HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - No. 2001-298RESOLUTION NO. 2001-298
A RESOLUTION OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING
DEVELOPMENT FEES PURSUANT TO THE SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
MULTI -SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi has adopted an Ordinance No.
1707 adding Chapter 15.68 to the Lodi Municipal Code establishing, subject to adoption
of an implementing Resolution, the authority for collection of a Development Fee for the
San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
(SJMSCP) for all new developments pursuant to the SJMSCP; and
WHEREAS, a "Fee Study" dated July 25, 2001 (attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated herein) was prepared, which analyzed and identified the costs, funding,
and cost -benefit of the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and
Open Space Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Fee Study was available for public inspection and review in the
office of the City Clerk for more than 10 days prior to the date of this Public Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lodi finds that pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the imposition of fees as set forth in this
Resolution is not exempt from CEQA, and the environmental effects thereof must be
analyzed unless such effects have already been analyzed; the City Council of Lodi
further finds, declares and determines that the imposition of such fees was discussed in
the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan
("SJMSCP"), adopted by the City of Lodi, on February 21, 2001, and the environmental
effects thereof were analyzed in the Joint Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report [EIS/EIR] (SCH Number 97012055; EIS 99-38)
for the SJMSCP, such joint EIS/EIR having been certified by the City of Lodi on February
21, 2001 and that such joint EIS/EIR is adequate for the adoption of the fee set forth in
this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The purpose of the SJMSCP Development Fee is to finance the goals and
objectives of the SJMSCP that include, but are not limited to preserve land
acquisition, preserve enhancement, land management, and administration that
compensate for such lands lost as a result of future development in the City of
Lodi and in San Joaquin County.
B. The SJMSCP Development Fee shall be used to mitigate the cumulative impacts
of new development on undeveloped lands within the City of Lodi and in San
Joaquin County.
C. After considering the Fee Study and the testimony received at this public hearing,
the Lodi City Council approves said Fee Study and incorporates such herein; and
further finds that the future development in the City of Lodi will need to
compensate cumulative impacts to threatened, endangered, rare and unlisted
SJMSCP Covered Species and other wildlife and compensation for some non-
wildlife related impacts to recreation, agriculture, scenic values and other
beneficial Open Space uses.
D. The City Council hereby finds that the Fee Study and testimony establish:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
establishment and maintenance of preserve lands and the cumulative
impacts of future development for which the corresponding fee is charged.
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development for which the fee is charged.
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and
the cost of establishment and maintenance of preserve lands on which the
fee is imposed.
4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Fee Study are reasonable cost
estimates for the establishment and maintenance of preserve lands and fees
expected to be generated by future developments will not exceed the total
costs of establishing the preserve lands identified in the Fee Study and the
SJMSCP.
E. The number of estimated acres of future open space conversions and the
number of acres of required preserve lands are shown on Exhibit "B", attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
F. The method of allocation of the SJMSCP Development Fee to a particular
development bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's
burden on, and benefit from, the establishment and maintenance of preserve
lands to be funded by the fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Lodi City Council as follows:
1. Definitions
a. "CEQA' shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act.
b. "Compensation Zone Maps" shall mean maps that classify the entire
County into categories which track general habitat type to determine
compensation ratio requirements and fee zones.
C. "Fee" shall mean the SJMSCP Development Fee established by this
Resolution
d. "SJCOG, Inc." shall mean the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) as defined
in Section 10 of the SJMSCP.
e. "SJMSCP" shall mean the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan.
2
"SJMSCP" Vegetation Map" shall mean a map that classifies the
vegetation types within San Joaquin County.
2. Fee Imposed
a. The fee shall be collected by the Building Department in accordance to
the payment schedule established in Section 5.3.2.3 of the SJMSCP.
3. Amount of Fees
a. The fee shall be categorized and in the sum of the amounts specified in
Sections 7.4.1, 7.4.1.1, 7.4.1.3, and 7.4.1.4 of the SJMSCP, with the
exception that the fee established at the adoption of this ordinance shall
be adjusted to 2002 dollars pursuant to the California Construction Cost
Index (CCCI). A summary of the Fee is attached hereto as Exhibit "C"
and incorporated herein by reference.
b. The fees described in Sections 7.4.1, 7.4.1.1, 7.4.1.3, and 7.4.1.4 of the
SJMSCP shall be determined based on the preconstruction survey in
the fields, which confirm vegetation types on site as indicated by the
SJMSCP Vegetation Map.
C. The Compensation Zone Maps as described in Section 8.2.5 of the
SJMSCP and attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by
reference, shall be used to determine if the property is subject to the
fee.
4. Exemption from Fees
The fee shall not be imposed on any of the following:
a. Projects located in a "No Pay Zone" as established in the compensation
zone maps.
b. Project proponents who opt for SJMSCP coverage, but chose an
alternative option to paying the fee by completing one or combination of
the following:
i. Dedicate, as conservation easement or fee title, habitat lands (in -
lieu dedications) as specified in Sections 5.3.2.1 and 5.3.2.2 of the
SJMSCP; or
ii. Purchase approved mitigation bank credits as specified in Section
5.3.2.4 of the SJMSCP; or
iii. Propose an alternative mitigation plan, consistent with the goals of
the SJMSCP and equivalent or greater in biological value to option
i or ii above, subject to approval by SJCOG, Inc.
M
5. Use of Fee Revenues
The Fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be utilized for the
establishment and maintenance of preserve lands as provided for in the
SJMSCP and Fee Study that include, but are not limited to preserve acquisition,
preserve enhancement, land management and administration.
6. Accounts
The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be deposited in an
established SJMSCP Fund and shall be segregated in a separate and special
account from all other City of Lodi accounts. The SJMSCP Fund shall be an
interest bearing account as approved by SJCOG, Inc. On a monthly schedule
established by SJCOG, Inc., all fees and any interest earnings shall be forwarded
to SJCOG, Inc.
7. Periodic Review & Adjustment of Fees
a) The monitoring and adjustment of fees shall be the responsibility of
SJCOG, Inc.
b) At the time of the City's annual audit report, the City's independent auditor
shall specifically report the activity in the SJMSCP fund to SJCOG, Inc.
In the alternative, the City shall allow independent auditors representing
SJCOG, Inc. to review the SJMSCP fund financial statements.
C) The fees established pursuant to this resolution shall be adjusted and
implemented in January of each year based upon the preceding fiscal
years' averaged California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) figures and/or
in conformance with Section 7.5.2.2 of the SJMSCP, with exception that
the fees established at the adoption of this ordinance shall be effective
until December 2002.
d) SJCOG, Inc., shall notify the City of Lodi in writing of proposed annual
adjustments to the fees by October 1st of each year.
e) The City of Lodi shall be responsible in the implementation of the
adjusted fees in January of each year.
8. Effective Date
The fees provided in this resolution shall be effective on February 18, 2002,
which is at least sixty (60) days after adoption of this resolution.
Dated: December 19, 2001
4
I hereby certify that Resolution No, 2001-298 was passed and adopted by the
City Council of the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held December 19, 2001, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock, Howard, Land, Nakanishi,
and Mayor Pennino
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
SUSAN J. BLACKSTON
City Clerk
2001-298
5
EXHIBIT "A"
Fee Study
San Joaquin County
Multi -Species Habitat Conservation
and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP)
San Joaquin Council of Governments
(209) 468-3913
Contact: Gerald Park
7/25/01
Table of Contents
A. Introduction/Background........................................................................................................ l
1. General Plan Policies and Programs/EIR Mitigation...........................................................1
2. Conditions of Project Approval...........................................................................................3
3. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan................3
B. Statutory Requirements for Establishing Fees......................................................................5
C. Areas Subject to Conservation Fees.......................................................................................7
1. "No Pay" Zones (Areas Not Subject to Conservation Fee).................................................7
2. "Pay„ Zones (Areas Subject to Conservation Fee)..........................................................7
D. Amount of Conservation Fee................................................................................................10
1. Background/Establishing Costs of Conservation...............................................................10
2. Relationship Between Conservation Fee and Habitat/Open Space Loss ........................... 22
• Fee recognizes the Contribution of Existing Development to the Cumulative
Loss of Habitat Lands, the Varying Biological Values of Habitats,
and the Multi -Purpose Functions of Open SpaceMe Amount of the Fee is
Appropriate to Mitigate Cumulative and Site -Specific Habitat Loss ..........................22
• Fee Amount Will Not Unduly Discourage Housing Production, Especially At
AffordableLevels ....................................................................................................31
• Amount of the Fee will Generate Sufficient funds to Provide Meaningful Mitigation
for Cumulative Habitat Loss........................................................................................32
E. Collection/Calculation of Conservation Fee........................................................................32
F. Use of the Conservation Fees Collected...............................................................................37
G. Guidelines for Use of Conservation Fees.............................................................................37
H. Administration of Conservation Fees...................................................................................37
Exhibits
1. Applicable Excerpts: General Plan and General Plan EIR Goals, Policies, Implementation
Programs and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................................39
2. SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps........................................................................................74
3. Text of Referenced. SJMSCP Sections................................................................................75
4. Glossary ...................................................................................................................................90
NOTE: The following study contains extensive excerpts from: Habitatl0pen Space
Conservation Fee Study, prepared by: City of Stockton Community Development
Department with the assistance of Steven B. Meyers, Special Counsel and Kathleen
Faubion of Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson -San Leandro, CA, November, 1994.
The San Joaquin Counsel of Governments thanks the City of Stockton for allowing it to
liberally borrow from that study and for its assistance in preparing this report.
A. IntroductionBackground
1. General Plan Policies and Programs &
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
The California State Legislature has unequivocally established the importance and value of open space
lands. The preservation of open space land is necessary "for the assurance of the continued availability of
land for the production of food and fiber, for the enjoyment of scenic beauty, for recreation, and for the
use of natural resources."' "Cities ... [must) make definite plans for the preservation of valuable open
space land and take positive action to carry out such plans ...... 2 Open space preservation isso important,
the Legislature requires it to be specifically addressed in local general plans, which are a community's
most basic land use planning and development policy guide.3
San Joaquin County and the Cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon Stockton, and Tracy
adopted general plans and accompanying environmental documentation for those general plans as
described in Exhibit 1 . Agricultural and habitat open span? are a component of each of these plans
which seek to provide long term protection for agricultural lands and for natural resources, such as fish,
plants, wildlife and the habitats upon which these resources depend. In addition to policy statements,
these general plans also propose implementation programs and identify the need for mitigation measures
for providing long-term protection of natural resources and open spaces throughout the county. Exhibit
1 includes the applicable sections of the General Plans and General Plan Environmental Impact Reports
of each of the county's eight governmental jurisdictions which pertain to the management of open spaces
t Government Code Section65561(a). All subsequent statutory references are to the Government
Code unless otherwise noted.
2 65561(c)
3 65302(d), (e)
4 Section 665560 of the Government Code defines four categories of open space land. The first
category is open space for the preservation of natural resources, including areas required for the
preservation of plant and animal life, habitat for fish and wildlife species, rivers and streams and
their banks. The second category is open space for the managed production of resources,
including rangeland, agricultural lands and estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams important for the
management of commercial fisheries. The third category is open space for outdoor recreation.
The fourth category is open space for public health and safety.
The program described in this report focuses primarily on the first category, but these open spaces
are additionally recognized for their multiple benefits as reflected in all four open space
categories.
Page -1-
and conservation of natural resources countywide. A few of these goals, policies, implementation
programs and mitigation measures are highlighted in the following:
"The County shall support habitat conservation and restoration plans for special -status
taxa and shall work with the California Department of Fish and Game and other
agencies or organizations in developing such plans. " (San Joaquin County General
Plan, 2010, Vol. 1; 7129192; Policy 12 - Resource Protection and Management)
"Conserve, to the greatest feasible extent, the City's existing natural resources, with
particular emphasis on air and water quality, open space, farmland, wildlife and habitat
preservation. " (Escalon General Plan, Policy 3.210)
"The City shall on its own,. or in participation with other local governments, prepare and
implement a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Swainson's hawk. The acquisition
of lands required as replacement habitat for nesting and foraging is to be funded by fees
imposed upon developers whose land development activities would threaten, endanger or
eliminate existing habitat within the Lathrop planning area. The HCP shall be based
upon a current habitat field survey taken during the Swainson's hawk nesting season to
determine whether Core Conservation Areas or onlyforaging habitat exists. " (Lathrop
General Plan/EIR 12117191; Vegetation Fish and Wildlife Policy #3)
"The City shall support federal and state laws and policies preserving rare, threatened
and endangered species by ensuring that development does not adversely affect such
species or by fully mitigating adverse effects consistent with the recommendations of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. " (Lodi
General Plan 12189; Conservation and Open Space Element Policy #6)
Participate in Habitat Management Plan or equivalent effort to preserve habitat.
(Manteca General Plan/EIR 5188, Mitigation Measure 10.6-2)
The City will promote and encourage the preservation of open space areas along the
Stanislaus River and maximize its potential for public enjoyment. (Ripon General Plan
9188, Conservation and Open Space Element Policy #4)
All new development within the planning area shall contribute fees toward a central fund
for wildlife habitat preservation and replacement. The fee could be used to defray the
costs of the identification and mapping process described in "a'; above, and the
evaluation and monitoring of habitat replacement plans described in "c" below. It could
also be used to acquire and maintain land outside of the planned growth areas which
would serve, in part, to replace the agricultural landhvildliife habitat that is lost as a
result or urban development. (City of Stockton General Plan 5196; Biological
Resources Mitigation Measure 1b)
Page -2-
"Prepare and implement a plan, in consultation with state and federal agencies, on the
management and enhancement of wildlife habitat in environmentally sensitive open space
areas throughout the Tracy Planning Area. This plan may take the form of a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) as authorized by law under the FESA and CESA ". (City of
Tracy General Plan 7/93; Action OS 1.3.1).
2. Conditions of Project Approval
In addition to general plan goals, policies, implementation measures and general plan mitigation
measures, several local jurisdictions (e.g., Stockton, Tracy and San Joaquin County) already have
approved projects (e.g., subdivision and parcel maps, development agreements, pre -approvals, use
permits and other projects) which are conditioned to provide mitigation for impacts to various sensitive
species. Project proponents have been given the option of participating in the San Joaquin Multi -
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (SJMSCP), or its equivalent to fulfill these project conditions.
Adoption of a fee ordinance pursuant to the SJMSCP will allow project proponents opting for SJMSCP
coverage to fulfill conditions of project approval.
3. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open
Space Plan
The catalyst for the SJMSCP originated with conflicts between proposed development and habitat lands
for the Swainson's hawk, listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and
the San Joaquin kit fox, listed as endangered pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
On January 2, 1990, the City of Stockton adopted a general plan (Michael Paoli and Associates 1989) that
required the preparation of conservation plans to provide a mechanism to preserve and mitigate impacts
on sensitive species within the planning area based on a concept of "no net loss" of habitat. Because no
mechanism was in place to effectively mitigate impacts to Swainson's hawks, and because of the rapid
pace of development in Stockton, the city recognized a need to implement a mitigation mechanism that
could be applied easily to all development projects within the planning area. The development of a draft
habitat conservation plan for the hawk resulted in December 1990.
On the heels of this endeavor, came the County's effort to.address clashes between new developments
proposed in the southwestern portion of the County and habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. This resulted
in a June 1993, draft habitat conservation plan for the San Joaquin kit fox.
In the midst of these efforts, business and government leaders joined together to address the critical issues
facing San Joaquin County in VISION 2000.
Through each of these efforts, it became obvious that the fragmented approach currently being used to
mitigate impacts to threatened and endangered species and their habitats on a case-by-case basis was not
only biologically unreliable and did not meet long-term species goals, but this approach was not an
effective approach to planning new development. In late 1993, the San Joaquin Council of Governments
was approached to oversee the preparation of a regional plan to address the management of biological
resources in San Joaquin County.
In 1994, the Council of Governments established a steering committee to guide the planning process. The
steering committee was divided into a policy committee, the Habitat Policy Advisory Committee
(HPAC), and a technical committee, the Habitat Staff Working Group (HSWG). These committees were
Page -3-
composed of representatives from San Joaquin County; Caltrans; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the
California Department of Fish and Game; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; agriculture; conservation;
the Building Industry Association of the Delta; the Business Council; the Delta Protection Commission;
the Delta Habitat Conservancy; the Central Valley Rock, Sand and Gravel Association; and
representatives from the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton and Tracy. Other
interested persons regularly attending the twice -monthly public steering committee meetings included
representatives from the San Joaquin Farm Bureau, Senator Patrick Johnston's office, Assembly member
Mike Machado's office, Congressman Richard Pombo's office, the Audubon Society, the San Joaquin
County Mosquito and Vector Control District, and others.
During the early phases of the planning process, it was recognized that management of Open Space lands
for species also could provide recreational benefits, preserve scenic values, and assist in preserving
agricultural lands and Open Space lands for other beneficial uses. As stated in the October 1994,
Memorandum of Understanding adopted for the SJMSCP, a primary objective of the SJMSCP planning
process is to "Provide a basis for a County -wide multiple -use Open Space plan which contributes to the
quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County."
Pursuant to this guiding purpose and over the seven-year planning process, the following documents were
produced:
1. Biological Analysis: San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space
Plan, by Toyon Environmental Consultants, Inc., June, 1996.
2. Economic Analysis for the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan,
by Hausrath Economics Group, February, 1997;
3. Joint Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the SJMSCP;
September 23, 1999;
4. Joint Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the SJMSCP,
November 15, 2000;
5. San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP);
November 14, 2000; and
6. Implementation Agreement Regarding the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat
Conservation and Open Space Plan for Certain Lands in San Joaquin County, California,
December 7, 2000.
Each of the preceding documents is hereby incorporated by reference. Copies of all documents may be
obtained from the San Joaquin Council of Governments, 6 S. El Dorado St., Suite 400, Stockton, CA
95202, during regular business hours, or by contacting Gerald Park at (209) 468-3913.
On October 10, 1994, the San Joaquin Council of Governments, Caltrans, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca,
Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy signed a memorandum of understanding which established the objectives of
the Plan.
The objectives of the SJMSCP, as established in the Plan's MOU and resulting from the process described
above, are to:
Page -4-
A. Establish a program for managing biological resources which addresses the economic,
agricultural, conservation and public interests unique to San Joaquin County while
complying with local, state and federal conservation laws;
B. Provide consistent and predictable treatment of development proposals throughout the
County to reduce costs and uncertainty and ensure a healthy economic environment for
citizens and industries;
C. Lessen or avoid both site specific and cumulative impacts to species by replacing
project -by -project reviews with long-term strategies for conserving, protecting and
maintaining viable populations of multiple native special status species;
D. Replace confrontations between local, state and federal individuals and agencies with
consensus -building, compromise and partnerships to encourage a streamlined permitting
process, eliminate redundant efforts, reduce unnecessary expenditures of funds and
manpower, promote the consolidation of scattered resources and replace litigation with
effective mitigation.
E. Provide a basis for a County -wide multiple -use Open Space plan which contributes to the
quality of life of the residents of San Joaquin County; and
F. Identify a financing and acquisition strategy which spreads implementation costs
equitably among all beneficiaries and which is affordable to the region.
Between January and March, 2001, San Joaquin County; the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca,
Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy and the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) unanimously
adopted the SJMSCP. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the applicable permits for the SJMSCP
on May 31, 2001. The California Department of Fish and Game issued applicable permits on July 13,
2001.
B. Statutory Requirements for Establishing Fee
The authority for cities, the County, and other local government agencies to impose conservation fees
derives from their general police powers, from provisions of California law reciting the importance of
protecting agricultural and habitat open space lands, from the jurisdictions' general plans (See Exhibit 1)
calling for the preservation of agricultural and habitat resources, and from requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that significant environmental impacts be mitigated, if feasible.
Government Code Section 66000, et seq., contains both substantive and procedural requirements for
establishing fees such as this SJMSCP fee.5 The substantive requirements include Section 66001(a)
which requires a local jurisdiction to:
A. Identify the proper use of the fee;
Sections 66000-66007 may not apply to the SJMSCP fee given that these sections only apply to fees
charged "for the purposes of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development projects." The definition of "public facilities" (including "public improvements, public
services and community amenities") appears directed towards facilities to benefit the residents of the
development, whereas the SJMSCP fee is designed to compensate the environmental impacts of the
development. Thus, open space preserves purchased and/or maintained with the SJMSCP fee
Page -5-
B. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put;
C. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed;
D. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
Section 66001, subdivision b, further requires the local government to determine how there is a
reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the improvements attributable to the
development on which the fee is imposed.
Each of these items is contained in this fee study report, as reflected in the following summary:
a. The purpose of the conservation fee is to:
L Provide a means to compensate for the cumulative loss of habitat and movement
corridors for special status and common species due to new development
occurring within the SJMSCP's Permit Boundaries (See SJMSCP Planned Land
Use Map) resulting from the implementation of SJMSCP Covered Activities
(SJMSCP Section 8.2.1), and
ii. Provide a means to compensate for the direct impacts to sensitive species and
their habitats resulting from the implementation of SJMSCP Covered Activities
(SJMSCP Section 8.2.1) within the SJMSCP's Permit Boundaries (See SJMSCP
Planned Land Use Map);
b. The conservation fee will be used to administer the SJMSCP and to acquire, enhance,
restore, maintain, and monitor open space Preserve lands in perpetuity primarily for the
benefit of fish, plants and wildlife and for the ancillary multiple open space benefits
afforded by this habitat protection (e.g., conservation of agricultural lands, educational
uses, preservation of scenic resources, recreational and other opportunities);
c. For the purposes of this program, the "development project" is defined as the issuance of
either a building permit or grading permit for an SJMSCP Covered Activity (SJMSCP
Section 8.2. 1) in accordance with SJMSCP Section 5.3.2.3 (See Section C for full text).
At the point that a grading or building permit is approved for new development, the
developer may proceed with construction, thus converting the parcel from agricultural
use or habitat or other open space function to urban use. This Conversion creates the
need for, and the consequent use of conservation fees for, replacement of these resource
lands.
d. The amount of the conservation fee is based on the size of the parcel subject to the
building or grading permit and to the biological value of the land undergoing Conversion
and is thus directly proportional to the cost of replacing the lost resource lands.
Procedural requirements for establishing developer fees include a noticed public hearing, with notice
provided by mail and publication (Sections 66016, 66018). Information on the cost of and resources
available for habitat mitigation must also be made available to the public.
Page -6-
Once the fees are established, they must be kept in a separate account [Section 66006(a)]. The account
balance must be reported and reviewed yearly at a public meeting [Section 66006(b)]. Where fees remain
unspent or uncommitted five years after deposit, the local jurisdiction must identify the purpose of the fee
and show a reasonable relationship between the fee and its purpose [66001(d)].
C. Areas Subject to Conservation Fees
Pursuant to Section 8.2.5 of the SJMSCP (See Exhibit 3 for Text), the STMSCP COMPENSATION ZONE
MAPS shall be used to determine where, or if, payment of conservation fees are necessary based upon the
habitat value of the vegetation/habitat types found on the parcel as of 1/1/01 and their associated impacts
to fish, plants and wildlife.
The &MSCP Compensation Zone Maps are maps which classify the entire County into one of the
following categories (which track general habitat type to determine compensation ratio requirements) and
Fee Zones (used to determine fees on a per/acre basis), as described below:
"No -Pay Zones" include parcels where Conversions of Open Space already have occurred and contain
little, if any, habitat value, even on a cumulative level. These areas, shown in Exhibit 2, are not subject
to the conservation fee. In essence, these lands constitute a "No Pay" area and include Urban Lands.
Urban Lands are those lands which are already Converted from Open Space use by urban uses as of
January 1, 2001. These include the following vegetation categories mapped on.the SJMSCP
Compensation Zone Maps (which are the equivalent of the SIMSCP Vegetation Maps which have been
field checked and corrected by agency staff): U (Urban/Industrial/Built) and U2 (Scraped/Paved). Please
note that some vacant infill parcels were mapped as U or U2 on the STMSCP Vegetation Maps, but are
considered as Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands and are subject to the SJMSCP as indicated on the
SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps because they are undeveloped, do not yet have final approval for
development plans, or have approved development plans which include conditions permitting coverage
pursuant to the SJMSCP.
"No Pay Zones" also include new Conversions of Open Spaces which are exempt from the SJMSCP
because:
The subject parcel received a project approval prior to the Effective Date of the SJMSCP.
Approved, for the purposes of this section means completion of the environmental review process
(CEQA review) and approval of an entitlement through a public hearing process or issuance of an
entitlement by a local planning agency if a public hearing is not required. Conditions of prior
approval or statements of no impact shall be attached to these projects in accordance with the
conditions of approval.
There is no fee for SJMSCP Permitted Activities located within the No Pay Zone on the SIMSCP
Compensation Zone Maps unless otherwise specified in pre-existing conditions of project approval.
"Pay Zones" include those parcels, which are not otherwise exempt, that contain habitat types that have
habitat values ranging from low value (Multi -Purpose Open Spaces) to high values (Agricultural Habitat
Lands, Natural Lands). These parcels specifically include:
A. Parcels containing habitat types classified as Multi -Purpose Open Spaces. Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands are scattered throughout the County, but are primarily barren lands or orchards and
vineyards. Orchards and vineyards share the valley floor with Agricultural Habitat Lands.
Vineyards extend into the vernal pool grasslands of the extreme northern county and eastern
Page -7-
foothills. Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands mapped on the SJMSCP GIS Database are: Barren
(B, B2, B3, B4, 135), Cropland (C), Orchards and vineyards (C2), ruderal (C5Bmay also be
classified as Agricultural Habitat Lands where habitat value is high), Cultivated parks and golf
courses (U3) and some water features (e.g. cement lined aqueducts and ditches without riparian
vegetation). Please note that some vacant infill parcels were mapped as U (Urban/Industrial/Built)
or U2 (Scraped, Paved) on the SJMSCP Vegetation Maps, but are considered as Multi -Purpose
Open Space Lands and are subject to the SJMSCP as indicated on the SJMSCP Compensation
Zone Maps because they are undeveloped, do not yet have final approval for development plans,
or have approved development plans which include conditions permitting coverage pursuant to the
SJMSCP.
Multi-purpose open space lands provide habitat for common wildlife species, contain food sources
for special status species and provide movement corridors for both common and special status
species.
B. Parcels containing habitat types classified as Agricultural Habitat Lands. Lands which are in non-
permanent -crop agricultural uses as of 1/l/01 as indicated on the SJMSCP SIMSCP Vegetation
Maps. Agricultural Habitat Lands include perennial and annual croplands and some ruderal
habitats. Agricultural Habitat Lands include the following mapped vegetation types: C3 (Row
and field crops, ditched), C4 (Row and field crops, unditched), and C5 (Ruderal except for some
ruderal lands classified as Multi -Purpose Open Space due to low habitat value). Agricultural
Habitat Lands are found primarily on the County's valley floor and in the Delta Agricultural
rangelands are generally classified as Natural Lands since they are primarily grasslands or vernal
pool grasslands. Orchards and vineyards are classified as Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands.
C. Parcels containing habitat types classified as Natural Lands. Natural Lands include those lands
which contain natural vegetation as of 1/1/01 as indicated on the SJMSCP Vegetation Maps and
which are not irrigated or cultivated agricultural land. Natural Lands include the following
SJMSCP vegetation types: BCN-Blue Oak -Conifer Savanna (< 10% canopy closure), BCN2-Blue
Oak -Conifer Woodland (10-33% canopy closure), BCN3-Blue Oak -Conifer Forest (34-75%
canopy closure), BCN4-Blue Oak -Conifer Forest (>75% canopy closure), BL -Blue Oak Savanna
(< 10% canopy closure), BL2-Blue Oak Woodland (10-33% canopy closure), BU -Blue Oak
Forest (34-75% canopy closure), BI4-Blue Oak Forest (>75% canopy closure), D -Drainage
Ditches, G -Valley Grasslands, G2 -Foothill Grasslands, G3 -Vernal Pool Grasslands, I -Channel
Islands, 12 -Tule Island and Mud Flat, O/G-Mixed Oak Savanna (<10% canopy closure), 02 -
Mixed Oak Woodland (10-33% canopy closure), 03 -Mixed Oak Forest (34-75% canopy closure),
04 -Mixed Oak Forest (>75% canopy closure), R -Great Valley Riparian Forest, R2 -Great Valley
Oak Riparian Forest, R3 -Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest, R4 -Arroyo Willow Thicket,
RS -Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, S -Great Valley Riparian Scrub, S2 -Elderberry Savanna,
S3-Diablan Sage Scrub, SG-Sage/grassland, V -Valley Oak Savanna (<10% canopy closure), V2 -
Valley Oak Woodland (10-33% canopy closure), V3 -Valley Oak Forest (34-75% canopy closure),
V4 -Valley Oak Forest (>75% canopy closure), W-River/Deep Water Channel (> 200 feet wide),
W2-Tnbutary Stream (100-200 feet wide), W3 -Creek (20-100 feet wide), W4 -Dead -End Slough;
WS -Freshwater Lake, Pond or Vernal Pool; W6 -Sewer Treatment Ponds, W7 -Freshwater
Emergent Wetland, W8 -Vernal or Seasonal Wetland, and W9 - Canal (canals with riparian
vegetation only are considered Natural Lands; cement -lined canals, or canals lacking riparian
vegetation, are classified as Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands). Natural Lands are considered to
have the highest Open Space value of the three categories since Natural Lands provide the most
valuable plant, fish and wildlife habitat, provide opportunities for recreational trails along linear
waterways, and provide outstanding scenic value, generally in the context of large expanses of
Open Space.
D. Parcels containing Natural Lands classified as Vernal Pool Grasslands (G3) as indicated on the
SJMSCP Vegetation Maps and as verified by a site inspection conducted by the JPA.
Page -8-
Other Zones
In cases where a separate written agreement between the Project Proponent and the Permitting Agencies
has been reached to address plants, fish and wildlife and habitat issues for a proposed project, the
provisions of the agreement shall determine the appropriate fees and compensation. Wherever possible,
these agreements shall be reflected on the SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps. Agreements which reflect
partial mitigation only (e.g., for cumulative impacts, but not for site specific impacts) are no included in
this category.
The SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps are hereby incorporated by reference.
Page -9-
D. Amount of Conservation Fee
1. Background
The following analyzes the costs of the SJMSCP, describes the process used to determine a fair
distribution of costs for the SJMSCP, describes the mechanisms by which the SJMSCP shall be funded,
describes the overall SJMSCP funding plan, describes SJMSCP funding assurances, and includes an
analysis of the costs versus the benefits of implementing the SJMSCP. This information is summarized
from the Economic Analysis for the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open
Space Plan (SJMSCP Economic Analysis), prepared April 7, 1997, by Hausrath Economics Group,
hereby incorporated by reference. Copies of this study maybe obtained during regular business hours at
the San Joaquin Council of Governments, 6 S. El Dorado St., Suite 400, Stockton, CA 95202, or by
contacting Gerald Park at (209) 468-3913.
Plan Costs
The purpose of the SJMSCP cost analysis is to generate estimates of the costs to preserve Open Space
lands in San Joaquin County pursuant to the SJMSCP. The total cost of the SJMSCP is the sum of four
components:
A. Acquisition of Preserve lands (and associated transaction costs),
B. Monitoring and restoration and/or enhancement of Preserve lands,
C. Endowment for long-term management of Preserve lands, and
D. Initial and on-going administration of the Plan.
Costs of acquisition, monitoring, enhancement and/or restoration, and endowment components vary
depending upon the type of Preserve lands being acquired and enhanced and, in many cases, the location
of the Preserve lands being acquired.
Preserve Land Acquisition Costs
Under the SJMSCP, the JPA would acquire Preserve lands through acquisition of fee title interest (all of
the rights of ownership and control) or would acquire conservation easements (a limited set of rights to
the property, short of full ownership and control). For any given parcel of land, the cost of a conservation
easement is less than the cost of fee title interest, because the seller of the conservation easement retains
title to the property and is free to use the land and continue to generate economic return from the land,
subject to the provisions of the easement agreement. Because of this cost differential and because many
existing agricultural practices are compatible with the needs of SJMSCP Covered Species, most of the
Preserve acquisition is expected to be in the form of conservation easement agreements. While the exact
percentage of land to be acquired through the purchase of easements remains flexible in the SJMSCP, it is
estimated that up to 90% of Preserve lands will be acquired by means of conservation easements, and up
to 10% of the Preserve lands will be acquired via fee title. All transactions require a willing seller.
Another component of the acquisition strategy is that the land acquired for Preserves mirror the habitat
types within the Open Spaces Converted. The JPA will categorize land Conversions by the STMSCP
Index Zone in which it occurs, and will use the SJMSCP Index Zones as the primary means of identifying
potential lands for acquisition. Therefore, as the SJMSCP is implemented, the distribution of Preserve
lands by SJMSCP Index Zone will be roughly the same as the distribution of land Conversion by SJMSCP
Page -10-
Index Zone (for limited exceptions to this, see Section 5.1.2.6). Because of differences in land
characteristics and cropping patterns captured by the SJMSCP Index Zone distinctions, the SJMSCP Index
Zones are important categories for the land cost analysis. As described below, land acquisition costs
reflect the land cost differences by SJMSCP Index Zone.
Land Value Assumptions
The land cost estimates developed for the SJMSCP cost analysis are based on an analysis of real estate
transactions in San Joaquin County during 1994, 1995, and early 1996. A database of transactions from
DataQuick was used in this analysis. The primary source of the DataQuick information is the San
Joaquin County Assessor's offices. The original database included over 750 transactions of parcels with
the following use designations: irrigated vegetable crops, irrigated field crops, orchards, vineyards,
irrigated pasture, dry grazing, dairy farms, and chicken ranches.
The goal of the analysis was to develop average estimates of the cost to acquire fee title interest in land
that satisfied the SJMSCP Preserve criteria (see Section 5.4.4). To develop land value estimates
representative of the types of parcels that would be acquired as Preserves under the SJMSCP required
sorting out transactions that did not satisfy those location or land use parameters. The methodology to
develop land cost estimates had to narrow the set of transactions to include only those most similar to the
types of "willing seller" transactions that would be the target of the JPXs acquisition efforts. A necessary
element of this process also was to eliminate transactions representing significant speculative value (i.e.,
value derived from expectations that land would generate higher economic return in the future as a
consequence of Conversions to orchards or vineyards or, more permanently, to a residential subdivision).
Initially, the following transactions were removed from the database: partial interest transactions (i.e.,
less than fee title interest), transactions outside of the County boundaries (since the County has indicated
a preference that lands acquired pursuant to the SJMSCP be located within the County and that policy has
been adopted as part of the SJMSCP), and parcels with inappropriate uses, such as poultry farming and
dairies. Transactions involving orchard and vineyard lands also were eliminated. Because of the higher
economic value of the crop, orchard and vineyard lands sell for substantially higher per acre prices than
do other types of agricultural lands in San Joaquin County. While orchards and vineyards (Multi -Purpose
Open Spaces) have value as Open Space resources, their habitat value for SJMSCP Covered Species is
relatively low (for the reasons discussed in Section 4.1). For these reasons, orchard and vineyard lands
are not a priority for Preserve acquisition and transactions involving these lands were eliminated from the
database.
Finally, so as not to skew the results, transactions that indicated extreme average values, generally greater
than $15,000 per acre, were removed from the database. At the same time, multi -parcel transactions were
combined so that average values per acre could be estimated based upon the entire land transaction and
not the values attached to individual parcels.
From the focused database, two sets of transaction data were created. One set consisted of transactions
involving dry grazing and dry farming lands --equivalent to the types of grassland habitats that would be
acquired in the Southwest Zone and the Vernal Pool Zone. The other set consisted of transactions
involving irrigated field and vegetable crops and irrigated pasture --equivalent to the types agricultural
habitat lands and related riparian and Water's Edge Preserve Types.
Two final revisions were then made to the remaining parcels. Parcels of less than 20 acres were removed
from the database since these potentially reflect value as home sites and would not be representative of
typical Preserve lands. Second, only those transactions involving parcels outside of urban development
boundaries indicated on the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map were retained in the final analysis since
Page -11-
these lands both reflect less speculative land value (and therefore lower costs) and provide larger tracts of
interconnected habitat lands which will not be fragmented by development and, therefore, ultimately may
provide higher habitat value for SJMSCP Covered Species.
The remaining transactions were sorted by SIMSCP Index Zone and average land values per acre for
transactions within each SIMSCP Index Zone were computed. Table 7-1 presents the results of the land
value analysis, showing estimated Preserve costs, per acre, for fee title acquisition and for purchase of
easements. The following points provide some context for those estimates from the transaction database.
A. Because of cropping patterns and other factors, land values in the Primary Zone of the
Delta are substantially lower than they are for row and field crop land in other parts of
the County. The cost to acquire fee title interest in an acre of land in the Primary Zone of
the Delta that would be suitable habitat is estimated at $1,400. The final set of
transactions used to develop that estimate excluded transactions of less than 100 acres
and parcels where an existing residence appeared to add significant value. The per -acre
values for the resultant transactions ranged from just over $400 per acre to $2,300 per
acre. The average parcel size was 380 acres.
B. An average value of $3,700 per acre is used to estimate the cost to acquire fee title
interest in agricultural habitat lands elsewhere in the County. That value was derived
from transactions of irrigated row and field croplands in the Central Zone. The final set
of transactions excluded those involving parcels of less than 100 acres and parcels where
an existing residence appeared to add significant value. A large transaction just on the
edge of the urban development boundary of Stockton also was excluded to reduce the
potential for including a component of speculative value in the results. The average land
values for the resultant final set of transactions ranged from just over $1,000 per acre to
about $7,900 per acre. Most of the transactions ranged form $3,200 per acre to $4,500
per acre. The average parcel size was about 170 acres.
C. The average value for grasslands in the Southwest Index Zone is estimated to be
approximately $700 per acre. In the final set of transactions used to develop this average,
the range of values was $350 per acre to $2,050 per acre. The average transaction size
was about 1,300 acres.
D. The cost to acquire in fee title vernal pool grasslands, generally along the northern and
eastern ends of the County (within the Vernal Pool Zone), is estimated to be about $1,100
per acre. In the final set of transactions used to develop that average value, parcels less
than 100 acres were excluded. The values ranged from $300 per acre to $3,270 per acre,
the high end value reflecting a transaction involving some irrigated field crops in addition
to the grasslands. On average, there were approximately 410 acres in each transaction.
E. The cost to acquire Vernal Pool Zone Large Area and Small Area Preserves is estimated
to be approximately $2,300 per acre. Because this land is the edge of streams, creeks,
sloughs, marshes, and ditches that run through row and field cropland and grasslands, it
was assumed not to have land value independent of the adjacent croplands and
grasslands. Therefore, the estimate of average land value was derived from the
transactions for both irrigated row and field crops and grasslands.
F. Similarly, the land value estimates for riparian Preserves within row and field croplands
in both the Primary Zone of the Delta and the rest of the County are the same. The
riparian habitat is assumed to be primarily the riparian edges of agricultural lands.
Page -12-
Moreover, there are not many instances of transactions involving riparian edges only.
Easement Value Assumptions
Once fee title costs for potential Preserve lands were determined, these costs had to be Converted into
easement costs.
Existing agricultural practices for row and field crops and grazing are generally compatible with the
SJMSCP enhancement and management goals for some SJMSCP Covered Species (see SJMSCP Sections
5.4.6 and 5.4.7). Several of the SJMSCP Covered Species rely on habitat provided by rangelands,
irrigated fields, and low-lying crops (e.g., most species associated with the Central Zone row and field
crop habitats, the Southwestern Zone grasslands, and the Vernal Pool Zone vernal pool grasslands — see
Section 5.4.4). Therefore, maintaining agricultural production values on most Preserve lands is a key goal
of the SJMSCP. This is most efficiently accomplished by acquisition of easements ensuring continued
agricultural use in support of habitat and Open Space needs. The acquisition of such a conservation
easement represents the acquisition of any rights to develop or use land in ways that would jeopardize its
value as habitat or Open Space. All other rights to productive use of the land would be retained by the
owner of fee title interest (should those productive uses include activities which are inconsistent with the
conservation strategy of the SJMSCP, lands would not be acquired for Preserves).
Under the SJMSCP, the value (or cost to the JPA) of the conservation easement would typically represent
the value of the rights foregone by the owner of the fee title interest. Those will vary depending on the
location and characteristics of the parcel, the expectations of the property owner, the market conditions of
various crops, and the existing agricultural practices on the property. Typically, the conservation
easement would require the land to remain in agricultural use (or in its otherwise natural state) and would
prohibit Conversion to orchard or vineyards (crops not considered high value habitat lands as discussed in
Section 4.1).
Most of the Preserve acquisition under the SJMSCP is expected to be acquisition of conservation
easements. Therefore, it was important to develop a good understanding of the potential value of such an
easement for the purposes of the acquisition cost component of the cost analysis.
Research into the typical values for conservation easement purchases revealed a wide range of values
consistent with the individualized and negotiated character of such transactions. The experience of the
California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) conservation easement program for Central Valley
wetlands is that easement values ranged from 25% to 75% of fee title value. Analysis of opportunity
costs and agricultural values conducted by the Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) in support
of the Swainson's Hawk Habitat Conservation Program Mitigation Fee in 1992, prepared for the City of
Stockton, indicated that conservation easements under that program would cost, on average, about 40% of
the full market price of equivalent land. Other factors considered by the CNLM analysis such as holding
costs and the value of land removed from production increased to about 60% the overall cost of the
conservation easement purchase relative to fee title acquisition. Interviews conducted for this cost
analysis with bankers active in the San Joaquin County agricultural community supported 25% to 40% as
a rough rule -of -thumb for estimating the value foregone to agricultural land with a conservation easement
such as that proposed under the SJMSCP 6
The assumption used for the purpose of developing the land cost factors is that, on average, conservation
easement purchase prices would be 50% of the fee title purchase price.
Please refer to page V-3 of the SJMSCP Economic Analysis for the list of persons consulted.
Page -13-
As the SJMSCP is implemented, all transactions will be negotiated and tailored to the characteristics of
each parcel. All easement transactions will be based on a formal appraisal of each property under
consideration. The assumption about easement value used in the cost analysis is a conservative factor for
the purpose of estimates. It is not a ceiling or floor to the actual costs that might be paid.
Transaction Costs
Transaction costs are estimated at five percent of the total transaction value. The costs include title
search, appraisal, title insurance, other closing costs, and recording any deed restrictions or conservation
easements.
ESTIMATED SJMSCP PRESERVE ACQUISITION COSTS
PER ACRE BY INDEX ZONE (1996 DOLLARS)/c/
Preserve Type
Percent of
Fee Title
Easement
Easement
Total/a/
Cost per
Percent of
Cost Per
Acre
Fee Title
Acre
Agricultural Habitat Lands
Primary Zone o the Delta
3%
$1,400
Central Zone
97%
$3,700
Weighted Average, Agricultural Habitat
100%
$3,600
50%
$1,800
Lands
Natural Lands
Riparian/b/
Primayy Zone o the Delta
11%$1,400
z-
Central Zone Riparian
89%
$3,700_x
r� F
Weighted Averae, Riparian
100%
$3,500
50%
$1,750
Central Zone edges of agricultural lands
$2,300
50%
$1,150
and grasslands
Southwest Zone Grasslands
.........::...a'....:`
$700
50%
$350
Vernal Pool Zone Upland Grasslands and
$1,100
50%
$550
Wetted Vernal Pool Surface Area
7 Based on a review of other habitat conservation plan studies including: CNLK San Joaquin County
Swainson's Hawk Conservation Program Mitigation Fee Determination, 1992/93; and Economic and
Planning Systems, Draft Economic Technical Background Report. Yolo County Habitat Management
Plan, June 1994.
Page -14-
/a/ Percent of Preserve lands by habitat type anticipated for Preserves within each SJMSCP Index Zone. For cases in
which habitat types span Index Zones with different land values, used to derive weighted average land cost factor by
habitat type.
/b/ Riparian habitat in Primary Zone of the Delta and Central Zone. Assumed to be primarily riparian edges of
agricultural lands
/c/ Fees based upon these figures will be adjusted to 1998 dollars pursuant to the California Construction Cost Index
(CCCn and Section 7.5.2.2 six months after the SIMSCP's Effective Date. Thereafter, fees will be adjusted
annually as provided in Section 7.5.2.2 (See Exhibit 3 for full text).
Restoration And Enhancement Costs
Preserve lands acquired under the SJMSCP will undergo varying levels of enhancement as described in
SJMSCP Section 5.4.6.
The elements of the cost assumptions for each Preserve Type are described below:
A. The agricultural land enhancement cost of $100 per acre covers the cost of planting
hedgerows, construction and installation of nesting platforms, bat boxes, and burrowing
owl sites, and other activities. The average per acre cost covers costs of enhancements to
habitats which begin as relatively low -value habitats. See the next paragraph for
enhancement costs for riparian edges within agricultural row and field crops.
B. The riparian enhancement cost of $600 includes extensive site preparation, plant
propagations, irrigation, weed control, signing and fencing.
C The enhancement cost shown in the following table for the Primary Zone of the Delta
submerged aquatic habitat covers the costs of restoring submerged aquatic habitat
including costs for: site preparation, planting, ensuring that new plants are established.
D. The enhancement cost for Vernal Pool Zone Large Area and Small Area Preserves is
estimated at $350 per acre. This reflects a mid -point of the range of similar wetland
restoration costs reported by the CDFG.
E. The grassland enhancement cost of $80 per acre applies to grasslands in both the
Southwest Zone and the Vernal Pool Zone. The cost includes fencing, testing the soil,
preparing the site, propagating cuttings, and controlling exotics.
F. The enhancement cost for vernal pool surface area is $8,300 per Preserve acre. Estimates
of the costs of creating vernal pools (surface or wetted area only) ranged from $5,000 per
acre to almost $50,000 per acre. This cost analysis assumes $25,000 per acre cost of the
creation of new vernal pool surface area. Under the terms of the SJMSCP, compensation
for Conversion of vernal pools would require three acres of Preserve for every one acre
of Conversion; only one of those three acres would have to be a newly created vernal
pool. Therefore, the enhancement cost per acre for all vernal pool surface area Preserve
acres would be $8,300 per acre ($25,000 divided by 3 to equal $8,300).
In addition, all of the enhancement costs above include the other initial costs of a biological assessment of
the Preserve and preparation of a Preserve Management Plan.
Page -15-
ESTIMATED SJMSCP ENHANCEMENT/RESTORATION COSTS (1996 DOLLARS)/c/
Type of Preserve
Enhancement Cost per
Preserve Acre
Agricultural Habitat Lands
$100
Natural Lands
Central/Southwest Zone - Riparian
$600
Primary Zone o the Delta - Submer ed Aquatic
$1,200
Prima y Zone o the Delta - Water's Ede
$350
Southwest Zone - Grasslands
$80
Vernal Pool Zone - Wetted Surface Area with
Creation of Vernal Pools/a/
$8,300
Vernal Pool Zone - Wetted Surface Area of Vernal
Pools With No Creation/b/
$40
Vernal Pool Zone - Grasslands
$80
N Based on an estimate of $25,000 per wetted acre to create vernal pools. The creation cost only applies to one of
every three acres of Preserves: $25,000 divided by 3 equals $8,300 per Preserve acre.
/b/ This component applies only to Vernal Pool Preserves established to offset impacts of Neighboring Land
Protections as described in SJMSCP Section 5.3.3.4.
/d Fees based upon these figures will be adjusted to 1998 dollars pursuant to the California Construction Cost Index
(CCCI) and Section 7.5.2.2 six months after the SJMSCP's Effective Date. Thereafter, fees will be adjusted
annually as provided in Section 7.5.2.2 (See Exhibit 3 for Text).
Management Endowment Costs
Preserve lands acquired under the SJMSCP will undergo varying levels of management as described in
SJMSCP Sections 5.4.7 and 5.4.8.
The acquisition and enhancement costs represent the initial capital costs of securing and establishing the
SJMSCP Preserves. The SJMSCP must also ensure that those lands are managed in perpetuity for the
benefit of plants, fish and wildlife.
Management costs will be satisfied by a one-time, up -front endowment payment, the interest on which is
anticipated to be adequate to support Preserve management needs in perpetuity.
The costs for on-going Preserve management used in this cost analysis are based upon precedent
established by the California Department of Fish and Game for mitigation of impacts to Swainson's hawk
habitat in the Central Valley,8 and on analyses conducted by the Center for Natural Lands Management,
Memorandum and Stafj`'Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's hawks in the Central Valley of
California, November, 1994.
Page -16-
both specific to San Joaquin County and more broadly applicable to land management situations
generally.'
The generalized CNLM research investigated on-going annual costs of Preserve management. The
implied endowment per acre for the cases analyzed and the proposals estimated ranged from just over
$100 per acre to almost $7,000 per acre for Preserve management. The properties and projects analyzed
in the CNLM study were all fee title Preserves implying a higher level of management than would be the
case with Preserves acquired via conservation easements. A key conclusion of the CNLM study is that
the variability in per acre costs, depending on goals, management styles, and property characteristics,
makes management costs difficult to predict. Another conclusion is that there appears to be significant
economies of scale to these costs.
The tasks of on-going Preserve management include annual biological assessments, periodic Preserve
management and enhancement plan updates and associated overhead, Preserve maintenance, fencing,
signage, and similar activities. Assuming an annual investment income stream of five percent were
funding these costs, the one-time endowment required is estimated to be $400 per Preserve acre for
agricultural habitat lands and grasslands. Higher costs (resulting in an endowment of $560 per Preserve
acre) are assumed for riparian habitats and Delta aquatic Preserve lands.
The following table summarizes the costs of endowments per Preserve acre for management of Preserves
within each SJMSCP Index Zone and within each Preserve Type within each SJMSCP Index Zone.
Center for Natural Lands Management, San Joaquin Counly Swainson's Hawk Conservation Program
Mitigation Fee Determination, 1992 and Habitat Management Cost Analysis, 1994.
Page -17-
SJMSCP MANAGEMENT COST FACTORS (1996 DOLLARS)/b/
Type of Preserve
Management Cost per
Preserve Acre
Agricultural Habitat Lands
$400
Natural Lands
Central/Southwest Zone - Riparian
$560
Primary Zone o the Delta - Submerged Aquatic
$560
Primary Zone of the Delta - Water's Ede
$400
Southwest Zone - Grasslands
$400
Vernal Pool Zone - Creation of Vernal Pools
$400
Vernal Pool Zone - Preservation of Existing Vernal
Pools Wetted Surface Areas/a/
$400
Vernal Pool Zone - Grasslands
$400
/a/ This component applies only to Vernal Pool Preserves established to offset impacts of Neighboring 1x d
Protections as described in SJMSCP Section 5.3.3.4.
/b/ Fees based upon these figures will be adjusted to 1998 dollars pursuant to the California Construction Cost Index
(CCCI) and Section 7.5.2.2 six months after the SJMSCP's Effective Date. Thereafter, fees will be adjusted
annually as provided in Section 7.5.2.2 (See Exhibit 3 for Text).
Administration Costs
The costs for SJMSCP administration are also expressed as a one-time endowment payment, the annual
interest on which would support on-going costs over the long term. These costs include initial and on-
going staffing of the JPA, preconstruction surveys, conservation easement monitoring, accounting,
insurance, overhead, and contingency (for legal defense and emergency). The estimated cost of
endowment for Plan administration is $100 per Preserve acre for all Preserve Types. These costs are
based on a review of the same documents cited in the preceding section related to management costs.
Summary of SJMSCP Costs
The following tables summarize the total costs of the SJMSCP including costs for acquiring, enhancing,
monitoring, and managing Preserves and for administering the SJMSCP developed from the preceding
cost analysis --both with and without the costs of shaded riverine aquatic habitat. The costs are expressed
as costs per Preserve acre (these are the costs for acquiring, enhancing, and managing Preserves and for
SJMSCP administration and are not equal to the development fees to be paid under the SJMSCP for the
reasons described in Section 7.3).
The costs are based on the assumption that Agricultural Habitat Land Preserves and the riparian corridors
Page -18-
and water's edge habitats running through those lands would be acquired by means of conservation
easements while some vernal pool and other grassland Preserves would be acquired in fee title.
Page -19-
SJMSCP COST ESTIMATES PER ACRE
Type of Preserve
Land
Transaction
Enhancement
Land
Administration
TOTAL
Percent of
Acquisition
Cost
Cost
Management
COST
Total Preserve
/a/
and
Lands /c/
Endowment
A riculturalHabitatLands
$1800
$90
$100
$400
$100
$2490
57%
Natural Lands
Riparian
$1,750
$88
$600
$560
$100
19%
$3,098
Other Water's Edge
$1,150
$58
$350
$400
$100
2%
$2,058
Southwest Grasslands
$700
$35
$80
$400
$100
4%
$1,315
Delta Submerged Aquatic
$700
$35
$1,200
$560
$100
<1%
$2,596
Vernal Pool Surface (Created)
$1,100
$55
$8,300
$400
$100
2%
$9,955
Vernal Pool Surface and
$550
$30
$120
$400
$100
$1,200
<1%
Grasslands of Created /b/
Vernal Pool Grasslands (Upland
$1,100
$55
$80
$400
$100 1
16%
Grassland)
$1,735
Subtotal Natural Lands
$1,360
$80
$730
$470
$100
$2,730
43%
GRAND TOTALtc/
$1,610
$83
$100
$2,593/c/
100%
$368
1 $433
Percent of Total
62%
3%
14%
17%
4%
100%
a
/at Assumes conservation easements for agricultural, riparian, and ower waters edge lands. Assumes fee title acquisition for grasslands (vernal pool) except for .
/b/ This component applies only to Vernal Pool Preserves established to offwt impacts of Neighboring Lad Protections as described in SIMSCP Section 5.3.3.4. Because creation is not required for this component, acquisition of
easements rather then fee title acquisition is assumed.
/c/ Weighting factor used to derive cost over all Preserve lands.
Page -20-
SJMSCP COST ESTIMATES PER ACRE
100,841 ACRE OF PRESERVES
/a/ This "created" component refers to the SIMSCrs compensation ratio of 3:1 for Conversion of vernal pool habitats for activities coveted by the SJMSCP whereby two acres of
existing vernal pool acres are preserved and one acre is created. This component does not include vernal pool preserves established pursuant to the SJMSCP to address impacts
associated with Neighboring Land Protections.
/b/ Including transaction costs
/c/ Costs of enhancing upland grasslands ($80) plus cost of enhancing wetted surface area (S40) equals $120.
Page -21-
VERNAL POOL HABITAT
AGRICULTURAL HABITAT LANDS AND NON -VERNAL POOL
NEIGHBORING LAND PROTECTION PRESERVES
(17,682 Acres Preserves)
NATURAL LANDS OPEN SPACES
(600 Acres)
(82.559 Acres Preserves
Vernal Pool Surface Area
Vernal Pool Grassland
Agricultural Habitat and Non-
Submerged Aquatic
Vernal Pool Surface Area and
Agricultural Habitat Land
(Createdyn/
(15,560 Acres of Preserves)
Vernal Pool
(9 Acres)
Grasslands - No Creation
and Non -Vernal Pool
(2,122 Acres of Preserves)
Natural Lands Eieept for
(250 Acres)
Natural Land Neighboring
Submerged Aquatic
Land Protection Preserves
(82.550 Acres of Preserves
350 Acres
Component
Coat Per
Total Cost
Cost Per
Total Cost
Cost Per
I
Total Cost
Cost Per
Total Cost
Cost Per
Total Cost
Cost Per
Total Cost
Preserve
Preserve
Preserve Acre
I
Preserve Acre
I
Preserve
Preserve
Acre
Acre
Acre
Acre
Acquisition/b/
$1,155
$1,155
517,971,800
51,810
$149,415,500
5735
$580
$145,000
$1,810
5633,500
S2,450,910
$6,615
Enhancement
$8,300
S80
51,244,800
5220
518,161,000
5120/c/
$30,000
5220
$77,000
S17 612 600
SI 200
Slog
Land
$400
5400
$6,224,000
$440
536,322,000
$560
$400
$100,000
5440
$154,000
Mans ment
$848,800
$5.040
Administration
5100
$100
$1,556,000
$100
58,255,000
5100
$100
$25,000
5100
$35,000
5212 200
$900
TOTAL COST$26,996,600
$2,570
$212,153,500
$1,200
$300,000
$2,570
$899,500
$9,955
$21,124,510
51,735
$2,595
523,355
/a/ This "created" component refers to the SIMSCrs compensation ratio of 3:1 for Conversion of vernal pool habitats for activities coveted by the SJMSCP whereby two acres of
existing vernal pool acres are preserved and one acre is created. This component does not include vernal pool preserves established pursuant to the SJMSCP to address impacts
associated with Neighboring Land Protections.
/b/ Including transaction costs
/c/ Costs of enhancing upland grasslands ($80) plus cost of enhancing wetted surface area (S40) equals $120.
Page -21-
TOTAL ESTIMATED PLAN COSTS PER ACRE/a/
ALL PRESERVE TYPES
100,841 Acres of Preserves
Component
Cost Per
Total Cost/b/
Percentage of
Preserve Acre/b/
Total Cost
Acquisition/c/
$1,692
65%
$170,623,325
Enhancement
14%
$368
$37,136,200
Land Management
$433
17
$43,653,840
Administration
$100
4%
$10,084,100
TOTAL COST
$2,593
$261,497,465
100%
/a/ Totals are from Table on preceding page
/b/ Rounded to nearest dollar
/c/ Including transaction costs
The total per acre cost ranges from about $1,300 for the southwest grassland Preserves to ahnost $10,000
for vernal pool surface area (attributable to the high enhancement costs for this Preserve Type). The total
cost for Agricultural Habitat Lands and Riparian Preserves (together representing almost 90% of all
Preserve lands) would range from $2,500 per acre to $3,100 per acre.
The grand total cost of $2,593 per acre is the average cost over all types of Preserves, weighted by the
expected distribution of Preserve land by type.
2. Relationship Between the Conservation Fee and Habitat/Open Space
Loss
Constitutional principles, California statutes and case law require that developer fees be reasonably
related to the development impact they purport to address. That is, the fee must be used for a thing or
activity that helps to resolve the problem identified in the impact; the fee cannot exceed the amount
necessary to resolve the impact; and the fee must be roughly proportional to the developer's contribution
to that impact. Compliance with the first two criteria is clear from the discussions throughout this report.
It is the last of these criteria, identifying new development's contribution to the loss of habitat lands,
which is established in the following:
The Fee recognizes the Contribution of ExistingDevelopment to the Cumulative Loss of Habitat Lands,
the Varying Biological Values of Habitats, and the Multi -Purpose Functions of Open SpaccfMe Amount
of the Fee is Appropriate to Mitigate Cumulative and Site -Specific Habitat Loss
The SJMSCP is a multi -species habitat conservation and Open Space plan. The purpose of the SJMSCP
is to encourage continued development and economic growth consistent with current general plans of San
Page -22-
Joaquin County and the seven cities in the County, while at the same time providing a means of
protecting permanent habitat and Open Space lands for the benefit of plants, fish, wildlife and human
populations.
Implementation of the SJMSCP requires a funding proposal that is equitable and acceptable, while
compensating for the loss of Open Space and habitat resources. The approach to the fair share
apportionment of Plan costs is guided by the language and intent of general plan documents in San
Joaquin County and its seven cities. These general plans contain policies establishing the value and
importance of environmentally sensitive lands and Open Space resources to agricultural productivity,
biodiversity, and the welfare of county residents (see Exhibit 1).
Those plans also document how habitat and Open Space are becoming increasingly scarce resources in
San Joaquin County. Past Open Space land Conversion has contributed to the current need for
preservation, and future development of Open Space and habitat will reduce even fiuther the acreage of
those resources. Permanent preservation of Open Space and habitat is needed to offset that impact and to
formalize a land conservation component of local land use planning. The Plan has clear benefit not only
to new residents and businesses in San Joaquin County, but to existing residents and businesses as well.
Consistent with this policy direction, the proposed funding plan spreads costs of permanently preserving
Open Space and habitat land in San Joaquin County among all those who benefit: existing residents and
businesses and future development and related activities in the County. Or, restated, the costs of the
SJMSCP shall be paid by two categories of beneficiaries as follows:
A. New Development (i.e., those undertaking new development projects pursuant to the
SJMSCP). This category shall be funded primarily through the payment of development
fees by individuals undertaking new development projects pursuant to the SJMSCP.
Development fees are derived and described in Section 7.4.1.
B. Other Sources (i.e., sources other than those undertaking new development projects
pursuant to the SJMSCP). This category shall be funded through state and federal
funding sources (which represent the local resident beneficiaries), conservation banking,
lease revenues, revolving funds/resales, investments and similar sources (see Exhibit 3
for Funding Plan).
To determine what share of the total SJMSCP costs should be allocated to each of these two funding
categories, the SJMSCP planners turned to history.
SJMSCP planners concluded that the current threats to the long-term survival of SJMSCP Covered
Species and the current need to preserve agricultural lands, scenic and recreational resources, and other
beneficial Open Space uses in the County cannot be blamed solely on neve development projected to
occur between 2001-2051. Past, unmitigated Conversions of Open Spaces prior to 2001 (e.g.,
agriculture, urban and rural development, public utility projects, flood control projects, and similar
activities occurring since at least 1849) have contributed to the current declining status of SJMSCP
Covered Species, SJMSCP Covered Species habitats, and other beneficial Open Space uses in San
Joaquin County and throughout California. Therefore, SJMSCP planners decided that an allocation of
costs based upon the relationship of past Open Space Conversions (1849+ - 200 1) to future Open Space
Conversions ( 2001 -2051) would be the most straightforward and defensible means of determining a fair
share allocation of the costs of future Open Space Conversions between new development funding
sources and other funding sources.
The result, as illustrated in the following table, is the allocation of 62%+ of total Plan costs to new
Page -23-
development and 381/o± of total Plan costs to other funding sources.
PAST AND FUTURE OPEN SPACE LAND CONVERTED IN SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
BY SJMSCP PERMITTED ACTIVITIES THROUGH BUILDOUT
LAND USE CATEGORY
ACRES
PERCENT OF TOTAL
Existing Urban Developmeot10
59,299
36%
Existing Batten°
3,585
2%
Subtotal Past Coftversion
62*94
,r389io .
Future Urban Development
75,608
45%
Aggregate Mining
10,770
601a
Public Agency Activities
3,655
2%
Other Permitted Activities
8,387
5%
Anticipated Projects per Section 8.2.1
4,988
3%
brotalFriiure.tnverston-
1034fl8 irs2':
y
aWk CS,
As illustrated in the preceding table, new development will be responsible for Converting 62% of the
County's total Converted Open Spaces to non -Open Space use by the year 2051. Therefore, new
development will pay 62% of the total SJMSCP costs. 38% of total Open Space Conversions expected to
occur in San Joaquin County by the year 2049 have already occurred. Therefore, other (non -
development) funding sources will be used to pay the remaining 38% of total SJMSCP costs.
In summary, the SJMSCP cost allocation approach simply uses the relationship of past to future Open
Space Conversions as a basis for allocating all SJMSCP costs amongst new development and other
funding sources. Pursuant to this approach, new costs are not added to the SJMSCP, additional fees will
not be collected to pay for past impacts to Open Spaces, and, while implementation of the SJMSCP may
offset some past impacts to Open Spaces, it is not the intent of this fair share cost allocation approach to
mitigate past impacts to Open Spaces (more aggressive efforts such as these are sometimes undertaken
through the implementation of recovery plans). This cost allocation approach is used by the SJMSCP
only to equitably distribute the costs of mitigating for Open Space Conversions occurring between in a
manner which is both legally defensible and politically acceptable.
10 Does not include 31,570 acres of urban lands
11 Barren lands include quarries, landfills, feedlots, nurseries and dredge tailings.
12 Does not equal 5,000 acres due to exclusion of vernal pools, except for those included under agricultural
activities triggering the requirements of the ESA or CESA and/or Section 404
Page -24-
The 62% / 38% allocation of SJMSCP costs is translated into dollars and cents terms as follows:
First, the 62% / 38% fair share allocation is rounded to a 60% / 40% cost share, for simplicity. Next, the
total SJMSCP costs attributed to vernal pools is removed from the total costs of the SJMSCP. The costs
for vernal pool habitat acquisition, enhancement, creation, management, and administration are removed
because, per the fair share allocation table, historically, most land Conversion in the past occurred on the
valley floor where few vernal pools were present (most vernal pools are located in the eastern foothills of
the County; other wetlands, such as marshlands, were located on the valley floor). Therefore, all future
vernal pool Conversion costs are attributed entirely to new development.
The fair share distribution of costs is then applied to the actual estimated net costs of the SJMSCP, as
indicated in the following table:
ALLOCATION OF TOTAL SJMSCP COSTS
BASED ON PAST AND FUTURE LAND CONVERSION
COST ALLOCATION
AMOUNT
Total SJMSCP Cost (see Table 7.2.5-2)
$261,497,465
Minus Cost for Acquiring, Enhancing,
Managing, and Administering 600 Acres
-$1,199,500
Neighboring Land Protection Preserves
Minus Total Cost for Vernal Pool Habitat
and Open Space Acquisition,
448,121,110
Enhancement, Creation, Management, and
Administration Excluding Neighboring
Land Protection Preserves (see Table
7.2.5-2
Net SJMSCP Cost
$212,176,855/a/
�o. J�f
u�ce2ys
4Costo
b
4
x
ofhet-cox`.
x'
�y� �£
Costs to be Paid by I�Tew�eveloprnent Fundm� �
� �
/a/ Rounded to $212,000,000
/b/ Rounded to $84,900,000
/c! Rounded to $127,300,000
Page -25-
DeveloQment Fees
As described, new development will pay approximately 60% of total SJMSCP costs. While those
undertaking new development pursuant to the SJMSCP may opt to dedicate lands consistent with the
SJMSCP Preserve designs or to purchase credits from mitigation banks, most of the 60% contribution to
the SJMSCP costs from new development will be in the form of development fees.
Development fees for the SJMSCP are divided into three categories:
A. Vernal Pool Habitat Conversion Fee
B. Natural Land and Agricultural Habitat Land Conversion Fee
C. Multi -Purpose Open Space Conversion Fee
Development fees shall be paid on a per -acre basis in accordance with the type of habitat land being
Converted from Open Space use to non -Open Space use (Vernal Pool Habitat, Non-Vemal Pool Natural
Land, Agricultural Habitat, or Multi -Purpose Open Space Land).
An alternative fee is established for the removal of elderberry shrubs during maintenance activities
pursuant to SJMSCP Section 5.5.4(D). That fee is described at the end of this discussion.
The fees for Vernal Pool Habitat Conversion, Non -Vernal Pool Natural Land and Agricultural Habitat
Land, and Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands are as follows:
Vernal Pool Habitat Conversion Fee
Vernal pool development fees were calculated by taking the total estimated cost of acquiring, enhancing,
monitoring, managing, and administering 17,682 acres of vemal pool Preserves over the 50 -year life of
the Plan (5,894 acres anticipated to be Converted from vernal pool grassland at a replacement ratio of two
acres preserved plus one acre created, or 3:1), and dividing these costs by the total estimated number of
acres of vernal pool habitat to be Converted under the SJMSCP, or 5,894 acres. This results in a fee, for
wetted surface area, of $30,000 per acre and a fee of $5,000 per acre for upland grasslands surrounding
vernal pools. These calculations are based on an assumption that 12% of a given acre of vernal pool
grassland is composed of wetted surface area and the remainder is upland grassland. Therefore, the fee
for Converting a single acre of vernal pool grassland habitat with a 12% wetted surface area is $8,000.
Page -26-
CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR VERNAL POOL HABITAT LANDS
/a/ Costs of acquisition, creation and enhancement, land management, and administration of vernal pool Preserves
/b/ For the full 50 -year tens of the Plan. Vernal pool wetted surface area is estimated at 12% of total vernal pool
acreage. The balance is upland grasslands.
/c/ Total cost divided by acres of Conversion.
/d/ This results in an overall average impact fee of $8,000 per acre for vernal pool grassland assuming 12% wetted
surface area (12% wetted surface area/acre X $30,000/acre = $3,600; 88% upland grasslands/acre X $5,000/acre =
$4,400; $3,600/acre + $4,400/acre = $8,000/acre).
Agricultural Habitat Lands, Non -vernal Pool Natural Lands And Multi-purpose Open Space Lands
In addition to the "fair share" allocation of SJMSCP costs discussed in the preceding, the 60% of
SJMSCP costs to be paid by new development also shall be shared. Specifically, all those undertaking
new development pursuant to the SJMSCP shall pay a development fee, even those individuals
Converting Open Space lands which may have a low habitat value. This sharing of costs among all
individuals avoids burdening any single sector of the community with the entire cost of the SJMSCP.
More importantly, this approach also assists in implementing the general plans provisions of San Joaquin
County and the seven incorporated cities within San Joaquin County. Specifically, those plans require, in
addition to compensating for the plant, fish and wildlife values of Open Spaces, that compensation also
shall be required for the Conversion of Open Spaces from agricultural uses, recreational uses, scenic uses,
flood protection and other beneficial Open Space uses.
As noted in SJMSCP Section 4.1 (See Exhibit 3 for Text), Natural Lands and Agricultural Habitat Lands
are used by SJMSCP Covered Species for breeding, feeding and sheltering. Therefore, the Conversion of
Open Space lands classified as Natural Lands or Agricultural Habitat Lands may result in Incidental Take.
Conversion of lands in these Open Space categories requires compensation pursuant to the SJMSCP
(through acquisition, enhancement, management, and administration) as described in Section 4.1 of the
SJMSCP.
In contrast to Natural Lands and Agricultural Habitat Lands, the Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands does not result in Incidental Take and does not require compensation in the form of Preserve
acquisition. Instead, compensation for Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands is as follows:
Page -27-
Wetted Surface Area
Upland Grassland
Total costa/
$21,124,510
$26,996,600
Acres of Conversion/b/
707
5,187
Development Fee (calculated c/
$29,879
$5,205
Development Fee (rounded) /d/
$30,000
E— $5,000
/a/ Costs of acquisition, creation and enhancement, land management, and administration of vernal pool Preserves
/b/ For the full 50 -year tens of the Plan. Vernal pool wetted surface area is estimated at 12% of total vernal pool
acreage. The balance is upland grasslands.
/c/ Total cost divided by acres of Conversion.
/d/ This results in an overall average impact fee of $8,000 per acre for vernal pool grassland assuming 12% wetted
surface area (12% wetted surface area/acre X $30,000/acre = $3,600; 88% upland grasslands/acre X $5,000/acre =
$4,400; $3,600/acre + $4,400/acre = $8,000/acre).
Agricultural Habitat Lands, Non -vernal Pool Natural Lands And Multi-purpose Open Space Lands
In addition to the "fair share" allocation of SJMSCP costs discussed in the preceding, the 60% of
SJMSCP costs to be paid by new development also shall be shared. Specifically, all those undertaking
new development pursuant to the SJMSCP shall pay a development fee, even those individuals
Converting Open Space lands which may have a low habitat value. This sharing of costs among all
individuals avoids burdening any single sector of the community with the entire cost of the SJMSCP.
More importantly, this approach also assists in implementing the general plans provisions of San Joaquin
County and the seven incorporated cities within San Joaquin County. Specifically, those plans require, in
addition to compensating for the plant, fish and wildlife values of Open Spaces, that compensation also
shall be required for the Conversion of Open Spaces from agricultural uses, recreational uses, scenic uses,
flood protection and other beneficial Open Space uses.
As noted in SJMSCP Section 4.1 (See Exhibit 3 for Text), Natural Lands and Agricultural Habitat Lands
are used by SJMSCP Covered Species for breeding, feeding and sheltering. Therefore, the Conversion of
Open Space lands classified as Natural Lands or Agricultural Habitat Lands may result in Incidental Take.
Conversion of lands in these Open Space categories requires compensation pursuant to the SJMSCP
(through acquisition, enhancement, management, and administration) as described in Section 4.1 of the
SJMSCP.
In contrast to Natural Lands and Agricultural Habitat Lands, the Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands does not result in Incidental Take and does not require compensation in the form of Preserve
acquisition. Instead, compensation for Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands is as follows:
Page -27-
Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands: According to the SJMSCP Biological Analysis and the
Permitting Agencies, the Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands is important to
common plant, fish and wildlife species and may, indirectly, provide limited benefits to SJMSCP
Covered Species (e.g., as movement corridors, supplemental foraging areas, etc.). Because of the
relatively limited importance of Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands to SJMSCP Covered Species,
the SJMSCP Biological Analysis and the Permitting Agencies determined that activities
contributing to the Conversion of SJMSCP Multi -Purpose Open Spaces does not require
compensation in the form of acquiring Preserves. However, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, the cumulative impact of eliminating Multi -Purpose Open Spaces is
significant and adverse to common plant, fish and wildlife species and, therefore, the Conversion
of Multi -Purpose Open Spaces shall share in the costs of enhancing, maintaining and
administering Open Space Preserves pursuant to the SJMSCP. In this manner, the Conversion of
Multi -Purpose Open Space lands does not trigger a requirement to add Preserve acres to the.
SJMSCP Preserve system. Instead, the Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open Space lands triggers a
requirement to assist in financing the SJMSCP Preserve system by supporting a portion of the
enhancement, management and administration costs associated with the Preserve system.
In addition to this biological approach to compensation for Open Spaces, the SJMSCP also takes a non -
biological approach to Open Space compensation. As noted in preceding paragraphs, the SJMSCP is a
Multi -species habitat conservation and Open Space plan. This means that, in addition to plant, fish and
wildlife benefits, the SJMSCP considers the non -wildlife value of Open Spaces including agricultural,
educational, recreational, scenic, flood control and other beneficial Open Space uses. These non -wildlife
benefits are provided by Agricultural Habitat Lands, Natural Lands and Multi -Purpose Open Space lands.
This non -biological view of Open Spaces is supported by the general plan policies of San Joaquin
County's seven cities and the County itself. These general plans contain policies establishing the value
and importance of environmentally sensitive lands and Open Space resources to agricultural productivity,
biodiversity, and the welfare of county residents (see Exhibit 1). These general plans call for programs to
offset both the biological and non -biological impacts of Converting Open Spaces to non -Open Space use.
The SJMSCP recognizes the multiple uses and benefits of Open Spaces and, while its primary purpose is
to provide comprehensive mitigation to offset impacts to plants, fish and wildlife and their habitats, the
establishment of Open Space Preserves will also offset many non -biological impacts associated with the
Conversions of Open Spaces consistent with the directives of local general plans.
Consistent with this mufti-use/multi-benefit view of Open Spaces, the proposed funding plan spreads
costs of permanently preserving Open Space and habitat land in San Joaquin County among not only new
development, but also among other beneficiaries of the SJMSCP. Therefore, fees will be paid, pursuant
to the SJMSCP, for the Conversion of all Open Space land categories: Agricultural Habitat Lands,
Natural Lands (vernal pool lands as described above and non -vernal pool lands as described here), and
Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands.
This spreading of costs among all categories of Open Space lands requires that a relative value be
established for each category of Open Space land. To establish the relative value of Agricultural Habitat
Lands and Natural Lands versus Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands, the funding analysis considered a
number of options in an attempt to set forth a policy proposal that would be clear and accepted as fair for
assigning fees to Agricultural Habitat Lands and non -vernal pool Natural Lands versus Multi -Purpose
Open Space Lands. The adopted policy is to value land that has high habitat value and other Open Space
benefits at two times the value of land that has Open Space value, but low habitat value. Said another
way, the Conversion of Agricultural Habitat Lands, such as row and field crops, and non -vernal pool
Natural Lands, such as oak woodlands or grasslands in the Southwest Zone, counts for twice the impact of
Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands, such as orchards and vineyards.
Page -28-
In terms of the SJMSCP's fee structure, this means that the Conversion of lands of high habitat value
(Agricultural Habitat Lands and non-vemal pool Natural Lands) will require a fee twice as large as the fee
paid for Converting Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands. The following table presents the application of
this policy in terms of the development impact fee calculation for Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands. Applying the multiplying factor of two, representing the relative value of Agricultural
Habitat Lands and non -vernal pool Natural Lands, results in the following development impact fees.
In the following table, the fees for Agricultural Habitat Lands, non -vernal pool Natural Lands and Multi -
Purpose Open Space Lands are determined by dividing the total cost of acquiring, enhancing, managing
and administering Preserves to compensate for Converting Open Spaces in all three land categories.
Multi -Purpose Open Space fees are assigned a value of half that assigned to Agricultural Habitat and non -
vernal Pool Natural Lands. The total compensation costs of $127,300,000 are divided by the sum of all
Agricultural Habitat and non -vernal pool Natural Lands to be Converted plus one-half the total number of
Multi -Purpose Open Space acres to be Converted. This results in a fee of $1,500 per acre for Agricultural
Habitat and non -vernal pool Natural Lands. The fee for Multi -Purpose Open Spaces is half of the
Agricultural Habitat/non-vernal pool Natural Lands fee of $1,500, or $750 per acre.
Page -29-
CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BASED ON
FAIR SHARE ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
AMOUNT
FACTORS
Estimated Cost of Compensation for Agricultural Habitat
Land and Non -Vernal Pool Natural Land to be Converted
$127,300,000/a/
see Table 7.3-2
Estimated Acres of Agricultural Habitat Land and Non-
65,943
Vernal Pool Natural Land (including Submerged Aquatic
Habitat) to be Converted /b/
Estimated Acres of Multi -Purpose Open Space Land to be
37,465
Converted see Table 4.2-2
Multiplier for Agricultural Habitat Land and Non -Vernal
1
Pool Natural Land Conversion see this section
Multiplier for Multi -Purpose Open Space Conversion (see
0.5
this section
FORMULA FOR CALCULATING AGRICULTURAL HABITAT LAND AND
NON -VERNAL POOL NATURAL LAND IMPACT FEE
(65,943 x Y) + (37,465 x .5Y) = $127,300,000
where Y equals impact fee for Conversion of Agricultural Habitat Lands and Non -Vernal Pool
Natural Lands. Thus,
Y = $127,300,000/[65,943 + (.5 x 37,465)]
Y = $127,300,00 / 84,676
Y= $1,503 rounded to $1,500
Impact Fee for Conversion of Agricultural Habitat Lands and
$1,500
Non -Vernal Pool Natural Lands (using lx multiplier)_
Impact Fee for Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open Space
$750
(using .5x multiplier)
/a/ Rounded from $127,306,113
/b/ Agricultural Habitat Land (57,635 acres) + Natural Lands (14,202 acres) - Vernal Pool Natural Lands (5,894 acres)
= 65,943 acres.
_Summary of SJMSCP Fees
In summary, the SJMSCP requires payment of development fees according to the types of habitat
Converted to non -Open Space uses as follows:
Page -30-
Vernal Pool Habitat: $30,000 for wetted surface area and $5,000 for upland grasslands, or an $8,000
per acre average cost, assuming 12% of each vernal pool grassland acre is wetted
surface area. Thus, a fee of $8,000 per acre will be required for each acre of
vernal pool grassland Converted to non -Open Space when individuals elect not to
undertake a wetland delineation to establish a wetted surface area of less than
12%. Individuals may hire qualified biologists, at their own cost, to undertake
wetland delineations to establish a wetted surface area of less than 12% of the
total acreage. Fees will then be calculated based upon the actual wetted surface
area and upland grassland totals (@ $30,000 and $5,000 per acre, respectively)
when wetland delineations, approved by the U.S. Army Corps, are submitted.
Non -Vernal Pool
Natural Lands: $1,500 per acre
Agricultural Habitat
Lands: $1,500 per acre
Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands: $750 per acre
These fees will be adjusted to 2001 dollars pursuant to the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI)
and SJMSCP Section 7.5.2.2 (See Exhibit 3 for SJMSCP Text) six months after the SJMSCP's Effective
Date. Thereafter, fees will be adjusted annually as provided in Section 7.5.2.2 (See Exhibit 3 for
SJMSCP Text).
VELB Mitigation Fee for Maintenance Activities which Do Not Convert Habitat
A special fee category for maintenance activities shall apply when removal of elderberries occurs for
maintenance. The fee shall be paid to a VELB mitigation bank approved by the Permitting Agencies.
The current fee, as established in the VELB Conservation Fund Account managed by the Center for
Natural Lands Management, and approved by the USFWS, is $1,800 per VELB Unit (one unit= one stem
over 1" in diameter at ground level which is removed). Fees shall be established by the JPA during
preconstruction surveys (i.e., counts of stems to be removed with and without exit holes shall be
completed during preconstruction surveys) and shall be paid to the JPA prior to ground disturbance or
stem removal, whichever comes first.
The Fee Amount Will Not Undulv Discouraae Housing Production. Esnecially At Affordable Levels
As discussed in Section 5.9 of the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study
for the SJMSCP, dated September 23, 1999, the Fee Amount is expected to reduce costs of providing
affordable housing and, therefore, will not unduly discourage housing production, especially at affordable
levels:
Effects of the SJMSCP on the cost and availability of affordable housing are not expected to
differ significantly in comparison to the No Project/No Action Alternative. However, the cost -
benefit analysis prepared for the SJMSCP [summarized in this analysis in Section 7.6BSee Exhibit
3 for full Text] indicates that the cost of completing most projects using the SJMSCP Preferred
Project is lower than the cost of completing projects pursuant to the No Project/No Action
Alternative. Secondly, participation in the SJMSCP or SJMSCP Alternatives is voluntary.
Therefore, proponents of affordable housing projects always retain the right to pursue either the
No Project/No Action Alternative or the SJMSCP, whichever is least costly. In addition, most
multi -family affordable housing projects are proposed for urban areas of the County located near
Page -31-
existing services. Based on the vegetation analyses conducted for the SJMSCP, these projects are
normally located in already urbanized areas with very low plant, fish or wildlife habitat value and
are, therefore, subject to the lowest proposed SJMSCP development fees. Finally, the availability
of land for affordable housing will not be different under the SJMSCP than it would be under the
No Project/No Action Alternative since no land use changes are proposed by the SJMSCP.
Therefore, there is a potential for the SJMSCP to result in a lower development cost for
affordable housing than currently exists with the No Action alternative --another potential
beneficial impact of the project.
The Amount of the Fee will Generate Sufficient funds to Provide Meaningful Mitigation for Cumulative
Habitat Loss
The amount of the fee established in the preceding paragraphs is based upon a 3:1 compensation ratio for
Conversions of Natural Habitat and a 1:1 compensation ratio for Agricultural Habitat Lands. Along with
other identified funding sources, the fee is expected to purchase, administer, enhance and monitor
100,841 acres of Preserve lands.
Lands to be Converted by SJMSCP Covered Activities are largely located close to existing, fragmented,
developed areas, where the likelihood of long-term survival of species within those areas is impaired.
Scattered, small, individual sites are currently being established as mitigation occurs on a project -by -
project basis within the county. Under the SJMSCP; Preserves will be purchased as large tracts of
interconnected habitats located well outside urban areas, where species have greatly increased chances for
long-term survival.
A more detailed evaluation of the biological likelihood of success based on the preceding can be found in
Sections 5.3.8 and 5.3.18 of the Draft Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Study
for the SJMSCP, dated September 23, 1999.
E. Collection/Calculation of Conservation Fees
Collecting Fees
Per 5.3.2.3 of the SJMSCP, fees shall be collected at either Building Permit or Grading Permit as
prescribed in the following:
Under the normal permitting process implemented by local government jurisdictions in San Joaquin
County, ground disturbance (including grading) may occur prior to the local government jurisdiction's
issuance of a Building Permit. For example, once a tentative subdivision map to create new residential
lots is approved by a local government agency (e.g., the City of Tracy's City Council or the San Joaquin
County Board of Supervisors) with conditions, the Project Proponent must fulfill many of the project
conditions (e.g., constructing new roads or installing water or sewer lines) before gaining approval of a
final subdivision map. Once the final subdivision map is completed, new residential lots may be sold to
the general public. Once a newly created subdivision lot is purchased, the new owner of the lot normally
applies for a Building Permit to construct a new home on the newly created subdivision lot.
However, different development projects may undergo variations in this permitting process (e.g., Project
Proponents may receive only Building Permits for small projects which address both building and grading
activities, but Project Proponents are not required to secure Grading Permits due to the relatively small
amounts of dirt being moved by the project). The majority of development projects in San Joaquin
County require Building Permits during at least one phase of the development process. Many of San
Page -32-
Joaquin County's largest projects also require Grading Permits. Therefore, given this variation in the
types of permits which may be issued at varying times during the development process, the following
provisions shall be implemented 1) to address the variations in the types of permits required, and timing
of the acquisition of those permits, for the various development projects in San Joaquin County, 2) to
provide a uniform approach amongst the local government agencies for timing the collection of fees or
requiring purchases of mitigation banking credits, 3) to provide maximum flexibility for developers to
finance their projects without creating adverse impacts to SJMSCP Covered Species, and 4) to ensure that
compensation will occur pursuant to the SJMSCP by using familiar permitting procedures already used
by local government agencies:
For so long as the 350 -acre jump-start (Section 8.6) remains in place, the timing of compensation
pursuant to the SJMSCP shall be as follows:
A. Collection of Fees/Purchase of Mitigation Banking Credits for Proiects Less Than or
Equal to 350 Acres in Size (proiects equivalent in size or smaller than the imp -start):
collection of fees or purchase of banking credits will occur prior to or at the time of
issuance of Building Permits so long as Site Disturbance without compensation (i.e.,
grading or vegetation removal has occurred with or without permits, but Building Permits
have not yet been issued) does not exceed 500 acres total at any time during the term of
the SJMSCP for SJMSCP Permitted Activities undertaken by project proponents opting
for coverage pursuant to the SJMSCP. When Site Disturbances without compensation
pursuant to this provision reaches 500 acres total, then the JPA and Permittees shall
require the fee collections or purchase of banking credits for projects less than or equal to
350 acres in size to occur pursuant to the same schedule as.required for projects
exceeding 350 acres as described in paragraph B.
B. Collection of Fees/Purchase of Mitigation Banking Credits for Projects Exceeding 350
Acres: collection of fees for land acquisition or purchase of banking credits will occur
either:
Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit (or prior to Ground Disturbance if no
Grading Permit is required) ; or,
2. The Project Proponent may bond for payment of the applicable SJMSCP fees
prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit (or prior to the commencement of
Ground Disturbance if no Grading Permit is required). Bonds posted pursuant to
this provision shall be released, to the extent possible, after full project buildout
and after all appropriate fees have been paid with respect to each building permit
associated with the project. Provisions for releasing portions of the bond as
buildout progresses may be established on a case-by-case basis upon request of
the Project Proponent Only bonds issued by a bond surety admitted in
California by the California Department of Insurance will be accepted unless
otherwise approved by the JPA with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies.
C. Collection of Fees/Purchase of Mitigation Banking Credits for Conversion of Vernal Pool
Grasslands to Orchards and Vineyards shall occur prior to ground disturbance.
D. Land Dedications in Lieu of Fee Payments or in Lieu of Mitigation Banking Regardless
of Project Size: Shall occur prior to ground disturbing activities (i.e., prior to the
issuance of a Grading or Building Permit, whichever occurs fust) unless an extension is
Page -33-
requested, in writing to the JPA, by the Project Proponent and granted to a date certain by
the TAC, with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies' TAC representative, based
upon the following findings:
The time extension will not jeopardize the proper functioning of SJMSCP, and
2. The time extension will not adversely affect any SJMSCP Covered Species.
The TAC, with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies' TAC representative, may
impose conditions on the time extension as necessary to provide assurances to the JPA
that the Project Proponent shall provide compensation pursuant to the SJMSCP consistent
with the requirements of the SJMSCP.
If the 350 -acre jump-start ceases to exist, then the provisions of paragraph B shall apply for all SJMSCP
Permitted Activities, regardless of size and regardless of the compensation method selected (i.e., fees,
land dedications in -lieu of fee payments, or purchase of mitigation banking credits).
Calculating Fees: Development Occurring After Plan Effective Date
For all new development occurring after the Effective Date of the SJMSCP, fees shall be calculated based
upon the gross acreage of the proposed project.
For example, a 100 -acre subdivision shall pay based upon a total of 100 -acres. As necessary to address
the impacts to habitats occurring due to Conversion of associated infrastructure and common areas, the
total acreage shall be divided by the number of proposed residential lots and a per -lot fee shall be
established. Therefore, a building permit issued for a home within a 100 -acre subdivision. with 50 homes
on Agricultural habitat land shall pay $1500 X (100/50)2, or $3,000 per lot.
Calculating Fees: Development Occurring Prior to Plan Effective Date
For development occurring prior to the SJMSCP Effective Date which is subject to the SJMSCP,
the fee calculation method shall be as follows. Because building permits are currently issued based on
net acreage (the parcel size minus public streets, schools, parks, private open space) and the SJMSCP fee
is based on gross acreage, a methodology for incorporating the Conversion of lands associated with
infiastructure and common areas is required. In November, 1994, the City of Stockton undertook a
study to establish a habitat/open space conservation fee. That study, "Rabitat/Open Space Conservation
Fee Study, prepared by: City of Stockton Community Development Department with the assistance of
Steven B. Meyers, Special Counsel and Kathleen Faubion of Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson," is
hereby incorporated by reference. Pages 17-19 and Exhibit 6 of that study establish how fees will be
collected given that the open space fee is established based on gross acreages and building permits (when
fees will normally be paid) are based on net acreage. The gross/net adjustments for Stockton's
Habitat/Open Space Fee were determinedbythe City of Stockton based on a survey of actual
development projects. This reconciliation of gross versus net acreages for fee collection purposes has
been adopted by the SJMSCP and is summarized as follows:
Page -34-
Percentage of Gross Parcel Size Occupied by Streets and Other Public Facilities
Land Use Type
Net Parcel Area as a % of
Gross Parcel Area
Residential
Single-family residential
68.00
Multiple -family residential
76.00
Guestrooms
76.00
Non Residential
Office (high density)
82.00
Retail (medium density)
83.00
Industrial/Warehouse (low density)
93.00
SJMSCP Fees collected with a Building Permit which has not already been adjusted to reflect gross
acreage, shall be collected based on the following adjustments to gross acreage. To simplify collections
at the Building Permit counter, these calculations have been reduced to a single factor for each land use
type, which factor may then be applied to the net parcel size shown on the building permit application as
summarized in the following:
Rate to Apply to Net Parcel Size to Obtain Conservation Fee for Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands
($750/Acre)
Land Use Type
Rate per sq. ft. of Net
Parcel Area
(Net Size < 1 Acre)
Rate per Acre of net
Parcel Area
(Net Size > 1 Acre)
Residential
Single-family residential
$.025
$1,103
Multiple -family residential
$.023
$987
Guestrooms
$.023
$987
Non Residential
Office (high density)
$.021
$915
Retail (medium density)
$.021
$904
Industrial/warehouse (low density)
$.019
$806
Page-35-
Sample Calculations ($750/Acre):
Single-family home 5,000 sq. ft. (net parcel size) = $125 fee
(.025 X 5,000 = $125)
Single-family home, 1 acre net parcel size = $1,103 fee
($1,103 X 1 = $1,103)
Retail commercial, 20,000 sq. ft. (net parcel size) = $420 fee
(.021 X 20,000 = $420)
Retail commercial, 3 acres (net parcel size) _ $2,712 fee
($904 X 3 = $2,712)
Rate to Apply to Net Parcel Size to Obtain Conservation Fee for Natural Lands and Agricultural
Habitat Lands ($1,500/Acre)
Land Use Type
Rate per sq. ft. of Net
Parcel Area
(Net Size < 1 Acre)
Rate per Acre of net
Parcel Area
(Net Size > 1 Acre)
Residential
Single-family residential
.050
$2,206
Multiple -family residential
.046
$1,974
- Guestrooms -
.046-
$1,974
Non -Residential
Office (high density)
.042
$1,830
Retail (medium density)
.042
$1,808
Industrial/warehouse (low density)
.038
$1,612
Sample Calculations ($1,500/Acre):
Single-family home 5,000 sq. ft. (net parcel size) = $250 fee
(.050 X 5,000 = $250)
Single-family home, 1 acre net parcel size = $2,206 fee
($2,206 X 1= $2,206)
Retail commercial, 20,000 sq. ft. (net parcel size) = $840 fee
(.042 X 20,000 = $840)
Retail commercial, 3 acres (net parcel size) = $5,424 fee
Page -36-
($1,808 X 3 = $5,424)
F. Use of Conservation Fees
Fees collected through the conservation fee program may be used to acquire habitat lands in fee or in
easement, to enhance habitat values, to administer the SJMSCP, and/or to operate and maintain habitat
lands. 13 These uses are consistent with the adopted general plans of the local jurisdictions (See Exhibit 1)
and the SJMSCP, Chapter 5.
G. Guidelines for Use of Conservation Fees
Guidelines for the Acquisition, Preserve Design, Enhancement, Restoration, Management and
Administration of the Plan are described, in detail, in SJMSCP Sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.9.
H. Administration of Conservation Fee Program
The individual jurisdictions shall collect fees and deposit them in a separate Conservation Fee Account.
No less frequently than quarterly, the jurisdictions shall transfer the Conservation Fee Funds into the
SJMSCP Conservation Fee Fund of SJCOG, Inc., the SJMSCP Administrator.
13 Any of these uses - acquisition, enhancement, restoration, administration, maintenance, operation -
is an appropriate use of conservation fees under this program. Use of a single term, such as
acquisition or maintenance is for convenience only and does not preclude other habitat uses.
Further, it is appropriate to use the conservation fee to maintain habitat in a manner usable by
wildlife species notwithstanding Government Code Section 65913.8's prolubition against using
impact fees for the "Maintenance or operation" of a public capital facility improvement." Habitat
conservation areas do not appear to fall within the definition of "public capital facilities," at least
so long as they are not being maintained for public use and so long as the maintenance is
necessary to mitigate significant environmental impacts under CEQA. For examples of "public
capital improvements" under other statutory provisions, see Government Code Section 6546; for
examples of "public capital facilities" under other statutory provisions, see Government Code
Section 53380.7. Both of these sets of examples include public parks as public capital
improvements or facilities. Facilities such as public parks and playgrounds would not be included
in conservation areas under the SJMSCP.
Page -37-
Exhibit 1
Description of Applicable
General Plan Goals, Policies, Programs
and other Local Regulations
Page -38-
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY
San Joaquin County General Plan 2010 Volume 1: Policies/Implementation; Adopted by the San Joaquin
County Board of Supervisors July 29, 1992, as amended'
iW�7A1_L; tAr. 14 Ii�
By 2010, an additional 4, 000+ acres of regional parkland will be needed to serve County residents.
Objectives:
1. To serve the recreation needs of the County population by providing regional and local parks and
recreational facilities.
2. To protect the diverse resources upon which recreation is based, such as waterways, marsh lands,
wildlife habitats, unique land and scenic features, and historical and cultural sites.
3. To ensure the preservation of the Delta and the opportunityfor the public to learn about and enjoy
this unique recreation resource.
4. To promote the recreational potential of San Joaquin County.
Policies:
1. San Joaquin County shall continue to be a major developer and operator of regional parks and shall
facilitate the development and operation of local parks.
2. The criteria outlined in Table IV -5 shall be used for the development ofparks (Regional parks 15-200
acres in size; nature -oriented outdoor recreation, picnicking, boating, fishing camping trait uses
and play areas, within one hour drive time; 10 acres per 1,000 population).
3. Natural features shall be preserved in recreation areas, and opportunities to experience natural
settings shall be provided.
4. The County shall protect those resource areas identified in figure IV -2 as being significant for
recreation [Brovelli Woods; Mokelumne River; Oak Groves (northeast County); Potato Slough;
White slough; Disappointment Slough; South Spud Island; Latham Slough; Connection Slough;
Middle River; Trapper Slough; Stanislaus River; Salmon Slough].
5. It shall be recognized that the value of some public land may lie in the preservation of natural or
historic features with limited or no public uses permitted on the site.
6. Areas for the following recreational opportunities should be provided along the County's waterways:
a) bankfishing,•
b) boating;
c) water skiing,
d) hiking, bicycling and horseback riding;
e) picnicking; and
Page -39-
fl nature study.
Recreational use of the County's waterways will be supported, and the County shall ensure adequate
public access to waterways at selected locations.
8. The recreational values of the Delta, the Mokelumne River, and the Stanislaus River shall be
protected.
9. The recreational potential, particularly for trails, of the Calaveras River, the San Joaquin River, the
Stockton Diverting Canal, and water conveyor projects shall be recognized and studied. The
potential for land use conflicts associated with public use of waterways (e.g. trespassing, littering,
vandalism) should be assessed for selected recreation sites.
10. The Delta shall be recognized as an area of international importance and as a major recreational,
wildlife, agricultural, and economic resource of San Joaquin County.
I1. Waterway development and development of Delta islands shall protect the natural beauty, the
fisheries, wildlife, riparian vegetation, and thenavigability of the waterway.
Implementation:
Public land acquisition
a) The County shall pursue the acquisition of conservation easements for preservation of
riparian vegetation along the Mokelumne River, and study thefeasibility ofadditional public
recreational areas on the river.
Recreation activities. The County shall address the lack of the following recreational activities and
provide for them:
a) bankfrshing;
b) camping; and
c) nature study.
3. Parkfunding, The County shall develop and adopt programs for funding local and regional parks.
Page -40-
RESOURCES
Open Spaces
Ob ective:
1. To preserve open space land for the continuation of commercial agricultural and productive uses, the
enjoyment of scenic beauty and recreation, the protection and use of natural resources, and for
protection from natural hazards.
Policies:
1. The open space resources in Table VI -I shall be protected as indicated. (Waterways - water
dependent uses only, riparian habitat - retention or replacement; riparian woodlands - no removal;
wetlands - retention or replacement; significant oak groves - retention; habitat for threatened, rare
or endangered species -protection ofspecies; vernal pools -protection ofresources, heritage trees -
protection of resources; Lands to be retained in agriculture - agriculture and related uses only)
2. A Resource Conservation designation shall be used on the General Plan 2010 Map to protect
significant resource areas and protect public safety.
3. Development may be permitted in Resource Conservation Areas only ifproposed uses will not have
significant negative impacts on the continued existence or use of the resource.
4. Areas with serious development constraints, such as the Delta, should bepredominantly maintained
as open spaces.
S. Open space areas shall be maintained between communities, as much as possible, to help preserve
the identities of the communities.
6. The public should have opportunities to experience and appreciate open space resources.
Views of waterways, hilltops, and oak groves from public land and public roadways shall be
protected.
8. Outstanding scenic vistas shall be preserved and public access provided to them wheneverpossible.
9. Development proposals along scenic routes shall not detract from visual and recreational
experience.
Implementation:
Open Space Designations. The General Plan land use designations of AgTiculture and Resource
Conservation shall be used to protect open space resources.
Page -41-
2. Resource Conservation Areas.
a) The General Plan 2010 Map shall designate as Resource Conservation those areas indicated
as such in Table VI -1 (waterways, riparian habitat, significant vegetation, extractive
resources)
b) Discretionary permits shall be required for development in Resource Conservation Areas.
c) Environmental Assessments for development proposals within Resource Conservation areas
shall idents the sensitivity of resources and measures to protect the resources.
3. Waterways Access. The County shall seek to develop, in coordination with the Delta Advisory
Planning Council, the State Wildlife Conservation Board, the agency with flood control responsibility
and other local or regional agencies, trail systems and public access sites along the County's
waterways, at selected locations.
4. Acquisition of Open Space. The County shall determine those planned open space areas in jeopardy
and shall work for public acquisition of those areas.
Agricultural Lands
Objectives:
To protect agricultural lands needed for the continuation of commercial agricultural enterprises,
small-scale farming operations and the preservation of open space.
2. To recognize agricultural lands that contain concentrations ofsmall-scale agricultural operations
and dwellings.
3. To minimize the impact on agriculture in the transition of agricultural areas to urban development.
Implementation:
1. Mechanisms for Preservation ofAyicultural Land.
a) The County shall support mechanisms for the preservation of agricultural lands, such as
agricultural trusts.
b) The County shall investigate the establishment of financial mechanisms to preserve
agricultural lands.
c) The County shall study the feasibility of establishing mitigation fees to be paid when lands
are converted from agriculture and/or open space to an urban use. Such fees could be used
for programs such as purchasing development rights or fee titles to property.
Water Resources and Quality
Obiectives.
To ensure adequate quantity and quality of water resources for municipal and industrial uses,
agriculture, recreation and fish and wildlife.
2. To recognize surface waters of San Joaquin County as resources of State and national significance
for which environmental and scenic values must be protected.
Page -42-
Policies:
Substantial groundwater recharge areas, as shown in Figure VI -6, shall be kept in open space (flood
areas along: the Stanislaus River, along the Mokelumne River, alengportions of Dry Creek, in and
around the confluence of the Calaveras River and Mormon Slough, and along portions of Duck
Creep Little Johns Creep Corral Hollow Creep Lone Tree Creek and Hospital Creek)
2. Water projects shall:
a) incorporate safeguards for fish and wildlife; and
b) mitigation erosion and seepage to adjacent lands.
3. Water diversions projects shall protect the fishery, wildlife habitat, and recreation; shall ensure
adequate waterfor County agricultural, municipal and industrial uses; and shall guarantee adequate
Delta outflows for salinity repulsion.
Implementation:
Water Quality Maintenance.
a) The County shall continue to support State and federal programs for improving and
maintaining water quality.
Vegetation, Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Objectives:
To protect and improve the County's vegetation, fish and wildlife resources.
2. To provide undeveloped open space for nature study, protection of endangered species, and
preservation of wildlife habitat.
Policies:
Resource Protection and Management
1. Resources of significant biological and ecological importance in San. Joaquin County shall be
protected. These include wetlands; riparian areas; rare, threatened and endangered species and
their habitats as well as potentially rare or commercially important species; vernal pools; signficant
oak groves and heritage trees (see Table VI -1).
Page -43-
2. No public action shall significantly diminish the wildlife and vegetative resources of the County,
cumulatively significant impacts shall be avoided.
3. The County shall encourage protection of those habitat areas that are of a size or quality so that they
are no more than minimally affected by adjacent development. Connection of habitat areas shall be
encouraged.
4. Development in the vicinity of significant oak groves shall be designed and sited to maximize the
long-term preservation of the trees and the integrity of their natural setting.
S. No net loss of riparian or wetland habitat or values shall be caused by development.
6. Development projects which have the potential to destroy wetlands shall not be permitted, unless:
a) No suitable alternative site exists for the land use, and the use is considered necessary to the
public;
b) there is no degradation of the habitat or numbers of any rare, threatened, or endangered
plant, or animal species as a result of the project; and
c) habitat ofsuperior quantity and superior or comparable quality will be created or restored
to compensate for the loss.
7. The County shall support feeding areas and winter habitat for migratory waterfowl.
& Strips of land along waterways shall be protected for nesting and foraging habitat andforprotection
of waterway quality.
9. Boater -recreational use in the Delta should not disturb wildlife or vegetation or weaken levees.
10. Use of the Delta channel islands for levee materials or deposition of dredge spoils shall be strongly
discouraged.
I1. Fisheries shall be protected by.-
a)
y:a) reducing the level ofpesticides and fertilizers and other harmful substances in agricultural
and urban runoff,
b) designing and timing waterway projects to protect fish populations; and
c) operating water projects to provide adequate flows for spawning of anadromous fish.
11. The County shall support restoration plans for anadromous fisheries and shall work with the
California Department of Fish and Game and other agencies or organizations in developing such
plans.
13. The County shall encourage the restoration and enhancement of once productive degraded
ecosystems, such as historic salmon runs on the Mokelumne and Calaveras Rivers.
14. The County shall support the establishment and maintenance of ecological preserves and
accessibility to areas for nature study.
Page -44-
15, Replacement vegetation generally shall be native vegetation. Landscaping with native trees and
shrubs shall be encouraged in urban areas to provide suitable habitat for native wildlife, particularly
in proposed open space uses offuture development.
16. Habitat that is required to be protected, restored, or created as mitigation for a project's impacts
shall be monitored and maintained in accord with a County -approved program.
Implementation:
1. Natural Diversity Database. The Natural Diversity Database shall be used to determine location of
significant species for environmental assessment ofprojects.
2. Species Protection. The County shall:
a) prepare and adopt regulations to protect special status taxa;
b) address protection and preservation of special status taxa in review of development
applications; and
c) work with the California Department of Fish and Game to develop methods to save listed
species such as the Swainson's hawk
3. Habitat Protection Preservation and Restoration Pro am.
a) The County shall develop and implement, with the California Department ofFish and Game,
a program to protect, restore and manage wildlife and habitat resources. The project shall
include establishment offinancing by project mitigation funds.
b) The County shall support habitat conservation and restoration plansfor special -status taxa
and shall work with the California Department of Fish and Game and other agencies or
organizations in developing such plans.
c) The County shall develop an integrated vegetation management program for County -owned
and maintained properties which will serve to reduce the extent of long-term maintenance,
reduce the need for pesticide applications, and enhance the wildlife habitat value of these
areas.
d) The County shall educate and encourage farmers and other landowners to preserve and
enhance natural vegetation in and adjacent to cultivated areas.
e) In the Delta region of the County, the County shall encourage management practices that
will preserve and enhance the wildlife habitat value of the area. These include:
(i) planting of corn, milo, wheat, and other grain corps with a high wildlife value;
(ii) management and harvest techniques that leave some waste grain and stubble of
unharvested strips or patches infields;
(iii) experimental planting and flooding to maximize waterfowl use at selected locations
in the Delta area; and
Page -45-
(iv) establishment and long-term maintenance ofhedgerows alongfield edges, irrigation
channels, and on the outboard side of levees in the Delta region, consistent with the
recommended integrated vegetation management program.
f) The County shall study locations for ecological preserves and reserves.
4. Wetlands and Riparian Habitat. The County shall protect and restore wetlands habitat and riparian
habitat by:
a) assessing potential project impacts on the resources;
b) requiring project proponents to mitigate impacts and fund habitat restoration and post -
project monitoring;
c) preparing and adopting wetlands regulations;
d) prohibiting the use of rip -rap above the high water line; and
e) supporting independent ongoing projects by the Department of Fish and Game or other
agencies to create or restore wetlands and riparian habitat and establish jurisdictional
control for project monitoring.
S. Natural Area Acquisition. The County shall support the protection of valuable ecological lands by:
a) acquiring conservation easements along the Mokelumne River,
b) supporting conservation easements at Brovelli Woods,
c) supporting acquisition and development of lands for wildlife and habitat protection and
enhancement;
d) encouraging the involvement of private land trust such as The Nature Conservancy;
e) supporting a State study of mitigation banking for habitat; and
f) seeking State acquisition of ecological reserves.
6. Water Quality Improvement. The County, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the California Department of Fish and Game, shall develop a program to significantly reduce
pesticide use.
7. In -stream Fish Protection. The County shall promote efforts to determine required flow levels and
other stream characteristics (e.g., temperature) to support fish life in waterways which flow through
San Joaquin County.
8. Proiect Referral to Environmental Organizations. The County shall encourage review and comments
from private resource and conservation organizations, particularly forprojects which could affect
the County's biotic resources.
9. Ecological Information Programs. The County shall support programs that encourage and teach
respect for the environment.
Page -46-
GROWTHACCOMMODATION
Ob'ec� tives:
1. To minimize the effects on agricultural lands and other environmental resources while providingfor
orderly growth.
2. To protect the public, existingplanned land uses, and the environmentfrom natural and development
hazards.
Policies:
Development shall minimize impacts on the County's resources.
INTERJURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION
Policies:
In coordinating with other jurisdictions, the County shall promote the policies of the General Plan,
including the planned types and densities of development, the provision of public services and
facilities, the protection of public safety, and the conservation of agricultural land and other
resources.
Implementation:
3. Management of Regional Environmental Resources.
(a) The County shall continue to participate in programs or regional bodies established to
manage the use and protection ofsignicant regional resources.
(b) The County shall establish additional programs or regional bodies as necessary to address
the managed use and protection ofregional resources in such areas as water quality, aquifer
protection, development ofregional trail systems, air quality, and the operation ofregional
facilities.
SEISMICAND GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
Implementation:
1. Open Space. The following areas of the County shall be planned for open spgce to limit the exposure
ofpeople and structures to hazards:
(a) The Delta islands, because of subsidence and potential flooding from levee failure.
FLOOD HAZARDS
Policies:
In designated floodways, uses shall be restricted to those that are tolerant of occasional flooding,
such as agriculture, outdoor recreation, extraction, and natural resource areas.
Page -47-
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ADOPTED PER THE GENERAL PLAN FINAL EIR BY
THE SANJOAQUINCOUNTYBOARD OFSUPERVISORSJULY 29,1992:
4.4.3(c) For Mountain House and New Jerusalem] detailed streambed modification design and
riparian vegetation proposals shall be prepared at the Specific Plan stage and shall be
subject to approval by the County and CDFG.
4.16.10 Natural waterways, man-made channels, and other physical barriers (such as road grades,
major roads, etc.) should be used as separations between future urban and agricultural or
open space land use wherever possible. These features would serve to separate the two uses,
minimizing the potential for disturbance of wildlife using non -urban habitat and serving as
obstacles to prevent possible development applications situated outside the limits offuture
growth in the Plan.
4.16.2(c) During the preparation of the development regulations for special status species, the
following items shall be considered.
• The intent of the chapter shall be to protect populations and critical habitatfor
special status taxa.
• Appropriate sections for inclusion in the chapter include: review for the
potential occurrence of taxa of concern; conducting of detailedfield surveys if
determined necessary, consultation. with representatives of jurisdictional
agencies, and development constraints of applicable fees for loss of suitable
habitat.
4.16.2(d) The land use plans for the new communities shall be modified as necessary to protect
ident f ed populations and critical habitat for special status taxa. To some degree, this may
depend on the outcome offurther necessary biological studies to determine whether taxa of
concern are present or the extent of occurrence within a particular community area.
Confirmation of the presence or absence of taxa of concern listed in Table 4.16 2 shall be
provided for each new community, particularly for fish, wintering birds, amphibians, and
invertebrate taxa. Preliminary modifications to the land use plans shall include the
following:
Mountain House New Community
[Speck Plan already adopted.]
New Jerusalem New Communitv
Agricultural and open space protection areas shall be established as part of the proposed
land use plan to preserve foraging habitat for Swainson's hawk, consistent with guidelines
established by the CDFG or as provided by the countywide habitat conservation plan once
finalized.
Page -48-
4.16.30 The County should complete a countywide biological survey to identify favorable sites for
future ecological reserves. The County should redesignate the ecological reserve areas as
Open Space/Resource Conservation of the Draft Plan 2010 Map. Identified areas suitable
as reserves could serve as the possible "mitigation banking" sites wherefuture development
projects could contribute to the purchase and maintenance of selected reserves through
contribution to a conservation impact fee.
4.16.3(h) The land use plans for the new communities shall be modified as necessary at the Specific
Plan stage to protect sensitive natural communities and other important biotic resources.
Preliminary modifications to the land use plans shall include the following:
Mountain House New Community
[Specific Plan already adopted.]
New Jerusalem New Community
[No preliminary modifications recommended.]
Page -49-
ESCALON
CONSER VA TION AND OPEN SPACE
GOAL: To ensure thatfuture growth ofEscalon occurs in a manner which minimizes adverse impacts on the
City's open space and natural resources.
Policies:
3.210 Conserve, to the greatest feasible extent, the City's existing natural resources, with particular
emphasis on air and water quality, open space, farmland, wildlife and habitat preservation.
3.220. Ensure that all adverse environmental impacts ofproposed developmentprojects are identified and
acceptably mitigated prior to approval.
3.230. Maximize farmland open space and wildlife habitat preservation on lands. outside of the City by
establishing a greenbelt including all lands not designated forfuture annexation on the General Plan
Land Use Diagram.
Implementation Programs:
3.360 Designate a sufficient amount ofsuitable foraging area, connect to regional migratory corridors, as
open space for natural resources for the purpose of conserving Swainson's hawk habitat.
NOTE: This program was implemented in 1994, per the Escalon Planning Department, with the designation
of an open space area on the Escalon General Plan Land Use Diagram located west of Escalon-Bellota Road
and east of Brennan Road and north of State Route 120, extending to the northern City boundary of the City
of Escalon.
Page -50-
LATHROP
Source: Comprehensive General Plan & Environmental Impact Report for the City of Lathrop, California. Adopted by
the Lathrop City Council; December 17, 1991. Prepared by Grunwald & Associates December, 1991.
VEGETATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICIES:
Thefollowingpolicies seek not only the retention ofvirtuallyall beneficial habitat which nowerists, butalso to enhance
habitat which has been degraded and to create new habitat wherefeasible.
The objective of habitat retention calls for:
• The integration of waterway habitats as part of the areawide system of open space.
• The preservation of all stands of vegetation along waterways which provide habitat, and achieving a
standard of "no net loss of wetland acreage".
• The careful introduction of public and private recreation activities within habitat areas which will not
disturb natural conditions either through intensity of operations, high levels of noise generation, or
scarring of the landscape through development activity.
• The retention of hedgerows and other habitat areas within intensively farmed acreage which are
compatible with agricultural operations.
• The protection of fisheries by preventing discharge of contaminated surface water to waterways.
2. The objective of habitat enhancement calls for.
• The improvement of natural habitat along waterways.
• The creation of new habitat within multi-purpose open space area designated for reuse of treated
wwstewater for wildlife management and recreation.
•. Cooperative approaches among landowners to manage farmlands so as to increase the numbers of
desirable species of wildlife.
3. The City shall on its own, or in participation with other local governments, prepare and implement a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Swainson's hawk. The acquisition of lands required as replacement habitat
for nesting and foraging is to be funded by fees imposed upon developers whose land development activities
would threaten, endanger or eliminate existing habitat within the Lathrop planning area. The HCPshall be
based upon a current habitat field survey taken during the Swainson's hawk nesting season to determine
whether Core Conservation Areas or only foraging habitat exists.
It is the intent of the City of Lathrop to be a good steward of its biological resources for the benefit of its
citizens and the general public. The General Plan EIR acknowledges that significant impacts would occur to
Swainson's hawks, and potentially significant impacts could occur to other species. Mitigation measures are
provided in the General Plan EIR to mitigate the impacts. The purpose of the following information is to
clary the proposed mitigation as a matter of General Plan policy.
a. A mitigation concept is presented on page 8-D-8 which states that the City should adopt its own HCP,
or possibly participate in the plan being prepared by the City of Stockton. The City intends to prepare
an HCP, in cooperation with other jurisdictions that would mutually benefit from Lathrop's HCP.
Information and data from Stockton's HCP will be used to the extent appropriate.
b. Lathrop's HCP will be completed prior to the City allowing specific project EIR's to be completed for
projects proposed west of Interstate S. This will ensure that the necessary mitigation plans and
agreements with the State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) are in place for protection of
Swainson's hawks. The HCP process will commence as soon as reasonably possible after General
Plan adoption, involving close cooperation with DFG. It is recognized that foraging habitat is one of
Page -51-
the most important elements required for preservation of Swainson's hawks.
4. Developments proposed in sensitive biological areas shall be required to provide a site specific analysis of the
impacts of the project on fish and wildlife habitat. Because of the large-scale character of development
proposed in the vicinity of biologically sensitive environments, including the conversion ofseveral thousand
acres of agricultural land to urban use, project proposals should be made to address ways in which new or
enhanced habitat may be created as a trade-off to the general environmental impacts on biological resources
associated with development under the General Plan.
5. Land use within areas of riparian habitat shall be restricted to nature-orientedpassive recreation, including
such uses as arboretum, zoological gardens, hiking and nature study. Structures which would reduce the
amount of area available for water detention should be prohibited within the Paradise Cut flood plain.
6. A naturally landscaped corridor shall be provided along the entire perimeter of Gold Rush City and ofSPA #2
which lies west of Interstate 5. This corridor should be wide enough to serve as a major component of the
recreation and open space system, and should providefor a system ofpedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trails.
This corridor will also assure public access to the San Joaquin River as required by State policy and law.
7. The visual amenities of water and its potential as wildlife habitat are to be reflected where feasible in all
developments by the inclusion of bodies of water as components of urban form. Such bodies of watermay be in
the form of lakes, ponds, lagoons, simulated streams or similar features which can be integrated by deign
within recreation open space corridors parks, commercial and residential areas and public sites. The multi-
purpose use of water bodies for surface water drainage, flood control, wastewater reclamation, wildlife
management, recreation and visual amenity is encouraged.
EIR - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Fish and Wildlife
Impacts:
1. The principal impact on the Swainson's Hawk will be the loss offoraging and nesting habitat, the consequent
abandonment of nesting territories, and relocation of the hawk to other suitable habitat if available.
(Significant).
2. If suitable nesting territories are not available to support relocation in relation to other Swainson's hawk
territories, then there could result a net loss in the hawk population which would further exacerbate the
condition of the hawk as a threatened species. (Significant).
3. There is the possibility that other species of rare, endangered or threatened species of wildlife exist within the
Planning Area, which were not observed during field surveys conducted in February/Apri1,1991. (Potentially
significant)
4. Agricultural operations located within, as well as west and south of the Lathropplanning area can adversely
impact rare, threatened or endangered species through the removal of crops that provide foraging habitat, by
damage to native vegetation due to soil erosion orsedimentation, and pesticide applications that could impact
specific species.
S. The fishery of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries is threatened by the potential for contamination by
urban runoff and up -stream agricultural drainage.
Mitigation Measures:
1. For the City to be able to adopt and implement a General Plan proposing urbanization within close proximity
of known Swainson's hawk nesting sites, it will be necessaryfor the City to adopt its own Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP), or possible to participate in the HCP for Swainson's hawks being considered by the City of
Page -52-
Stockton. Otherjurisdictions are also consideringparticipadon with Stockton, includingLodi, Tracy and the
County of San Joaquin. This approach can allow for reasonable urban expansion while retaining the
Swainson's hawk populations in perpetuity.
The concept of a Habitat Conservation Plan is derived from Federal Law and is a required planning document
when any activity may result from the incidental "take" of a state listed species.10 Although the Swainson's
Hawk is not federally listed, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) can interpret the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) to allow a predetermined amount of "take" ofstate listed species (supported
by the HCP) by entering into an agreement with the local governments involved.'-' The use of an HCP is a
planning process that allows for wildlife management and conservation while considering the economic and
social values of regional development. It is a vehicle by which the conflicts between conservation and
development can be ameliorated. It has the further advantage of establishing a fund to purchase, enhance or
manage Swainson's hawk habitats lost to development by assessing fees from developers that will spread the
cost ofmitigation over a wider economic base. An HCP would provide a clear direction and understanding of
the developmentpolicy regarding the impacts on a sensitive species and wouldfacilitate a smootherpermitting
process.
2. Habitat replacement is a mitigation option that can be considered, but there are biological limits to how and
where replacement can be adequately applied. The Stewart Tract, along with lands to the north and wesk
incorporates habitatfor what is called the South Delta subpopulation ofthe Swa1nson's hawkwhich is bounded
by the San Joaquin River to the east, Old River to the west, Lower Roberts Island to the north and the City of
Tracy to the South.
If habitat replacement is to be considered, the areas selected as mitigation sites should be located within the
boundaries of the South Delta subpopulation. If land is purchases, or brought into an easement agreement as
replacement for impacted areas within the Lathrop planning area, the quality of the habitatshould be
considered as well as its location. It should include suitable nesting habitat (Estep 1989) and, if agricultural
land is being considered, it should be a crop type that Swainson's Hawks will utilize, such as alfalfa.
3. Policies of the Resource Management Element callfor habitat retention and habitat enhancement to deal with
known and as yet unknown sensitive species ofplans and animals. Additional biologicalfield surveys will be
required as part ofthe Speck Plan preparation process to determine whether any othersensitive species are
present.
4. A biological studyshall be required for any development project that is determined to have a potential impact
upon rare, threatened or endangered species.
S. The Cityshall aid in theprotection offtsheries by reducing the amount ofpesticides andfertilizers contained in
urban runoff, and by requiring the design of waterway.projects to protect fish populations.
Riparian Vegetation, Wetlands and Watercourses
Impacts and Mitigation Measures:
There is a potential for damage to existing riparian vegetation, wetlands and watercourses due to urban development.
General Plan policies call for the protection ofall existing riparian vegetation, wetlands and watercourses. Policies of
-he Resources Management Element serve as mitigation measures by calling for their preservation and enhancement.
9thermitigation measures include:
4. Section 10[a][2][A] of the Federal Endangered Species Act
5. Fish and Game Code Section 2081
Page -53-
Development projects shall not be permitted which would have the potential for destroying wetlands or
marshlands unless a comparable or superior quantity and quality ofhabitat is provided to compensate for the
loss.
In addition, the on-going mitigation monftoringprogram shall provide for the monitoring of habitat rwtomdon
and enhancement projects to assure the potential for project success.
5i
Page -54-
LODI
Source: City of Lodi General Plan Policy Document, Prepared for the City of Lodi by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc.,
December, 1989.
LAND USE AND GROWTHMANAGEMENT
Goal B:
Topreserve agricultural land surrounding Lodi and to discouragepremature development of agriculturalland
with nonagricultural uses, while providing for urban needs.
Policies:
1. The City shall encourage the preservation of agricultural land surrounding the City.
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Goal A
To protect water quality in the Mokelumne River, Lodi Lake and in the area's groundwater basin.
Policies.-
1.
olicies.1. The City, together with the County, shall monitor the water quality of the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake to
determine when the coliform bacterial standardfor contact recreation and maximum concentration levels of
prioritypollutants, established by the California Department ofHealth Services, are exceeded. The Cityshall
also monitor thepresence ofpollutants and variables that could cause harm toftsh, wildlife, and plantspeeies
in the Mokelumne River and Lodi Lake.
oal E.
To protect sensitive native vegetation and wildlife habitats and, fisheries resources.
Policies:
1. The City shall protect the river channel, pond and marsh, and riparian vegetation and natural communities and
habitats in the Mokelumne River and floodplain areas.
2. The City shall require site-specific surveys to identify significant vegetation and wildlife habitat for
development projects located in or near sensitive habitat areas.
3. The City shall support federal and state laws and policies preserving rare, threatened and endangered species
by ensuring that development does not adversely affect such species or by fully mitigating adverse effects
consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game.
4. The City shall prohibit the development of facilities and trails in Lodi Lake Park that will degrade or destroy
riparian habitat values.
Page -55-
S. The City shall direct park use away from sensitive habitat areas through careful placement offacilities and
trails in Lodi Lake Park
6. The City shall explore the purchase or establishment of a joint agreement for open space preservation and
habitat enhancement in the Woodbridge Irrigation District's property located north of the Mokelumne River.
7. The City shall prohibit activities that could disturb anadromous fish in the Mokelumne River duringperiods of
migration and spawning.
8. The City should work with the California Department offish and Game in identifying an area or areas suitable
for Swainson's hawk and burrowing owl habitat; this land should be preserved and put into a mitigation land
bank to mitigate impacts on existing habitat for these species. A mechanism should be established for
developer funding of acquisition and management of lands in the mitigation bank.
9. The City shall manage portions of storm water drainage detention ponds and drainage ponds and other
appropriate areas as wildlife habitat.
PARKS, RECREATIONAND OPEN SPACE
Goal A:
To establish and maintain a public parksystem suited to enhancing the livability of the urban environment by
meeting the open space and recreation needs of Lodi residents and visitors; providing parks for residential
neighborhoods; and preserving significant open space resources.
Policies:
1. The City shall establish a standard of 8.0 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000
population, including school parks and storm drainage detention basin parks, and 4.2 acres ofneighborhood
and community parkland per 1, 000 population excluding school parks and storm drainage detention basin
parks. The City shall translate this ratio to dwelling unit equivalents to correspond to the City's fee ordinance.
2. The City shall assess a park development fee on all new residential, commercial, gfftce, and industrial
development sufficient to fund the acquisition and development of new parkland consistent with the City
standards identified in the policy above.
3. The City shall actively pursue available county, state and federal funding for the acquisition ofparkland and
the development and improvement ofparkfacilities.
4. The City shall preserve and protect significant open space areas and natural habitat areas within Lodi Lake
Park and other City parks.
5. The City shall consider the establishment of a parkway corridor along the north side of the Mokelumne River
with the objectives ofproviding additional recreational opportunities for Lodi residents, protecting sensitive
habitat along the river, and providing additional public access to the river.
City of Lodi General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the City of Lodi by Jones and Stokes
Associates, April 1991.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact:
Loss offoraging, roosting, and potential nesting habitat for the Swainson's hawk and the burrowing owl.
Page -56-
Mitigation Measure:
The City should formulate procedures for developers to follow to determine whether theirprojects involve the
"take "of burrowing owls or other raptors or their nests, and to obtain a DFG permit for taking or destroying
the nests or eggs of raptors (Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5). (Status: To be adopted as a mitigation
measure).
Page -57-
MANTECA
Source: Manteca General Plan, Policy Document; Adopted May 2, 1988
NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal B:
To promote the continuation of agricultural uses in the Manteca area and to discourage the premature
conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses, while providing for the urban development needs of
Manteca.
Goal C.
To protect sensitive native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitat in the Manteca area.
Policies:
1. The City shall attempt to ensure in approving new development that its impact on native vegetation and wildlife
will be minimized.
2. New development in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River shall be conditioned to promote andprotect riparian,
wetlands, and other native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitats.
Report 1 General Plan Amendment 93-1 for South Manteca and Report 2 Final Area Plan for South Manteca/Adopied by
the City of Manteca December 20, 1993; Prepared by WPMPlanning Team, Inc.
AGRICULTURE
Goal 6B:
To minimize the effect on agricultural lands in South Manteca, whileprovidingfor orderly growth.
Policies - Agricultural Resources:
6B.5 Encourage the donation of agricultural easements on lands designated for agriculture.
VEGETATIONAND WILDLIFE
Goal 6C. -
Protect Sensitive Native vegetation and wildlife communities and habitat in South Manteca
Policies - Vegetation and Wildlife:
6C.1 Minimize impact of new development on native vegetation and wildlife.
6C.2 Condition new development in the vicinity of the San Joaquin River and Walthall Slough to promote and
protect riparian habitat, wetlands, and other native vegetation and wildlife community.
.Report 3: Volume 1 Final Environmental Impact Report Draft EIR with Revisions for South Manteca Area
Plan/General Plan Amendment; Prepared by the WPMPlanning Team, Inc., December, 1993.
Page -58-
NATURAL RESOURCES- VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Impact 6.2B
Swainson's Hawk. Approximately 1,920 acres offoraging habitat would be lost. (Significant)
Mitigation 6.2-1
Preserve significant agriculture buffer area between the western border of the site and the actual development.
Consult with CDFG, Region 2 concerning precise details of mitigation requirements. (Less than signiftcant
after mitigation)
Impact 6.2C
Cooper's Hawk. Approximately 1,350 acres of Cooper's hawkforaging and breeding habitat would be lost.
(Significant)
Mitigation 6.2-2
Preserve an adequate orchard buffer between the southernproject site boarder and the development area in the
eastern half of the site. Enhance this area for birds by planting seed and fruit producing hedge rows. (Less
than significant after mitigation)
Impact 6.2D
Northern Harrier. Foraging habitat would be lost. (Significant)
Mitigation 6.2-1
Mitigation for Swainson's hawk would apply (see 6.2-1). (Less than significant after mitigation)
Impact 6.2E
California Tiger Salamander. The breeding pond and summer retreat site of this species maybe altered or
destroyed. (Significant)
Mitigation 6.2-3
Preserve or mitigate any loss of McKinley Road pond area. (Less than significant after mitigation)
Impact 6.2F
Northwestern Pond Turtle. Nesting and feeding site along Walthall Slough could be impacted by development
adjacent to the Slough shoreline. (Significant)
Mitigation 6.2-4
Adhere to CDFG 100' bufferzone requirement forpermanent wetlands. (Less than significant after mitigation)
Impact 6.2G
Freshwater Wetland Habitats. Proposed development may impact wetlands. (Significant)
Mitigation 6.2-5
Provideprotection or mitigation for jurisdictional wetlands in keeping with state and federal standards. (Less
Page -59-
than significant after mitigation)
Impact 6.2H
RRi Urian Habitat. Proposed land uses could affect existing habitat.
Mitigation 6.2-4
(See Impact 6.2F)
Mitigation 6.2-6
Implement Area Plan policies and programs to protect riparian habitat. (Less than significant after mitigation)
Impact 6.21
General Loss of Wildlife Habitat (Significant Unavoidable)
Mitigation 6.2-7
Area Plan policies would reduce impacts. (Significant Unavoidable)
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
10.2B
Conversion ofAgricultural Land. (Cumulative, Significant Unavoidable).
Mitigation 10.2-1
The City should seek to conserve prime farmland thorough a farmland protection program. (Cumulative,
Significant Unavoidable).
10.6C
Veeetation and Wildlife. General Plan buildout will reduce habitat forage areasfor the Swainson Is hawk and
other special status raptors. (Significant or potentially significant and Cumulative)
Mitigation 10.6-2
Participate in Habitat Management Plan or equivalent effort to preserve habitat. (Significant or potentially
significant and Cumulative)
Page -60-
RIPON
Source: General Plan, City of Ripon, Adopted September 20, 1988 and Draft General Plan, City of Ripon, 1996.
OPEN SPACE AND CONSER VA TION ELEMENT
Goal A:
To provide and maintain parks that are suited to the needs of Ripon residents and visitors.
Policies:
1. City park dedication (or acquisition) and development efforts will be based on a goal of 3 to S acres of
neighborhood and communityparkland per 60 to 80 acres residential or 1, 000 residents. This goal is separate
and exclusive of school site acreage within the City limits.
2. The City will pursue State and Countyfunding to augment City revenue to the extent such funding is available.
3. The City will continue to impose park development fees on all new residential development.
4. The City will promote and encourage the preservation of open space areas along the Stanislaus River and
maximize its potential forpublic enjoyment.
GOAL a.-
Preserve
.
Preserve the riparian area long the Stanislaus River for recreational uses.
Policies:
Prohibit all development within the riparian area along the Stanislaus River, except recreational uses where
the City has acquired land or an easement, as long as the uses do not interfere with capacity of the river during
floods.
2. Recognize the special resources Ripon has in underdeveloped river frontage and draft a plan for public
enjoyment and preservation of the natural environment.
City ofRipon GeneralPlan FinalEnvironmentallmpactReport,preparedbyJ. LaurenceMintier& Associates Planning
Consultants, Certified September 20, 1988. NOTE: The EIR for the 1996/97 General Plan Update was pending at
publication of the S7MSCP and should be incorporated, as needed, to revise the following:
VEGETATIONAND WILDLIFE
Impacts and Mitization Measures.
Buildout under the General Plan would reduce the existing vegetation and wildlife resources in presently undeveloped
areas. Conversions of agricultural lands would diminish habitat forpheasants, quail, doves and rabbits.
The potential for adverse impacts is greatest along the riparian habitat along the Stanislaus River. Restriction of
development within the floodplain will afford continued protection of sensitive habitats. Specific developmentprojects
should be assessed for impacts on wildlife and vegetation and include appropriate mitigation measures.
The General Plan includes the following policies to mitigate potentially adverse impacts of new development on
vegetation and wildlife.
Page -61-
5.D.1 To minimize the intrusion of urban development into agricultural areas, the City will discourage thepremature
conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses.
5.D.2 Continue to prohibit urban building within floodplain areas except by special permit.
Page-62-
STOCKTON
Source: City of Stockton General Plan Policy Document, Adopted January 22, 1990, Last Amended May 20,1996; City
of Stockton General Plan Parks and Recreation Element Evaluation and Update, January 8, 1996
GENERAL OBJECTIVES.,
1. Maintain a balance between advancing economic opportunities of all citizens andprotection of the natural
environment.
2. Coordinate Stockton's plans, policies and programs with those of San Joaquin County and other public and
private agencies to assure maximum benefit from cooperative action.
LAND USE
Goal 4:
Promote and maintain environmental quality and the preservation ofagricultural land whilepromoting logical
and efficient urban growth
Policies:
1. Environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Delta, Oak Groves and areas of archaeological/historic value,
should be preserved for the bent of present and future generations.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Goal 1:
Policies:
To provide a variety of recreational facilities and services to meet the diverse needs of Stockton's residents,
workers and visitors.
The City shall ensure that park and recreation facilities areprovided at a level that meets the City's park and
recreation standards, as shown in the following table.
Page -63-
PARSSTANDARDS
Type of Park
Acres/1,000
Residents
Acres/Park
Service Radius
Neighborhood Park
0.73
S to 10
2 mile
Community Park
2.15
10 to 30
1 mile to citywide
Regional Park
7.00
30+
Region -wide
Golf Courses
1 course/40, 000
130-180
Region -
2. The City shall continue to providefor the development oflinearparkways, recreational bikeways and trails that
connect with the community and neighborhood parks where opportunities exist (i.e. Calaveras River path,
EBMUD right-of-way).
3. The City shall continue to cooperate with San Joaquin County and local school districts to provide a wide
variety of recreational opportunities for Stockton residents and visitors.
4. The City shall encourage the development ofprivate open -space and recreationalfacilities in larger residential
developments in order to meet a portion of the open space and recreation needs generated by the residents of
those developments.
5. In cooperation with the County, the City shall consider acquiring additional land for regional parkpurposes.
6. The City shall endeavor to preserve and restore the natural values of the San Joaquin and Calaveras Rivers,
the Delta, and other local waterways, and shall incorporate them into the City's park and trail system where
possible.
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES:
CONSERVATION
Goal 1:
Guide Urban development towardvacant or under -used land within the urbanizedarea and direct newgrowth
toward contiguous lands to protect agricultural lands and other open spaces usedfor the managed production
of resources from premature urban development.
Policies:
1. Existing agricultural soils capable of producing a wide variety of valuable crops shall be retained in
agricultural use until the time that such soils are needed for logical urban expansion.
2. Support firm policies and ordinances by San Joaquin County to protect productive agricultural land.
3. Consider the establishment of a land trust to acquire or otherwise provide for the long-term preservation of
open space lands for (1) agricultural use and other managed production of resources and/or (2) for
preservation of natural resources.
4. Consider establishing buffers, such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts and open space areas, to separatefarmland
Page -64-
from urban uses.
Goal 2:
Permit the profitable utilization of mineral resources while protecting the environment and surrounding land
uses from any adverse effects of extraction operations.
Policies:
1. Requests for extractive operations (i.e. gas wells) shall consider the effects on the surrounding land uses and on
the natural environment.
OPENSPACE.
Goal 1:
Preserve and enhance open space areas for thepreservation of natural resources includingplant life, habitat
for fish and wildlife species, ecologically sensitive areas, and historic and cultural resources.
Policies:
1. The Delta and related waterways shall be used only for activities which are consistent with the sensitive
environmental characteristics of this area. Any disturbance of levee vegetation should be minimized and
replaced consistent with flood control and reclamation district constraints.
2. Urban development adjacent to the Delta and related waterways should give special consideration to the
natural hazards in this area (i. aflooding, soil subsidence, peat fires) and shall be required to provide access to
and along this resource consistent with public safety and the preservation of sensitive biological resources.
3. The fisheries and riparian habitat of the Delta and waterways shall beprotected from any damage caused as a
result of the operation of marinas or the Port of StocIdom
4. Signfcant wildlife and natural vegetation areas shall be protected and preserved for environmental,
educational and research purposes.
5. Seek to preserve existing Valley Oak trees which are healthy.
Goal 2:
Provide and maintain open space resources for outdoor recreation within the urban fabric of Stockton.
Policies:
1. Utilize open space areas to provide community and neighborhood identity and to insulate conjlicdng land uses
and noise generators.
2. Residential developments shall be encouraged to provide private open space areas.
Goal 3:
Retain in open space use any lands too hazardous for development to promote public health and safety.
Poli :
1. Areas not protected from 100 year floods shall not be urbanized due to public safety concerns.
Page -65-
Implementation Programs - Natural and Cultural Resources:
Investigate the establishment of a land trust for open space lands.
Establish a process to identify key wildlife habitat areas around Stockton worthy ofpreservation.
Establish a mitigation fee for wildlife habitat preservation and replacement. Such a fee could fund the
identification of key wildlife habitat areas andlor a land trust.
Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring Program City of Stockton General Plan
Revision and Infrastructure/Public Facilities Master Plans, Adopted January 22, 1990.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact:
Eventual development of thefuture growth areas would result in the loss of about 9, 000 acres of agricultural
land, approximately one-half of which is considered to be prime farmland. The inducement of urban growth
onto agricultural land beyond rhe planned urban boundary is also possible.
Mitigation Measures:
1b. Consider the establishment of an agricultural land trust to acquire or otherwise provide for the long-term
preservation of agricultural and other open space land (including wildlife habitat). A number of such trusts
have been successfully established throughout the United States. The American Farmland Trust, a non-profit
corporation dedicated to the protection of farmland, has been instrumental in setting up trusts in California
and throughout the nation and should be consulted regarding establishing a trust in San Joaquin County.
Impact.
Conflicts and incompatibility between agriculture and urban uses, including dust, smoke, pesticides, noisefront
agricultural operations impinging on urban uses and thepotentialfor nearby urban residents to trespass upon,
litter or vandalize agricultural land and equipment.
Mitigation Measures:
1b. Consider establishing buffers, such as setbacks, berms, greenbelts and open space areas to separatefarmland
from urban uses.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact:
Development in accordance with the proposed General Plan would result in the eventual loss of over 9,000
acres of agricultural land andpotential wildlife habitat within the future growth areas, about 3,300 acres of
which is considered to be within or on the fringe of the Delta. The Delta, with its wetlands and waterways,
provides the most sensitive and highest value wildlife and plant habitat in theplanning area. TheDelta is home
to a number ofspecial status species, provides an important wintering area for migrating waterfowl, and is an
important fishery Agricultural land is also an important source of food and cover for wildlife, including
special status species.
Mitigation Measures:
1a. The City, in coordination with the County, the California Department offish and Game and other appropriate
agencies and organizations, shall establish an process to idents and map significant fish and wildlife habitat
areas within and surrounding the planning area. Particular attention should be given to the Deltaand to the
Page -66-
sloughs and other watercourses traversing the planning area Once identified these areas shall be targetedfor
preservation under measures "b" and "c "below.
lb. All new development within theplanning area shall contribute fees toward a centralfundfor wildlife habitat
preservation and replacement. The fee could be used to defray the costs of the identification and mapping
process described in "a", above, and the evaluation and monitoring of habitat replacement plans described in
"c" below. It could also be used to acquire and maintain land outside of the planned growth areas which
would serve, in part, to replace the agricultural landlwildlife habitat that is lost as a result or urban
development.
I c. All new development within the planning area shall mitigate biological impacts by preserving significant
habitat identified within the project site by the measure la "process, above, or the environmental review
process for theproject. Ifpreservation of the existing habitat is not possible, on -or off-site replacement habitat
shall be provided based upon the concept of no net loss of habitat values or acreage. Losses of wintering
waterfowl habitat, sensitive species habitat, or other significant wildlife habitat shall be fully compensated.
On- or off-site habitat replacement plans should be required as a condition of approval forprojects where the
loss ofsignificant habitat is involved. Theplans steal/providefor replacement habitat based upon the concept
of no net loss of habitat values or acreage, specific design requirementsfor newhabitat based on the conditions
of the site and the type of habitat to be created or restored, periodic monitoring to remove erotic and nuisance
vegetation, monitoring and replacement to ensure a specified survival rate of vegetation for a reasonable
length of time, and an appropriatefinancing mechanism and implementation schedule. Memorandums of
Understanding shall be entered into between the City and developers for the establishment of the habitat
preservation and replacement plans.
Id For projects adjacent to Delta waterways, disturbance of levee vegetation by dredging or other activities shall
be minimized and any vegetation disturbed should be replaced (within flood control and reclamation district
maintenance constraints). Dredging shall be avoided during important fish spawning and development
periods.
Page -67-
TRACY
Source: City of Tracy General Plan And Urban Management Plan, July 19, 1993, prepared by City of Tracy and The
Planning Center.
Goal OSI:
Intent:
To conserve natural resources through theprotection and enhancement ofpermanentlypreserved open space.
The interrelationships between local communities and the surrounding natural environment help establish a
community as a desirable and healthfulplace to live. Preserving significant biological features and habitats
helps preserve biological diversity, provide passive recreation and educational opportunities and help maintain
natural, life-sustaining systems.
Poli
OSL I: The City recognizes Old River, Tom Paine Slough, and Paradise Cut as important open space resources for
habitat conservation and recreational opportunities.
Actions:
OS 1.1.1:
Pursue establishment ofa regional open space and parkway system along Old River and the waterways of the
northern portion of the Tracy planning area.
OS 1.1.2:
Pursue cooperative agreements with local, state and federal agencies havingjurisdiction of the area, to assist
with the establishment of the Old River open space and parkway system.
OS 1.1.3:
Prepare a Specific Plan for the Old River Open Space and Parkway system that will:
Lead to public ownership of critical areas and allowfor private ownerships with conservation and
access easement as necessary; and
Establish programs for the transfer of ownership of the public that include out -right dedication,
development agreements or exactions and may include incentives pursuant to state and federal laws.
Policy,
OS1.2: Minimize impacts of development on waterways, riparian corridors and adjacent buffer areas.
Actions:
OS 1.2.1:
The City will review all development proposals for the following impacts and require appropriate mitigation
measures and/or conditions of approval:
Page -68-
• Water Quality;
• Wildlife habitat,
• Physical and viewshed encroachment;
• Erosion potential
• Noise; and
• Obstructions.
OS 1.2.2:
Provide for joint use of seasonally flooded areas and permanent water features for recreation, flood control
and wildlife habitat.
Policy: .
OSl.3: The City will seek opportunities for preservation or establishment of wildlife habitat, in conjunction with other
uses and developments within the Tracy Urban Management Plan area.
Actions:
OS 1.3.1:
Prepare and implement a plan, in consultation with state and federal agencies, on the management and
enhancement of wildlife habitat in environmentally sensitive open space areas throughout the Tracy Planning
Area. This plan may take the form of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as authorized by lawunder theFESA
and CESA.
OS 1.3.2:
Obtain federal and/or state incidental sake permits, as authorized by law under the FESA and CESA, before
allowing developments in areas which support threatened or endangered species or habitat for such species.
OS 1.3.3:
Join or coordinate with or initiate thepreparation and implementation ofcurrent andlorfuture HCP efforts, as
authorized by law underFESA and CESA, for areas which support threatened or endangered species or habitat
for such species.
OS 1.3.4:
Thefollowingshall be considered environmentally sensitive open space areas as identifiedon the Open Space
Plan:
• Old River, Tom Paine Slough, and Paradise Cut riparian areas
• Corral Hollow riparian corridor
• Kit fox grassland habitat
• FIoodplain
Goal OS 2:
Establish a subregional open space and parkway system that serves both recreational and transportation
needs.
Policy;
O.S. 2.2:
Ensure that City's trail and parkway objectives are met by all development
Page -69-
Action:
O.S. 2.2.2:
All parkways identified in the Open Space Plan shall be planned for multi -use trails whenever feasible.
Goal OS3:
Open Space Lands for Future Expansion of City Facilities and Amenities
Intent:
Open space is commonly established for a variety of reasons. In the Tracy planning area a network ofMulti-
Use Parkways is being established to accommodate near and long-term public facilities and recreational
opportunities. The design of individual development projects should recognize the Parkways as community
entryways; neighborhood, community center and city boundaries; aesthetic and functional compliments to
adjacent development areas, opportunities for wildlife -habitat and storm -water detention; buffers between
conflicting land uses and opportunities for pedestrian and bikeway trails consistent with the Tracy Bikeways
Master Plan.
Policy:
OS3.1: Multi -Use open space areas shall be established that provide for a variety of open space uses including:
! Managed wildlife habitat;
Stormwater runoff detention;
! Community edges and natural amenities
! Agriculture and agricultural research; and
Passive and active recreational activities in natural, semi -natural and agrarian settings.
Actions:
OS 3.1.1:
In areas targeted for public facility improvements the City shall seek to have adequate areas to incorporate
recreational and habitat restoration projects as well as mitigate potential impacts on agriculture.
OS 3.1.2:
Prior to the time developmentprojects are approved, public facilitiesplanningshall detem nefuture rights-of-
way for Multi -Use Parkways within the project area. Parkway rights-of-way shall include roads, transit
public utility easements, drainage facilities, noise attenuation, and landscaping.
OS 3.1.3:
Adequate rights-of-way for the Parkway to accommodate future public facilities shall be established and
dedicated at the time the initial development phases are approved.
Poli -
OS3.2: Parkways should be viewed as a comprehensive system when individual segments are being implemented
Proposed linkages should be maintained within the planning area and ultimately to the surrounding
region.
Actions:
OS 3.2.1:
Individual develop m en t p rojects mustprovide landscaping improvements consistent with the overallobjectives
and guidelines for development of rhe Parkway network.
Page -70-
OS 3.2.2:
Prepare a master landscape plan for Multi -Use Parkways that establishes landscape and hardscape themes
and concepts that can visually and aesthetically ung the planning area. Include treatmentsfor wildlife habitat
areas, urban forest, natural and formal landscaping with a planting palette of native, compatible and
climatically -tolerant species.
Final EIR for the City of Tracy Urban Management Plan/General Plan 1993; Prepared for the City ofTracy by the City
of Tracy and The Planning Center; July 19, 1993.
111: Loss of Prime Agricultural Land
Mll.l The City shall study and establish a farmlandpreservation program which could include measures such as
purchase of development rights, the transfer of development rights and the donation ofconservation easements.
These incentives could be partially funded through an impact fee on all new development.
121: Potential for development at build out to adversely affect a special status species or habitat for such species
(PS)
M21.1 The City of Tracy shall consider modification of the UMLUP to include a habitat overlay which reflects the
sensitive nature ofgrassland habitats south ofl--580. A designation of "Conservation/Development"could be
used to reflect the fact that no land in this area may be developed without the preparation of an endangered
species conservation plan and issuance ofan incidental takepermit, ifrequired by the USFWS and CDFG, for
San Joaquin kit fox pursuant to FESA and CESA.
Withoutpreparation ofa comprehensive HCP and subsequent issuance ofa FESA Section 10(a) incidental takepermit,
"take" of kit fox in the vicinity of the 1-580 corridor is not possible. Prior to preparation ofa comprehensive HCP, the
following measures, designed to minimize impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox, shall be implemented (M21.2, M21.3)
M21.2
M21.3
M21.4
Prior to the issuance of Grading Permits, the Cityshall require complete San Joaquin kit fox surveys to be
conducted by a quaked biologist experienced in kitfox survey methods, in accordance with currently accepted
USFWS and CDFG survey methodologies.
If surveys reveal the presence of kit fox or the proposed project site occurs in potential kit fox habitat, the
project proponent shall consult with the USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate mitigation.
Mitigation for impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox shall include replacement habitat. Replacement habitat can
be in the form of either on-site or off-site lands or a combination of both. Mitigation shall comply with FESA
and CESA as administered by the USFWS and CDFG.
Action 1.3.2 of the Open Space Element should be amended to require consultation with CDFG and if necessary as a
result of this consultation, Incidental Take Permitsfor disturbance to active agricultural lands which provideforaging
habitat for Swainson's Hawk within 10 miles of knomm nesting sites.
The following additional measures are required to minimize the impacts of development on special status species or
habitats for such species:
M21.5
The City shall require all project applicants proposing to development within agricultural orother open space
lands, complete biological field surveys in cooperation with Federal and State resource agencies to determine
habitat use by special status species. Species specific surveys shall be conducted targeting, at a minimum,
those species listed in Table 17 (Special Statu Species Potentially Occurring in the TPA)
Page -71-
M21.6
M21.7
M 21.8
M21.9
If special status species are found to occur on the project site, the project applicant shall identify potential
impacts to such species and provide, in conjunction with State and Federal resource agencies, mitigation to
reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts may be mitigated by providing for the permanent
protection of greater habitat values than those which would be lost as a result ofproject development.
State and/orFederal incidental take permits shall be obtained before building orgradingpermits are issuedfor
any development in an area which provides habitat for threatened or endangered species.
If burrowing owls are found to inhabit a proposed project site, the project applicant shall identify project
related potential impacts to burrowing owls and consult with the California Department of Fish and Game to
determine currently accepted avoidance or mitigation criteria. The resulting mitigation plan shall be
incorporated, as directed by CDFG, into development plans.
The City of Tracy shall attempt to formalize the agreement with San Joaquin County and all ofits incorporated
cities to fully participate in the development and implementation of the San Joaquin County Swainson's Hawk
conservation plan. Until such time as the plan is implemented, or in the event theplan is not implemented, or
the City of Tracy does not participate in the plan, impact to the Swainson `s Hawkand Swainson'sHawk habitat
shall be mitigated in consultation with CDFG.
Impact 122:
Potential degradation of sensitive natural communities and features.
M22.1
M22.2:
The City of Tracy shall develop and implement a wetlands policy which requires a no net loss of wetland value
or acreage in the TPA. The wetland policy shall establish development guidelines which ensure that natural
wetlands arepreserved whenever possible, and that replacement wetlands are located in proximity to those lost
as a result of development. The wetlandpolicy shall require wetland evaluation and consultation with the
Army Corps ofEngineers and the California Department offish and Game prior to disturbance ofwaterways
and wetland features in the TPA. Fish and Game Code Section 1601-03 agreements shall be required for
alteration ofany "blueline"seasonal orperennial drainages. The wetlandspolicy shall contain thefollowing
elements:
• Impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated on the basis of acreage and value subject to the provisions of
CEQA.
• Where direct impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, mitigation will take the form of replacement wetland
habitat of equal or greater value.
• The City of Tracy shall discourage development in or conversion of wetlands that would result in a
reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values.
• Where functionally related riparian areas are impacted with a wetland area, or where riparian habitats
exist in the absence of wetlands, compensatory mitigation shall be required for riparian area losses for
both acreage and value.
The City of Tracy shall seek cooperative agreements with local landowners to implement agricultural and
rangeland practices which are consistent with the preservation of sensitive natural communities within the
TPA. Such practices include regulating pesticide use, directing agricultural land uses and catdegmdng away
from stream corridors, and monitoring rangeland uses to prevent overgrazing.
Page -72-
M22.4:
The City ofTrracy shall incorporate a biological resources component into its Recreation MasterPlan to direct
intensive recreational uses away from wildlife habitat areas. The biological resources component of the
Recreational Master Plan shall be consistent with the goals and policies of the HCP described above and be
considered as an integral part of a plan -wide conservation planning process. At a minimum, the component
shall identify biological resources which are sensitive to human disturbance and which may be impacted by
active recreation and provide for protection of these resources. If an HCP incorporating the Recreational
Master Plan biological resources component is not prepared, the Recreational Master Plan shall establish
wildlife preserve areas to protect sensitive habitats and species.
AGRICULTURE, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
177: Cumulative Increase in soil erosion, agricultural landconversion, and a cumulative decrease in lands available
for mineral resource extraction.
M 77.1
Mitigation measures in Section 3.3 propose the establishment of a farmland preservation program. The City
should cooperate with San Joaquin County in the establishment of the Program.
VISUAL AND AESTHETIC RESOURCES
179: Regional conversions ofplant and animal habitats to urban land uses.
M 79.1
Mitigation measures in Section 3.5, Biological Resources, propose the development of policies and plans to
reduce impacts to sensitive habitat areas. A regional conservation plan for the management of listed
species in the TPA, as proposed in Section 3.5, Biological Resources, would mitigate habitat losses for
these species. However, cumulative habitat losses would remain significant.
Page -73-
Exhibit 2 - SJMSCP
Compensation Zone Maps
Page -74-
Exhibit 3
SJMSCP
Excerpts of Referenced Sections
(unless already contained in text of fee study report)
4.1
....In addition to this biological approach to compensation for Open Spaces, the SJMSCP also takes a non,-
biological
on-biological approach to Open Space compensation. As noted in Section 7.3, the SJMSCP is a multi -
species habitat conservation and Open Space plan. This means that, in addition to plant, fish and wildlife
benefits, the SJMSCP considers the non -wildlife value of Open Spaces including agricultural,
educational, recreational, scenic, flood control and other beneficial Open Space uses. These non -wildlife
benefits are provided by Agricultural Habitat Lands, Natural Lands and Multi -Purpose Open Space lands.
This non -biological view of Open Spaces is supported by the general plan policies of San Joaquin
County's seven cities and the County itself. These general plans contain policies establishing the value
and importance of environmentally sensitive lands and Open Space resources to agricultural productivity,
biodiversity, and the welfare of county residents (see Appendix E). These general plans call for programs
to offset both the biological and non -biological impacts of Converting Open Spaces to non -Open Space
use. The SJMSCP recognizes the multiple uses and benefits of Open Spaces and, while its primary
purpose is to provide comprehensive mitigation to offset impacts to plant, fish and wildlife and habitats,
the establishment of Open Space Preserves will also offset many non -biological impacts associated with
the Conversions of Open Spaces consistent with the directives of local general plans.
Consistent with this multi-use/multi-benefit view of Open Spaces, the proposed funding plan spreads
costs of permanently preserving Open Space and habitat land in San Joaquin County among not only new
development, but also among other beneficiaries of the SJMSCP. Therefore, fees will be paid, pursuant
to the SJMSCP, for the Conversion of all Open Space land categories: Agricultural Habitat Lands,
Natural Lands (vernal pool lands as described above and non -vernal pool lands as described here), and
Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands. The method for calculating fees on this basis is described, in detail, in
Section 7.4.1.2 of the SJMSCP.
Because the compensation ratios for Agricultural Habitat Lands and Natural Lands differ (1:1 and 3:1
respectively), and are directly related to Incidental Take, whereas the Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands does not carry with it a requirement to increase the total mitigation acreage requirement of
the Plan to offset Incidental Take, the SJMSCP analyses the extent and effects of Conversion of Open
Space lands for these three categories: Agricultural Habitat Lands, Natural Lands and Multi -Purpose
Open Space Lands.
The SJMSCP addresses over 109,302 acres of new land Conversions from Open Space to non -Open
Space uses at full buildout (estimated to occur between 2001-2051). The SJMSCP Permits will authorize
Incidental Take on all 109,302 acres Converted from Open Space uses. Of this 109,302 acres of Open
Space Conversion, the Conversion of 71,837 acres of Agricultural Habitat Lands and Natural Lands will
result in a compensation requirement of 100,841 acres of Preserves. The Conversion of the remaining
37,465 acres of Multi -Purpose Open Space Land Conversions will contribute to the costs of managing,
monitoring, and enhancing the 100,841 acres of Open Space Preserves for the SJMSCP, but does not
increase the total compensation requirement of 100,841 acres.
Page -75-
The details of the projected Open Space Conversions resulting from SJMSCP Permitted Activities and the
distribution of these Conversions over the three categories of Open Space lands recognized by the
SJMSCP are detailed in the following tables. These Open Space Conversion acreages are the primary
guide used for assessing the impacts to SJMSCP Covered Species. Pursuant to the preceding discussion,
Incidental Take is expressed in the following tables as the total acres of Natural Lands, Agricultural
Habitat Lands and Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands to be Converted from Open Space use by SJMSCP
Permitted Activities occurring between 2001 and 2051. However, while SJMSCP Permitted Activities
occurring on all categories of Open Space lands contribute to the cost of the SJMSCP, only the Natural
Land and Agricultural Habitat Land categories are used to determine total Preserve acreage requirements
for the SJMSCP (one Preserve acre for each Converted acre of Agricultural Habitat Land and three acres
of Preserve for each acre of Natural Land Converted). In these tables, Take of habitat is expressed in
acres. See Chapter 8, Section 8.2.1 and Appendices L and X for a complete description of SJMSCP
Permitted Activities.
5.3.2.1 Fees
As described in Section 7.4.1, individuals opting for coverage under the SA4SCP may pay a fee. The fee
structure under the SJMSCP is:
A. $750 per acre for Conversion of Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands,
B. $1,500 per acre for Conversion of Agricultural Habitat Lands and Natural Lands (except
for vernal pools); and,
C. $30,000 per acre for the wetted surface area of vernal pools and $5,000 per acre for the
upland grasslands surrounding vernal pools. The SJMSCP assumes a 12% wetted surface
area for vernal pool grasslands. This translates into an overall average cost per acre for
vernal pool grasslands of $8,000 per acre.
5.3.2.2 In -Lieu Land Dedications
Private individuals receiving Incidental Take coverage pursuant to the SJMSCP may, in -lieu of fee
payments, offer suitable land for dedication. Dedications shall be approved by the JPA with the
concurrence of the Permitting Agencies' representatives on the TAC. In -lieu lands shall meet minimum
parcel sizes designated in the SJMSCP Preserve design descriptions or, if smaller, should be adjacent to
an existing Preserve which, in combination with in -lieu lands, meets Preserve size minimums. In -lieu
lands shall include an endowment payment (equal to the management endowment and administration -
costs of land acquisitions as prescribed in Sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4) to ensure the management of the
dedicated land in perpetuity. Dedicated land may be lands on-site or off-site from the project location
owned by the Project Proponent. Conservation easements (or fee title) for owner -dedicated lands,
referencing the JPA or another suitable agency or organization as easement or fee title holder, shall be
recorded with the office of the County Recorder. Easements shall be consistent with the requirements of
California Civil Code Section 815.3 which specifies those who are qualified to hold conservation
easements.
5.3.2.4 Mitigation Banking
The SJMSCP anticipates using two categories of mitigation banks:
A. SJMSCP Mitigation Banks. The SJMSCP anticipates enhancing and/or restoring vernal
pool lands in excess of those required for compensation under the SJMSCP. This excess
Page -76-
may be sold as mitigation or compensation "credits" to individuals not covered by the
SJMSCP and in need of vernal pool mitigation lands. The SJMSCP may consider
establishing other types of mitigation banks during the life of the Plan, as deemed
necessary.
B. Private Mitigation Banks. A private property owner may establish a mitigation bank on
all or a portion of his or her property for one or more SJMSCP Covered Species. A
Project Proponent needing that particular habitat type for mitigation for a project
elsewhere may then pay the property owner or "bank operator" to permanently manage
the enhanced property for SJMSCP Covered Species. Private mitigation banks shall be
consistent with the SJMSCP Preserve selection criteria (Section 5.4.4) and shall be
approved by appropriate state and federal agencies pursuant to applicable state and
federal guidelines for mitigation banks and other applicable policies, laws and
regulations. Credits purchased from private mitigation banks must be for habitats which
already are existing as protected lands within the mitigation bank Preserves prior to the
purchase of credits (i.e shall not be purchased from mitigation banks which intend to
create protected lands in. the future).
Land banks used to offset impacts to wetlands must comply with Federal Register Notice: November 28,
1995, Vol. 60, No. 228, Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks,
and other applicable polices, laws, and regulations. All mitigation banks, whether SJMSCP banks or
private mitigation banks, shall be reviewed and approved by the Permitting Agencies prior to use. Aerial
photographs indicating the condition of habitat lands, prior to undertaking habitat enhancements for
banking, shall be used when establishing baseline conditions for mitigation banks unless otherwise
approved by the Permitting Agencies.
Page -77-
TABLE 7.4-1
SJMSCP FUNDING PLAN ( 2001-2051)
Page -78-
ACRES OF
IMPACT TOTAL
PERCENT OF
SJMSCP FUNDING SOURCE
CONVERSION
FEE PFR REVENUE
TOTAL FUNDING
1999-2049
ACRE
CWA 404 /a/
Vernal Pool Habitat Mitigation Fund/a, b/ -
707
$30,000
$21,210,000
o
8/a
Wetted Surface
5187
$5,000
$25,935,000
10%
Area
Upland
Grasslands
Agricultural Habitat Lands, Submerged Aquatic
Habitat and Non -Vernal Pool Natural Lands
65,943
$1,500
$98,914,500
38%
Mitigation Fund
Multi -Purpose Open Space Mitigation Fund
37,465
$750
$28,098,750
11%
.Suhiatal =
109,302
$174,158;250
67%
OTHER FUNDING SOURCES AST CONVERSION
AND NEIGHBORING LAND PROTECTION PRESERVES
Other State and Federal Sources
;
16%
x
z
7777
$42,267,104
Revolving Fund/Re-sales/c/
5FF�
5 x
10%
. y .:.;,..,
$26,82,266
Conservation Bank Revenue /d/
'
x ,��x
�..
2/0 °
x..--.�
$5261,613
Lease Revenue & Other/e/
:" . fi
$13 328 232
5%
a<'. �� � � � � � '✓f���fJ�i '�?R'� ,�.��"'4� "" 't'u.G
33 %
O
F �
`r
.<�
$87,339,215
$261,497,465
100%
ro3.x
Page -78-
/a/ Wetted surface areas of vernal pools are $30,000/acre, while upland grasslands are $5,000/acre. This
averages $8,000 for vernal pool grasslands based on an assumption of an average 12% wetted surface
area/acre for vernal pool grasslands.
/bMe fair share cost allocation in Section 7.3 establishes that new development shall pay approximately
62% of the SJMSCP costs (rounded to 60%). All development fees for the SJMSCP were calculated
based upon a 60% share for new development. New development was defined for the purposes of the fair
share allocation as urban and rural new development (agricultural activities triggering CWA Section
404 and/or subject to the ESA were not included in the fair share allocation analysis). Agricultural
activities were not originally considered for SJMSCP coverage. However, Conversion of 5,000 acres of
vernal pool grasslands, primarily for agricultural activities (e.g., Conversion of vernal pool grasslands to
orchards and vineyards) which trigger Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and/or are subject to
the ESA, were added to the SJMSCP long after all fee calculations for urban and rural new development
were finalized. The addition of 5,000 acres of vernal pool grasslands did not raise the fees for the
SJMSCP for new urban and rural development, because the Vernal Pool Habitat Mitigation Fund fees are
not based on the fair share allocation formula but rather are based only on the total costs of preserving
and creating vernal pool habitat (see Section 7.3 for discussion of why vernal pool Conversions were
excluded from the fair share allocation analysis). Urban and rural new development continues to pay a
60% share of the total SJMSCP costs (approximately 13% of the Vernal Pool Habitat Mitigation Fund
plus 47% divided between the Multi -Purpose Open Space Mitigation Fund and the Agricultural Habitat
Lands/Non-Vernal Pool Natural Lands Mitigation Fund). Agricultural activities which trigger CWA
Section 404 and/or are subject to the ESA contribute (by payment of fees) an additional (and separate
from the fair share allocation) 5% to the 60% fair share paid by urban and rural new development.
/c/ Intended to be a revolving fund. Under this category, lands are purchased in fee title, conservation
easement are placed on the land and land is re -sold with easements. Proceeds are used to purchase
additional lands.
/d/ Funded by sale of additional vernal pool mitigation credits to offset impacts to vernal pool habitat
from activities not covered by the SJMSCP.
/e/ Assumes $50 per acre per year net lease revenue on 10 percent of agricultural Preserve acres and
some net return on re -sales of Preserves for agricultural use. Remainder of net return on re -sales is
included under /c/. "Other" potential sources of funding include private fund-raising, hunting revenues,
license plate revenues (if pursued), land dedications (charitable contributions) and investments (e.g., as
prescribed in Section 7.5.4 and including purchases of non -Preserve lands for future re -sale and profit)
A more detailed description of each of these funding sources is found in Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.
7.4.2 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
7.4.2.1 Develonment Fees
Development fees, as described in Sections 7.3 and shown in Table 7.4-1, new development will provide
approximately 65% of SJMSCP funding costs. As indicated in Table 7.2.5-2, habitat acquisition costs
will be approximately 65% of the total cost of the SJMSCP. While all funding sources will be combined
within a single funding pool, this comparison of funding sources and Plan costs indicates that
development fees should provide funding equivalent to approximately 100% of the costs of acquiring (but
not enhancing or managing) the 100,841 acres of SJMSCP Preserve lands.
7.4.2.2 State And Federal Funding
State and federal funding sources are expected to provide approximately 16% of the total cost of
implementing the SJMSCP. The JPA will be responsible for preparing grant applications or undertaking
Page -79-
other actions, as necessary, to secure these funds. Pursuant to Section 7.5.3 of the SJMSCP, state and
federal funds and other grant funds must be secured three years in advance of the need to expend such
funds to avoid potential funding shortfalls. As indicated in Table 7.2.5-2, management costs for the Plan
will total approximately 16% of the total Pian cost. While all funding sources will be combined within a
single funding pool, this comparison of costs and funding sources indicates that state and federal funding
sources should provide funding equivalent to approximately 100% of management costs for the 100,841
acres of SJMSCP Preserve lands. Section 7.5.2.4 describes the procedures to be undertaken should
anticipated state and federal funds not be obtained, resulting in funding shortfalls.
7.4.2.3 Mitigation Banking
Mitigation banking pursuant to the SJMSCP is described in Section 5.3.2.4. As discussed in Section
5.3.2.4, mitigation banks may be in the form of banks established by the JPA or by private property
owners. Mitigation banks used to offset impacts to wetlands must be consistent with Federal Register
Notice: November 28, 1995, Vol. 60, No. 228, Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and
Operation of Mitigation Banks. All mitigation banks, whether SJMSCP banks or private mitigation
banks, shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Permitting Agencies prior to their use.
It is anticipated that mitigation banking efforts undertaken by the JPA will be primarily for the,
establishment of vernal pool mitigation banks in the eastern portion of San Joaquin County. Typically,
large tracts of vernal pool habitat will be created by the JPA , rather than numerous smaller tracks,
resulting in anticipated cost -efficiencies in creating vernal pool habitat. Therefore, it is expected that, in
addition to providing compensation to offset the impacts to vernal pools for SJMSCP Permitted
Activities, the JPA will also be able to create acres of vernal pool habitat in addition to those acres
needed to offset the impacts identified for the SJMSCP in conjunction with its SJMSCP efforts. The JPA
could then sell "compensation credits" from the vernal pool mitigation banks both to those undertaking
projects pursuant to the SJMSCP and to individuals in need of vernal pool mitigation who are not covered
by the SJMSCP (e.g., individuals or agencies from other counties, located within the "credit area" of the
vernal pool bank; those undertaking activities not covered by the SJMSCP within San Joaquin County, or
those undertaking activities by agencies not participating in the SJMSCP). In this manner, the SJMSCP
should produce some revenues to assist in financing the SJMSCP.
Mitigation bank revenues compose only 2% of the overall funding for the Plan. Since income for vernal
pool mitigation bank sales was estimated at only one-half the current market rate for the sale of vernal
pool mitigation credits, this funding source is considered reliable.
7.4.2.4 Lease Revenues
The JPA will own some lands in fee title (approximately 10% of total Preserve acreages is anticipated to
be held in fee title by the end of the 50 -year Plan term). Normally, these will be dry land grazing lands
which support vernal pools in the eastern portion of the County. Some limited acreages held in fee title
may be able to produce row and field crops. It is anticipated that the JPA will lease portions of some
lands held in fee title to farmers or ranchers to grow row and field crops (where appropriate) or, more
likely, to graze cattle. The compatibility of proposed activities to be conducted by the lessee and
conservation goals shall be determined by the JPA with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies'
representatives on the TAC. Income from the sale of these leases is expected to provide a revenue source
for the SJMSCP.
To achieve Plan income in the range of $13 million (as anticipated in Table 7.4-1) over the 50 -year term
of the Plan, lease revenues need to average $133,334 per year from 5,150± acres of lands held in fee title
(this acreage is just over 5% of total Preserve lands, or approximately half of the lands expected to be held
Page -80-
in fee title), or approximately $26 per acre. In San Joaquin County, leases and rentals can range from $50
to $300/acre with dry land grazing revenue holding at $18/acre. Given this range of prices, it appears the
SJMSCP can easily achieve an overall lease -back revenue of $26 per acre.
7.4.2.5 Revolving Fund/Re-sales
The recycling of funds from the re -sale of lands using a fixed portion of the SJMSCP funds, designated as
a revolving fund, is expected to provide 10% of the monies necessary to fund the SJMSCP.
This process involves the acquisition of land, placing of a conservation easement on that land, and then
re -sale of the land. Monies generated from the re -sale will be used to acquire additional lands in the same
manner. Monies used for the acquisition of habitat are thus re -used, or recycled. At each acquisition and
sale, it is expected that some transaction costs will be lost from the revolving fiend. Therefore, the
"revolving fund" monies decreases as time passes. Many land trusts find the process so valuable,
however, that their revolving funds are frequently replenished to reimburse transaction costs lost and to
allow continuing acquisition of Preserve lands with the revolving fund. If the JPA finds this approach
highly successful, financing of more than 10% of SJMSCP acquisition costs could be realized.
This method has been little tested by public agencies. However, the cities of Dixon and Vacaville
recently purchased, placed an open -space easement on, and resold 1,003 acres within a nine-month
period. According to the city managers of those jurisdictions, this was done with a loss of only $13,000-
$20,000 in transaction costs. In addition, these managers report a similar transaction successfully
completed in Douglas County, Nevada for 10,000 acres. In discussions with the Trust for Public Land,
this use of a re -sale or revolving fund is considered a primary tool for financing acquisitions by major
land trust organizations. Therefore, the re -sale funding component of the
SJMSCP appears extremely promising and a stable source of funding.
7.4.2.6 Other Funding Sources
This funding category, which includes private fund-raising, hunting revenues, license plate revenues (if
pursued), land dedications (charitable contributions) and investments (e.g., purchase of non -Preserve
lands for future re -sale and profit). The SJMSCP Funding Plan combines other funding sources with
lease revenues (Section 7.4.2.4). Only funding from lease revenues has been calculated into the overall
funding for the SJMSCP due to the unpredictability of other funding sources in this category. However,
the likelihood of receiving SJMSCP funding from some of these sources is evaluated as follows:
The potential for generating funds through hunting revenues is unknown. However, duck hunting clubs
are somewhat popular in portions of San Joaquin County located in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta
along the Pacific Flyway. This is the most likely source of funds which might be generated through
hunting pursuant to the SJMSCP.
Prior to the issuance of SJMSCP Permits, the San Joaquin Council of Governments was approached by
several local landowners seeking to donate land to the SJMSCP Preserve system in exchange for tax
benefits to be received by the local landowners pursuant to existing state and federal law. It is
anticipated that this funding source, while unpredictable, will provide some SJMSCP Funding or, at least,
provide Preserve lands at a little or no cost to the SJMSCP, thereby reducing Plan costs.
The JPA is authorized to make investments pursuant to Section 7.5.4. These investments may include the
purchase of non -Preserve lands for re -sale and profit. Income from this potential funding source is
dependent upon the local real estate market.
Page -8 1 -
7.5.2.2 Annual Index Adjustments to Fees
To ensure that SJMSCP development fees, which were calculated in terms of 1996 dollars, keep pace
with inflation, annual adjustments, consistent with the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI), shall
be made to the fees described in Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.1.3. Fees will be adjusted to 2001dollars pursuant
to the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) and Section 7.5.2.2 six months after the SJMSCP's
Effective Date. Thereafter, fees will be adjusted annually as provided in this Section. Unlike the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) which is based on the prices of typical goods and services (e.g., food,
clothing, gasoline), the CCCI is based upon costs of lumber, steel, concrete, wages of construction
workers and similar material costs and labor factors associated with construction costs. The CCCI is
based upon information published monthly in the Engineering News Record (ENR). The ENR Building
Cost Index is based upon indexes that the ENR prepares for twenty major U.S. cities including Los
Angeles and San Francisco. The CCCI is calculated by the State of California's Real Estate Services
Division Cost Control Unit by averaging the Los Angeles and San Francisco ENR Building Cost Indexes
(future cost projections are developed by the State Department of Finance). The California Construction
Cost Index used by the SJMSCP shall be the same as the CCCI used and calculated by the State of
California (an average of costs from both Los Angeles and San Francisco). The CCCI used by the
SJMSCP shall be the one-year averaged CCCI. Therefore, fee adjustments shall be made in January of
each year based upon the preceding years' averaged CCCI. The CCCI baseline year for the SJMSCP is
1996. The CCCI baseline index to be used in calculating fee adjustment for the SJMSCP pursuant to the
CCCI is 3470 (the 1996 index).
An alternative index for making annual adjustments to the fees may be adopted based upon actual
experiences of the JPA as the Plan progresses. Such annual index adjustments shall be made only after
the solicitation of input from affected parties through the public hearing process in accordance with
Section 66000 et seq, of the California Government Code.
Page -82-
7.6 COST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS
....These quantified cost -benefits do not include the non -monetary benefits of the Plan which also
will result from the Plan (e.g., quality of life, potentially avoiding new listings of species,
Neighboring Land Protections etc.).
TABLE 7.6-1
SJMSCP COST -BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Annual Cost I 50 -Year Cost
Residents, Taxpayers of San Joaquin 1 $248,150 1 $12,407,500
Local Governments 1 $222.300 1 $11.1
Proiect Proponents/b/ $5,790,000 $289,500,000
Legal: Conservation, Project $81,000 $4,050,000
Proponents and Governmental
AQencv interests/d/
/a/ These costs savings are included in the $5,790,000 annual savings contained within the "Project
Proponent" category. These costs are those saved by public agencies when those agencies
undertake public projects. These cost savings are counted only once in the total Plan savings of
$6,371,850 annually.
/b/ Savings are found primarily through elimination of biological surveys performed by Project
Proponents, staff/development costs, consulting costs and legal costs. Please refer to the
detailed analysis found in the Hausrath Economics Group Economic Analysis for the San
Joaquin Multi -Species Habitat Conserpation and Open Space Plan, April 7,1997, (Appendix
Q) for an accounting of subcategories with increased, decreased or unchanged costs which
result in this total savings.
/c/ This cost savings reflects the savings after subtracting administration costs for the SJMSCP.
/d/ These cost savings could range as high as $200,000 per year. The total indicates an anticipated
average.
In addition to these costs savings:
MONIES GENERATED FOR THE PURCHASE OF EASEMENTS AND FEE TITLE TO
BE PAID TO LANDOWNERS. The Plan would generate approximately $160,000,000 solely
for easement payments and purchase of fee title to be paid to landowners for the acquisition of
Preserve lands.
Page -83-
8.2.1 SJMSCP PERMITTED ACTIVITIES
The following list describes the activities for which the SJMSCP will provide comprehensive
compensation, avoidance and minimization of impacts to threatened, endangered, rare and other unlisted
SJMSCP Covered Species for which Incidental Take authorization will be obtained under the Plan's
associated permits (Permitted Activities). As described in Section 8.4(B), these Permitted Activities may
be undertaken pursuant to the SJMSCP only by Project Proponents operating within the jurisdictional
boundaries of a Permittee (i.e., if San Joaquin County opted not to adopt the SJMSCP and the City of
Tracy adopted the SJMSCP, Project Proponents may undertake mining activities pursuant to the SJMSCP
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Tracy, but not within the jurisdictional boundaries of
San Joaquin County).
Coverage for unmapped land uses or activities as designated in SJMSCP Section 3.4 and contained in the
following list, are subject to case-by-case review by the JPA's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
ensure that the biological impacts of the proposed projects fall are within the parameters established by
the SJMSCP as originally adopted.
For unmapped land uses which are consistent with the overall biological intent of the SJMSCP and which
do not introduce significant new biological conditions into the Plan area or the SJMSCP's conservation
program or result in significant new or different environmental impacts, or for land uses which have
impacts which are equal to or are less than those described in the SJMSCP originally adopted; then the
TAC, with the concurrence of the TAC's representative from the Permitting Agencies, may permit
SJMSCP Coverage for the proposed land use activity or action pursuant to a Minor'Revision as described
in SJMSCP Section 8.8.3 (45).
For those unmapped land uses which have an effect on the SJMSCP Covered Species and levels of
Incidental Take which are greater than, but not significantly different than, those described in the
SJMSCP originally adopted; coverage of the proposed land use activity or action may be permitted
subject to a Minor Amendment as described in SJMSCP Section 8.8.4(D).
For those unmapped land uses which have an effect which is significantly different (i.e., greater than)
that those described in the SJMSCP originally adopted, coverage of the land use may be permitted subject
to a Major Amendment as described in SJMSCP Section 8.8.5(1).
Anticipated levels of Open Space Conversions, in acres, for these SJMSCP Covered Activities are
provided in Table 4.2-1 and are described in detail in the following Sections:
1. Development: New commercial, residential, and industrial construction [both ministerial
and discretionary (as defined in California's State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15369 and
15357) unless specifically exempted] and agricultural uses within the designated urban
boundaries (as indicated on the SMMSCP Planned Land Use Map) requiring a
discretionary entitlement (permit) by local public and private agencies.
2: Aggregate mining : Located both inside and outside of the designated urban boundaries
as indicated on the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map and pursuant to supplemental
mapping indicating potential aggregate mining locations provided to the Permitting
Agencies.
Public and Private Agency Activities (e.g., Highway Construction and Highway
Maintenance undertaken by public agencies, Lodi Wastewater Project at White
Slough, Mapped Recreational Facilities undertaken by public agencies, maintenance
of existing facilities by irrigation districts, school expansions): Projects carried out by
Page -84-
Plan Participants including new construction, expansion, and maintenance of existing or
future: non-federal transportation projects described in Appendix L, school expansions,
non-federal flood control projects described in Appendix L, and parks and trails located
both inside and outside of designated urban boundaries as indicated on the SJMSCP
Planned Land Use Map. Maintenance Activities undertaken by Plan Participants on
existing facilities, as described in Chapter 10, are Permitted Activities. Maintenance
Activities which are Categorically Exempt pursuant to California's State CEQA
Guidelines, as described in Chapter 10, are exempt from the SJMSCP compensation
requirements.
4. Projects which could affect fisheries and/or wetlands indirectly, which are located
within non jurisdictional wetlands. Activities covered within this category are limited
to the Conversion of three acres of submerged aquatic habitat, activities affecting up to
three acres of Tule/Channel Island (1) habitats, and the SJMSCP's 4,790 acres of water
features to be compensated pursuant to the Plan at a ratio of 3:1 (all three acres to be
created) throughout the life of the SJMSCP without a Major Amendment to the SJMSCP.
Activities covered pursuant to this category shall not be located within jurisdictional
wetlands, Waters of the United States, tidally influenced waters or waters occupied by
fish species which are not covered by the SJMSCP (salmon, steelhead). This category is
specifically intended to cover activities located within ephemeral drainages, small
tributaries which are non -tidally influenced with flows below the threshold necessary to
qualify as jurisdictional waters or Waters of the United States, and the upper reaches of
the Calaveras River.
-Activities covered in this category include: maintenance of SJAFCA levees, construction
of new recreational facilities including trails and parks; construction of private -use small
docks and constructing public and private use bridges and road crossings. Activities
resulting in Take of water features other than submerged aquatic or "I" vegetation types
may include any SJMSCP Covered Activity listed herein unless otherwise specifically
prohibited by the SJMSCP (e.g, in the case of Take of known occupied riparian brush
rabbit habitat).
5. Non-agricultural activities carried out by Plan Participants or Third Parties on agriculturally_
zoned properties or other zoned properties located outside of boundaries indicated on the
SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map and described in the following paragraphs. These use areas are
unmapped, total 3,163 acres of anticipated Incidental Take, and are scattered throughout the
County. These activities are subject to case-by-case reviews as prescribed in Section 3.4:
A. Communication Services Communication services refers to commercial or public
establishments or facilities which primarily provide electronic communication of
audio/visual information via cable, microwave or radio frequency transmission including
communication services which require the mounting of a wireless telecommunication
facility on an existing building or structure (e.g., wireless communication facilities for
cellular radio mobile services, paging services and personal communication services);
communication services which require the construction of a new freestanding support
structure for wireless telecommunication antennas and associated support equipment
(e.g., wireless telecommunication mono -poles and lattice towers for cellular radio mobile
services); communication services which require the construction of a new freestanding
support structure for the purposes of radio or television broadcasting (e.g, radio and
television broadcast towers and airport communication towers); and communication
Page -85-
services which require the regular day-to-day presence of personnel at a site to provide
the services being offered (e.g., radio and television broadcasting studios, cable TV
administrative offices, and telegraph message centers).
B. FuneraYInterment Services: Mortuaries, crematoriums, columbariums, mausoleums
and similar services when in conjunction with, and including, cemeteries
C. Major Impact Projects Major impact services are those land intensive activities which
must be located away from residences or concentrations of people due to the magnitude
or nature of the operation's impacts on the surrounding environment including airports
not primarily serving agricultural activities, sanitary landfills, hazardous waste disposal
sites, and correctional institutions. Use of the SJMSCP to provide compensation for
impacts to plants, fish and wildlife created by projects within this category requires
approval by the JPA with the written concurrence of the Permitting Agencies'
representatives on the TAC. A Permit Amendment pursuant to either Section 8.8.3 or
8.8.4 may be required to include projects within this category (e.g., to address issues
pertaining to federal involvement or other special regulatory requirements associated with
these activities). SJMSCP coverage for SJMSCP Permitted Activities associated with
these projects which are listed as SJMSCP Permitted Activities in SJMSCP Section 8.2.1
do not require prior written consent after a review by the Permitting Agencies [e.g.,
airport communication towers listed in 8.2.1(6)(A)].
D. Public Services: Fire stations, police stations, public administration centers, community
centers
E. Recreation/Golf Courses: Campgrounds, parks, trails (coast -to -crest included), golf
courses, outdoor sports clubs
F. Religious Assembly: Churches
G. Utility Services: Utility services refers to those facilities which provide electricity,
solids, liquids, or gas through wires or pipes including utility services that are necessary
to support principal development involving only minor structures (e.g., electrical
distribution lines, utility poles, and pole transformers; sewer and water lines); and utility
services involving major structures (e.g., natural gas transmission lines and substations).
H. Miscellaneous: Museums, libraries, and hospitals
6. Non-agricultural activities carried out by Plan Participants or Third Parties on agriculturally -
zoned properties or other zoned properties located outside of boundaries indicated on the
SIMSCP Planned Land Use Map and described in the following paragraphs. These use areas are
scattered throughout the County and are subject to case-by-case reviews as prescribed in Section
3.4:
A. Natural Gas Well Drilling;
B. Homesites: Residences in AG zones are not covered by the SJMSCP, however residences in
AG Urban or AG Limited Zones are included under the Plan.
7. Conversion of Vernal Pool Grasslands: Conversion of up to 5,000 acres of vernal pool
grasslands to orchards or vineyards and for similar agricultural purposes when such agricultural
activities trigger requirements of Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and/or are subject
to the ESA. This 5,000 acres is in addition to the Conversion of 894 acres of vernal pool
grasslands for other SJMSCP Permitted Activities. The Conversion of vernal pool grasslands to
orchards or vineyards requires the approval of the JPA with the concurrence of the Permitting
Agencies' representatives on the TAC. Until and unless a programmatic general permit, or
equivalent coverage, can be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, this activity
shall require the acquisition of a separate Section 404 permit from that agency and a
Page -86-
Consultation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall
use the biological opinion generated for the SJMSCP to assist in facilitating its consultations
with the Corps, where possible.)
8. Managing Reserves, Enhancing Preserves, Monitoring Preserves and Scientific Collection
Associated with These Activities : Population surveys and scientific research on Preserve lands
or potential Preserve lands including, but not limited to, inventorying (e.g., trapping, handling,
marking), monitoring, installing preserve enhancements (e.g., earth -moving to create new
wetlands including vernal pools) as described in Section 5.8, research, scientific collection and
similar habitat management activities conducted by the JPA or state, federal, or local agencies for
the purposes of conserving or enhancing habitat for SJMSCP Covered Species. Activities in this
category shall not trigger requirements for compensation and establishment of Preserves. See
Section 5.8 for conditions associated with these activities.
9. Relocation of SJMSCP Covered Species: Relocation of SJMSCP Covered Species by qualified
biologists hired by the JPA and approved by the CDFG and USFWS as prescribed in Section
5.2.5 of the SJMSCP.
10. Other Anticipated Projects - 5,340 acre contingency (e.g., annexations, general plan.
amendments adjacent to existing incorporated cities and defined communities; airport
expansions adjacent to existing airports and Freeway Services Commercial) : General plan
amendments ( excluding the establishment of new towns or new communitiesBnote: Mountain
House new town is covered by the SJMSCP); city annexations; freeway service commercial;
expansion of unincorporated, existing industrial areas; and similar anticipated projects located
outside of designated urban boundaries as indicated on the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map, but
as approximately mapped for the purposes of analyzing potential impacts associated with this
category of activities. Projects listed in this category of Permitted Activities shall be located
adjacent to existing city limits, adjacent to the boundaries of defined communities, or adjacent to
existing airport facilities (i.e., Stockton, Lodi and Tracy airports) as indicated on the SJMSCP
Planned Land Use Map A cap of 5,340 acres is allocated for Permitted Activities in this
category. The 5,340 acres of Open Space Conversion resulting from Permitted Activities in this
category are anticipated to include 1,018 acres of Natural Lands, 1,899 acres of Agricultural
Habitat Lands and 2,423 acres of Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands. 5,340acres of Open Space
Conversion acreage has been included in Open Space Conversion estimates in SJMSCP Chapter
4.
8.2.3 USE OF THE SJMSCP FOR PRIVATE ACTIVITIES REQUIRING FEDERAL
APPROVAL - CONSIDERATION OF SJMSCP IN SECTION 7 CONSULTATIONS
Private activities which are federally authorized, funded, or are carried out by federal agencies are not
SJMSCP Permitted Activities. However, during Section 7 Consultations for projects which are federally
authorized, funded, or are carried out by federal agencies occurring within San Joaquin County (e.g.,
Projects for which a Section 404 permit has been secured and the Permitting Agencies have approved
mitigation pursuant to the SJMSCP for impacts to SJMSCP Covered Species), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will, to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the biological needs of the species: 1)
rely upon the Section 7 Biological Opinion issued for the SJMSCP and, 2) to the maximum extent
feasible and consistent with the biological needs of the species, rely upon the SJMSCP's conservation
strategy when establishing minimization and mitigation, including compensation ratios, appropriate for
these projects.
Page -87-
8.2.4 COVERAGE FOR ACTIVITIES NOT LISTED IN 8.2.1
Project Proponents not otherwise subject to the SJMSCP (See Section 9.8 of the Implementing
Agreement) may participate in the SJMSCP upon making a request to the JPA. The JPA may approve
such requests with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies` representatives on the TAC. Approval of
such requests shall be contingent upon the JPA making the following findings: 1) that sufficient
Incidental Take acres remain pursuant to Section 4.1 as necessary for Project Proponents to undertake
SJMSCP Permitted Activities listed in Section 8.2.1, and 2) mitigation pursuant to the SJMSCP is
appropriate for the impacts on the Covered Species. Section 9.8 of the Implementation Agreement
provides the process for obtaining coverage pursuant to this Section.
8.2.5 SJMSCP COMPENSATIONZONE MAPS
Payment of the development fee described in Sections 7.4.1 and 7.4.1.3 and/or other compensation will
be determined based on preconstruction surveys in the field which confirm vegetation types on site as
indicated by the SIMSCP Vegetation Maps. To assist planners in estimating potential fees for Project
Proponents and to assist the JPA in monitoring the general amounts and types of habitats being Converted
pursuant to the SJMSCP (i.e., Natural Lands, Agricultural Habitat Lands, Multi-purpose Open Space
Land), the SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps will be used as follows:
The SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps are maps which classify the entire County into one of the
following categories (which track general habitat type to determine compensation ratio requirements) and
Fee Zones (used to determine fees on a per/acre basis), as described below:
A. Category A/ No -Pay Zone
B. Category B/ Pay Zone A
C. Category C/ Pay Zone B (Agriculture)
D. Category D/Pay Zone B (Natural)
E. Category E/Pay Zone C (Vernal Pools)
($0/acre fee)
($750/acre fee)
($1,500/acre fee)
($1,500/acre fee)
($30,000/acre fee wetted; $5,000/acre fee upland
- $8,000/acre fee averaged)
Category A/ No -Pay Zone indicates parcels where Conversions of Open Space already have occurred
(Urban Lands as described in Section 2.2.1.4) or where new Conversions of Open Spaces would not
require compensation because
The subject parcel received a project approval prior to the Effective Date of the SJMSCP.
Approved, for the purposes of this section means completion of the environmental review process
(CEQA review) and approval of an entitlement through a public hearing process or issuance of an
entitlement by a local planning agency if a public hearing is not required. Conditions of prior
approval or statements of no impact shall be attached to these projects in accordance with the
conditions of approval. Annexations, regardless of the date of approval, are not automatically
exempt from the SJMSCP unless individual Project Proponents opt not to participate under the
SJMSCP (see Section 8.4). Projects approved on or after the Effective Date of the SJMSCP are
subject to the Plan unless individual Project Proponents opt not to participate under the SJMSCP
(see Section 8.4).
Page -89-
There is no fee for SJMSCP Permitted Activities located within the No Pay Zone on the SJMSCP
Compensation Zone Maps unless otherwise specified in pre-existing conditions of project approval.
Category B/ Pay Zone A includes parcels containing habitat types classified as Multi -Purpose Open
Space as described in Section 2.2.1.3, which are not otherwise exempt. The fee for undertaking SJMSCP
Permitted Activities on these parcels is currently $750 per acre.
Category C/ Pay Zone B includes parcels containing habitat types classified as Agricultural Habitat
Lands pursuant to Section 2.2.1.2, which are not otherwise exempt. The fee for undertaking SJMSCP
Permitted Activities on these parcels is currently $1,500 per acre.
Category D/Pay Zone B includes parcels containing habitat types classified as Natural Lands pursuant
to Section 2.2.1.1, excluding those Natural Lands classified as Vernal Pool Grasslands (G3). The current
fee within Pay Zone B is $1,500/acre.
Category E/Pay Zone C includes parcels containing Natural Lands classified as Vernal Pool Grasslands
(G3) as indicated on the SJMSCP Vegetation Maps and as verified by a site inspection conducted by the
JPA, which are not otherwise exempt. The fee for undertaking SJMSCP Permitted Activities on these
parcels is currently $30,000 per acre for wetted surface area and $5,000 for upland grasslands (an average
cost per acre of $8,000, assuming 12% of the parcel is wetted surface area).
OTHER. In cases where a separate written agreement between the Project Proponent and the Permitting
Agencies has been reached to address plants, fish and wildlife and habitat issues for a proposed project,
the provisions of the agreement shall determine the appropriate fees and compensation. Wherever
possible, these agreements shall be reflected on the SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps. Agreements
which reflect partial mitigation only (e.g., for cumulative impacts, but not for site specific impacts) are no
included in this category.
The SIMSCP Compensation Zone Maps are hereby incorporated by reference. Prior to issuance of the
SJMSCP Permits, the SJMSCP Compensation Zone Maps and SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map shall be
reviewed and approved by each local jurisdiction requesting coverage under the SJMSCP Permits and the
Permitting Agencies.
Page -89-
Exhibit 4
Glossary
Acquisition, Acquired
The term "acquisition" or "acquired" means the acquisition of conservation or property rights to a particular
land parcel for plant, fish, and/or wildlife Preserve purposes pursuant to the SJMSCP. Acquisition of
Preserve lands under the SJMSCP will normally be through purchase of a conservation easement, through
outright purchase of fee title with appropriate protective covenants, through acceptance of land dedications or
through purchase or creation of mitigation banking credits.
Agricultural processing
The Agricultural Processing use type refers to the processing of foods and beverages from agricultural
commodities. The following are the categories of the Agricultural Processing use types:
(a) Preparation Services. Establishments primarily engaged in performing limited processing on
crops, subsequent to their harvest, with the intent of preparing them for market or fiuther processing.
Typical uses include nut hulling and shelling, bean cleaning, corn shelling and sorting, and grading
and packing of fruits and vegetables.
(b) Food manufacturing. Establishments engaged in manufacturing or processing foods and
beverages for consumption. Typical uses include canning of fi-uits and vegetables, slaughterhouses,
creameries, and manufacture of prepared meat products.
When required, interpretations based on this definition shall be made by the San Joaquin County Community
Development Director.
Animal feeding and Sales
The Animal Feeding and Sales use type refers to temporary holding of livestock on a fee or contract basis in
preparation for slaughter, market, shipping or sales. Typical uses include livestock auction yards, stockyards,
animal sales yards, and feedlots for cattle, hogs, or sheep.
Applicants
The terms "Applicant" and "Applicants" means the Permittees or Permit Holders.
Categorically Exempt
"Categorically Exempt" means a project which has been determined to have no significant effect on the
environment pursuant to Section 15300 et. seq. of California's State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Section
15300.2 of California's State CEQA Guidelines, SJMSCP Permitted Activities which will result in the Take of
an SJMSCP Covered Species are not categorically exempt.
CESA
The California Endangered Species Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.) and
Page -90-
regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act.
Cities
The term "cities" means the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy, all of
which are incorporated cities in San Joaquin County and are expected to be Plan Participants.
Conservation Plan
The term "Conservation Plan" means the SJMSCP and is the same as "Habitat Conservation Plan".
Conversion. Convert. Convertins. Converted
The term Conversion, Convert, Converting or Converted as used in the SJMSCP, means to change land from
an existing Open Space use (e.g., Agricultural Habitat Lands, Natural Lands) to either a non -Open Space use
(e.g., urban development) or to an Open Space use with a lower habitat value (e.g., changing veinal pool
grasslands to orchards and vineyards or extending golf courses beneath the driplines oftrees). Compensation
requirements described in the SJMSCP apply only to SJMSCP Permitted Activities carried out by Plan
Participants or Project Proponents. Agricultural activities are not covered by the SJMSCP (except that
Conversion of wetlands as a result of agricultural activities requiring a Section 404 permit pursuant to
the Federal Clean Water Act and/or subject to the ESA may be covered pursuant to the SJMSCP).
Therefore, change of agricultural use of Agricultural Habitat Lands, Natural Lands, Multi -Purpose
Open Space Lands or any lands by agricultural activities, except as noted above, triggers no actions or
requirements related to the SJMSCP. Changes of agricultural uses of Agricultural Habitat Lands,
Natural Lands, Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands or any lands by agricultural activities remain subject
to the same legal requirements, including the need to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act
and/or CESA even when permits are not required pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act, as were in
effect before adoption of the SJMSCP and individuals are encouraged to consult with local, state and
federal agencies to determine applicable regulations.
County
The term "County" means San Joaquin County, California, which is expected to be a Plan Participant.
Covered Species
The term "Covered Species" means the plant, fish and wildlife species listed in Table 2.2.2 of the SJMSCP
which receive varying levels of coverage pursuant to the ESA, CESA and/or CEQA . Species receiving ESA
Section 10(a)(1)(B) or CESA 2081 coverage, as indicated in Table 2.2.2. , which are currently listed under
ESA and CESA are covered immediately upon issuance of the permits. Covered Species currently unlisted
under ESA and CESA, but named on the SJMSCP Permits and receiving Section 10(a)(1)(B) or CESA 2081
coverage, as indicated in Table 2.2.2, will be covered by the permits effective upon listing if listing should
occur. Plants will be covered if Permitted Activities result in Take of such species under state or federal law
for those plants designated in Table 2.2.2 to receive Section 10(a)(1)(B) or CESA 2081 coverage.
Disturbing Activities
See "Site Disturbing Activities".
Page -91-
Effective Date
The date that the Service, the Department and any three Local Governments complete execution of the
Implementation Agreement thereby making the SJMSCP Permits effective as to all executing Parties.
ESA
The Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S. C. Subsections 1531-1544) and regulations promulgated
pursuant to that Act.
Evaporation Ponds
Evaporation ponds include ponds constructed for sewage treatment and agricultural wastewater evaporation
ponds. Evaporation ponds exclude catch basins used for stormwater runoff management.
Farm Labor Camp
The Farm Labor Camp use type refers to any living unit occupied by seven (7) or more farm workers and
their families occurring exclusively in association with agricultural labor. Typical uses include labor camps
and labor supply camps.
Feasible
For the purposes of the SJMSCP, the term "feasible" has the same meaning as prescribed in Public Resources
Code Section 21061.1. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Funding Shortfall
For the purposes of the SJMSCP, and as described in detail in Section 7.5.2.4, a funding shortfall is a deficit
of 15% or more of the money needed to acquire the total Preserve acres required pursuant to Section 4.1 of
the SJMSCP for a period of three consecutive years, or a deficit or 30% for a period of one year, due to a lack
of funding, shall be considered a funding shoitfall. The elimination of a Preserve acreage deficit at any time
restarts the time period necessary to establish a funding shortfall.
Ground Disturbing Activities
See Site Disturbing Activities.
Habitat Conservation Plan
The term "Habitat Conservation Plan" means the SJMSCP.
Incidental Take
The term. "Incidental Take," under the Federal Endangered Species Act, means Take of an SJMSCP Covered
Species that is incidental to, and not the primary purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.
Page -92-
Incidental Take Minimization Measures
The methods adopted by the SJMSCP, and implemented by those carrying out SJMSCP Permitted Activities,
to reduce the levels of Incidental Take of SJMSCP Covered Species before and during the SJMSCP Permitted
Activities are referred to as Incidental Take Minimization Measures.
Joint Powers Authoritv (JPA
For the purposes of the SJMSCP, the term "Joint Powers Authority" includes the Joint Powers Authority
and/or its designee or designees. The SJMSCP will be administered by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
created pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, California Government Code Sections 6500 et seq. The
JPA shall have adequate authority to carry out the Plan on behalf of the Plan Participants. The JPA shall
consist of one representative from each of the cities that adopts the Plan and two representatives from the San
Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, if the County adopts the Plan. Representatives on the JPA shall be
elected officials from the participating local jurisdictions. The JPA shall create and consult with advisory
groups as needed and appropriate.
The JPA will be assisted by a qualified land management organization (see Land Manager) and administrative
staff, as needed to implement the SJMSCP. The JPA includes a technical advisory committee as described in
Section 8.1.4 and a citizen's advisory committee or committees to be formed as needed and appropriate.
Jurisdiction/Jurisdictional Boundaries
The SJMSCP applies to SJMSCP Permitted Activities (see above) located within the boundaries of San
Joaquin County unless more precisely specified herein. For the cities, jurisdictional boundaries shall be equal
to the incorporated city limits of the city. For the County, jurisdictional boundaries shall be equal to those
lands located within San Joaquin County, which are located outside of incorporated city limits. For non -city
and non -County Plan Participant agencies with adopted boundaries, jurisdictional boundaries shall be
equivalent to the Plan Participant agency's designated and adopted boundaries. For Plan Participant agencies
without adopted boundaries (e.g., Caltrans, San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency), jurisdictional
boundaries shall include all land located within San Joaquin County upon which SJMSCP Permitted
Activities, consistent with the adopted goals of the Plan Participant agency, shall occur. For the East Bay
Municipal Utility District, the Stockton East Water District and the South San Joaquin Irrigation District,
jurisdictional boundaries are as established in Appendix X.
Jurisdictional boundaries may be altered over the life of the Plan through annexations by the cities and
boundary adjustments by Plan Participant agencies pursuant to the SJMSCP Permitted Activities [Anticipated
Projects Category Section 8.2.1(10)]..
Maintenance Activities
SJMSCP Permitted Activities include, but are not limited to, maintenance activities for existing and planned
buildings, roads, fences, pipelines and aqueducts including valves and pipe supports, bridges, ditches, levees,
parks, wasteways, hatcheries and similar facilities. SJMSCP Covered Maintenance Activities will normally
be undertaken on facilities operated and/or maintained by: Caltrans, East Bay Municipal Utility District,
Stockton East Water District, San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, South San Joaquin Irrigation District,
Schools, city and County public works departments and similar quasi -public agencies. Maintenance activities
will normally occur within rights-of-way, easements or lands held by the identified agencies.
Maintenance activities include, but are not limited to: Repair and replacement of fencing, gates and cattle
Page -93-
guards; grading (i.e., re -grading of existing roads and other existing facilities to re-establish surfaces disturbed
by erosion and similar degradation); resurfacing including graveling and re -paving; ditch cleaning; culvert
replacement; mowing; discing (e.g., to re-establish fire breaks along roadsides); burning; spraying (water for
dust control); mechanical weeding (including weed control for fire suppression and flood control); excavating
for inspection, repair and/or replacement; mechanical brush clearing (including brush clearing from
wasteways); patrolling and exercising valves; scraping; maintenance of drainages along rights of ways;
maintenance of river crossings for utilities such as aqueducts; reconstruction or replacement of existing
facilities with negligible or no expansion; and maintenance of landscaping. Maintenance activities typically
include spraying. For the purposes of the SJMSCP, pesticide use, including spraying, is not a covered activity
in the Permit Area.
See Section 5.9.1.2 for a description of reporting requirements for Maintenance Activities.
Open Space
Lands mapped on the SJMSCP Vegetation Maps containing vegetation types classified pursuant to this
Chapter as Natural Lands, Agricultural Habitat Lands, or Multi -Purpose Open Space Lands.
Permit/Permits
The terms "Permit" and "Permits" shall mean all of the following:
A. A CESA Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit to authorize Incidental Take of state -listed
species including authorization of Take of state -listed species, and other unlisted species
should they become listed, resulting from land use changes and other disturbances
associated with SJMSCP Covered Activities, mitigation activities, management, monitoring
and operation of the SJMSCP Preserve system including Neighboring Land Protections and
for scientific purposes (e.g., trapping, handling, and marking of SJMSCP Covered Species).
This Section 2081(b) Permit also will authorize Incidental Take of vernal pool and aquatic
species which are covered by the SJMSCP for SJMSCP Covered Activities that do not
require a permit under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act or other federal regulations that would trigger CESA. See also Section
5.6.1 for additional information related to the relationship of the SJMSCP and the SJMSCP's
planned future regional general permit, or equivalent, expected to be secured from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act;
B. An ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(B) Permit to authorize Incidental Take of federally -listed species,
and other unlisted species should they become listed, including authorization of Take of
federally -listed species resulting from impacts of land use changes and other disturbances
associated with SJMSCP Covered Activities, mitigation activities, management, monitoring
and operation of the SJMSCP Preserve system including Neighboring Land Protections and
for scientific purposes (e.g., trapping, handling, and marking of SJMSCP Covered Species).
This Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit also will authorize Incidental Take of vernal pool and
aquatic species which are covered by the SJMSCP for SJMSCP Covered Activities that do
not require a permit under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act or other federal regulations that would trigger an ESA consultation.
See also Section 5.6.1 for additional information related to the relationship of the SJMSCP
and the SJMSCP's planned future regional general permit, or equivalent, expected to be
secured from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal
Clean Water Act;
Page -94-
C. The ESA Section 10(a)(1)(13) Permit (see B, above) will allow for Take, as defined by the
MBTA and pursuant to 50 C.F.R. 21.27, of those birds covered by the SJMSCP that are
protected by the MBTA and federally -listed under the ESA, except for bald and golden
eagles, pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S. C. Sections
703-712); and
D. Coverage pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for impacts to SJMSCP
Covered Species occurring as a result of SJMSCP Covered Activities.
The SJMSCP Implementation Agreement establishes the necessary requirements to commence Incidental
Take for local city and County jurisdictions, and special districts, and third parities. Implementing
ordinances and/or resolutions adopted in conjunction with the requirements of the Implementation Agreement
by local jurisdictions and special districts will formalize their acceptance. of the SJMSCP as adequate
compensation for and minimization of impacts to plants, fish and wildlife, and as partial mitigation for non -
wildlife related impacts to recreation, agricultural lands, scenic values, and other beneficial Open Space uses.
Further, these ordinances and/or resolutions adopted by local jurisdictions and special districts shall include
findings that an agreement for payment of environmental review fees to the California Department of Fish
and Game -pursuant to Assembly Bill 3158 is not required for projects undertaken in compliance with the
SJMSCP.
After the requirements of the Implementation Agreement relative to activation of the SJMSCP Permits are
fulfilled as necessary to authorize the commencement of incidental Take pursuant to the SJMSCP, the
SJMSCP Joint Powers Authority intends to obtain the following permits and/or authorizations:
A. A programmatic streambed alteration agreement (either as Plan amendment or as a separate,
but supplemental, permit to the SJMSCP) with the California Department of Fish and Game
pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code to provide a blanket
agreement for SJMSCP Permitted Activities affecting streams. The California Department
of Fish and Game indicates that the mitigation contained within the SJMSCP can be used as
a basis for establishing mitigation for plant, fish and wildlife species and their habitats
pursuant to the proposed programmatic streambed alteration agreement (see Appendix V);
B. An ESA Section 10 (a)(1)(B) Permit to authorize Incidental Take ofanadromous fish species
including the Winter -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytshca), Fall -run Chinook
salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytshca), Spring -run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytshca) and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdnen) from the National Marine
Fisheries Services (NMFS);
C. A program to encourage individuals to undertake activities which are not otherwise subject
to local, state or federal plant, fish and wildlife regulations, to provide plant, fish and wildlife
enhancements on their properties without fear of prosecution or limitations on pre-existing
legal activities should those plant, fish and wildlife enhancements attract SJMSCP Covered
Species to their property. This program is outlined in Section 5.4. Adoption ofthis program
will be pursued by the JPA after state and federal agencies have adopted guidelines and/or
rules in conjunction with:
1. California's newly adopted legislation for addressing Incidental Take
associated with routine and ongoing activities (i.e., Section 2086 et seq. of
the California Fish and Game Code); and
2. the federal safe harbor program (note: the Final Rule for this program has
Page-95-
been published).
D. A general permit(s) pursuant to Section 404(e) of the Federal Clean Water Act [33 CFR
322.2(1) and 323.2(h)], or an alternative equivalent authorization(s), issued by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service covering Waters
of the United States for SJMSCP Permitted Activities affecting up to 707 acres of vernal
pool wetted surface area and equivalent to 5,894 acres of vernal pool grasslands, 1,233 acnes
of Riparian habitats and 4,790 acres of Water Features;
E. A water quality certification or waiver from the California State Water Resources Control
Board or Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Section 401 of
the Federal Clean Water Act after issuance of the Section 404(e) general permit(s), or
equivalent, for the activities covered in the Section 404(e) general permit(s), or equivalent, to
be issued after initial adoption of the SJMSCP; and
F. Within three years of the Effective Date of the SJMSCP, the JPA shall secure a Federal
Clean Water Act Section 404 regional general permit, or equivalent, from the- U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers or the JPA shall adopt a strategy to ensure that impacts to wetlands
resulting from SJMSCP Covered Activities shall include compensation in the form of large,
interconnected Preserves, consistent with the requirements of the SJMSCP rather than
resulting in small, scattered Preserves as now occurs. Approval of an alternative strategy in
lieu of a Section 404 Permit, or its equivalent from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, shall
require review of the TAC, with the concurrence of the Permitting Agencies.
Once issued, these authorizations shall become SJMSCP Permits.
Permit Area
The term "Permit Area" means all of San Joaquin County excepting all federal lands and areas encompassing
those projects not covered by the SJMSCP as listed in SJMSCP Section 8.2.2.2.
Permit Holder or Permit Holders
The term "Permit Holder" or "Permit Holders" has the same meaning as Permittee or Permittees.
Permitted Activities
"Permitted Activities" means activities carried out by Plan Participants or Third Parties in the Plan Area, as
described in Section 8.2.1 of the HCP, which are covered by the HCP and for which Incidental Take is
authorized under the Section (10)(a) Permits and Section 2081 Permits.
Permittee or Permittees
The term "Permittee" or "Permittees" means:
the cities of Escalon, Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Ripon, Stockton, and Tracy; San Joaquin County [on behalf of
San Joaquin County and the San Joaquin County Superintendent of Schools (for new schools and school
expansions)]; Stockton East Water District; East Bay Municipal Utility District; California Department of
Transportation; San Joaquin Council of Governments; San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency, and the
South San Joaquin Irrigation District. See also Plan Participants and Applicant.
Page -96-
Permitting Agencies
For the purposes of the SJMSCP, the term "Permitting Agencies" means the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and the California Department of Fish and Game NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Permitting Agency authority in the SJMSCP process will be maintained by the USACE through
implementation of a Section 404 General Permit, rather than through a signature on the Implementation
Agreement and shall become a Permitting Agency after issuance of such a permit, or its equivalent.
i121TTil"71
See "Permit Area."
Plan Participants
Plan Participants are the same as "Permittees."
Preserve Category
The term "Preserve Category" has the same meaning as "Preserve Type."
Preserve Lands
The tern "Preserve Lands" means land acquired and/or managed by the JPA and either held by the JPA or
transferred., via recordation of a conservation easement or transfer of fee title, including protective covenants,
in favor of CDFG or an approved third party, for management of habitat in perpetuity for the SJMSCP
Covered Species. Also a parcel or parcels of land protected from future urban development or other
disturbance and managed as a unit for the conservation and protection of SJMSCP Covered Species.
Preserve Types
There are 12 Preserve Types established in the SJMSCP. APreserve Types" are descriptions of the various
kinds of Preserves that will be established by the SJMSCP. Preserve Types represent assemblages of
individual vegetation types into habitats (i.e., each Preserve Type represents a habitat type).
The 12 Preserve Types are:
Primary Zone of the Delta - Water's Edge Preserves (Large and Small)
Primary Zone of the Delta - Flooded Field Preserves
Southwest Zone - Grassland Preserves
Southwest Zone - Riparian Preserves
Southwest Zone - Blue Oak Conifer Preserves
Southwest Zone - Diablan Sage Scrub Preserves
Vernal Pool Zone - Vernal Pool Grassland Preserves
Central Zone - Row and Field Crop/Riparian Preserves
Central Zone - Wetlands Preserves
Central Zone - Oak Woodlands Preserves
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Preserves (Central Zone and Primary Zone of the Delta)
Note: Within these Preserves there may be "Specialty Preserves" established for SJMSCP Covered Plant
Species. Specialty Preserves normally will be less than 20 acres and include a population of these species.
Page -97-
Project Proponent
"Project Proponent" means a private individual or public agency, including Plan Participants, proposing to
conduct Permitted Activities within the Plan Area.
Resales of Land/Revolvina Fund
One. SJMSCP funding method is the re -sale of land/revolving fund. For purposes of the SJMSCP, these two
terms have the same meaning. Under this approach, land is purchased in fee title by the JPA, a conservation
easement is placed on the land, then the land is re -sold. Profits from the land sales are used to purchase
additional lands. This is similar to the method used by many major land trusts.
Routine and Ongoing Aoxicultural Activities
The following definition is intended for use only for the purposes of SJMSCP Section 5.3.3.4, Neighboring
Land Protections and is not intended to define routine and ongoing agricultural activities for any other
purpose.
"Routine and ongoing agricultural activities" are all activities undertaken on a farm or ranch for the purpose
of producing or marketing any plant or animal product for commercial purposes, unless otherwise excepted
below and provided the activities are consistent with the economics of agricultural operations. Routine and
ongoing agricultural activities do not include: Conversion of agricultural land to a nonagricultural use, timber
harvesting activities governed by the State Board of Forestry; Conversion of grazing lands to orchards or
vineyards (or other Conversion which triggers Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act); SJMSCP
Permitted Activities listed in Section 8.2.1; Projects not covered by the SJMSCP as listed in Section 8.2.2.1;
or specific projects not covered by the SJMSCP as listed in Section 8.2.2.1; installation of evaporation ponds;
Conversions to wholesale nurseries, agricultural processing, farm labor camps, small animal raising, animal
feeding and sales, and trucking facilities. After securing required entitlements, completing mitigation to
offset potential impacts to habitat and/or species and after completion of project construction, and excepting
expansions, the following activities shall be considered routine and ongoing agricultural activities for the
purposes of receiving neighboring land protections pursuant to the provisions of Section 5.3.3.4: wholesale
nurseries, agricultural processing, farm labor camps, small animal raising, animal feeding and sales, and
trucking facilities.
Pursuant to Section 5.3.3.4(A)(2)-(G&H), special provisions exist for the extension of neighboring land
protections to orchards and vineyards, wholesale nurseries, agricultural processing, farm labor camps, small
animal raising, animal feeding and sales, and trucking facilities.
Section 2081 (b) Permit
"Section 2081(b)Permit" means the Incidental Take authorization issued in accordance with the SJMSCP by
CDFG under CESA pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 et seq. to permit the Take of a
species listed under CESA as threatened, rare or endangered, or any unlisted SJMSCP Covered Species
should such a species become listed under CESA during the life of the Plan pursuant to the procedures
established in Sections 11 and 12.3 of the Implementation Agreement.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit
The permit issued in accordance with the SJMSCP by the USFWS to the Permittees under Section
I0(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. Section 1539(1)(1)(B)] to allow the Incidental
Take of Covered Species. See also, "Permit/Permits."
Page -98-
Site Disturbina Activities
Site disturbing activities include, but are not limited to, site grading, land clearing (cutting down trees or
removing other vegetation), deep -ripping wetland soils, or filling wetlands for the purposes of undertaking a
private or public construction project or other SJMSCP Permitted Activity. These activities normally will
occur after the issuance of permits from local jurisdictions and after public hearings are completed, when
applicable. Site disturbing activities normally alter the vegetation cover of a parcel to the extent that it is
likely to result in the relocation of or harm to a plant, fish or wildlife species located on the parcel or will
result in altering the hydrology of a wetland. Site disturbing activities exclude minor activities such as
conducting land surveys to establish parcel and other boundaries (normally in anticipation of construction
proposals), conducting geotechnical or soil surveys (generally limited to taking core samples 2" or less in
diameter as long as such sampling does not alter the hydrology of any wetland--e.g., excludes punching holes
in the water -retaining substrate of vernal pools) and similar minor activities as long as such minor activities
will not alter the continuing occupation of a site by a plant, fish or wildlife species.
SJMSCP
"SJMSCP" means the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan, and has
the same meaning as "Plan," "Conservation Plan" and "Habitat Conservation Plan."
SJMSCP Permitted Activities
The term "SJMSCP Permitted Activities" has the same meaning as "Permitted Activities."
SJMSCP Permit or Permits
The term "SJMSCP Permit" or "SJMSCP Permits" has the same meaning as "permit" or "Permits."
SJMSCP Covered Species
The term "SJMSCP Covered Species" has the same meaning as "Covered Species."
Small Animal Raisins
Raising small animals for breeding proposes or for meat, fish, eggs or production. Typical uses include
chicken farms, turkey farms, duck farms, pigeon farms, fish and frog farms, fish hatcheries, and rabbit farms.
Take
The term "Take," is defined in the California Endangered Species Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act,
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The ESA defines "Take" as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harass" is further defined by federal regulation implementing the
ESA to include "an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife
by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are
not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). "Harm," as defined by regulation means, "an
act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering"(50 CFR 17.3). Take defined according to the Federal Endangered
Species Act and its implementing regulations is broader than, and includes all forms of Take defined in the
Page -99-
California Endangered Species Act and other federal statutes. The Term Take as used in the SJMSCP is used
in its broadest sense, that is, as defined in the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Third Parties
"Third Parties" means those Project Proponents who receive Incidental Take authority underthe provisions of
the HCP and the Implementation Agreement, as described in Section 9 of the Implementation Agreement.
THIS PAGE BLANK
Page A 00-
Exhibit B
FULL BUILDOUT OF GENERAL PLANS
Acres
CONVERSION ACRES TRIGGERING
PRESERVE
COMPENSATION
Natural Lands to Be
Converted including
14,202
Submerged Aquatic
Habitat
Agricultural Habitat
Lands to Be
57,635
Converted (non -
orchard and non -
vineyard)
SJMSCP
Covered
71,857
Species
Habitat
Conversion
Subtotal
MULTI-PURPOSE OPEN
SPACE CONVERSIONS
Multi -Purpose Open
Space Lands to Be
37,465
Converted
Total Lands
To Be
109,302
Converted
after 2001
NEIGHBORING LAND PROTECTION
PRESERVES
Preserve Lands
required to
600
compensate for
potential impacts to
SJMSCP Covered
Species which wander
Off SJMSCP
Preserves and onto
lands neighboring
SJMSCP Preserves
Preserve Lands
Required to
14,202 X 3
42,606
Compensate for
57,635 X 1
57,635
Impacts to SJMSCP
600 x 1
600
Covered Species
100,841
Exhibit C
Category A/No Pay Zone
Category B/Pay Zone A (Multi -Purpose)
Category C/Pay Zone B (Agriculture)
Category D/Pay Zone C (Natural)
Category E/Pay Zone C (Vernal Pools)
$0/acre
$845/acre
$1,690/acre
$1,690/acre
$33,802/acre (wetted)
$5,634/acre (upland)
The fees established above are revised fee amounts as per the California Construction
Cost Index in 2002 dollars.
8
CITY OF LODI
NoMnbff 14. 2ODf j* 'i