction in TRU idling GHG emissions.
VT-2 Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles, such as:
• Biodiesel (B20)
• Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
• Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Range of Effectiveness: Reduction in GHG emissions varies depending on vehicle type, year, and associated fuel economy.
VT-3 Utilize Electric or Hybrid Vehicles
Range of Effectiveness: 0.4-20.3% reduction in GHG emissions.
Measures - Water
Water Supply
WSW-1 Use Reclaimed Water
Range of Effectiveness: Up to 40% in Northern California and up to 81% in Southern California.
WSW-2 Use Gray Water
Range of Effectiveness: Up to 100% of outdoor water GHG emissions if outdoor water use is replaced completely with graywater.
WSW-3 Use Locally Sourced Water Supply
28 Range of Effectiveness: 0-60% for Northern and Central California, 11-75% for Southern California.
Water Use
WUW-5 Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns
Range of Effectiveness: Varies and is equal to the percent commitment to turf reduction, assuming no other outdoor water use.
WUW-6 Plant Native or Drought-Resistant Trees and Vegetation Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice; may be quantified if substantial evidence is available.
Measures - Area Landscaping
. 'l _
landscaping Equipment
A-2 Implement Lawnmower Exchange Program
Range of Effectiveness: Best Management Practice, influences Area GHG emissions from landscape equipment.
Measures - Construction
Construction
C-1 Use Alternative Fuels for Construction Equipment
Range of Effectiveness: 0-22% reduction in GHG emissions.
C-2 Use Electric and Hybrid Construction Equipment
Range of Effectiveness: 2.5-80% of GHG emissions from equipment that is electric or hybrid if used 100% of the time.
C-3 Limit Construction Equipment Idling Beyond Regulation Requirements Range of Effectiveness: Varies with the amount of Project Idling occurring and the amount reduced.
C-4 Institute a Heavy-Duty Off-Road Vehicle Plan, including:
• Construction vehicle inventory tracking system;
• Requiring hour meters on equipment;
• Document the serial number, horsepower, manufacture age, fuel, etc. of all onsite equipment; and • Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment .
Range of Effectiveness: Not applicable on its own. This measure ensures compliance with other mitigation measures.
C-5 Implement a Construction Vehicle Inventory Tracking System Range of Effectiveness: Not applicable on its own. This measure ensures compliance with other mitigation measures.
Measures - Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Misc-1 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project, such as:
• Geologic sequestration or carbon capture and storage techniques, in which CO2 from point sources is captured and injected underground;
• Terrestrial sequestration in which ecosystems are established or preserved to serve as CO2 sinks; • Novel techniques involving advanced chemical or biological pathways; or • Technologies yet to be discovered .
Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and projects selected. The GHG emissions reduction is subtracted from the overall baseline project emissions inventory.
Misc-2 Establish Off-Site Mitigation
29 Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and projects selected. The GHG emissions reduction is subtracted from the overall baseline project emissions inventory.
Misc-3 Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials
Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice.
Misc-4 Require best Management Practices in Agriculture and Animal Operations Misc-5 Require Environmentally Responsible Purchasing, such as:
• Purchasing products with sustainable packaging;
• Purchasing post-consumer recycled copier paper, paper towels, and stationary; • Purchasing and stocking communal kitchens with reusable dishes and utensils; • Choosing sustainable cleaning supplies;
• Leasing equipment from manufacturers who will recycle the components at their end of life; • Choosing ENERGY STAR appliances and Water Sense-certified water fixtures; • Choosing electronic appliances with built in sleep-mode timers; • Purchasing 'green power' (e.g. electricity generated from renewable or hydropower) from the utility; and
• Choosing locally-made and distributed products .
Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice.
Misc-6 Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice.
Measures - General Plans
General Plans
GP-1 Fund Incentives for Energy Efficiency, such as:
• Retrofitting or purchasing new low-emissions equipment; • Purchasing electric or hybrid vehicles;
• Investing in renewable energy systems
Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice.
GP-2 Establish a Local Farmer's Market
Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice.
GP-3 Establish Community Gardens
Range of Effectiveness: Varies depending on Project Applicant and strategies selected. Best Management Practice.
Furthermore, in an effort to reduce the Project's emissions, we identified several mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed Project from NEDC's Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects. 31 Therefore, to reduce the Project's emissions, consideration of the following measures should be made:
31 "Diesel Emission Controls in Construction Projects." Northeast Diesel Collaborative (NEDC), December 2010, available at: https ://www. e pa .gov/ sites/prod u ction/fi I es/2015-09 /documents/ nedc-m od el-contractsepcification. pdf. 30 Attorney
Urban Wildlands Program
Center for Biological Diversity
(503) 283-5474 x421
From: Peter Broderick <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 5:06 PM
To: John Minto <[email protected]>; Laura Koval <[email protected]>; Ronn Hall <[email protected]>; Rob McNelis <[email protected]>; Dustin Trotter <[email protected]>
Cc: Chris Jacobs <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8: Public Testimony Councilmembers,
Because I am unable to attend this evening’s hearing on the Fanita Ranch Project in person, I had planned on giving testimony remotely via Zoom. However, I see from the City’s website that the City is prohibiting the public from giving remote testimony at this hearing. This is highly unusual; in my experience, nearly every other local government in California now allows for remote testimony, usually via Zoom. This has been common practice across the state since several months into the COVID-19 pandemic. The City’s decision not to allow remote testimony is another unfortunate barrier to full public participation in this decision-making process.
In lieu of remote real-time testimony, I am providing written remarks below. Please consider these remarks prior to your decision this evening.
My name is Peter Broderick and I am an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. The Center is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has over 1.7 million members and online activists throughout California and the United States. The Center has worked for many years to protect imperiled plants and wildlife, open space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life for people in Santee and throughout San Diego County.
I provide this testimony today to object in the strongest terms to the City’s proposed approval of the Fanita Ranch Project and certification of the REIR. As the Center has detailed in our written comments on the Draft REIR and Final REIR, the City has yet to acknowledge or adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to wildfire safety and evacuation. We were dismayed that the City ignored our extensive comments on the Draft REIR.
Additionally, the Council appears poised to attempt to circumvent Santee voters’ right to hold a vote on whether the Project should move forward. Participatory democracy is a cornerstone of California law, enshrined in the state Constitution, and an essential component of civic engagement. The City should respect state law and the will of its residents and voters and place the project on the ballot.
Regards,
Peter J. Broderick
CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain confidential or proprietary business information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication, including attachments, is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system
From: Renee Royal <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 8:44 AM
To: John Minto <[email protected]>; Rob McNelis <[email protected]>; Laura Koval <[email protected]>; Ronn Hall <[email protected]>; Dustin Trotter <[email protected]>; Chris Jacobs <[email protected]> Subject: Project Green Light: Fanita Ranch
Dear City Council Members,
My name is Renee Royal and I am writing to you this morning to show my support for the Fanita Ranch project. I am employed by a local electrician who would certainly be involved and benefit from a business standard point. However, I am writing to you as a person who knows the pride one feels when they are blessed with homeownership and connected to a community.
As you know, Fanita Ranch has been planned for several years. It’s time to approve it so many San Diego Families will have a better chance of the American Dream……owning a home! I have reviewed the information on Fanita Ranch and it looks to be well planned as well as an amazing place to come home to. HomeFed has been developing Master Planned communities in San Diego County for 25 years. They know how to create a community that people can be proud to call home.
All of the planned amenities are well thought out. Miles of trails creating a sustainable walking community. Acres and acres of parks and an organic farm to offer an amazing experience and lifestyle right in your own backyard.
Please approve Fanita Ranch to offer quality housing and to support the future of the city of Santee.
Your time and consideration are appreciated.
Sincerely,
Renee Royal | Sales Executive
9260 Isaac St Suite G, 92071
619-954-4924
[email protected]
Click to find us on Facebook!
From: Roxane Dyer
To: Dustin Trotter; John Minto; Ronn Hall; Laura Koval; Rob McNelis; Chris Jacobs Subject: Fanita Ranch
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 4:17:47 PM
Dear City Council and Mr. Jacobs,
Please VOTE NO! We do not have the resources for this city to handle these homes. Our streets are a disaster and we have issued numerous permits for condos being built on the west end of Santee. Look at the water resources WE DO not have. This project needs to be approved by the people not the mayor or city council or ONE judge. For 40 years this project has cost the people thousands of dollars and time. Be the BRAVE one and vote No! You were voted by the people as our voice. Our voice is NO!!
Please respect the will of Santee resident voters. Residents rejected Fanita Ranch sprawl in a landslide referendum vote in 1999. In 2020, residents voted to protect the Santee General Plan from inconsistent sprawl developments like Fanita Ranch. In March 2022, the court ruled against Fanita Ranch for the 4th time, once again aligning with the will of voters.
Campaign contributions should not be able to buy amendments to Santee’s General Plan or exempt developers from the democratic will of Santee voters.
The people of Santee passed Measure N to assure Santee residents make the final decision at the ballot on Fanita Ranch and any other projects that violate the Santee General Plan.
City maneuvers attempting to prevent a vote of the people on the Fanita Ranch project are unethical, anti-democracy and anti-American. Please re-notice the Revised Environmental Impact Report to recognize the legal authority of Santee residents.
Placing a 3,000-unit project with significant traffic impacts into a Cal Fire identified severe fire hazard zone is a significant risk to new residents and to existing residents that must use the same routes for evacuation. The development application should be abandoned and the land permanently conserved through the Department of Defense military base buffer program (REPI).
Thank you
Roxane Dyer
HomeSmart Realty West
Home is where the is -- Welcome Home!
From: Stephanie Price
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:03 AM
To: John Minto <[email protected]>; Ronn Hall <[email protected]>; Laura Koval <[email protected]>; Dustin Trotter <[email protected]>; Rob McNelis <[email protected]>
Subject: Fanita Ranch
My name is Stephanie Price, and I'm in support of Fanita Ranch.
I think we can all agree that open space preservation is vital to the region.
Fanita Ranch has so much to offer. We'd be foolish not to take advantage of the plan.
I want my kids and grandkids to be able to live in Santee if they choose to.
Santee needs new move up housing.
Please vote yes in support of Fanita Ranch.
INVEST IN SANTEE.
Thank You!
From: Steve Stelman
To: Chris Jacobs
Subject: Fanita Ranch FREIR RTC Comments
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 2:58:14 PM
Mr. Jacobs and City Council,
In rebut of the comments made regarding my letter dated July 25, 2022; Harris and Associates fails to adequately respond to the issues.
Comment I111-1 stated that my concerns were addressed in Thematic Response 4, specifically subsections 4a and 4b. In those sections, references are made to the 2003 and 2007 (and later) wildfires in the regions stating that "Technological advancements in emergency notification capabilities has resulted in the ability of emergency managers to evacuate targeted areas in contrast to the mass evacuations that occurred during 2003 and 2007 wildfires in the region." It furthermore states that "the majority of the community traffic would exit the proposed project via Cuyamaca Street or Magnolia Avenue via Cuyamaca Street." This is in reality a single southbound exit from the entire project geography.
Note that deaths, critical injuries, and property destruction occurred more recently that 2003, 2007, 2010, or even the 2018 data cited in Response 4, notably in the nearby Border 32 and Fairview Fires this year.
Those fires allowed evacuation in mulitple directions, while a potential fire in Fanita Ranch would direct all traffic only southward into the city. Furthermore, As every Santee commuter already knows (and the City Council has acknowledged over the years during on the record meetings) daily rush hour congestion just for those who live in Santee but work outside the city generates stand-still traffic on a daily basis. Imagine the population of an entire subdivision needing to evacuate at one time through a funnel. This is dangerous and should not be approved.
In regards to Comment I111-2, I found the reply to be non-responsive. As a resident of Santee, I was led to believe from statements made by the Santee Mayor that any re-approval of the Fanita Ranch project subsequent to court-ordered repeal of the project's prior approval, would be subject to a public vote.
Mayor Minto publicly stated in June 2022 after voting to remove the project approval from the November ballot, "that because the project would need an amendment to the city’s General Plan, it would require a public vote." [https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/santee-council-removes-fanita-ranch-november-ballotcollinsworth-cries-foul]. The potential approval of the project under Ordinance 592 which would preclude a public vote from ever occurring contradicts what the Mayor and City Council led me to believe.
Steve Stelman
From: Thomas Jefferson
To: Chris Jacobs
Subject: Fanita Ranch
Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 2:54:54 PM
Dear Mr. Jacobs and City Council,
The people of Santee passed Measure N and qualified a referendum to assure Santee residents make the final decision at the ballot on Fanita Ranch.
Item 8 approval of Fanita Ranch with the illegal exclusion of a public vote on the Fanita Ranch project is unethical, anti-democracy and anti-American. I urge you to vote against it.
Placing a 3,000-unit project with significant traffic impacts into a Cal Fire identified severe fire hazard zone is a significant risk to new residents and to existing residents that must use the same routes for evacuation. The development application should be abandoned and the land permanently conserved through the Department of Defense military base buffer program.
Thank you,
Tom Jefferson
From: Ben Johnson
To: James Jeffries
Subject: Concerns about Fanita Ranch _ Santee Resident _ 09-14-2022 Date: Thursday, September 15, 2022 8:50:38 AM
Hi James,
I am sure you are getting ready for tonight’s discussion and I am sending this in case I do not get the time to speak tonight.
Good evening,
Thank you for letting me voice be heard. I understand that this is a contentious issue and both sides of the argument feel they are justified.
My concerns are based on how I believe this development will effect the town of Santee. I understand the case has been made the Cuyamaca and Mast have been designed with the understanding that Fanita Ranch will be developed. However, much of Santee’s roads have not and the additional 26K cars combined with other neighboring cities traffic causes me concern. Not to mention that the remedies to 52W do not address the backup that occurs on Mast as a result of the high school this will only be made worse by additional cars coming from that direction.
I also believe that the additional cars are going discourage campers from the lakes decreasing the towns revenue and also create additional negative effects for the existing communities.
I hope that the city council decided to postpone the approval of Fanita Ranch as emergency housing.
Best,
Ben
Sent from Mail for Windows