San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Center Building 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202

Transcription

1 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE PLAN HABITAT TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING San Joaquin Council of Governments Regional Center Building 555 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA Participation in the meeting may be available for Committee Members attending the HTAC meeting by Conference Call and members of the public, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953(b), at one or more of the following locations. Please contact Steve Mayo at (209) or prior to the meeting to determine which locations are utilized. City of Tracy City of Ripon City of Lathrop City of Manteca 333 Civic Center 259 Wilma Avenue 390 Towne Center Drive 1001 W. Center Drive Tracy, CA Ripon, CA Lathrop, CA Manteca, CA City of Lodi SJ Ag Commissioner SJ County 221 W. Pine Street 2101 Earhart Avenue 1810 Hazelton Avenue Lodi, CA Stockton, CA Stockton, CA Wednesday, May 14, :30 A.M. Board Conference Room AGENDA 1. Call to Order / Introductions 2. Minutes: Approve Minutes of April 9, 2014 Action 3. Public Comments All technical items are available for action by the committee. The right column is recommendations by staff. 4. Consent Calendar: Action a. Delta Packing Company Project b. Loves Truck Stop Project c. UPRR North County Bridge Project d. Augustine Land Use Planning Contract 5. Public Hearing for Wright Road E. Pombo Preserve Dedication Action 6. Public Hearing for Larson Preserve Dedication Action 7. Other Matters of Business: Discussion a. Stacking/Layering Easements b. SJMSCP Training 8. Summary and Adjournment of HTAC Meeting For your convenience, parking is available at the COG Regional Center marked Visitor on the East Side of the Parking Lot. There is additional parking available at Public Parking Lot K, located on American Street, just south of Weber Avenue. Additional meter parking on Weber Avenue.

2 The San Joaquin Council of Governments is in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and will make all reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities to participate in employment, programs, and access facilities. Persons requiring assistance or auxiliary aid in order to participate should contact Rebecca Montes at (209) at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

3 San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan Habitat Technical Advisory Committee San Joaquin Council of Governments 555 East Weber Ave. Stockton, CA Wednesday, April 9, 2014 MINUTES I. Call to Order/Introductions Mr. Stagnaro called the meeting to order at 9:33 a.m.; introductions were made. II. Committee Members Present or Conference Call: David Stagnaro City of Stockton Rick Caguiat City of Lathrop Craig Hoffman City of Lodi Scott Claar City of Tracy Mo Hatef San Joaquin County John Beckman BIA James Jones EBMUD Barbara Huecksteadt SJ Ag Commission Josh Emery U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Todd Gardner CA Dept. Fish and Wildlife Others Present: None SJCOG Staff/Consultants Present: Steve Mayo Program Manager Laurel Boyd Habitat Planner Tech Rod Attebery Neumiller & Beardslee Doug Leslie ICF Jones & Stokes Members of the Public None. Approval of March 12, 2014 Minutes: It was moved/seconded (Beckman/Emery) to accept the minutes of Wednesday, March 12, Craig Hoffman, City of Lodi abstained. Motion passed 8/0. III. IV. Public Comment: None. Consent Calendar: a. River Oaks Orchards Project b. North Valley School Project Mr. Jones stated there is a typo on attachment 2 of the staff report regarding the name of the project. It was moved/seconded (Beckman/Emery) to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion Passed 10/0.

4 V. Other Matters of Business a. Stacking/Layering Easements Mr. Mayo stated this item is an update SJCOG, Inc. staff will be taking to the SJCOG, Inc. Board for discussion this month. Staff has not been successful in reaching out other entities to hold the agricultural easement for the purposes of stacking easements. The BIA is considering creating 501c3 entity to hold the agricultural easement, however the BIA holding agricultural easements is not the most popular scenario. Staff will be going to the SJCOG Board for updating the board members on the process, invitations from development staff has received in the past, and solutions proposed by staff to create a separate nonprofit 501c3 to ensure agricultural easements are completely separate from habitat easements. This scenario may help solve the issues staff faces with layering easements and the subordination to the habitat plan, which will take the agricultural easements further by precluding permanent crops. Staff will be moving forward with this concept over the next few months. Staff does have one project ready to go that wants to start this process and staff will be doing everything possible to expedite and move this strategy forward. Mr. Mayo continued to state staff will take this item to Board this month as a discussion item to receive direction and comments from the SJCOG Board members. Development will be able to meet both the agricultural mitigation and the habitat mitigation for their projects by providing one piece of property for both mitigation programs. Mr. Gardner stated the committee has discussed this item in the past, but needs to be reminded again the need to discuss the stacking or layering of agricultural and habitat easements. The habitat plan should just get easements without agricultural easements already on the property. Mr. Mayo stated for the HCP, agriculture is not a function under the bylaws, but as SJCOG and understanding the economics and the development community it makes sense to create a separate entity. An agricultural easement program will not be a part of the habitat plan. Mr. Gardner asked if the plan currently hold easements where there is also an agricultural easement on the property. Mr. Attebery stated the habitat easements currently held by SJCOG, Inc. are not stacked, but the easements themselves are currently in agricultural production. Mr. Mayo stated the reason the HCP has interest in holding agricultural easement is when the developer brings land in lieu of fees it is easier and involves less administration from SJCOG, Inc. staff. The competition for active agricultural land is increasing in San Joaquin County. Local jurisdictions, such as San Joaquin County, City of Stockton, City of Manteca, City of Lathrop, and the City of Tracy all have agricultural mitigation programs in place competing for land. The Central Valley Farm Trust (CVFT) also places agricultural easements over agricultural land within San Joaquin County. Should the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) come to fruition, will also be competing for active agricultural land. This creates a niche market for agricultural land and most willing landowners wanting to sell to SJCOG, Inc. may or may not be willing to continue to do so because they may receive the same price or more with more agricultural flexibility with their lands if they just do an agricultural easement. Once an agricultural easement is on the property, SJCOG, Inc. may lose that 2

5 piece of property as it could be converted from row crop to orchards and vineyards; therefore, SJCOG, Inc. has lost that opportunity to use that property as mitigation. Mr. Gardner stated the concern CDFW raised last time remains for the stacking or layering concept. Anytime in the future, should the farmer want to convert row and field crop to a permanent crop with a habitat easement stacked on top of an agricultural easement there is a possibility the habitat easement could be compromised. CDFW s advice from legal counsel is to try not to stack or layer easements because of the concept of highest and best uses of the land. Mr. Gardner stated that advice was from several years ago and he has not had a chance to discuss stacking and layering of easements with legal counsel to confirm CDFW s position. Mr. Attebery stated he went back to look at the possibility of this scenario occurring and could not find a single case where a habitat easement was lost due to highest and best uses of the land. A conservation easement, an agricultural easement, a mitigation easement it does not matter what you call it, an easement held by an entity in trust for the people of the State of California cannot be rescinded without judicial approval. So, as long as SJCOG holds the easement and stacks them accordingly, it is unheard of to get rid of easements. Mr. Gardner stated he is concerned with the term judicial approval. Mr. Attebery stated how the stacking of easements varies from the habitat easements SJCOG, Inc. holds now. Mr. Emery stated if there is a conflict with one of the two easements, which easement is going to be approved. Mr. Attebery stated there are no conflicts between the two types of easements. Mr. Gardner stated CDFW disagrees based on the information provided by CDFW s legal staff. Mr. Attebery stated he could not find anything regarding conflicts between agricultural and habitat easements. Mr. Attebery stated CDFW was going to contact him to discuss or provide some sort of documentation for the concern raised by CDFW regarding the stacking/layering concept. Mr. Gardner asked if this item will be going to the Board for approval this month. Mr. Mayo stated no, SJCOG, Inc. staff is asking for direction from the Board. Mr. Attebery stated staff currently does not have the documents together. The Board will need to decide if they wish to create another entity, such as SJCOG, Inc. Ag and provide direction to start moving forward on the documents and how to fund the entity. Mr. Gardner stated his concern is he shares the flexibility with the landowners can have for preserving land, however the fact that the local agencies are creating this situation based on CEQA needs the need to mitigate for agriculture and habitat I believe those both can be mitigated simultaneously. Mr. Gardner stated he would feel comfortable with mitigating both agriculture and habitat with one piece of property, rather than two different easements. Mr. Emery asked if SJCOG, Inc. is looking at properties that already have agricultural easements and what is the mitigation. Mr. Beckman stated when the agricultural easement is placed on a piece of property the development rights are taken away. When the habitat easement is then placed on top of the agricultural easement, the trees and vines rights are taken away. Both types of easements are separate transactions and are mitigating for completely different reasons. Mr. Emery stated if the easements are 3

6 different where one easement allows trees and vines and where the other one does not, what happens down the road when the landowner wants to put in trees and vines but cannot do so because of the habitat easement. Mr. Mayo stated the concept is, staff will have the documents created to complement each other and each document will allow stacking. Staff will create a subordination agreement, signed by the landowner who will agree and allow the habitat easement to take the extra agricultural right. This will be agreeable by document and contract. Mr. Emery asked if staff could amend the original easement. Mr. Attebery stated in most cases the agricultural and habitat easement will be purchased together. SJCOG, Inc. will not go out looking for easements. This is an opportunity to work together with the landowner to mitigate for two separate mitigation purposes with one piece of property. Mr. Attebery continued to state this is also another opportunity to work together using two separate entities. SJCOG, Inc. Habitat has certain requirements and permitting responsibilities where SJCOG, Inc. Ag does not have the same responsibilities because a permitting entity does not regulate it and agricultural mitigation is a requirement out of a CEQA document. Mr. Gardner stated SJCOG, Inc. Ag would be providing a service for local lead agencies to meet CEQA needs and would have nothing to do with the HCP. Mr. Attebery confirmed SJCOG, Inc. Ag would have nothing to do with SJCOG, Inc. habitat. Mr. Gardner asked if SJCOG could provide a function, such as SJCOG, Inc. Ag to meet other regional goals. Mr. Attebery stated SJCOG does have other entities, such as Commute Connection, Airport Land Use Plan, and the Congestion Management Program. Mr. Gardner stated the agricultural mitigation program would be a separate entity of SJCOG not SJCOG, Inc. habitat. Mr. Attebery stated yes. Staff has not pitched the idea of an agricultural mitigation program to the SJCOG Board as of yet, however, in the past, staff has suggested finding an entity that would be willing to work with the stacking of easements concept to reduce the costs associated with habitat mitigation and the competition within San Joaquin County over agricultural lands. With the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), habitat and agricultural mitigation, it starts getting very convoluted as to where our costs for habitat easements are going to go. Staff does not want to see another Natomas scenario in San Joaquin County in terms of being cost prohibited and staff is starting to see the County heading that way. Mr. Mayo stated the main gist of this discussion is to absolutely ensure the SJMSCP is not picking up costs and additional staff time even accounting is completely separate. The SJMSCP would be the entity that holds the easement. Mr. Attebery stated similarities found between agricultural easements and the habitat conservation easements are ingress/egress, poles, utilities that are stacked all the time. Mr. Gardner stated he is aware that does occur, but he is concerned with when and if there is ever a conflict how a court would handle it. Mr. Attebery stated staff would create a subordination agreement. Mr. Attebery believes easements can run into the same issue whether there is one easement or two as long as the easement that is placed on the property first, which is the agricultural mitigation is subordinate to the habitat easement. Mr. Gardner expressed that he would like the opportunity to weigh in on any stacked easement. Mr. Mayo stated both permitting agencies will have the opportunity to weigh 4

7 in on the easements both agriculture and habitat to make sure it meets the purpose of the habitat plan. Legal counsel will be writing the subordination agreement for the agricultural easement to ensure it fits into the purpose of the habitat easement. Mr. Gardner asked how the SJCOG Board knows of CDFW s concern. Mr. Attebery stated to have CDFW submit something in writing or attend and speak on CDFW s behalf at the meeting in the City of Manteca on Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 5:00 pm. This discussion is not the last bite at the apple. Staff is looking for direction from the Board because staff has not briefed the Board on the issue of SJCOG opening another entity. What has been suggested is staff is in favor of stacking for the habitat plan and it makes sense to stack both agricultural and habitat mitigation on one piece of property because it would reduce costs but staff has not raised the issue of creating a separate entity, such as SJCOG, Inc. Ag. The Board is either going to provide a thumbs up or a thumbs down to go spend money and start in the direction of creating a separate entity. Mr. Mayo stated creating a separate entity is a SJCOG decision, as the regional entity and joint-powers authority, not a SJCOG, Inc. decision. Staff has exhausted communication with other entities to be the agricultural easement holder but staff has not found another entity that would be cooperative in this effort. Mr. Attebery stated one of the main issues with the SJCOG Board will be how do we fund it because an account does not exist. Mr. Gardner stated staff might want to include CDFW s concern with this concept. The spectrum of our concern could state the stacking of easements may not work for the SJMSCP s 2081 permit. Mr. Attebery stated staff would voice CDFW s concern at the SJCOG Board meeting. Mr. Stagnaro asked if staff has contacted the CVFT to hold the agricultural easement. Mr. Mayo stated yes, CVFT was the first entity staff spoke with to try the stacking of easements. On two separate projects, at the 11 th hour in which stacking was to occur, CVFT backed out because the California Department of Conservation told CVFT to not do it or they will withhold all funding. CVFT would have to subordinate and not allow certain agricultural and husbandry activities and their funding would be in jeopardy. Staff also contacted other entities, such as American Farm Land to come up with a concept and staff has found that there is nothing. Mr. Mayo continued to state if SJCOG, Inc. Ag is created, this does not mean each local jurisdiction has to participate. Each jurisdiction has an ordinance that pertains to agricultural mitigation and within certain jurisdiction s ordinances land in lieu of fees is not an option to mitigate projects. If a project wishes to participate in the stacking concept, local ordinances must be reviewed to see how projects would apply for the stacking concept for easements. Not every project is going to fit within the stacking easements scenario for the purposes of agricultural and habitat mitigation. Staff is being proactive in this approach to create an opportunity for development and habitat mitigation. Mr. Beckman stated from the BIA s perspective our staff would prefer SJCOG hold the agricultural easements because SJCOG is a well-known and welltrusted government agency. Mr. Beckman believes all other entities would not like the BIA to hold agricultural easements for the purpose of mitigating developmental 5

8 activities. If no other entity is created or would like to participate with the stacking of agricultural and habitat easements, the BIA will do it but from the public perspective, the BIA would prefer not to. Mr. Stagnaro stated as a follow-up to the CVFT question, CVFT has other means of funding besides the State, such as federal and local jurisdiction monies. Mr. Stagnaro asked if discussions with CVFT, absent of state or federal dollars had occurred. Mr. Mayo stated no. Staff addressed the stacking and layering concept and CVFT flat out said no because the lion s share of CVFT s money does come from state and federal entities. Mr. Stagnaro believes there should be a thorough vetting of the concept and dollars applied to CVFT so SJCOG, Inc. staff knows what their position is on alternatives for projects that would not state money. Mr. Mayo stated staff would ask CVFT again about how they would feel about isolating San Joaquin County from using state dollars on the stacking of easements. Mr. Attebery stated CVFT has made it very clear that they do not want to be involved with the stacking of easements. Mr. Stagnaro asked if there was something in writing. Mr. Attebery stated staff has several s and two failed escrows. Mr. Leslie stated with the two new HCP s coming on soon - Yolo County and Solano County these counties will run into the same issue. Mr. Mayo stated the BDCP will be writing the stacking and layering of easements into their environmental documents. Mr. Gardner asked if a landowner can get paid for both easements separately and would the value of that property be the same if it had one or two easements. Mr. Attebery stated the value of the property to be the same with one or two easements is conceivable, but more than likely, the value would be higher. Mr. Mayo stated an appraiser would say no, because the appraiser would place the evaluation on the rights but that should not exceed what fee title is which is fair market. Mr. Gardner asked if the landowner would be paid twice in the stacking concept. Mr. Mayo stated yes, but each program spends less than doing two separate easements on two different parcels. Mr. Attebery stated the stacking concept only works if you have the right landowner and the right type of habitat. The stacking concept only works for certain scenarios, not every project and not every piece of land. Mr. Gardner asked the local jurisdictions how they handle their agricultural mitigation programs. There is obviously a CEQA need to mitigate for both the loss of agriculture and habitat. Ms. Hatef stated in San Joaquin County, the agricultural mitigation is a 1:1 ratio for loss of agricultural land or the project can pay a fee but the project has to prove in good effort that the project looked for agricultural land and could not find anything suitable. The San Joaquin County agricultural mitigation only applies to General Plan Rezoning or a Classification Amendment. The agricultural mitigation program was put into place approximately 5 years ago but was never really implemented. Currently, the County does have one project going through the process. Mr. Stagnaro stated the City of Stockton s and other cities have agricultural mitigation programs. The City of Stockton s came in around Every project that develops on agricultural land, must mitigate for both agricultural and habitat loss of land. To date, the mitigation for agriculture and habitat is done separately. Mr. Gardner asked if applicants are upset because the two programs, agriculture and habitat can be mitigated using one piece of 6

9 land. Mr. Beckman stated there is yet to be an applicant who is not upset about mitigating for both programs using a separate piece of land. Mr. Gardner stated there is one piece of property and the impact is to two separate mitigation programs. To say there is one piece of property and a lead agency states the applicant owes the lead agency two different mitigation programs for the same piece of ground sounds absurd because the applicant is going to pay twice. Mr. Attebery stated it is not a full twice payment to the lead agency to satisfy both agricultural and habitat mitigation. Any appraiser is going to be able to break down and for most purposes a house is worth more than a vineyard or an orchard; depending on certain scenarios pertaining to the property. It does not work if an applicant is paying the same price twice, it does not help the program, it hurts the program. Not every piece of land and not every project are going to fit the stacking concept. This is a balance between both agriculture and habitat and considers economy of scale that will not over inflate. Mr. Gardner asked if there is any speculation that the stacking concept will inflate prices. Mr. Attebery stated no more than what is going on now. Mr. Gardner stated he thinks prices would inflate because a landowner may think his property is worth more now that mitigating for two separate programs can occur on one piece of land. Mr. Beckman stated assume the going rate of agricultural land is $5,000 per acre, the amount associated with the development rights is valued at $2,000 per acre, and the right to have vines or an orchard is valued at $1,000 per acre. If the SJMSCP purchases an easement over that property, the SJMSCP is paying $3,000 per acre for the rights of development and a portion of the agricultural rights, which prohibit vines or an orchard. However, the balance is if SJCOG, Inc. Ag comes along, and purchases $2,000 per acre and the SJMSCP will purchase $1,000 per acre. Mr. Gardner stated that scenario is very rare and most easements he has been involved in has shown a much higher number than $5,000 per acre. Mr. Mayo stated the idea behind the evaluation on a property is the highest and best use of the property and comparable land sales within the area, which should set the bar. When an easement is placed on the property whether it is agricultural or habitat, there is a residual value remaining. If fee title is $10,000 per acre and an agricultural easement is placed on the property taking away the mineral and development right, the property s remaining value may be $5,000 per acre. If the SJMSCP comes in and takes a portion of the agricultural right, prohibiting vines and trees, the SJMSCP is purchasing a portion of the agricultural right, which is minimal. The value of the property should never exceed fee title; otherwise that landowner will never sell those rights. Mr. Gardner asked if agricultural mitigation is a new requirement under CEQA for lead agencies to follow and how was agriculture mitigated approximately 5 years ago. Mr. Beckman stated overriding the consideration. Ms. Hatef stated it was not required approximately 5 years ago; agencies just put a Band-Aid over the problem. Mr. Mayo stated staff is trying to be proactive in the process. The jurisdictions may be required now with the pressures of agriculture in the Central Valley and the pressures of the Farm Bureau. 7

10 Mr. Gardner asked why the lead agency would not come to the conclusion that as long as the project is impacting agriculture and is required to mitigate for two different programs, why not use one piece of property to satisfy both requirements. Why is the lead agency not taking advantage of both rather than SJCOG creating a new entity to satisfy both mitigation requirements? Mr. Emery stated he has had that thought for the past 15 minutes. Mr. Beckman stated the Farm Bureau is a very effective advocate for not allowing this to occur. Mr. Gardner stated he is concerned for the 2081 permit issued to the SJMSCP. Mr. Mayo stated staff is also concerned for the 2081 permit, which is why not every piece of land will work, and not every project will work. Every property that will need a habitat easement will be vetted through HTAC. Mr. Emery asked why the developers allowed this to happen. Mr. Gardner asked why developers do not have consultants arguing to opt-out of the plan. Mr. Emery stated it seems like stacking easements weakens the Plan. Mr. Mayo stated projects still have to mitigate for Section 10 and 2081 by bringing land in lieu or paying a fee. Agricultural mitigation is a CEQA only requirement through jurisdictions. Projects do not get to approval from the SJMSCP if they participate in the Plan because the SJMSCP will only satisfy permits pertaining to habitat. Mr. Gardner stated there is another concern if a consultant convinces the landowner that they do not need to go to through the Plan. Consultants can convince landowners that as long as they do not kill an endangered species, the landowner will not need to use the SJMSCP. Mr. Emery stated that would happen because it happens now. Mr. Gardner stated the landowner now has to mitigate for loss of agricultural land and for the loss of habitat on one piece of ground. The landowner will listen to the consultant and not evaluate the risks involved. Mr. Gardner continued to state this is a lead agency issue not a SJCOG, Inc. issue. Mr. Beckman stated stacking easements could essentially reduce costs for the SJMSCP. Mr. Mayo stated the landowner will see the possibility of stacking, knowing that they have to mitigate for two separate mitigation programs under CEQA. As a project they will see the benefit of not having to pay $8,000 to the local jurisdiction for the loss of agriculture and $13,000 to SJCOG, Inc. for the loss of habitat. The project can now get one piece of property, which will cost less than $21,000 total to satisfy both programs. Staff is trying to create an avenue for projects to save money on costs associated with both programs. If the project does not want to bring land in lieu, then the project must mitigate by paying a fee to both the local jurisdiction for agricultural mitigation and the SJMSCP for habitat mitigation. When developers provide a fee for habitat mitigation, staff has to administratively search the County for willing landowners, provide appraisals, etc. which eat away at the fee. Staff would prefer developers provide the property to the SJMSCP to reduce costs associated with finding the land to mitigate for the loss of habitat. Mr. Gardner asked if SJMSCP staff has, in the past, acquired a conservation easement with an agricultural easement on the property. Mr. Mayo stated no. The SJMSCP habitat easement is the highest and most constraining type of easement one could have 8

11 on their land and will be placed over the agricultural easement should the of stacking easements be allowed. Mr. Mayo stated the SJMSCP s is threatened by the loss of row and field crop and irrigated pasture by the thousands. The threats do not come from just brick and mortar development, but agricultural development as well. Crop conversion is not regulated in San Joaquin County. Staff knows of landowners who do not want a habitat easement on their land because they want the flexibility to convert their crops to orchards or vineyards. Mr. Gardner asked if permitting s advice will be taken to the SJCOG, Inc. Board for consideration in the future. Mr. Attebery stated staff will take permitting s concerns to the Board for discussion; however the creation of SJCOG, Inc. Ag would not need a recommendation from HTAC. The creating a separate entity, such as SJCOG, Inc. Ag would be a SJCOG function, not a SJCOG, Inc. habitat function. Mr. Gardner expressed the current conversation at HTAC is the reason why HTAC would need approval first before taking action at the SJCOG Board. Mr. Attebery stated the creating of an entity is an agricultural issue, not a habitat issue. HTAC s authority to take action is on habitat related issues as identified in the plan and creating an entity for the purpose of agricultural easements is not one of them. Mr. Mayo stated the authority HTAC has is does the committee accept this piece of land to stack the agricultural and habitat easements. Questions asked of HTAC would consist of does CDFW agree to stack a habitat easement on top of an agricultural easement. The SJMSCP permits held by SJCOG, Inc. and the local jurisdictions, the Section 2081 and Section 10, for those permits, would you accept this piece of land to be encumbered further than it currently is. Whether the piece of land had an agricultural easement or not do you accept this piece of property as mitigation for impacts under the plan. That is the question that will be asked of HTAC every time this occurs. Whether or not the property has an agricultural easement, which takes away development and mineral, habitat is taking that extra right away. If the property does not have an agricultural easement, staff will still come to HTAC and state the SJMSCP is going to take away the development, mineral, and a portion of the agricultural right away. Mr. Gardner stated as the agricultural easement relates the habitat easements; HTAC will have an opportunity to weigh in. Mr. Attebery stated yes. Mr. Gardner stated permitting should have the opportunity to weigh in on the potential program SJCOG is going to set up. Stacking easements is setting the SJMSCP in a direction of how staff will conduct business down the road which has not been done before. Mr. Mayo stated stacking easements would not alter the end mitigation provided to the SJMSCP. Mr. Attebery stated permitting s comments and concerns will be taken to the SJCOG Board for discussion on this item. Permitting will have a say in every stacked easement. Creating a separate entity may not work. The SJCOG Board could spend lots of money trying to figure out how to get the process of creating a separate entity done and every stacked easement that came before permitting can be vetoed. Staff understands the concerns, however, staff is trying to provide a service to find a way to reduce costs, and staff is continuously fighting with the BDCP over these types of issues. Staff is trying to find a balance between quality issues concerning what jurisdictions should have done and did not do. The local jurisdictions and developers are faced with paying two 9

12 separate mitigation programs that can be easily resolved by bringing one piece of land. Staff is trying to help the problem and has reached out to numerous entities to create the stacking scenario, but has not been successful. Now staff is going to the SJCOG Board to see what the temperament is for SJCOG to hold agricultural easements, fully understanding there are lots of issues with the stacking of easements. This item was for discussion only, no action was taken. b. Training Mr. Mayo stated staff has contacted Amy Augustine to provide an update on the SJMSCP jurisdictional processing and implementation procedures. Staff is looking for two half-day trainings in the morning. Staff will contact the local jurisdictions with the date and time of the trainings. This item was for discussion only, no action was taken. VI. Summary and adjournment: At 10:44 a.m. the meeting was adjourned until Wednesday, May 14,

13 May 2014 HTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Delta Packing Company Project Motion to Approve Recommendation to SJCOG, Inc. to Allow the Delta Packing Company Project to Participate in the SJMSCP with an Alteration to the Habitat Type Coverage from Agricultural and Natural Habitat Land to Multi-Purpose Open Space Habitat Land DISCUSSION: SUMMARY: The project applicant, Delta Packing Company of Lodi, Inc., is requesting coverage under the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) because site is in the unmapped area of the plan. The project is located on the north side of Kettleman Lane, 1,000 feet west of Curry Avenue, Lodi in the Central Zone (attachment 1 and 2). RECOMMENDATION: SJCOG, Inc. staff recommends the HTAC make the recommendation to the SJCOG, Inc. Board to allow the project to participate under the SJMSCP and provide biological coverage for the project for habitat impacts under the federal and state permits. FISCAL IMPACT: If the alteration to the habitat type is approved, SJCOG, Inc. will be provided mitigation for the project impacts as required under the SJMSCP for impacts to 10 acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) habitat at the appropriate rate when ground disturbance occurs. BACKGROUND: The project includes a Site Approval application for the expansion of an existing agricultural processing facility in two phases over five years. Phase 1 to include the construction of a 20,694 square foot cold storage building with truck docks, offices, and restrooms. Phase 2, with building permits to be issued within 5 years, includes the construction of an 81,810 square foot

14 cherry packing facility with break room and restroom, employee parking area, truck parking, and storm pond enlargement (attachment 3). In accordance with the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map, the project site is located in the unmapped land use area. According to the SJMSCP, projects located in the unmapped areas of San Joaquin County are not covered activities and require a case-by-case review by the Habitat TAC for a recommendation to SJCOG Inc. Board for SJMSCP coverage. Because the project is an unmapped project seeking coverage under the SJMSCP and not part of a SJMSCP compensation map, the project applicant is requesting a revision based on the SJMSCP Section for a clerical change by the JPA to the habitat classification on the project site. In accordance with the practices of the SJMSCP, projects located in the unmapped areas of the SJMSCP can request alterations to the habitat classifications, based on provided aerial photography imagery dated just prior to SJMSCP permit issuance in 2001, on a case-bycase review by the Habitat TAC for recommendation to SJCOG Inc. Board for approval. Based on the habitat classification by the permitting agencies and local jurisdictions prior to issuance of the SJMSCP permits in 2001 through broader review of habitat types in San Joaquin County, the SJMSCP GIS habitat layer classifies the project site as Agriculture (C34) and Natural (W5). However; aerial photography (attachment 4) shows the land within the project footprint is actually Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2); consisting of an orchard or vineyard. The original SJMSCP habitat classification for this specific area would be re-classified from 0.77 acres of Natural (W5) and 9.23 acres Agriculture (C34) to 10 acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) habitat. If allowed to participate in the SJMSCP, the total disturbed area of 10 acres will consist of 10 acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) habitat impacts. The project applicant will be responsible for mitigating for the habitat impacts caused by this project by either paying the appropriate fees at time of ground disturbance or dedicating land in lieu of a fee at appropriate the SJMSCP ratio. Adjacent Vegetation and Land Use Location SJMSCP Vegetation Map Classification Habitat Type Category Actual Use Of Property Site Agriculture (C34)/Natural (W5) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (W5) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) North Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) South Agriculture (C34)/Urban (U) Agriculture (C34)/Urban (U) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2)/Urban East Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) West Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2)/Urban Multi-Purpose Open Space Multi-Purpose Open Space (U) (C2)/Urban (U) (C2)/Urban (U) COMMITTEE ACTIONS:

15 Habitat Technical Advisory Committee: Action Required SJCOG, Inc. Board: May 22 nd if recommended ATTACHMENTS: 1. General Location Map 2. Project Location Map 3. Project Site Plan Map 4. Aerial Imagery Map 2001 Prepared by: Laurel Boyd, Habitat Planner Technician

16 ATTACHMENT 1

17 ATTACHMENT 2

18 ATTACHMENT 3

19 ATTACHMENT 4

20 May 2014 HTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Love s Travel Stop Highway 12 Project Motion to Approve Recommendation to SJCOG, Inc. to Allow the Love s Travel Stop Highway 12 Project to Participate in the SJMSCP with an Alteration to the Habitat Type Coverage from Agricultural Habitat Land to Multi-Purpose Open Space Habitat Land DISCUSSION: SUMMARY: The project applicant, Love s Travel Stop, is requesting coverage under the San Joaquin Multi- Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) because site is in the unmapped area of the plan. The project is located approximately one-quarter mile east of Interstate 5, immediately east of North Thornton Road, and approximately 280 feet north of State Route 12, east of Lodi in the Central Zone (attachment 1 and 2). RECOMMENDATION: SJCOG, Inc. staff recommends the HTAC make the recommendation to the SJCOG, Inc. Board to allow the project to participate under the SJMSCP and provide biological coverage for the project for habitat impacts under the federal and state permits. FISCAL IMPACT: If the alteration to the habitat type is approved, SJCOG, Inc. will be provided mitigation for the project impacts as required under the SJMSCP for impacts to 11.6 acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) habitat at the appropriate rate when ground disturbance occurs. BACKGROUND: The project includes a Use Permit application allowing the development of a Love s Travel Stop on an 11.6 acre site located in the area known as Flag City in unincorporated San Joaquin County. The project would include 24 fueling stations including 16 pumps to dispense gasoline and 8 pumps to dispense diesel fuel to automobiles and trucks. The project would include an 8,200 square foot convenience store with an attached 2,600 square foot fast food restaurant, and a 6,100 square foot storage building (attachment 3).

21 In accordance with the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map, the project site is located in the unmapped land use area. According to the SJMSCP, projects located in the unmapped areas of San Joaquin County are not covered activities and require a case-by-case review by the Habitat TAC for a recommendation to SJCOG Inc. Board for SJMSCP coverage. Because the project is an unmapped project seeking coverage under the SJMSCP and not part of a SJMSCP compensation map, the project applicant is requesting a revision based on the SJMSCP Section for a clerical change by the JPA to the habitat classification on the project site. In accordance with the practices of the SJMSCP, projects located in the unmapped areas of the SJMSCP can request alterations to the habitat classifications, based on provided aerial photography imagery dated just prior to SJMSCP permit issuance in 2001, on a case-bycase review by the Habitat TAC for recommendation to SJCOG Inc. Board for approval. Based on the habitat classification by the permitting agencies and local jurisdictions prior to issuance of the SJMSCP permits in 2001 through broader review of habitat types in San Joaquin County, the SJMSCP GIS habitat layer classifies the project site as Agriculture (C34). However; aerial photography (attachment 4) show the land within the project footprint is actually Multi- Purpose Open Space (C2); consisting of an orchard or vineyard. The original SJMSCP habitat classification for this specific area would be re-classified from 11.6 acres of Agriculture (C34) to 11.6 acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) habitat. If allowed to participate in the SJMSCP, the total disturbed area of 11.6 acres will consist of 11.6 acres of Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) habitat impacts. The project applicant will be responsible for mitigating for the habitat impacts caused by this project by either paying the appropriate fees at time of ground disturbance or dedicating land in lieu of a fee at appropriate the SJMSCP ratio. Adjacent Vegetation and Land Use Location SJMSCP Vegetation Map Classification Habitat Type Category Actual Use Of Property Site Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) North Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) South Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) East Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Multi-Purpose Open Space (C2) West Agriculture (C34) Agriculture (C34) Urban (U) COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Habitat Technical Advisory Committee: Action Required SJCOG, Inc. Board: May 22 nd if recommended ATTACHMENTS:

22 1. General Location Map 2. Project Location Map 3. Project Site Plan Map 4. Aerial Imagery Map 2001 Prepared by: Laurel Boyd, Habitat Planner Technician

23 ATTACHMENT 1

24 ATTACHMENT 2

25 ATTACHMENT 3

26 ATTACHMENT 4

27 May 2014 HTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: UPRR Bridge Maintenance Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Allow the UPRR Bridge Maintenance Project to Participate in the SJMSCP with an Alteration to the Habitat Type Coverage from Agricultural Habitat Land to Urban Habitat Land DISCUSSION: SUMMARY: The project applicant, Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR), is requesting coverage under the San Joaquin Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP) because the site is in the unmapped area of the plan. The project is located west of State Route 99 and Lower Sacramento Road, northwest of Collierville in the Central Zone (attachment 1 and 2). RECOMMENDATION: SJCOG, Inc. staff and HTAC recommend the SJCOG, Inc. Board allow the project to participate under the SJMSCP and provide biological coverage for the project for habitat impacts under the federal and state permits. FISCAL IMPACT: If the alteration to the habitat type is approved, SJCOG, Inc. will be provided mitigation for the project impacts as required under the SJMSCP for impacts to acres of Agricultural (C34) habitat and acres of Natural (W5) habitat at the appropriate rate at disturbance under the Plan. Impacts to the acres of Urban (U) habitat will not require mitigation fees. BACKGROUND: The proposed maintenance project will replace the existing timber stringers trestle-ballast deck bridges located on the Fresno Subdivision at Milepost (MP) and The maintenance is proposed because the bridges are nearing the end of their useful lifespan, deteriorating, and do not meet UPRR s standard hydraulic criteria for the 50-year and 100-year runoff events. The existing antiquated bridge at MP that was built in 1930 will be replaced with twentyfour 30-foot spans of pre-stressed concrete box girder with timber ties. The 720-foot-long bridge

28 deck of new pre-casted caps and girders will be supported by 25 new bents, 23 of which will be cluster bents. The existing antiquated bridge at MP 64.59, also built in 1930, will be replaced with three 30- foot spans of PCB girder with timber ties. The 90-foot-long bridge deck of new pre-casted caps and girders will be supported by four new bents, with three H-pile driving locations per bent. The ground near the abutments on both ends of the bridges, located above the OHWM, will be excavated and covered with riprap to match the bridge to the approach. Both bridges will be constructed using an off-track crane. The access route and the 75-foot wide temporary impact areas that run the length of each bridge will be located to the west of the tracks within UPRR s 200-foot right-of-way (ROW). Portions of the staging areas and access route (all within the temporary impact area) will be leveled for equipment access and mobility. The land on the west side of the bridge in the ROW is sparsely vegetated and will not require vegetation removal. As part of regularly scheduled maintenance, UPRR clears the vegetation under the bridge and within the ROW in May or June in conformance with Federal Railroad Administration requirements. UPRR s ROW will not be re-vegetated following construction, and the staging areas will be returned to their existing conditions after construction. Bridge materials (piles, caps, and girders to create the bridge span) will be transported to the project site by rail. Following the pile driving, the timber piles will be removed either by cutting them level with a chain saw or by breaking them off with a chain saw or by breaking them off with a track hoe. The timber bents will be removed approximately 3 feet below the natural ground line. All timber debris will be hauled offsite to a permitted landfill facility (attachment 3). In accordance with the SJMSCP Planned Land Use Map, the project site is located in the unmapped land use area. According to the SJMSCP, projects located in the unmapped areas of San Joaquin County are not covered activities and require a case-by-case review by the Habitat TAC for a recommendation to SJCOG Inc. Board for SJMSCP coverage. In accordance with the practices of the SJMSCP, projects located in the unmapped areas of the SJMSCP can request alterations to the habitat classifications, based on provided aerial photography imagery dated just prior to SJMSCP permit issuance in 2001, on a case-by-case review by the Habitat TAC for recommendation to SJCOG Inc. Board for approval. The project applicant is requesting a revision based on the SJMSCP Section for a clerical change by the JPA to the habitat classification on the project site. Based on the habitat classification by the permitting agencies and local jurisdictions prior to issuance of the SJMSCP permits in 2001 through broader review of habitat types in San Joaquin County, the SJMSCP GIS habitat layer classifies the project site as Agriculture (C34) and Natural (W5) habitat. However; aerial photography (attachment 4) show portions of the land within the project footprint are actually Urban (U); consisting of the existing UPRR line. The original SJMSCP habitat classification for the northern project site would be re-classified from acres of Agriculture (C34) habitat to acres of Urban (U) habitat and acres of Agricultural (C34) habitat. The original SJMSCP habitat classification for the southern project

29 site would be reclassified from acres of Natural (W5) habitat to acres of Urban (U) habitat and acres of Natural (W5) habitat. If allowed to participate in the SJMSCP, the total disturbed area of acres will consist of acres of Urban (U) habitat, acres of Agricultural (C34) habitat, and acres of Natural (W5) habitat impacts. The project applicant will be responsible for mitigating for the habitat impacts caused by this project by either paying the appropriate fees at time of ground disturbance or dedicating land in lieu of a fee at appropriate the SJMSCP ratio. Adjacent Vegetation and Land Use Location SJMSCP Vegetation Map Classification Habitat Type Category Actual Use Of Property Site Agriculture (C34)/Natural (W5) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (W5) Agriculture (C34)/Urban (U) Natural (W5)/Urban (U) North Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R)/Urban (U) South Agriculture (C34)/Natural (G) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (G) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R)/Urban (U) East Natural (R) Natural (R) Natural (R) West Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R) Agriculture (C34)/Natural (R) COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Habitat Technical Advisory Committee: action required SJCOG, Inc. Board: May 22 nd if recommended ATTACHMENTS: 1. General Location Map 2. Project Location Map 3. Project Site Map 4. Aerial Imagery Map Prior to 2001 Prepared by: Laurel Boyd, Habitat Planner Technician

30 ATTACHMENT 1

31 ATTACHMENT 2

32 ATTACHMENT 3

33 ATTACHMENT 4

34

35 5/2014 HTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Augustine Land Use Planning Contract Motion to Recommend to the SJCOG, Inc. Board to 1) Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Amy Augustine, Augustine Land Use Planning, for a Period of 24 Months and 2) Allow the Executive Director to Approve and Extend the Contract Administratively Upon Expiration. DISCUSSION: SUMMARY: As the habitat plan has been implementing over the last 14 years, staff has always needed to draw from institutional knowledge and expertise with jurisdictional planning systems, CEQA, NEPA and historic background of the SJMSCP. The need for that resource will continue into the near future as development begins to recover from the deep recession of the last few years. The SJCOG, Inc. staff continues to need specialized technical assistance and planning expertise exhibited by Augustine Land Use Planning because of the firm s intimate knowledge and insight with the habitat plan. Those special needs on occasion will be tasked work for the habitat plan when SJCOG, Inc. staff is unable to fulfill the work or possess the required background. The task work will be similar to the prior needs including development project processing and workshop trainings for local jurisdiction staff, unmapped project review applications and improved streamlining of the SJMSCP for project processing. RECOMMENDATION: SJCOG, Inc. staff request the HTAC recommend the SJCOG, Inc. Board to 1) Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Amy Augustine, Augustine Land Use Planning, for a Period of 31 Months and 2) Allow the Executive Director to Approve and Extend the Contract Administratively upon Expiration. FISCAL IMPACT: The overall work contract will not exceed $75,000 overall. BACKGROUND:

36 In January 1994, the San Joaquin Council of Governments hired Amy Augustine to assist in the establishment of the Habitat Plan. In February 1997, the contract agreement was renewed to extend those services needed to complete the Plan. The end result was the completion of the Plan in November 2000 and the issuance of the incidental take permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of the Fish and Wildlife. In 2008, SJCOG, Inc. hired Augustine Land Use Planning to assist in implementation of the county-wide habitat conservation plan with specialized tasks such as processing minor amendments, development project review guidelines and unmapped project review applications to better improve the streamlining of the plan because of her intimate knowledge and expertise of the SJMSCP. The scopes of work associated with the previous contracts were completed with exceptional results, and the Plan has moved forward through several successful years of the implementation during some contentious efforts. Staff is recommending establishing a new contract with Amy Augustine at Augustine Land Use Planning to assist SJCOG, Inc. staff in the implementation and improvement of the habitat plan throughout the next few years of implementation of the Plan as the SJMSCP continues to administer the obligations of the federal and state take permits with the local jurisdictions. If approved by the SJCOG, Inc. Board, the Executive Director will negotiate and execute a contract with Amy Augustine. The proposed scope of work is attached as Attachment 1. The contract term will be for a period of thirty-one (31) months with the option of extending the contract time administratively by the Executive Director. COMMITTEE ACTIONS: Habitat Technical Advisory Committee: Recommendation to Approve SJCOG, Inc. Board: Action Required May 22, 2014 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Professional Services Agreement Prepared by: Steve Mayo, Program Manager

37 Attachment 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR HABITAT PLAN The SJCOG, Inc. ( SJCOG ) and Amy L. Augustine, Augustine Land Use Planning ( Consultant ) agrees as follows. 1. Services. Consultant will provide to SJCOG planning and implementation services to SJCOG that are reasonably required for implementation of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan ( Plan ). Specific tasks are listed in Exhibit A. 2. Term. The term of this contract is June 1, 2014, through December 31, 2016, unless SJCOG grants an extension of time in writing, which may be approved administratively by the SJCOG Executive Director and not to exceed $75,000 over the term. 3. Fees for Professional Services. SJCOG will pay consultant a standard $90 hourly fee, recorded in one-tenth (1/10) of an hour increments for professional services rendered, and time spent on SJCOG s behalf. Consultant will give SJCOG sixty (60) days notice before Consultant raises hourly rate, except the initial rate will be maintained for twelve (12) months at a minimum. Any future fee increased will be maintained for one (1) year. 4. Minimum Callout. Charges for professional services on SJCOG s behalf conducted from Tuolumne County shall be based upon the actual time engaged in providing those services. Charges for professional services conducted on SJCOG s behalf and held outside of Tuolumne County shall be for a minimum of four hours time at Consultant s regular hourly rate. 5. Costs. SJCOG will reimburse Consultant for actual and reasonable expenses for travel, communications, office supplies, postage, facsimiles, maps, publications, and photocopy services purchased on SJCOG s behalf that are not readily available from SJCOG. Reimbursement for Consultant s use of her own automobile shall be at a rate of the IRS approved mileage rate. Consultant shall not incur any single expense greater than $ without SJCOG s prior oral or written consent. 6. Payment. Consultant will send SJCOG monthly invoices that describe work performed and costs incurred. Each bill is payable in full on the 30th day after date of the bill. SJCOG shall pay interest at a rate of 1.5 percent per month on any balance remaining unpaid 30 days after the due date. 7. Scheduling Work. The parties shall confer at least monthly about scheduling pending and anticipated work. Specific Task work orders (AAWO) will be issued for all projects under this agreement detailing tasks, deadlines and hours. SJCOG shall give Consultant reasonable advance notice of deadlines for completion of specific work and Consultant shall use her best good faith efforts, attempt to, subject to pre-existing commitments, to meet those deadlines. Consultant may decline assignments given without reasonable advance notice and subject to imminent deadlines. SJCOG shall give Consultant at least one week s notice of meetings and other events that SJCOG wants Consultant to attend, and whenever possible, SJCOG will schedule such

38 meetings and events only after consultation with Consultant. Consultant shall not be obligated to attend any meeting or event that conflicts with her pre-existing commitments or that unreasonably interferes with her work schedule. In the event of such conflicts, Consultant and SJCOG shall endeavor to schedule meetings via conference call. 8. Termination. Either party may terminate this agreement after 30 days written notice to the other. 9. Supervision. Consultant s contact person at SJCOG is Steve Mayo and his designees, who will be responsible for directing Consultant s work under this agreement. 10. Insurance. Consultant shall procure and maintain the following insurance: A. Worker's Compensation in the amount required by law, if applicable. B. Comprehensive or Commercial Public Liability insurance covering all of Consultant's operations hereunder, including, but not limited to, the operation of vehicles, and/or equipment and liability assumed under the indemnification and hold harmless provision stated above, with combined single limit in the minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000), which policy shall name the SJCOG, Inc. as an additional insured. C. Automobile Liability is responsibility of CONSULTANT and shall maintain automobile liability insurance with coverage for any vehicle including those owned, leased, rented or borrowed. This insurance shall have a standard cross liability clause or endorsement. The limit amount for this insurance shall be no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and $500,000 for property damage. Date: Date: AMY AUGUSTINE Consultant STEVEN C. DIAL Deputy Executive Director/CFO

39 Exhibit A Scope of Work Provide assistance in the implementation of the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). Tasks 1. Assist in the general implementation of the Plan including the following: a. Provide background information regarding Plan content; b. Assist in the any aspect needed in the following preserve selection, acquisition, enhancement, and monitoring; c. Prepare implementing guidelines and/or review for the Plan; d. Prepare reports or presentations for local jurisdictions, agencies or entities as needed; and e. Provide technical assistance and expertise for processes under the Plan. 2. Participate in the Habitat Technical Advisory Committee meetings or others as assigned when needed. In the event of a conflict pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Professional Services Agreement, Consultant shall participate in meetings by phone or Assist SJCOG in coordinating and solving technical issues with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and other signatory entities including resolving issues relating to the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Permits. 4. Other work as needed or assigned and subject to paragraph 7 of the Professional Service Agreement.

40 5/2014 HTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Wright Road E. Pombo Preserve Dedication RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to: (1) Open a Public Hearing for Comments on the Preserve and (2) Close the Public Hearing after Receiving Comments DISCUSSION: For preserve acquisition, the SJMSCP requires notices and hearing procedures to be followed: 1. a 30-day public comment period for Jurisdictional Review prior JPA action which commenced April 2014; 2. Public hearings at the HTAC noticed 30 days before recommendation to JPA; and a 3. Public hearing at the JPA prior to a decision. Notice was hereby given on the following property: (see Attachment 1 Map) 1. Those certain properties described as 10 West Lorenzen Road, Tracy CA (APN: ). 2. Vendor: Ernest Pombo 3. Price: Land in Lieu of SJMSCP Fees The Wright Road E. Pombo Property is a 71+/- acre parcels in size which SJCOG, Inc. has been ask to consider for land dedication by a development project to encumber with an agricultural habitat easement on a portion. The location of the property is along the San Joaquin River on the eastern portion of the property just west of Kasson Road near the City of Tracy in the Central Zone. The potential preserve is adjacent to existing SJCOG, Inc. preserves in the area in the Central Zone and easement land held by other entities as shown in the attachment 2. If dedicated, SJCOG, Inc. staff intends to write the Preserve Management Plan (PMP) to reflect the existing Preserve Management Plans (PMP) for economy of scale as a row and field crop habitat for species under the SJMSCP. Prepared by Steven Mayo, Program Manager

41 ATTACHMENT 1

42 ATTACHMENT 2

43 5/2014 HTAC STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Public Hearing for the Larson Preserve Dedication Motion to: (1) Open a Public Hearing for Comments on the Preserve and (2) Close the Public Hearing after Receiving Comments DISCUSSION: For preserve acquisition, the SJMSCP requires notices and hearing procedures to be followed: 1. a 30-day public comment period for Jurisdictional Review prior JPA action which commenced April 2014; 2. Public hearings at the HTAC noticed 30 days before recommendation to JPA; and a 3. Public hearing at the JPA prior to a decision. Notice was hereby given on the following property: (see Attachment 1 Map) 1. Those certain properties described as South Alder Avenue, Tracy CA (APN: ). 2. Vendor: Paul Larson 3. Price: Land in Lieu of SJMSCP Fees The Larson Property is a 93+/- acre parcels in size which SJCOG, Inc. has been ask to consider for land dedication by a development project to encumber with an agricultural habitat easement on a portion. The location of the property is between I-205 to the south and Old River to the north in the Paradise Cut area in the Central Zone. The potential preserve is adjacent to existing SJCOG, Inc. preserves in the area in the Central Zone as also shown in the attachment 1. If dedicated, SJCOG, Inc. staff intends to write the Preserve Management Plan (PMP) to reflect the existing Preserve Management Plans (PMP) for economy of scale as a row and field crop habitat for species under the SJMSCP. Prepared by Steven Mayo, Program Manager

44 ATTACHMENT 1