Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1992/10/22 "I declare under pena:ty of perjury that I am emplo,fe~J by the City of Chula Vi3ta in the Odicc of H:c Ci~y Clerlt and that I posted !:lis A:.cnd&/Noticc on t:1C Bulletin Board at Th d 0 b 22 1992 t. he f'U01~~1~/,;.S Bu,ldinJ and at City Hall on C '1 Ch b urs ay, cto er , ; 1 OunCl am ers 5:00 p.m.* DATED, II' "",SIGNED Sf'~//'P;'bliC Services Building Special Worksession/Meetinst of the City of Chula Vista City Council CAll. TO ORDER 1. ROll CAll.: Councilmembers Horton -' Malcolm -' Moore _, Rindone _l and Mayor Nader _ BUSINESS 2. DISTRIBUTION OF PORT FUNDS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for tlu! general public to address tlu! CiIy Council on any subjea nuJtteT within tlu! Couru;jJ's jurisdiction that is not an item on this agenda. (State 1iJw, however, generally prohibits tlu! City Couru;jJ from taking action on any issues not i1u;b.u1ed on tlu! posted agenda.) If you wish to address tlu! Council on such a subjec~ please complete tlu! yellow "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" available in tlu! lobby and submit it to tlu! CiIy Clerk prior to tlu! meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. Your time is limiud to three minutes per speaker. OTIffiR BUSINESS 3. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Scheduling of meetings. 4. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting on October 27, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. *Immediately following the joint City CounciVBoard of Supervisors meeting. / (.~ -. ., (- (" ( COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint Workshop with City of Chula vista concerning otay Ranch Project: Resource Planning - at Chula vista PRESENT: County of San Diego: supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, williams and MacDonald; supervisor Golding being absent. city of Chula Vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Malcolm, Rindone, Moore and Horton. DOCUMENTS: Letter, Board of supervisors Document No. 752916, from Patricia Gerrodette, Chair, Land Use Committee, Sierra Club, regarding length of the otay Ranch environmental impact review period. Letter, with attachments, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752930, regarding otay Ranch Environmental Impact Report, submitted by Eugene J. Sprofera. SPEAKERS: None. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Anthony Lettieri, otay Ranch General Manager, outlined the agenda, and stated that the purpose of this workshop is to promote understanding of the approach to habitat and species protection for Otay Ranch. Steve Lacy, biologist with ogden Environmental, used viewgraphs to survey the regional and subregional landscape with respect to major geographic features, sensitive habitats and species, and wildlife corridors. He stated that one of the major issues of a project this size is management of a data base for the ultimate establishment of a long-term, multi-species preserve. No. 1 10/22/92 mdb page 1 of 3 pages PAPERS PULLED TO 11/24/92 (1) ( Anthony Lettieri stated that the purpose of the Resource Sensitivity Analysis is to provide a comparative study of environmental resources which will serve as a reference for future land use decisions on the Ranch. with the aid of viewgraphs, he explained the criteria applied in evaluating the resource quality of individual parcels. Anne Ewing reviewed the goals and objectives of the Resource Management Plan. steve Lacy stated that, in developing Plan alternatives, attention was given to such features as wildlife corridors; how well the alternative supports or impacts open space; how well the open space ties into city-owned lands around otay Lakes; and how the infrastructure is impacted. He reported that the New Town Plan gives protection to resources. otay Ranch staff members were commended for their comprehensive planning. It was suggested that biological studies of inholding properties be done at this stage so as to maximize opportunities. It was reported that the California Department of Fish and Game will also be making recommendations; and that responses are being made to all comments throughout the public review period. A request was made that specific resources be identified within parcels classified by their resource value. Anne Ewing clarified that as Specific Plan Amendments are developed, Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports will be prepared for any new effects. Mayor Nader announced that the next county of San Diego/City of Chula vista joint workshop will take place on Wednesday, November 4, 1992, 10:00 a.m., at the county Administration Center. No. 1 10/22/92 mdb Page 2 of 3 pages r STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of San Diego)" I, ARLINE HULTSCH, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held Thursday, October 22, 1992, by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 22nd day of October, 1992. ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By ~r3~ Mary. . Ballard, Deputy No. 1 10/22/92 mdb Page 3 of 3 pages r- ( (- COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. 2 SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMMUNICATION Opportunity for Mambers of the Public to Speak to the Board on Any Subject Matter within the Board's Jurisdiction But Not An Item on Today's Agenda. ACTION: No Speakers No. 2 10/22/92 MB Page 1 of 1 AGENDA JOINT SAN DIEGO COUNTY j CITY OF CHULA VISTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 3:00-5:00 P.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22,1992 CITY OF CHULA VISTA COUNCIL CHAMBERS 276 FOURTH AVENUE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 1. ROLL CALL . Tim Nader, Mayor City of Chula Vista . George Bailey, 2nd District County Board of Supervisors II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 24 AND 30, 1992 JOINT CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL / COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WORKSHOPS III. PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council on any subject matter under the jurisdiction of the Joint Board of Supervisors/ City Council. However, pursuant to the Brown Act, no action can be taken by the Joint Board of Supervisors/City Council unless listed on the agenda. IV. INFORMATION ITEM Habitat and Species Protection Approach for Otay Ranch (Resource Planning) V. ADJOURNMENT To the next Joint San Diego County Board of SupervisorsjChula Vista City Council meeting from 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 4, 1992, at the County Administration Center, Board Chambers, 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego, CA 92101 tables:\bofsagnd.ajl -r COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THURSDAY, SEPT!HBER 24, 1992 MINUTE ORDER NO. ~ SUB32CTI Joint wor~shop with City Q~ Chpla vista conoerning otay Ranoh Projeot PRl!:SEN'l' I county of San Diego: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Golding, and MacDonald: supervisor williams being absent. city of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and councilmembers Malcolm, Rindone, Moore and Horton. DOCt1lfl!lN'l'S I Memorandum dated September 10, 1992, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752479, from Anthony J. Lettieri, AlCP, otay Ranch General Manager, regarding status of Otay Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report public review. copy of letter, Board of Supervisors Document No. 752631, from Daniel F. Tarr, to otay Ranch Joint planning Project, regarding adequate pUblic review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. copy of Letter to the Editor (sacramento Bee), Board of Supervisors Document No. 752632, submitted by Susan Harney, regarding extension of the Draft Environmental Impact Report review period. Copy of Senate Bill No. 1287 and copy of article in the Sacramento Bee, Board of supervisors Document No. 752633, submitted by councilmember Rindone. SPEAKERS I , ' The following persons addressed the Board with requests to extend the Draft Environmental Impact Report review period: Mark Montijo, Chair, Jamul-Dulzura community Planning Group Daniel Tarr, Valle de Oro community Planning Group MiChael Beck, south county Environmental Working Group Marti Goethe, Mayor Pro Tern, Imperial Beach Inez Yoder, Shoreline study center Norma Sullivan, Conservation Chair, San Diego Audubon Carolyn Avalos, Endangered Habitats League No. 1 9/24/92 mdb Page 1 of 4 pages SD CU (LE~K ~/~ I~L NO .Ol'j-~01-bU~d uct ~,~L lll:~l ~IO.UU~ ~'.iJ~ , susan Wolfe-Fleming, Chaparral Greens Carolyn O'patry, Jamul, California Terri Stewart, California Fish and Game Department pat Parris, South county Environmental Working Group Nancy Gilbert, U.S. Fish and wildlife service Tricia Gerrodette, Sierra Club Land use Committee They expressed the following concerns: ~ The complexity of the document and magnitude of impacts require more time for analysis and serious input. ~ Fairness dictates that due process be extended to the public. ~ Appendices, in some cases, were not received with the original document. ~ The California Fish and Game Department is mandated to review and comment on projects affecting fish and wildlife resources, and needs more time to do so. Daniel Tarr, of the Valle de Oro community Planning Group, questioned why the comments of the planning Group made earlier in the process were /lot included in the technical report; and asked whether or not additional alternatives were being prepared, and, if so, how they would affect the Environmental Impact Report review periOd. Extensions were 45 days 60 days 90 days Non-specific requested as follows: 1 person 9 persons 1 person 2 persons Michael Green, President, chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, and Susan Herney, representing the Otay Ranch Governing Committee of the citizens Advisory Committee, recommended that the Project be moved ahead, and the public review periOd not be extended. MS. Herney read for the record her letter to the Editor of the Sacramento Bee, Board of Supervisors Document No 752632, referenced above. Greg Smith, President, Baldwin San Diego, stated that there will be several more layers of Environmental Impact Reports, and that the October 7, 1992, deadline for pUblic review is sufficient. No. 1 9/24/92 mdb page 2 of 4 pages '.;:LJ LU LL=..r-,K' O/~:' IcL NO .~l~-~~l~bU~~ I rJ- -:'. '-j -''-'. _,'j,i. lU;~l i'~:J.I,.IU~ ,"""'.Uq' ';.[ , 1 DISCUSSION SUMMARYl Anthony Lettieri, Otay Ranch General Manager, apprised members of the Joint Workshop that the Chula vista planning commission and the county Planning commission, at a joint meeting on Septe~er 16, 1992, indicated intent to extend the Environmental Impact Report public review period an additional 60 days beyond October 7, 1992. He stated that, conversely, the otay Ranch citizens Governing Committee, at their regular monthly meeting on September 23, 1992, recommended that the public review period not be extended. Counsel for the city of Chula Vista stated that Baldwin has agreed to indemnify both the city of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego for a period not to exceed 80 days, or through October 19, 1992. He summarized the california Environmental Quality Act Guidelines for the setting of the public review period, and clarified that the issue before the Board is whether or not this is an unusual circumstance sufficient to require a greater than 90-day period of time. He stated that the current power to close the public review period rests with the Planning commission of the City of Chula vista; and clarified that that authority can be rescinded by a Resolution proposing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act Guideli.nes. It was noted that should there be a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report, it would necessitate another 45 days for public review. The point was made that the community as a whole gains extensive~y when a major developer comes in with a large project. concern was expressed that full mitigable rights ensuring quality public education at all levelS in the project area be attained. It was emphasized that there will be several more rounds of environmental review and public comment for this Project. There was general agreement among Councilmembers that authority granted the Planning Commission to set the pUblic review period should revert to the Chula Vista City Council. It was reported that at the next workshop on September 30, 1992, the village Development concept and the Desc~iption of the Plan Alternatives will be considered. No. 1 9/24/92 mdb page 3 of 4 pages SD (I] CLERK B/S TEL No .619-531-~098 0,- - ~ '. ~,92 10:51 r~o .UU~ ~.U~ .. -. ACTION: ON MOTION of supervisor Bilbray, seconded by Supervisor Golding, the Board of supervisors accepted the deadline of Ootober 7, 1992, for the close of publio review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, but requested the city of Chula vista to seriously consider an extension of said public review period. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Bi1bray, Bailey, Golding MacDonald Williams Subsequently, the Chula vista city Council set October 6, 1992, for adoption of a Resolution proposing changes to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines giving authority to the Chula vista city Council to set the Environmental Impact Report public review period; set a joint meeting of the city of Chula vista and the Planning Commission for october 12, 1992, at 6:00 p.m., for a pUblic hearing on the Environmental Impaot Report review period; and directed that said hearing be advertised. STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County of san Diego) ss I, ARLINE HULTSCH, Assistant clerk of the Board of supervisors of the County of San Diego, state of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held September 24, 1992 (1), by the vote herein stated, Which original order is now on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. witness my hand and the seal of said Board of supervisors, this 24th day of september, 1992. " ARLINE HULTSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By No. 1 9/24/92 mdb Page 4 of 4 pages 3D CO CLERK 8/S TEL No.519-531-5098 Oct 12.92 12:30 No.004 P.02 r COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEKBER ~O, 1992 HINUTE ORDER NO. 1 SUBJECT: Joint Workshop with City of chula vista conoerning Otay Ranch Project: Plan Alternatives - at Chula Vista PRESENT: County of San Diego: Supervisors Bilbray, Bailey, Williams, and MaCDonald; Supervisor Golding being absent. City of Chula vista: Tim Nader, Mayor; and Councilmembers Rindone, Moore and Horton; councilmenwer Malcolm being absent. DOCUMENTS: No new documents. SPEAURS: susan Herney, of the university of california Chula Vista Task Force, requested that the Board provide a General plan description of the university that includes an area of 1,400 acres. Julie Dillon, representing Helix Land, stated that if land around Helix property is declared open space, it would be tantamount to a taking. DISCUssION SUMMARY: Anthony Lettieri, otay Ranch General Manager, stated that the Village Development Concept "is based on an attempt to produce a plan using transit and pedestrian access to lessen reliance on the automobile. Fred Arbuckle, of the Baldwin Company, descri~~d the Village concept, stating that the plan for Otay Ranch would place entertainment and commercial activity in village cores, bringing people together. Streets, he said, would be as narrow as possible at the core to slow traffic and encourage people to get out of their cars. Affordable housing would be a component of each village, and trees would reinforce individual village No. 1 9/30/92 mdb Page 1 of 3 pages ,D CO CLERK B/$ TEL No.619-531-6098 Oct 12.92 12:30 No.004 P.03 /\ identity. He explained that rights-of-way would be reserved throughout each village to expedite the addition of rail lines later. He gave assurance that the smallest village would support at least an elementary school. Mr. Arbuckle was commended for the human approach to this project, and interest was expressed in making his presentation available to more persons. Anthony Lettieri discussed plan alternatives and issue papers accepted by the otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force. The 400 acres set aside for the University of California site elicited comments from the Board of Supervisors and the Chula vista city Council. Concern was expressed that the Environmental Impact Report analyzed only 400 acres for the university, which is expected to occupy approximately 1,000 additional acres. To avoid legal ramifications later, it was suggested that an analysis be done which more accurately reflects that reality. An overlay, which would provide options and consider residential and commercial areas surrounding the site, was proposed. It was announced that the next scheduled joint meeting of the San Diego county Board of Supervisors and Chula Vista City Council will take place on Thursday, October 22, 1992, 3:00 p.m., at the city ot Chula Vista Council Chamber. ACTION: There being no motion, the Board of Supervisors heard the report on Village Development concept and Plan Alternatives, and the presentation on Issue Papers: Purpose, Date and Action. NO. 1 9/30/92 mdb Page 2 of 3 pages 3D CO CLERK B/S TEL NO.619-531-6098 Oct 12.92 12:30 No.004 P.O~ I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) County ot San Diego) cc I, ARLINE HULTSCH, Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, state of california, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original order adopted by said Board at a regular meeting thereof held September 30, 1992 (1) by the vote herein stated, which original order is now on file in my office: that the same contains a fUll, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. Witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 30th day of September, 1992. ARLINE HUL'rSCH Assistant Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By ~kd~- Mary D Ballard, Deputy NO. 1 9/30/92 mdb Page 3 of 3 pages Agenda Item IV JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON HABITAT AND SPECIES PROlECTION ON OTAY RANCH REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE Steve Lacy, Ogden Environmental Location of Otay Ranch Boundaries of the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Sensitive Species Issues SUBREGIONAL PERSPECTIVE Boundaries of the Subregion Major Geographic Features Distribution of Habitat Discussion of Sensitive Habitats and Species Discussion of Wildlife Corridors Overview of the MSCP Overview of the Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) Steve Lacy, Ogden Environmental THE OTAY RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP) Tony Lettieri, Anne Ewing and Steve Lacy Relationship of the County's Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO) to the Otay Ranch RMP Resource Sensitivity Analysis Review of the RMP Goal and Nine Objectives Discussion of Resources Protected by the Preserve Discussion of Other Important Aspects of the Preserve memos#4:\hspl0792.ae RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN'S GOAL ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPEN SPACE SYSTEM THAT WILL BECOME A PERMANENT MANAGEMENT PRESERVE DEDICATED TO THE PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE BIOLOGICAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, CULTURAL RESOURCES (ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES), FLOODPLAIN, AND SCENIC RESOURCES OF OTAY RANCH, THE MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND, THE ASSURANCE OF THE SURVIVAL AND RECOVERY OF NATIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT PRESERVE, AND TO SERVE AS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO RESOURCE PROTECTION ORDINANCE (RPO). OBJECTIVES Objective 1 - Identification of Sensitive Resources Objective 2 - Preservation of Sensitive Resources Objective 3 - Enhancement and Restoration of Sensitive Resources Objective 4 - Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages Objective 5 - Preserve Management and Maintenance Objective 6 - Permitted Uses Objective 7 - Land Uses Adjacent to the Preserve Objective 8 - Interim Uses Objective 9 - Regulatory Framework for Future Uses mern0S#4:\hspl0792.ae (Article V: Exemptions; The county Resource Protection Ordinance) 8. >Anyproject located within a Specific Plan, within the Urban Limit Line, and within an approved Revitalization Action plan established prior to August 10, 1988, where the Board of Supervisors finds that an amendment to that Specific Plan makes the project more clearly conform to the Resource Protection Ordinance and where there is a public benefit beyond the boundaries of the project and it is found that the project will revitalize and/or stimulate revitalization of the community. ~ 9. Any project located within the approximately 22,500 acre p;bperty known as "Otay Ranch", if determined to be consistent with a Comprehensive Resource Management and Protection Program which has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the "Otay Ranch". 10. Any ongoing existing agricultural operation, such as the cultivation, growing and harvesting of crops and animals. Land left fallow for up to three years shall be considered to be an existing agricultural operation. 11. (With reference only to the definitions of "floodplain," "floodplain fringe" and "floodway" and the provisions of Article IV, Sections 3 and 4 of this Ordinance) Any modification to the floodplain, floodplain fringe, or floodway pursuant to a project within the community of Jacumba when the following findings are made: a. The project is located within a Specific Planning Area or Country Town Boundary. b. The project will result in a socio-economic benefit through the revitalization of an existing community. c. The project will result in alleviation of flood danger to existing structures in Jacumba, and the means for funding all required flood improvements and obtainment of rights-of-way has b~en secured. , d. Any flood control improvements will not adversely affect significant wetland and>riparian habitats and will create any net gain in such habitats. e. Except as expressly exempted herein the project shall be in conformance with the County General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulations or policies of the County at the time an application is filed with the County. NOTICE OF A SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the city council of the City of Chula vista will meet on October 22, 1992 at the Chula vista Council Chambers, 276 4th Avenue, Chula vista, CA from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. SAID PURPOSE OF THE MEETING is to consider Facilities, service Revenue Plan, and related applications for the otay Ranch project. DATED: October 9, 1992 Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk '" declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the Office of the City Cler:, and ti13t I posted thiS Agenda/Notice on the Bulletin Board at the PUbl; ;J;;~ Bui/din:, and at City Hall on DATED, SIGNED b'1lVY'" I I J OTA Y RANCH RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Prepared for the: OTA Y RANCH INTERJURISDICTIONAL TASK FORCE Prepared by the: Otay Ranch Project Team 315 Fourth Avenue Suite A Chula Vista, CA 91910 June 12, 1991 TABI E OF CONTENTS ~ I. PURPOSE 1 II. QUALIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1 III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 2 IV. RESOURCE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3 V. DESCRIPTION OF HIGH SENSITIVITY AREAS 5 VI. RESOURCE QUALITY CRITERIA 6 VII. INVENTORY OF EXISTING RESOURCE MATERIAL 7 VIII. STUDY AREA ANALYSIS 13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Resource Sensitivity Analysis Acreage Summary Sensitive Plant and Animal Species Observed on the Site Species Sensitivity Classification 4 9 12 I. PURPOSE The purpose of this Resource Sensitivity Analysis is to provide a comprehensive analysis of all of the environmental resources on the property. This analysis and categorization of resources will serve as a reference guide to assist the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force in land use planning decisions on the Ranch. The analysis is not intended to draw development or preserve boundaries but is a schematic map to be used as an informational tool in the planning process to assure comprehensive consideration of resource data. n. QUALIFICATIONS AND UMITATIONS The Resource Sensitivity Analysis is a step in the process of defining land areas suitable for development as well as areas to be included within a multi-species habitat preserve. The areas suitable for development will be defined in the Land Use Plan and the multi-species habitat preserve will be defined in the Resource Management Plan. The Resource Sensitivity Analysis does not: . Determine what type of land uses will be allowed within the different levels of sensitive resource areas . Determine a Preserve boundary . Determine where active and passive parks will be allowed . Determine where transportation corridors will be allowed. The technical data used in this analysis have some limitations in that the sheer size of the project (23,190 acres) and the level of planning currently being performed puts constraints on the level and precision of data now available for the project. As more detailed and accurate data become available, the Resource Sensitivity Analysis will be changed to reflect new information. The following is a listing of the studies which are ongoing which may change the present analysis: . Flown topography . Regional habitat conservation efforts . Vernal Pool Watershed Study . Wildlife Corridor Study . Archaeological Survey. 1 m. BACKGROUND AND mSTORY In May of 1989, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted the Resource Protection Ordinance (RPO). The purpose of the Ordinance is to protect the County's wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, sensitive biological habitats, and prehistoric and historic sites to guarantee the preservation of these sensitive lands. Article V of the ordinance provides for exemptions from the Ordinance. Section 9 of Article V specifically exempts any project within the Otay Ranch property from the Resource Protection Ordinance as follows: Any project located within the approximately 22,500 acre property known as "Otay Ranch", if determined to be consistent with a Comprehensive Resource Management and Protection Program which has been adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the "Otay Ranch". In December of 1989, the Otay Ranch Interjurisdictional Task Force accepted the Goals, Objectives and Policies for the Otay Ranch. This document contains a number of policies that address issues relating to: . Open Space . Biological Resources . Historical and Archaeological Resources . Steep Slope Lands These statements all give importance to the protection of sensitive resources and were used as guiding principles in the development of the Resource Sensitivity Analysis. All subsequent actions related to development of the property, as defined under Article III of RPO are subject to the provisions of the Comprehensive Resource Management and Protection Program (RMP). For example, the guidelines for mitigation of impacts within development areas set forth in the RMP will be the basis for mitigation proposed as a part of the environmental impact analysis performed for all future projects within the Otay Ranch property. The RMP is a management plan developed specifically for the Otay Ranch property to ensure adequate protection and management of resources on the site. A Resource Protection Ordinance Analysis is being conducted to provide a point of reference for comparison purposes for any of the Resource Management and Protection Plans developed for the Otay Ranch. 2 IV. RESOURCE SENSmvITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY . Inventory all environmental resources on the property . Identify areas of multiple resources and high value resources and/or areas critical to the integrity of viable habitat areas. . In remaining areas, group into Study Areas based on the presence of similar resources . Apply a uniform set of criteria to evaluate the overall quality or value of each study area . Identify the level of sensitivity LEVEL 1 - Low Sensitivity Level 1 boundaries were drawn based on a compilation of maps and information that indicate a relative absence of resources that generally has resulted from significant historical disturbance or use of the land. This category generally consists of contiguous areas that lack extensive steep slopes and have experienced a high level of disturbance and/or do not support sensitive biological habitats. LEVEL 2 - Moderate Sensitivity Level 2 boundaries delineate additional areas that contain some resources and either provide a transition between disturbed and sensitive areas, or that simply do not display a high degree of resource value. This category generally includes areas that have been subjected to low to moderate levels of disturbance or that contain fragmented or low to moderate quality resources. Study areas within this category may also contain biological habitat that does not support a significant number of sensitive species. LEVEL 3 - High Sensitivity Level 3 boundaries include all areas of multiple resources and high value resources and/or areas critical to the integrity of viable habitat areas. 3 Table 1 RESOURCE SENSTI1VITY ANALYSIS ACREAGE SUMMARY Total Site Acreage 23,190 acres LEVEL I Areas of Minimal Resource Value OV-! OV-4 PV-4 PV-6 4,629 acres 253 acres 64 acres 138 acres Total 5,084 acres LEVEL II Areas of Moderate Resource Value OV-2 OV-3 OV-5 OV-6 PV-! PV-2 PV-3 PV-5 PV-7 PV-8 PV-9 SY-l SY-2 SY-3 SY-4 119 acres 93 acres 221 acres 628 acres 382 acres 729 acres 673 acres 197 acres 287 acres 136 acres 113 acres 306 acres 397 acres 136 acres 1.468 acres Total 5,915 acres LEVEL III Areas of High Resource Value 12,206 acres 4 V. DESCRIPTION OF lllGH SENSITIVITY AREAS Areas classified as levels 1 and 2 are described and studied in detail in Section VIII of this analysis. The following is a general description of areas classified as level 3, high sensitivity. This category generally defines resource rich areas and areas that are critical links to high value resources. The description of high sensitivity areas are broken down by major parcels as follows: Otay River Valley Parcel Salt Creek: The Salt Creek area is identified as containing significant biological resources and serves as an important link between the San MigueljJamul Mountains/Otay Lake area and the Otay River Valley. The Salt Creek area supports high quality coastal sage scrub habitat and is occupied by numerous sensitive plant and animal species including the California gnatcatcher and the Cactus wren. Otay River Valley: The Otay River Valley is a broad alluvial valley that supports extensive quantities of low to moderate quality wetland habitat. A lOO-year Floodplain has been identified traversing the Parcel from east to west. The Otay River Valley serves an important role in the connectivity of high sensitivity resources and offers extensive opportunities for habitat enhancement. Wolf Canyon: The steep slope areas within Wolf Canyon support coastal sage and maritime scrub habitat that is comprised of significant numbers of sensitive plant species and provides forage area and cover for sensitive animals. POfl2:i Canyon: Resources within Poggi Canyon include coastal sage scrub habitat that is occupied by numerous sensitive plants and animal. However, the habitat area provided within Poggi Canyon is rather small and isolated with respect to larger blocks of habitat within the subregional vicinity. In addition, existing and approved development surround the Poggi Canyon area to the north and west. Proctor Valley Parcel The Proctor Valley Parcel encompasses the Jamul Mountain area. Coastal sage scrub habitat occupies approximately 75% of the total area within this parcel and constitutes a significant resource in the undisturbed areas. Most of the areas identified as high sensitivity contain coastal sage scrub. Additional significant resources within the Proctor Valley Parcel include vernal pool habitat areas in the southern portion, near the lakes. The high sensitivity areas in this portion of the parcel include vernal pools with sensitive species and 5 some of the more significant rnima mound topography (mounded topography that is associated with vernal pools). Areas within Proctor Valley itself that are identified as high sensitivity areas contain drainages that support wetland habitat and sensitive plant and animal species. Potential wildlife movement corridors are currently being studied and will provide information on the relationship of resources on the parcel with surrounding resource areas. San Ysidro Mountains Parcel The high sensitivity areas within the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel contain significant biological resources in some of the major drainage areas. Coastal sage scrub covers more than half of the total parcel but is fragmented in some areas. The high sensitivity areas include some of the larger contiguous masses of habitat within the San Ysidro Mountains Parcel. These areas contain numerous sightings of sensitive plants and animals. These areas include habitat resources that interface with adjacent offsite preserve areas. The high sensitivity areas also include areas of 25% or greater slope where the slope is contiguous to significant landforms of the San Y sidro Mountains. 6 VI. RESOURCE QUALITY CRITERIA Biological Habitats: . Level of inhabitation by Sensitive Species (refer to Table 1 for a listing of species considered and their listing status) . Presence of Vernal Pool Indicator Species . Diversity of Species . Level of disturbance . Function as a part of regional habitat conservation efforts . Adjacency to resource-poor areas or existing development . Adjacency to resource-rich areas . Adjacency to future critical circulation path . Contiguity of habitat: contiguous or isolated Notes: Presence or absence of sensitive species was used as a general measure of species diversity and richness of a particular habitat. Identification of plant species are identified as populations (precise number of individuals in most cases is unknown). In some cases, the significance of a species or size of a population affected the sensitivity classification of an area. Archaeological/Historical Resources: . Presence of archaeological resources Notes: Archaeological resources are identified and quantified based on preliminary survey data and is subject to change. Presence of archaeological resources did not affect delineation of study area boundaries. Extreme Slope: . Slope above 25% (with minimum 50' rise) . Is extreme slope area part of a contiguous land mass . Is extreme slope area associated with a significant landform Floodplain: . Does the study area encroach upon a FEMA-mapped/Preliminary FEMA/County mapped 100-year floodway/floodplain (if yes, state acreage) . Presence of blue-line stream Visual Resources: . Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way . Presence of unique visual features Notes: This evaluation does not represent a comprehensive visual analysis but is intended to grossly identify areas of high visibility and give consideration to general visual quality as a resource. 7 VII. INVENTORY OF EXISTING RESOURCE MATERIAL 1) Otay Ranch Archaeological SUlVey: San Ysidro Mountains Parcel, Proctor Valley Parcel, Otay River Parcel October 2, 1989. Prepared for The Baldwin Company. Prepared by Regional Environmental Consultants. 2) Biological Resources Inventory Report for the Otay Ranch Property October 12, 1989 revised February 20, 1991. Prepared for The Baldwin Company. Prepared by Regional Environmental Consultants. 3) A Biological Overview for the United Enterprise Properties located in Otay Mesa. Prepared for United Enterprise. 4) Phase 1 Resource Management Plan Otay Ranch September 4, 1990. Prepared for Interjurisdictional Task Force, Joint Project Planning Team-Otay Ranch. Prepared by Rod Meade, June Collins, RECON and MBA. 5) Biological Resources SUlVey Report, Otay Ranch-Proctor Valley Area, San Diego, California September 1989. Prepared for The Baldwin Company. Prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 6) Otay Spring SUlVey. 1990 7) Land Use Maps - Development Alternatives Original Submittal Environmental Alternative - Project Team Alternative Low Density Alternative - Existing General Plans - Phase I Progress Plan 8) Biological Resources Along Millar Ranch Road and the Hidden Valley Estates Project Area, ERC/MBA, 1991. 9) Supplemental SUlVey for Proposed Conference Center, MBA, 1990. 10) Report on the Proposed Otay Ranch Biological Open Space Preserve (Polygon Analysis), Pacific Southwest Biological Services, 1990. 11) Otay Ranch Biological Alternative - Delimited Subsector Analysis, March 1990, Pacific Southwest Biological Services. 12) Nancy Gilbert (USFWS)/Terri Stewart (CDFG) development alternative map 13) Ralph Kingery/Craig Reiser (Environmental Consultants) development alternative map 8 14) Dames and Moore GIS Maps (ArcInfo) Base Map - Slope Classification Geology Soils Drainage Nearby Development Environmental Alternative Project Team Alternative Submitted Plan - Farm Land Vegetation/habitat Plants Animals Archaeology/History Noise Contour Traffic zones Combinations of City and County General Plans 15) Resource Maps (AutoCADD system), Dudek and Associates -Recon/MBA Biological Data .Coastal Sage Scrub .Wetlands Vernal pools .Sensitive Habitat .Sensitive Plants .Sensitive Animals -Slope Analysis (McIntire) -Floodplain 9 Table 2 SENSITIVE PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED ON TIIE SITE Sensitive Plant Species Common Name Listing Status Eryngium aristulatum San Diego coyote thistle Cl, SE, CNPS list lB, var. parishii 1-3-2 Orcuttia califomica California Orcutt grass Cl, SE, CNPS List lB, 2-3-2 Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay Mesa mint Cl, SE, CNPS List lB,3-3-2 Acanthomintha ilicifolia San Diego thorn mint CZ, SE, CNPS List lB, 3-3.2 Calochortus dunnii Dunn's mariposa lily CZ, SR, CNPS List lB, 2-2-2 Caulanthus stenocarpus Slender pod caulanthus C2, SR, CNPS List lB, 3-2-2 Calamintha chandleri San Miguel savory CZ, CNPS List 4, 1- 1-2 Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush C2, SR, CNPS List lB, 3-2-2 Hemizonia conjugens Otay tarweed C2, SE, CNPS List lB, 3-3-2 Monardella linoides ssp. viminea Willowy monardella C2, SE, CNPS List lB, 2-3-2 Myosurus minimum var. apus Little mousetail CZ, CNPS List 3, 2- 3-2 Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia C2, CNPS List lB, 3- 2-3 Arctostaphylos otayensis Otay manzanita C2, CNPS List lB, 3- 2-3 Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's brodiaea C2, CNPS List lB, 1- 3-2 Lepechinia ganderi Gander's pitcher-sage C2, CNPS List 1B, 3- 2-1 Muilla clevelandii San Diego golden stars C2, CNPS List lB, 2- 2-2 Dudleya variegata Variegated dudleya C2, CNPS List 4, 1- 2-1 Calamagrostis densa Cuyamaca dense reed grass C2, CNPS List 4, 1- 1-2 10 N avarretia fossalis San Diego navarretia C2, CNPS List lB, 2- 3-2 Opuntia panyi var. serpentina Snake cholla CNPS List lB, 2-3-2 Solanum tenui/obatum Narrow-leaved nightshade CNPS List lB, 3-1-3 Cordylanthus orcuttianus Orcutt's bird beak CNPS List 2, 3-3-1 Clarida delicata Campo clarkia CNPS List 2, 1-2-1 Artemesia palmeri San Diego sagewort CNPS List 2, 2-2-1 Harpogenella palmeri Palmer's grappling hook CNPS List 2, 1-2-1 var. palmeri Viguiera laciniata San Diego sunflower CNPS List 2, 1-2-1 Adolphia californica California spinebush CNPS List 2, 1-2-1 Stipa diegoensis San Diego needlegrass CNPS List 2, 3-1-1 Salvia munzii Munz's sage CNPS List 2, 2-2-1 F erocactus viridescens San Diego barrel cactus CNPS List 2, 1-3-1 Iva hayesiana San Diego marsh elder CNPS List 2, 2-2-1 Physalis Greenei Greene's ground cherry CNPS List 3, no R- E-D Chamaebatia australis Southern mountain misery CNPS List 4, 1-1-1 Comarostaphylis diversifolia . Summer holley CNPS List 4, 1-2-2 Juncus acutus ssp. sphaerocarpus Spiny rush CNPS List 4, 1-2-2 Romneya coulteri Coulter's matilija poppy CNPS List 4, 1-1-3 var. trichocalyx Selaginella cinerascens Ashy spike-moss CNPS List 4, 1-2-1 Ophwgw~umlusuankum California adder's tongue fern CNPS List 4, 1-2-2 ssp. californicum Chorizanthe procumbens Fallbrook spineflower CNPS List 4, 1-1-3 ssp. albiflora Ambrosia chenopodifolia San Diego bur-sage CNPS,2-2-1 Cupressus guadalupensis T ecate cypress CNPS, 2-2-2 ssp. forbesii Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak CNPS, 1-2-2 Dichondra occidentalis Western dichondra Removed from listing Pickeringia Montana Chaparral pea Removed from listing FE = Federally Endangered Ff = Federally Threatened Cl = Federal Category 1 C2 = Federal Category 2 SE = State Endangered Sf = State Threatened SR = State Rare SC = State Candidate for Listing CI\"PS /I-II./! == California Native Plant Society R-E-D code (see Table 3 for explanation) NOTE: See Table 3 for explanation of listings 11 Table 2 (cont.) Sensitive Animal Species Listin~ Least Bell's vireo California black-tailed gnatcatcher Cactus wren Orange-throated whiptail San Diego horned lizard FE, SE C2, S Species of Special Concern State Species of Special Concern State Species of Special Concern C2, State Species of Special Concern C2 Federal Bald Eagle Act Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Local Sensitivity Tri-colored blackbird Golden eagle American badger Blue-grey gnatcatcher Burrowing owl Cooper's hawk Grasshopper sparrow Northern harrier Mountain lion Black-shouldered kite Sage sparrow Yellow breasted chat Red-tailed hawk Yellow Warbler Red-shouldered hawk Great horned owl Barn owl Blue grosbeak FE == Federally Endangered FT == Federally Threatened Cl == Federal Category 1 C2 ::: Federal Category 2 SE == State Endangered Sf == State Threatened SR == State Rare SC = State Candidate for Listing Note: Local sensitivity defines species identified as sensitive in the biology reports prepared by Michael Brandman Associates and Reeon in 1989 and 1990. 12 Table 3 SPECIES SENSITIVITY CIASSIFICATION Federal Endan~ered. Species threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Threatened. Species likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. Cate~ory 1. Species for which the USFWS currently has on file substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support the appropriateness of proposing to list them as endangered or threatened species. Cate~ory 2. Species for which information now in possession of the USFWS indicates that proposing to list them as endangered or threatened is appropriate but for which substantial data on biological vulnerability and threat(s) are not known or on file to support the immediate preparation of rules. Federal Bald Eagle Act. Species specifically protected under the Federal Bald Eagle Act. Note: The species in Categories 1 and 2 are candidates for possible addition to the list of endangered and threatened species. The USFWS encourages their consideration in environmental planning. State of California Endan~ered. Species which are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range due to one or more causes including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition, or disease (Section 2062 of the Fish and Game Code). Threatened. Species which, although not presently threatened with extinction, are likely to become endangered species in the foreseeable future (Section 2067 of the Fish and Game Code). Rare. Species which, although not presently threatened with extinction, are present in such small numbers throughout their range that they may become endangered if the present environment worsens (Section 1901 of the Fish and Game Code). Candidate. Species which the Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the Department in addition to the list of threatened and endangered species. 13 California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists lA. Species presumed extinct. lB. Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. 2. Species rare, threatened, or endangered in California but which are more common elsewhere. These species are eligible for state listing. 3. Species for which more information is needed. Distribution, endangerment, and/or taxonomic information is needed. 4. A watch list of species of limited distribution. These species need to be monitored for changes in the status of their populations. Note: Plants on CNPS list 1B meet California Department of Fish and Game Criteria for Rare or Endangered listing. CNPS R-E-D Code R (Rarity) 1- Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction or extirpation is low at this time. 2- Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. 3- Occurrence limited to one or a few highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that it is seldom reported. E (Endangerment) 1- Not endangered 2- Endangered in a portion of its range. 3- Endangered throughout its range. D (Distribution) 1- More or less widespread outside of California. 2- Rare outside California. 3- Endemic to California. Source: Michael Brandman Associates/Recon 14 vm. STIJDY AREA ANALYSIS The following section represents the individual analysis of each study area based upon the application of resource quality criteria defined in Section VI., above. 15 iotal study area acreage: CRITERIA BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 4,629 EVALUATION It. Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? 1 population of Physalis greenei, 2 populations of Fcrocatus virideaccns. 3 populations of Vigiuera laciniata, 8 sitings of California gnatcateher. 9 sitings of Cactus wren, I Cactus wren nest, 1 siting of Blue grosbeak, 2 raptor nests, 3 aiting. of Grasahopper sparrow, 2 sitings of Sage sparrow, 1 barn owl nest. No. Yes. Headwaters of Poggi and Wolf Canyons, and Otay River tributaries. Low. High. Agriculture. Low. Vernal pool indicator species? 3. Presence of "blue line" stream? 6. Function as wildlife corridor? Near resource-poor areas? Yes. Adjacent to Eastlake development to the east and existing and proposed urbanization north of Telegraph Canyon Road. Yes. Wolf Canyon to the southwest. Salt Creek to the cast. Yes. SR.125, Telegraph Canyon, Orange Avenue and others. No. _ tl;. Near resource-rich areas? Near future critical circulation path? 10. Contiguity of habitat: "L EXTREME SLOPES Slope above 25 %? 2. Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. Mostly, tips of fmger canyons north ofOtay River Valley. No. No. ill. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES '. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes, area requires further study. V. FLOODPLAIN 1. Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? I. VISUAL RESOURCES No. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgehne. Low. Ridgeline between Telegraph Canyon and Otay River. 2. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. Partly visible from Telegraph Canyon Road, Orange Avenue, SR-l25 and other future roadways. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. :LASSIFICA TION lLow Sensitivity I~~~~~b:~:ea. within Salt Creek defme the eastern boundary of this study area. the soutbwestern boundary is defined by the limit of sensitive habitat vithin Wolf Canyon. The southern study area boundary avoids coastal sage scrub within the fmger Canyons extending from the Otay River Valley. IGenerallY, steep slope is the only resource encroached upon within this study area. .\NAL YSIS 1..1. Mild slopes, disturbance due to agriculture, adjacent development, and overall lack of resources make this study "area low sensitivity. Consider runoff effects to downstream canyons and visual impacts from the north and south. 13. Sensitive land uscs and grading restrictions should be required along the edges of Wolf Canyon and within the eastern reaches of Poggi Canyon. Finger canyons of Poggi and Wolf Canyons and the Otay River Valley should receive sensitive design treatment to avoid visual impacts. I I H/2950V I 06/10/91 Total study area acreage: 119 CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 5 populations of Viguieralaciniata, 7 populations of Ferocatus viridcsccns, 4 populations of Selaginella cinerascens, 3 populations of Hemizonia conjugens, 1 population of Chorizanthe procumbens, 3 sitings of Cactus wren, 1 siting of California gnatcatcher. 1 Sage sparrow. 2. Vernal pool indicator species? "', Presence of "blue line" stream? Function as wildlife corridor? No. No. Moderate to high. Low to Moderate. Some agriculture, grazing. Low. Diversity of species? S. Level of disturbance? f. Near resource.poor areas? ~. Near resource.rich areas? Yes. Existing/future Development to the west, landfill to the south. Yes. Poggi Canyon to the south. Yes. Orange Avenue to south, Telegraph Canyon Road to north. Contiguous within Poggi Canyon, but isolated from major resources on the Otay River Valley ParceL 1 Near future critical circulation path? 110. Contiguity of habitat: I. EXTREME SLOPES . 1. Slope above 25%? Yes. Associated with Poggi Canyon. No. Yes. North slope of Poggi Canyon. I Slope areas contiguous? J. Slopes associated with significant landform? 'H. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. IV. FLOODPLAIN . Encroach upon established lOO-year flood plain? .to VISUAL RESOURCES No. I. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. I Visibility Crom existing or proposed public areas or rights-oC-way. High potential visibility from Orange Avenue and Telegraph Canyon Road. J. Presence of unique visual features. Low. :LASSIFICA TION !Moderate Sensitivity IJESCRIPTION olorthern boundary of study area is defmed by Telegraph Canyon Road. The northern slopes of Poggi Canyon define the southern study area boundary. I -&"NAL YSIS 11. Substantial biological. resources, however not viable 8S part of long.term habitat preserve due to isolation, proximity to existing development, and critical roadway alignments. 1'2.. Sensitive design should be considered in areas with concentrations of sensitive species and should consider visual impacts on north slope of Poggi Canyon and views from Telegraph Canyon Road. IH12950V-2 06110191 Total study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 93 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 1 population of Hemizonia conjugens, 2 siting, of California gnatcatchers. 1 ailing of Cactus wren. ,2. Vernal' pool indicator species? J. Presence of "blue line" stream? 4. Diversity of species? Hi. Level of disturbance? ), Function as wildlife corridor? No. 7. Near resource-poor areas? I. Near resource-rich areas? Yes. Tributary to Poggi Canyon. Low. High. Agriculture and grazing. Possible link between Poggi and Wolf Canyons. Requires further study. Yes. Landfill to the south. 9. Neftr future critical roadway alignments? to. Contiguity of habitat: 1. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. Poggi Canyon to the north. Yes. Orange Avenue to the North. Low. I. Slope above 25 %? .'l,. Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. Associated with south slopes of Poggi Canyon. No. Extreme slopes are on south slope of Poggi Canyon. III. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES I. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. IV. FLOODPLAIN .\. Encroach upon established lOO-year flood plain? 'V. VISUAL RESOURCES No. I. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. t Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. Portions are from future Orange Avenue. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. CLASSIFICATION \foderate Sensitivity IDESCRIPTION INorthern study area boundary is defined by the top of the mesa south of Poggi Canyon. Landfill defines southern boundary. ANAL YSIS I 1 Hemizonia is on south slope of Poggi Canyon only. 12. Any development in this area should provide sensitive treatment on the south slope of Poggi Canyon to mitigate potential visual impacts from Orange Aven 1R/2950V -3 06110/91 . c'otal study area acreage: CRITERIA 1. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 253 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? No occurrences. .. Vernal pool indicator species? - Presence of "blue line" stream? Diversity of species? No, Function as wildlife corridor? Yes. North tributary to Otay River. Low, High. Agriculture. Low. Adjacent to Wolf Canyon. Yes. Landfill and future development to north and cast. Yes. Wolf Canyon, Otay River Valley. Yes. Otay Valley Road. Low. 5, Level of disturbance? Near resource-poor areas? .!l. Near resource-rich areas? Near future critical circulation path? 10. Contiguity of habitat: "1, EXTREME SLOPES Slope above 25 %? 2. Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. No, No, ,d, PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES '. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. V, FLOODPLAIN 1. Encroach upon established lOO-year flood plain? ',', VISUAL RESOURCES No, Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. 2. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High visibility from numerous potential public roads. Presence of unique visual features. Low. I-:LASSIFICA nON !Low Sensitivity IJESCRIPTION outhern boundary of study area avoids resources associated with the Otay River Valley. The eastern boundary is defined by the western edge of Wolf lcanyon. Site boundaries defme northern and western edges. \NAL YSIS Due to mild slopes, disturbance, adjacent landfill, and lack of sensitive biological resources, this area is considered to be of limited resource value. 12. Grading restrictions and sensitive site design should be employed on the edge of the study area that is adjacent to Wolf Canyon. 1'I/2950V4 06/10/91 .....Olal study area acreage: 221 CRITERIA II. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? EVALUATION Vernal pool indicator species? 3. Presence of "blue line" stream? 5 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 2 populations of Dudleya variegata, 5 populations of Hemizonia conjugens, 3 populations of Ferocactus viride&eells, I siting of California gnatcatcher. Yes. Yes. Tributary to Otay River. Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? 6. Function as wildlife corridor? Low to moderate. Near resource-poor areas? d. N ear resource-rich areas? Moderate to high. Agriculture. Further study required. Yes. Agricultural land to north. Yes. Adjacent to Wolf Canyon, Olay River Valley and Salt Creek. Yes. SR-125. east/west access. Potential La Media and Alta Roads. 'f"'; Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: In. EXTREME SLOPES Slope ahove 25 %? Slope areas contiguous? ~. Slopes associated with significant landform? Low. Yes. Yes. Eastern slopes of Wolf Canyon and western slopes of Roek Mountain. Yes. Rock Mountain. II. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 'I. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. .V. FLOODPLAIN . Encroach upon established lOO-year flood plain? V. VISUAL RESOURCES No. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Moderate. Peak of Rock Mountain not included in study area. L. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights~of.W8Y. Yes. Numerous future roadways cross the area. "\ Presence of unique visual features. High. West slope of Rock Mountain. iCLASSIFICA TION ...1oderate Sensitivity I )ESCRIPTION I ~outhern study area boundary is defined by linear coastal sage scrub and visual resources associated with Rock Mountain. The western edge of the study lrea.lies adjacent to resouces within Wolf Canyon. I '\NAL YSIS l:l, Any proposed development should avoid secondary impacts to open space areas within Wolf Canyon, Olay River Valley. IH12950V-5 06/10191 rotal study area acreage: CRITERIA 1. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 628 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? L Vernal pool indicator species? "t Presence of "blue line" stream? Diversity of species? 5. Level of disturbance? 12 populations of Dudleya variegata, 1 siting of Burrowing owl. No. No. Low. 1, Function as wildlife corridor? Near resource~poor areas? 8. Near resource-rich areas? High. Bomhing range. Low. Yes. Brown Field to the west and south. ! Near future critical circulation path? 10. Contiguity of habitat: "I. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. Extensive vernal pool resources adjacent to the north and west. Yes. SR-l25 and other potential road crossings from the Olay Mesa. Low. Slope above 25 %? 2, Slope areas contiguous? L Slopes associated with significant landform? None. N/A N/A .n. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Requires further study. V. FLOODPLAIN "I. Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? v. VISUAL RESOURCES No. Degree to which the study area encroaches on 8 major ridgeline. Low. 12. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High. From SR-125 Otay Valley Road, and other potential roadways. Presence of unique visual features. Low. '-::LASSIFICA TION .J Moderate Sensitivity .:lESCRIPTION I ~itudy area is bounded by vernal pool resources to the north and west, and by the southerly site boundary to the south and Johnson Canyon to the east. I ANALYSIS II. Study area has no steep slopes and few sensitive biological resources. l Proximity to Brown Field may limit land uses. 13. Appropriate buffers and sensitive design should be required to protect surrounding vernal p<X>1 resources. I IH/2950V-6 06/10/91 'Total study area acreage: 382 CRITERIA II. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS I" Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? EVALUATION Vernal pool indicator species? 3. Presence of "blue line" stream? "l. Diversity of species? 1. Level of disturbance? !6. Function 85 wildlife corridor? r. Near resource-poor areas? o. Near resource-rich areas? 4 populations of Selagincl1a cinerascens, 5 populations of Viguiera laciniata 3 populations of Dudleya variegata. I population of Harpogonella palmeri, 1 population of Ophioglossum lusitanicum, 2 populations Ferocatus viridcscens. Yes. One vernal pool. No. Low/moderate. High. Low. Corridor to the south. ,9. Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: In. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. lamul to north. Yes. lamuI Mountains to the south. Ves. Proctor Valley Road. Low. !. Slope above 25 %? I Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? No. NIA NIA lI. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES I. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. "'V. FLOODPLAIN !. Encroach upon established lOO.year flood plain? No. Iv. VISUAL RESOURCES Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. ).. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High visibility from Proctor Valley Road. ..3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. ICLASSIFICA TION . -Aoderate Sensitivity I DESCRIPTION I .. 'lorthern study area boundary is defined by floodplain and wetland habitat to the north and west with Coastal Sage Scrub with scattered steep slopes to the ;outh. ! A.NAL YSIS 11. Lack of steep slopes, limited biological resources, and proximity to Proctor Valley Road make this study area mOderately sensitive. !. Vernal pool is of low quality and mitigation will be determined upon delineation of wetland pursuant to section 404 criteria. 13. Site design should show sensitivity to adjacent resources. .IHI295PVl 06/10/91 ~otal study area acreage: 729 CRITERIA lr. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? EVALUATION '2. Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? 3 populations of Selaginella cmerascens, 14 populations of Stipa diegocnsis. 1 population of Salvia munzii, 7 populations of Viguiera laciniata, I population of Clarkia delicata, 3 populations of Juncus aeutus, 2 populations of Arctostaphylos otayensis, 1 siting Orange-throated whiptail. No. Diversity of species? r5. Yes. Tributary to Proctor Valley and Jamul Creek. Low to moderate. Level of disturbance? Moderate to high. GrllZing and off-road vehicle trails. Low. Rural development along Highway 94 to the cast, Jamul to the north. Yes. North of Jaffiul Mountains area. Highway 94 to the east Moderate, disturbed. Function as wildlife corridor? I. Near resource-poor areas? '" Near resource-rich areas? Near future critical circulation path? l~O, Contiguity of habitat: ,'. EXTREME SLOPES Slope above 25 % 1 . Yes. .1. Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? No. Yes. Jaffiul Mountains. III. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. Requires further study. v. FLOODPLAIN It. Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? No. '. VISUAL RESOURCES J. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Ridgelines within study area are contiguous with major features of the Jamul Mountain Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High visibility from Highway 94 and Proctor Valley Road. Presence of unique visual features. High. :LASSIFICA TION IModerate Sensitivity luESCRIPTION :outhern Boundary is defined by topography that intercepts the broader portions of ridgelines that area associated with slopes between 25% and 35%. J \NAL YSIS I \~ Study area contains significant steep slopes and coastal sage scrub, but few sensitive plant and animal species. Grading restrictions and/or extremely sensitive site design would be required to minimize a~sthetic impacts. IH/29SPV -2 06/06/91 Total study area acreage: CRITERIA '. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 673 EVALUATION \ 1. Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 3 populations of Mullia clevclandii. 9 populations of Sclagincl1a cinerascens, 14 populations of Solanum tenuilobatum, 2S populations of Salvia munzii, 7 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 11 populations of Iva hayesis, 3 populations of Juncus aeutus, 1 population of Dichondra occidentalis, 1 population of Dudley. variegata, I population of Stipa diegoensis, 3 sitings of Grasshopper sparrow. Yes. One vernal pool in extreme western portion. Yes. Tributary to Upper Otay Reservoir. Moderate. Moderate. Proctor Valley Road, off-road vehicle activity. Potential. Requires further study. No. Yes. San Miguel Mountains to the west, Jarnul Mountains to the cast. Yes. Proctor Valley Road. Fairly contiguous. . 2. Vernal pool indicator species? l. Presence of "blue line" stream? t Diversity of species? S. Level of disturbance? 5. Function as wildlife corridor? .1. Near resource-poor areas? ~. Near resource-rich areas? }. Near future critical circulation path? 110. Contiguity of habitat: , fl. EXTREME SLOPES I. Slope above 25 %? 2. Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. Slope in eastern portions are contiguous with Jamul Mountains. Yes. Only those referenced above. III. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES \ 1. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. 'V. FLOODPLAIN I. Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? V. VISUAL RESOURCES No. I. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. .'Z-. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High visibility from Proctor Valley Road. :.. Presence of unique visual features. Eastern slopes contain some rock outcroppings. I "':LASSIFICA nON IModerate Sensitivity !DESCRIPTION Sensitive biological resources occur to the north of the study area including wetland and vernal pool habitat. The east/southeast boundary is dermed by jsage scrub habitat and slope that is contiguous with major formations of the Jamul Mountains. , IANAL YSIS \ I. Sensitive resources in the adjacent San Miguel Mountains and Jamul Mountains. !2. Sensitive aesthetic resources in this area. 3. Vernal pool in southwestern portion of the study area will be evaluated in accordance with Section 404 procedures. IH/295PV3 06/10/91 otal study area acreage: CRITERIA 1. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? Vernal pool indicator species? ., Presence of "blue line" stream? Diversity of species? l ~. Level of disturbance? Function as wildlife corridor? Ncar resource-poor areas? 8. Near resource.rich areas? Near future critical circulation path? 'iO. Contiguity of habitat: ". EXTREME SLOPES Slope above 25 %? i2. Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? ,,1. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES \ Presence of Archaeological Resources? 1/. FLOODPLAIN I. Encroach upon established lOO.year flood plain? ,'. VISUAL RESOURCES EVALUATION No occurrences. No. No. Low. Low. Low. Yes. Adjacent to future development to the west. Yes. San Miguel Mountain to the north. Yes. West of Proctor Valley Road. N/A No. N/A N/A Yes. No. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. 2. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights--of.way. High from Proctor Valley Road. Presence of unique visual features. L~LASSIFICA TION I Low Sensitivity I.JESCRIPTION Low. .rea is void if resources, adjacent to Proctor Valley Road to the west and Coastal Sage Scrub habitat to the east. I , ~NAL YSIS 11. Proctor Valley area holds some aesthetic value. Lll295PV4 06/10191 'otal study area acreage: CRITERIA t. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 197 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 16 populations of Viguieralaciniata, S populations of Selaginclla eincrasccns, 1 population of Dichondra occidentalis, I siting San Diego homed lizard, 1 siting California gnatcatcher, 1 population of Solanum tcnuilobatum, 7 populations of Muilla clevclaodii. No. 2. Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? .... Diversity of species? 5. Level of disturbance? YeS. East tributary to Proctor Valley Low to moderate. Function as wildlife corridor? High. Traversed by Trails and Proctor Valley Road. Potential. Requires further study. No. 17. Ncar resource-poor areas? Ncar resource-rich areas? Yes. Proctor Valley/lamul Mountains. Yes. Proctor Valley Road. Low. Near future critical circulation path? \10. Contiguity of habitat: I. EXTREME SLOPES I. Slope above 2S %? None. " Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? N/A N/A III. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. V. FLOODPLAIN 1. Encroach upon established loo-year flood plain? '. VISUAL RESOURCES No. 1. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High from Proctor Valley Road. Presence of unique visual features. Low. r :LASSIFICA TION I \,1oderate Sensitivity IDESCRIPTION , tudy area avoids steep slope areas associated with San Miguel Mountain to the west and northwest. Sensitive biological resources defrne the eastern and I ~uthern boundaries. !ANAL YSIS Moderate sensitivity based on lack of steep slopes, limited sensitive biological resources, and proximity to Proctor Valley Road. 12. Within potential wildlife corridor area. Adequate corridor width/access should be provided upon determination of specific needs. 1 I "lI29SPVS 06/10/91 .olal study area acreage: CRITERIA L BIOLOGICAL HABIT A TS Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? EVALUATION Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? 3 populations of Ferocacus viridescens. 1 population of Salvia munzii. 1 population of Selaginel1a cinerascens. 3 sitings of California gnatc:atcher. No. No. Low. High. Ranch House location. Low. Corridor to the south. Yes. Adjacent to Eastlake Greens. Yes. Mostly on opposite bank of reservoir. Yes. Otay Lakes Road. Low. 4. Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? Function as wildlife corridor? 7. Near resource-poor areas? Ncar resource.rich areas? 9. Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: :. EXTREME SLOPES I!' Slope above 25 %., Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. No. No. TH. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Presence of Archaeological Resources? Existing resources require further study. IV. FLOODPLAIN Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? c. VISUAL RESOURCES No. t. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High visibility from Otay Lakes Road. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. :LASSIFICA TION ,ow Sensitivity iJ)ESCRIPTION IRanch house site. < \NAL YSIS I Lack of steep slopes, high level of disturbance, adjacent development, and limited distribution of biological resources make this study area low sensitivity. ,. Preservation of any significant cultural resources should he considered. 1"/295PV6 06/10/91 'otal study area acreage: CRITERIA 1. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 7 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 2 populations of Dudley. variegata, 1 population of Dichondra occidentalis. I population of Salvia munzii, 2 populations of Ferocactus viridescens, S populations of Ive hayensis, 2 sitings of California gnatcatcher. 3 sitings of Grasshopper Sparrow, 2 populations of Muilla clevelandii, 2 populations of SelagincUa cinerucens. No. V croal pool indicator species? .J. Presence of "blue line" stream? Yes. Tributary to lower Olay Reservoir. Low. 4 Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? 6. Function as wildlife corridor? High. Low. Near resource-poor areas? .}. Near resource-rich areas? No. Yes. Lower Otay Reservoir and Jamul Mountains. 9. Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: II. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. Otay Lakes Road. Low. Slope above 25 %? Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? No. N/A N/A II. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. IV. FLOODPLAIN . Encroach upon established loo-year flood plain? V. VISUAL RESOURCES No. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights.of-way. High from Dlay Lakes Road and Reservoir. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. ICLASSIFICA TION .foderate Sensitivity I )ESCRIPTION I $itc boundary defines western limits of study area. Japes define northern study area boundary. Sigificant vernal pool resources exist adjacent to southern boundary and Coastal Sage Scrub and steep I \NAL YSIS [1. Surrounding vernal pool and Coastal sage scrub resources. Wetland habitst should be preserved. I.I/295PV_7 06112/91 -olal study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 287 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 7 populations of Viguiera laciniata. 2 populations of Dudley. variegata, I population of Dichondra occidcntalis, 1 population of Salvia munzii, 2 populations of Ferocactus viridcscens, S populations of lva haycnsis, 2 sitings of California gnatca.tcher, 3 .itings of Grasshopper Sparrow. 2 populations of Muill. clevclandii, 2 populations of Setagine1la cinerucens. No. I Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? 4. Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? Yes. Tributary to lower Otay Reservoir. Low. 6. Function as wildlife corridor? High. Low. - Near resource-poor areas? No. Near resource.rich areas? Yes. Lower Olay Reservoir and Jamul Mountains. 9. Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: d. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. Otay Lakes Road. Low. Slope above 25 %? Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? No. N/A N/A II. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. IV. FLOODPLAIN Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? No. V. VISUAL RESOURCES I. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. Visibility from e~isting or proposed public areas or rights-of~way. High from Otay Lakes Road and Reservoir. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. ,'::LASSIFICA TION -1oderate Sensitivity I")ESCRIPTION ISite boundary defines western limits of study area. Sigificant vernal pool resources exist adjacent to southern boundary and Coastal Sage Scrub and steep lopes define northern study area boundary. I~NAL YSIS 11. Surrounding vernal pool and Coastal sage scrub resources. Wetland habitat should be preserved. 1'I/295PV-7 06/10/91 ~otal study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABIT A TS 136 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 8 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 5 populations of Selagincl1a cincrasccns, 4 populations of Salvia munzii, I population of Ophiogl08sum lusitanicum, lailing of Blue grosbeak, I population of Dudleya variegata. Yes. I vernal pool along eastern boundary. No. Low. High. Low _ Potential corridors to east and west require further Rudy. No. Vernal pool indicator species? 3. Presence of "blue line" stream? Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? 6. Function as wildlife corridor? Ncar resource-poor areas? 8. Near resource-rich areas? Yes. Reservoir and Jamu! Mountains. !) Ncar future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: Yes. Otay Lakes Road. Low. II. EXTREME SLOPES Slope above 25 %? None. ~. Slope areas contiguous? ~ Slopes associated with significant landform? N/A N/A lI. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES I. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. Y. FLOODPLAIN Encroach upon established lOO~year flood plain? No. V. VISUAL RESOURCES Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. ''1.. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High from Otay Lakes Road. ". Presence of unique visual features. Low. ICLASSIFICA TION 1'l>1oderate Sensitivity )ESCRIPTION ~stern boundary is defmed by wetland/Coastal Sage Scrub habitat to the east. Vernal pool area exists to the west. IANAL YSIS II. Lack of sensitive biological resources and steep slopes as well as proximity to Dtay Lakes Road make this study area moderate sensitivity. .., Adjacent to sensitive vernal pool areas to the west and wetland habitat to the east. Ilj/295PV-8 06/10/91 'otal study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS 113 EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 8 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 4 populations of Iv. hayensis, 2 populations of Salvia munzzii, 1 population of Blipa diegoensis. No. Yes. East tributary to lower Otay Reservoir. Low - Moderate. Moderate - High. Requires further study. No. V crnel pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? 4. Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? c. Function as wildlife corridor? " Near rcsource.poor areas? Near resource-rich areas? 9. Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: I. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. Jamul Mountains to the north. Yes. Otay Lakes Road. Moderate. 1. Slope above 25%1 Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. Yes. Primarily western third. Yes. Foothills of Jamul Mountains. 'II. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. IV. FLOODPLAIN . Encroach upon established lOO-year flood plain? No. /. VISUAL RESOURCES 1. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. High from Otay Lakes Road. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. .:LASSIFICA TION I ,-1oderate Sensitivity IIJESCRIPTION -I Bounded by slope and Coastal Sage Scrub resources and by site boundaries. (NAL YSIS :. Disturbance of habitat and proximity to Otay Lakes Road make this study area moderately sensitive. {2. Steep slope areas in northern portion should be restricted to minimal grading. 1. Recommendations of wildlife corridor study should be incorporated. . Area of sensitive visual resources/prominance. 15: Wetland habitat should be presented. ; I.l/295PV.9 06/10/91 Total study area acreage: CRITERIA J. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 5 populations of Ive haycnsis, 6 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 12 populations of Salvia munzii, II populations of Selaginella cincrasccns, 2 populatioDs of Stipe. diegoensis. 2 populations of Fcrocactus viridescens. No. Yes. South tributary to lower DlaY Reservoir. Low - Moderate. Low - Moderate. Firebreak and jeep trails. Low. Potential corridors to cast and west. Vernal pool indicator species? 3. Presence of "blue line" stream? A Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? 6. Function as wildlife corridor? NeaT resource-poor areas? o,l. Near resource-rich areas? No. 9. Near future critical circulation ptlth? O. Contiguity of habitat: II. EXTREME SLOPES Yes. San Ysidro Mountains to south, Otay Reservoir to north. No. High Slope above 25 %? Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? Yo.. No. No. II. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .1. Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. 'v. FLOODPLAIN . Encroach upon established lOO-year flood plain? No. V. VISUAL RESOURCES Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. 1 Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. Moderate from west and north shore of reservoir. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. ICLASSIFICA TION ,.foderate Sensitivity j :lESCRIPTION It)rainage and sensitive habitat area defme south/southwestern boundary and Coastal Sage Scrub/slope resources defme eastern boundary. IANAL YSIS I ,j. Lack of steep slopes and scarcity of biological resources make this study area moderately sensitive. ~. Study area is isolated from other potential development area and could result in significant environmental impacts from extension of infrastructure and services. I IH/295SYI 06/10/91 ~otal study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 14 populations of Viguiera laciniata. 17 populations of Muilla clevelandii. 8 populations of Selaginella cinerascens, 2 populations of Stipe diegoensis, 2 populations of ferocactus viridcsccns, 4 sitings of California gnatcatchcr, 5 populations of Ive hayensis. Yes. J vernal pool identified. Yes. South tributaries to Dulzura Creek. Moderate. 2. Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? Diversity of species? 5. Level of disturbance? Low to moderate. Function 8S wildlife corridor? Low. Canyons to east and west provide corridors to reservoir. No. 1. Near resource-poor areas? Near resource-rich areas? Near future critical circulation path? 10. Contiguity of habitat: Yes. Otay Wildlife Management area to the south. Yes. Olay Lakes Road. Moderate. l. EXTREME SLOPES j. Slope above 25 %? ?. Slope areas contiguous? Slopes associated with significant landform? Yes. No. No. III. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. V. FLOODPLAIN I. Encroach upon established loo-year flood plain? T. VISUAL RESOURCES No. J. Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. .... Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of.way. High from Ofay Lakes Road. Presence of unique visual features. Low. :LASSIFICA TION I Moderate Sensitivity IDESCRIPTION ~etland habitat, steep slope and Coastal Sage Scrub define the northeast boundary of this study area, while sensitive biological habitats and steep slope areas I define the southwestern boundary. IANAL YSIS Site contains numerous sitings of sensitive plants and coastal sage scrub. /2. Vernal pool will require preservation/mitigation according to section 404 requirements. Grading restrictions should be placed on areas of steep slo~. Illl295SY2 06110191 -Dial study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 4 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 2 populations of Dichondra occidcntalis, 4 populations of Stips diegoensis, 3 populations of Muilla Clevelandii. No. Yes. South tributary to Dulzura Creek. Low. " Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? 4. Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? Low to moderate. _. Function as wildlife corridor? Low. Canyons to the cast and west are potential corridors. No. 7. Near resource-poor areas? Near resource-rich areas? Yes. San Ysidro Mountains to the south. 10. Near future critical circulation path? 1. Contiguity of habitat: L EXTREME SLOPES Yes. Otay Lakes Road. Low. 1. Slope above 25%? Yes. Slope areas contiguous? J, Slopes associated with significant landform? No. No. Ill. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Presence of Archaeological Resources? Yes. IV. FLOODPLAIN . Encroach upon established tOO-year flood plain? No. I. VISUAL RESOURCES 1. Degree to which the study area encroaches on 8 major ridgeline. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of-way. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Yes. High from Otay Lakes Road. Low. :LASSIFICA TION foderate Sensitivity IDESCRIPTION !primaTY resource is fragmented steep slope and disturbed coastal sage scrub, otherwise relatively unconstrained. (NAL YSIS . Difficult access and isolation from larger contiguous unconstrained areas. 1""295SY3 06110191 Total study area acreage: CRITERIA I. BIOLOGICAL HABITATS EVALUATION Level of inhabitation by sensitive plants or animals? 109 populations of Viguiera laciniata, 2 populations of Solanum tcnuilobatum, 4 populations of Se1aginella cinerascens, S populations of Muilla clevclandii, 14 populations of Romneya coulteri, 3 populations of Stipe diegoensis, 3 populations of Dudleya variegata, 1 population of Cupressus guadclupcnsis, 3 populations of Dichondra occidentalis, 1 unknown raptor nest location. No. Vernal pool indicator species? Presence of "blue line" stream? 4. Diversity of species? Level of disturbance? o. Function as wildlife corridor? .,. Near resource-poor areas? NeaT resource-rich areas? Yes. Numerous tributaries to Dulzura Creek. Low to Moderate Moderate to high. Grazing, rue disturbance. Moderate. Low sensitivity corridor shown in northern portion of study arca. No. Yes. San Ysidro Mountains and Wildlife preserve area to the south. 9. Near future critical circulation path? O. Contiguity of habitat: _I. EXTREME SLOPES No. Fairly contiguous. . 1. Slope above 25 %? Yes. No. Yes. Southern slopes contiguous with San Ysidro Mountains. Slope areas contiguous? 3. Slopes associated with significant landform? 'II. PRESENCE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES . Presence of Archaeological Resources? IV. FLOODPLAIN Yes. Scattered. . Encroach upon established loo-year flood plain? No. v. VISUAL RESOURCES 1 Degree to which the study area encroaches on a major ridgeline. Low. Visibility from existing or proposed public areas or rights-of.way. High visibility from Highway 94. 3. Presence of unique visual features. Low. Some rock outcroppings. '::LASSIFICA TION I &oderate Sensitivity I')ESCRIPTION !Boundaries defined by topographic lines that delineate areas that are constrained by biological resources or by significant masses of steep slope. IANAL YSIS Low biological sensitivity and moderate slopes. 12. Sensitivity to visual resources and rural character of this area should be considered. I. Grading restrictions should he imposed in areas of steep slope. IH/295SY4 06110/91