HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Comm Rpts./1995/11/08 (6)
r~;-T ) " lCJQ:.
l..;., _..1 '-' _ -
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Barbara Reid, City of Chula Vista
Anita Hayworth, Dudek & Associates..{\ ('i\ t\-
October 26, 1995
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Otay Ranch SPA One EIR
The following information has been gathered and prepared in response to the issues raised in
the 23 October 1995 RCC meeting regarding the Otay Ranch SPA One EIR. The issues
covered by this memorandum include the following:
1) Location and mapping of a potential pond along Telegraph Canyon Road.
2) Review of mapping information for the coastal rosy boa.
3. Arroyo toad survey.
4) Data sheets for the 1995 California gnatcatcher survey and discussion of dominant
plant species in relation to the target transect results for the habitat replacement
master plan.
5) Additional observational information on the tricolored blackbird.
6) Performance standards for the habitat replacement master plan treatments: are they
the same for all treatment types?
cc: Kim Kilkenny, The Baldwin Company
John Bridges, Cotton Beland and Associates, Inc.
Larry Sward, Sweetwater Environmental Biologists
June Collins, Dudek and Associates, Inc.
Issue 1. Location and mapping of a potential pond along Telegraph Canyon Road.
The wetland delineation along Telegraph Canyon Road was reviewed on 24 October 1995,
with special attention directed to a potential pond area (identified by the RCC) just south of
the linear band of wetland. The review consisted of walking the entire length of the
delineated wetland. It was assumed that the potential pond area identified by the RCC is the
topographically well-defmed basin behind an earthen berm located approximately midway
between Buena Vista and Apache Drive. Although the basin is not obvious from the road,
the top of an old willow tree in the basin can be seen from Telegraph Canyon Road.
The field review confirmed the accuracy of the delineation. The only partial inconsistency is
on the delineation map: the entire wetland polygon is labeled as "fresh water marsh," but
some of the eastern portion could be labeled freshwater marsh/southern willow scrub. This
situation is mentioned in the first paragraph on page 3 of the delineation report (Appendix F9
B to the RMP) as follows: "Wetland habitat along Telegraph Canyon Road is primarily
disturbed freshwater marsh, some of which appears to be the result of revegetation efforts
associated with recent road improvements. This habitat is patchy and dominated by cattail
(Typha sp.) and bulrush (Scirpus sp.) of varying density; a few weedy upland and wetland
species also occur. Within and immediately adjacent to the marsh are small scattered patches
of mule fat (Baccharis salicijolia) and a very few young willow trees (Salix sp.). The
willows are found primarily in the eastern one-fourth of the channel." Another way of
describing this area might be as follows: East of Otay Lakes Road, the wetland supports
considerably more willow trees and represents a mosaic of freshwater marsh and small
patches (less than 0.1 acre) of southern willow scrub.
The potential pond area cited at the 10/23 RCC meeting is south of the linear wetland band
and supports two or three large, well-spaced willow trees (at the south edge of the basin) that
appear to be in poor health. The entire basin is dominated by non-natives, primarily slender
wild oat (Avena barbata) and black mustard (Brassica nigra). With the exception of the
'individual willows, no hydrophytic vegetation is present in the basin. Based on topography
(i.e., the basin and berm), it is possible that the area supports ponded water following years
of exceptional rainfall. However, as noted above, no hydrophytic vegetation or other
evidence of ponded water was present either during the wetland delineation or the recent
review of the delineation. The basin area does not meet any of the three criteria for
jurisdictional wetland habitat, i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology, or hydric soils.
Issue 2. R~view of mapping information for the coastal rosy boa.
There are no locations mapped for the coastal rosy boa within SPA One for any of the
surveys conducted between 1988 and 1995.
Iso()e 3. Arroyo toad survey.
Attached are two memoranda which discuss the arroyo toad survey. The first, dated 17
February 1995 summarizes information provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding survey protocol. The second, dated 23 June 1995, discusses the results of the
arroyo toad survey, including the personnel conducting the survey. survey methodology, and
the results.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
June
FROM:
Anita
DATE:
February 17, 1994
SUBJECT:
Future Species Listings: the arroyo toad, a special case
In the draft Procedures for Dealing with Future Species' Listings (January 23, 1995),
recommendations are made for the survey effort required for a species newly listed as
threatened or endangered. Within the discussion, a special case is described for the arroyo
toad (Bufo microscaphus califomicus). The arroyo toad was listed as endangered on
December 19, 1994 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This species is a special case for
two reasons: 1) it was listed after the Resource Management Plan was prepared and did not
have focused surveys conducted for it, and 2) it is of extremely limited distribution and is a
good example of the type of species for which ranch-wide surveys should be conducted upon
being listed.
The arroyo toad is restricted to riparian wetlands with near-perennial flow in southern
California. Habitat requirements include sandy stream terraces adjacent to shallow pools.
This species is presently restricted to small, isolated populations. In San Diego County,
arroyo toads have been found on the Santa Margarita, Guejito, Sweetwater, Val1ecito, San
Luis Rey, Santa Ysabel, Witch, Cottonwood, Temescal, Agua Caliente, Santa Maria,
Lusardi, Pine Valley, Noble, Kitchen, Long Potrero, Upper San Diego, San Vicente, and
Morena drainages. They have not been known to occur in drainages on the Otay Ranch.
Habitat is currently not available in Poggi Canyon or Salt Creek. Otay River potentially
contains habitat and may exhibit spring flows and permanent ponding and thus may be
suitable for the arroyo toad. Discussions with Kat Brown, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
biologist, on February 17, 1995 indicate that arroyo toad surveys will not be required for
Poggi Canyon or Salt Creek, however surveys should be conducted of Otay River.
Although there is no currently accepted survey protocal, Ms. Brown recommended choosing
several potentially suitable sites along Otay River and visiting them for three nights in a row.
The arroyo toaa may be identified by listening for its characteristic trilling call on moonless
nights between dusk and midnight. Surveys should be conducted between March and May.
The potentially suitable sites will be selected by visiting the river valley during daylight
hours.
Although the surveys for the arroyo toad will be of limited extent, they will be inclusive of
all suitable areas ranch-wide.
MEMORANDUM
Date:
June 23, 1995
870..06
To:
June Collins, Dudek & Associates, Inc.
Fr:
Brock Ortega, Dudek & Associates, Inc.
Subject:
Results of a Focused Survey for Arroyo SouthwestI'm Toad Along the Otay River Within
Otay Ranch, San Diego County, California.
This memorandum documents the results of a focused survey for arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo
microscaphus californicus) conduded by DUDEK along Otay River within Otay Ranch, San Diego
County, California.
Introduction
In conformance with the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan Procedures for Dealing with Future
Species Listings, a review of previous surveys and a focused survey of habitat likely to support the
endangered arroyo southwestern toad was conducted. Although the Otay River Valley is not projected
to be developed, riparian restoration adivities (i.e, channelization, weed eradication) might have an
adverse effed on the arroyo southwestern toad if it were present.
The arroyo southwestern toad (ARTO) is a small (2-3 inches), light greenish gray or tan toad with warty
skin and dark spots (does not have a dorsally situated light colored line like the similar western toad
[Bufo boreas]). Its vocalization is a light trill usually lasting eight to ten seconds. The ARTO is restrided
to rivers that have shallow, gravelly pools adjacent to sandy terraces. Breeding occurs between late
March and mid-June and eggs are laid in shallow pools with little emergent vegetation, The present
known range of the ARTO includes Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, southwest
Imperial, and San Diego counties. The ARTO is presumed to have been extirpated from San Luis
Obisbo County. In 1994, only six of 22 extant populations south of Ventura County are known to
contain more than a dozen adults, Most of the populations in San Diego County are located in the
eastern and southeastern portions, and predominantly within or adjacent to the Cleveland National
Forest, although ARTO were found historically in most drainages throughout the county, Several
factors presently threaten the remaining 23 % of the habitat of the ARTO including: short- and long-term
changes in river hydrology, including construdion of dams and water diversions; alteration of riparian
wetland habitats by agriculture and development; construdion of roads; site-specific damage by off-
highway vehicle use; development of campgrounds and other recreational adivities; over-grazing; and
mining activitie;;. It also is predated by introduced sunfish, bass, mosquitofish, sculpin, gobies, and
bullfrog (Federal Register 1994),
Site Location and General Existinl! Conditions
The approximately 4 mile long study area is located in San Diego County south and east of the City
of Chula Vista, and north of the City of San Diego, within the Otay River Valley. Specifically, the study
1
area lies in the USGS 7.5 minute topographic mao, Otay Mesa quadrangle in unscctioned lands; T18S,
R1W; SBBM. Elevations in the survey area range from approximately 140 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) in the west portion, to 300 feet AMSL in the east portion,
Soils mapped for the area (Bowman 1973) include Salinas-Corralitos associations' which are
moderately well drained to moderately excessively drained clays, clay loams, and loamy sands on
alluvial fans. Present land uses include open space and livestock grazing.
Methods
A focused survey was conducted by DUDEK personnel Brock A. Ortega (BAO), Michael J. Komula
(MJK), John W. Brown, Ph.D. UWB), Philip R. Behrends, Ph.D. (PRB), and Michael L. Sweesy (MLS)
between 4 and 6 April 1995 (Table 1). The project area was visited on 2 April 1995 to determine
potential breeding areas and survey locations. There were six survey locations distributed within the
project area. During the survey, each survey location was visited for 30 minutes or more. While at
each location, surveyors listened for the distinctive ARTO trilling and release calls, If a call was heard,
surveyors proceeded toward the call in order to verify the species. Survey protocol followed those
established by the USFWS (March 7, 1995).
DATE PERSONNEl MOON PHASE TIME TEMPERATURE WIND SPEED CLOUD COVER
4 April BAO. MIK, jWB Quaner 193(1.2300 h" SS,SO"F (1.3 mph 100'%.
5 April BAO. MJK, PRB, Quarter 200(1.2300 h" SB-48OF (1.3 mph 70-40%
JWB
6 April BAO, MIK, MlS Quarter 1930-2301 hrs S8,51OF o mph 40'%.
Table 1.
Flashlights, binoculars (1 Ox50 power), camera with flash, and resource books were available for use
by surveyors. The survey was completed under favorable conditions: cloudy to partly cloudy skies;
air temperatures of 56-48 degrees Fahrenheit; occasional light breezes; and quarter moon or less.
Results
The study area is mostly a disturbed riparian scrub community. Dominant plants include tamarisk
(Tamarix aphyl/a), mule fat (Baccharis sa/icifolia), willows (Salix sp.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus
and E. camaldulensis), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarachroides), and cattails (Typha lacifolia). The
eastern third of the study area was burned in the summer of 1994 and has the charred remains of many
trees and shrubs.
Water flows via a series of small creeks and streams over cobbly to clayey ground within the study area.
Ponding exists In many areas and is subject to large algae blooms.
No ARTO were detected during the surveys. Aquatic and semi-aquatic species detected during the
surveys include Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla), bullfrog (Bufo catesbeiana), sunfish (Lepomis sp,),
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), and crayfish (Cambarus sp.) (Table 2). Aquatic species observed
during a 1993 arroyo toad survey include African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), southwestern pond
turtle (CIemmys marmorata pal/ida), and two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii
hammondit) (Dudek and Associates, Inc. 1993 - SDG&E Pipeline 2000 Project),
2
Table 1
Location So.des Number Obsen<ed
1 - Before Gate Pacific treefroli: manv; adultsltadpoles
2 - 0.25 mile east of Ilate Pacific treefroli!: many; adultsltadpoles
3 - 1 $I river crossinll Pacific treefr02 many; adurtsltadpofes
3 - 1 $I river crossino buJJfrOIl detected one once
4 - 2nd river crossimz none
5 - Ponds Pacific treefrog many; aduJtsltadpoles
5 - Ponds bulllroR detected one twice. two once
5 - Ponds sunfish 2
6 - End near dam Pacjfic treefroli!: many; adultsltadpoles
6 - End near dam bullfrog 3 + adults; tadpoles
6 - End near dam mosQuitofish 100+
6 - End near dam crayfish lots
Conclusion
No ARTO were detected in the Otay River Valley during the focused surveys and there are no previous
recent records. Based on these results, the arroyo toad would not be affected by future land
development or restoration activities in the valley.
Management activities which might enhance the opportunities for ARTO translocation to the river
valley include: bullfrog, African clawed frog, crayfish, and mosquitofish control programs; creation of
more suitable ARTO habitat by eliminating tamarix and allowing a near perennial flow of water from
ihe Otay lakes dam; limiting pesticide and herbicide use within the valley; limiting cattle access points
to the river; and introducing ARTO into the river valley.
3
~
wg
'"
m
o
-<
>-
-<
"
>-
z
C1
:I:
~
'"
'"
'"
>-
"
"
o
-<
o
'"
o
c:
....
:I:
:E
m
'"
-<
m
"
Z
-<
o
>-
o
'"
c:
"
<
m
-<
....
o
C1
>-
-<
<5
z
'"
,
"; !
./~C::>
.( '(.i /.
/ \ I
,
"
,
\
I.
\
V',; ~~
.,..;-- \
: .
\
(Jj
>
~
r
o
.
"
~
>
~
o
-..
",,-
(
!
i
,"0
~,
..
'"
m
~
'I
,.
/
Issue 4. Data sheets for dIe 1995 California gnatcatcher survey and discussion of dominant
plant species in relation to the target transect results for the habitat replacement master plan.
The attached field data sheets for the 1995 California gnatcatcher survey and the habitat
restoration master plan polygon analysis for the slope along Poggi Canyon indicate the
dominant plant species within the CSS and MSS habitat. Most of the plant species listed on
the forms are also found on the target transect data sheets for the habitat replacement master
plan (Target Transects 7 and 8). Those plant species not found on the target transects are
typical CSS/MSS species and are included in the plant palettes for CSS and MSS habitats
(Tables 4 and 5 of the Habitat Replacement Master Plan).
The target transects for the habitat replacement master plan were chosen for their overall
high quality as defmed by a dominance of native species, lack of non-native species (as much
as possible), high vegetative cover, presence of sensitive species, and the "classical"
appearance of the habitat as found in "pristine" locations. The locations of the target
transects were selected to be near or in the same area as the restoration sites. The target
transects are not meant to be reproduced exactly by the habitat replacement treatments, but
rather. to serve as a guide for the plant species composition and habitat structure within a
localized area. The presence of non-native species within a target transect does not mean
that the habitat replacement activities will include planting non-native species. Although
target transects may miss the presence of some plant species, the plant palette is designed to
fulfill the full range of CSS and MSS species and thus replace the habitat to a high quality
habitat suitable for occupation by gnatcatchers, cactus wrens, and other CSS/MSS species.
JIll""" /' CALIFORNIA
. .. .
oJ
/' , PROJECT:~ CLIENT: MJ ~
'5F>A- \ #:
Page \ ~
- of~
Investigator Amt+ Start Stop
Date 1/7_ 7 {q? Time D~~ () 1.;J6 0
J . '54<:> (,Ic
Alignment Temp ,.,
Region/Location t~ Je0 +- c:;-p A- , Wind !-3 s- G"
. Aerial photo # Cloud cover /{')?u Cf9"7o
Site visit # I Precipitition 0 o (V1\.Cw:;"'_
~,\
Sighting #: I Number of individuals: :< Species: ~AG~ CA WR
Sex: female male @ Age: I@d0i juvenile tledgliflg
Vegetation type: C,,=,c,
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: t-r T)/'~..wxL'-- 50 Ih'l
2: .To~ok 30 /. S
3: o. ~OA-b- dO .5en
I u
Shrub Cover "7 naJo Slope ?f)o Aspect kJ Elevation 350
Sighting #: -.}, Number of individuals: cd Species: <.fAG}V CA WR
Sex: female male ~ Age:~ul.s:.::1uvenile tledgliflg
Vegetation type: csS
. Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: rP- '(' !,v", v:. ? i!J.- 40 1.2- m
2: -' \ .&-0 I. "2-
,-,'OIf)()V'--
~. . Iv'" dO .;2..
3: \I 'f').)../) \\(\, r:,'(\VO\I.~
V
Shrub Cover Clo'7o Slope doO Aspect S Elevation 350
Sighting #: (j) Number of individuals: I Species: CAGN <&. W~
Sex: female~ pair' Age:~ juvenile tledgliflg
Vegetation type: \Y\ sS
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: () ~ ~o- ~o ~ .7~ rY1
2: ~ v ~ obf:L-. k(') 1.5
3: rJ~/ 7-0 ::t
Shrub Cover 3oe-;~ Slope ~'D Aspect S, Elevation '2, 5"0
'NA TCA TCHER/CACI1JS WREN SURVEY
NA TCA TCHER/CACnJ.~ WREN SURVEY
#: CLIENT:
rigator
ate
Alignment
Region/Locarion
Ae'rial photo #
Site visit #
/ (~7('1 '5'
TllIle
Temp
Wind
Cloud cover
Precipitition
I...) I/'...:r~
Sighting #: CD Number of individuals: ;:;
Sex: female male Q Age:~ juvenile tledglirg
Vegetation type: -:Ii \"0, 5 S ,Ie ss
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover
1: JO'Ioh<,- ,ee4Q
~
2: CA ~~" ~ 5D
3 : 0 I:Y'-D l..>>.A-"^ I 0
. .
Shrub Cover SO "70 Slope ISo Aspect
Sighting #: @ Number of individuals: 2-
Sex: female male.@ . Age:@juvenile tledglirg
Vegetation type: c.'S:;'
Dominant Shrub
Ar~,' ..;;.".,(',
Jt."1'LLcYL-C~ ,
1:
2:
3: 7' C--"I"c 0!\...
v ...
% Relative Cover
~O
3D
;;.in
Page
Start
~
of-~
Stop
Species: qfA~ CAWR
Average Height
I 2 i'T7
/
,5
S Elevation ..350
Species: @ CA WR
Average Height
I m
07-3 rn
IS-
Shrub Cover '1 D 1~
Slope
SOD
Aspect S..J. L0
Elevation
Lhu
Sighting #:
Sex: female male pair .
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub
Number of individuals:
Age: adult juvenile tledglirg
% Relative Cover
1:
2:
{.- 3: -
'-
"shriii;cover
Slope
Aspect
?;:<_.,:~r:-: -. ~_, "1.., .'.
Species: CAGN CA WR
Average Height
Elevation
CALIFORNIA JNA TCA TCHER/CACTlJ S \VREN SURVEY
, nfrlA0
PROJECT: ~1:&....\ #: CLIENT: \3,,-1 Q ,..11.).J"" Vl
Page -L of~
Investigator ~~ Start Stop
Date Tlffie ()?i '5 II?>!)
Alignment Temp 5<" &>2-1':>
Region/Location F~"t PncD Wind 0-\ 1- 3
Aerial photo # Cloud cover c? D 0-;0 0
Site visit # I Precipitition 0 D
Sighting #: I Number of individuals: ;2. Species: CAGN€~
Sex: female male@. Age:~d.uE>ju~enile t1edgliflg
Vegetation type: (Y)SS J
. .
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: n (""~I" J ~.6. 40 .75 'f'n
. 'D u 5D
2: \" \0 v... t.25
3: Qp., (,v.,~!;,,- 10 <?
Shrub Cover II)"?,., Slope doD Aspect '5 Elevation 4-'-10
Sighting #: '2 Number of individuals: I Species: CAGN ~A WR)
Sex: femal~ pair Age: ~0Yjuvenile t1edgliflg
Vegetation type: YY1 SS
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: ,~ ~nfn?- 00 IVV\
2: 0. ()'vYJ "'PJ\C<-- 3n I lVl
. ,
3: \...tu (' (" ""- In -; V'h
(j
Shrub Cover s:f7", Slope 400 Aspect S Elevation 440
~n.vv0 ?"n"7,., . "" '" f'/" '7.rf!7 ~
..... v CAGN~
Sighting #: :) Number of individuals: \ Species:
'7 Age: ~ juvenile fledgl-iflg
Sex: female' male pair'
Vegetation type: mS~
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: o ~ r:" ( ,- ,Lj YV-... ?() .7c:s VV1
2: Y' _ \ ol,x..... 57) I
3: ~o.. ;:Jn~Q \
Shrub Cover 70'10 Slope 7>>0 Aspect S Elevation LJ.'fa
~
CALIFORNIA ( ~A TCA TCHER/CACIU... WREN SURVEY
,/ , PROJECT: ~'-\s'q-p-\ #: CLIENT:~ A !."0({\
\ . 2-
Page ofb.
Investigator ~~*"- Start Stop
Date" '17ft) (qS' TlD1e
Alignment I Temp
Region/Location , I)~ RA..A Wind
Aerial photo # Cloud cover
Site visit # I Precipitition
Sighting #, ~ Number of individuals: 1 Species: CAGN~vYR
Sex: female al paIr Age: ~juvenile fledglipg
Vegetation type: rnc::')
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: -\ 6\0'00-- 30 1m
2: o ~ (?'\..O \.; ~ .30 /
'4 .I '. I. '7,1 75
3: - 0" '^ w. ,j.. M tf V'I1J..O( u :20
(j
Shrub Co';Cr~j.A\ ;'0")0 I~, ~~e ,f" ~o 0 Aspect .s Elevation 4-Ja
s' h' \J ~
Ig tmg #: Number of individuals: Species: CAGN CAWR
Sex: female male pair Age: adult juvenile fledglipg -
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1:
2:
3:
Shrub Cover Slope Aspect Elevation
Sighting #: Number of individuals: Species: CAGN CAWR
Sex: female mal:, pair ' Age: adult juvenile fledglipg
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1:
2:
3-
.. - -,."'
-
.
-.
. Shrub Cover - Slope Aspect Elevation ..
......
-
- ---- - ----.
.'..... '
~ ,;..
,-;'"
:::~
.,"--
j{,'~
t'
-- CALIFORNIA ~NATCATCHER/CAcrLJ WREN SURVEY
"T A ~ '.
.;t; . - PROJECT: silt I #: CLIENT: ' -~'.'-'-
- . -...--
-
-" -,..- , -
~~. Page -L . -.,
of 'L
.--
Investigator (S..J}.() Start Stop
Date &/h1 /~) TlIIle O~~o flOC
, 50'" r.,.
Alignment Temp
Region/Location <;E (5,/uJ i) Wind 0 ~
Aerial photo # Cloud cover ~JL/ e.lwr
Site visit # i Precipitition vw""- "'eN.
Sighting #: I Number of individuals: ;J.., Species: cfAGN):A WR
Sex: female male~ Age: G;dJ0juvenile t1edglipg
Vegetation type: C:s~
~~minant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: ( WI:'" Co. \ . 50 f. 5' ""-
2: Jc;>~o~,^ <fa I (.I,-
3: () P<J^!'''' ~ ro \.~r,,- f 0 I IIV\
Shrub Cover ~ot, Slope zoo Aspect SLJ Elevation 42-; ,
~
Sighting #: 2- Number of individuals: 2- Species: ~CAWR
Sex: female male @ Age: @jUVenile t1edglipg -
Vegetation type: Mss
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: .'Yo J"~ 30 ( .,."
2: o. er.i:Cu... :So " 5' V\.
3: .4r.L ~-;,,,,- r'nl ~ 10 I IIrI
fj. sOo JJ I
Shrub Cover 70 ':;,.., Slope Aspect Elevation i/~o
Sighting #; 3 Number of individuals: :2-. Species: (AGj) CA WR
Sex: female male @ . Age: ~ juvenile fledglipg
Vegetation type: r. S5
Dfminant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1: A( ';u;', a 6.\ gO l."'it,.,
2: iXf\'r,. z." ..r ""
3 ,d{1l . - 5" I. 5 r-..
.:~ : i:", 'fA- ..
~-..,. , . .r~- .
-". :s Wo I '. '..
tShrub c~v~i-::.'. ~ 10 Slope zoo . Aspect Elevation
-
.~
;:
~*h::~<,~ 'd
~..... ~:.. 'f":';" '
. CALIFORNIA ~A TCA TCHER/CACfL.., WREN SURVEY
C;JI A ~ - sPit I #: CLIENT:
Investigator R 4-D
Date (0 RJ. 'qS-
Alignment
Region/Location -s-E 1'>.......6
Aerial photo #
Site visit # J-.
Tune
Temp
Wind
Cloud cover
Precipitition
Sighting #: t./ Number of individuals: '2.
Sex: female male @ Age: @P juvenile fledglipg
Vegetation type: C. 55
Dominant Shrub
1: A~",i$,'''''
2: (), pro r if<.rc.
I .
3: 0--.Yl.,o
Shrub Cover ~o to
% Relative Cover
~
,0
~'"
Sighting #:
Sex: female male pair
Vegetation type:
. Dominant Shrub
Slope ZS" Aspect
Number of individuals:
,
Age: adult juvenile fledgl4pg
% Relative Cover
1:
2:
3:
Shrub Cover
Slope
Aspect
Sighting #: Number of individuals:
Sex: female male pair' Age: adult juvenile fledgl4pg
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover
1:
2:
.3:
~ . ~ -.-
"'",
Shrub Cover
.<.; Slope ,
Aspect
_ ~. :* ~. ~ ; '~" -~: ,t':-L~~~~~;~~--'$'~~
.:~~:;:~~~<-~./;/-::- - ~."-' ..'# ...~~
'. ;-
... ..... .....
.:;:~ ..,I. .,. ~- ~~-;;;..",. -
- ~.""''''' ,:' '," -
Page ~ of ~
Start
Stop
,CAWR
Average
'.5 ...,
, ....
I ~
Height
-
":...,..,;.~'-:
-.'*.
, .~:a-
'3?,o -.,,,,,,
'"
-'
'^-l
Elevation
Species: CAGN CA WR .
"
Average Height
Elevation
Species: CAGN CA WR
Average Height
-.'
, ,_. '"., .'-. ,..c;;r
,. ,.~-;~C;~;~
Elevation '.*
C~LIFORNIA rNA TCA TCHER/CACft ) WREN SURVEY
---PROJECT: OIAY -S?A ( #: CLIENT:
, '.
" . - . L
'- .- Page ofL
. -
-
Investigator 8A-D Start Stop
Date ~\ , tj)' TlIDe
7 /')'00 1100
Alignment Temp of po, 0 t=- IcD"'F
Region/Location N+ w baNi Wind O-l ""f'1-, o-S''''PI,
Aerial photo # Cloud cover ft>O~ (,or,
Site visit # Precipitition vw",.~ VI <oM
Sighting #: Number of individuals: Species: CAGN CAWR
Sex: female male pair Age: adult juvenile fledgl41g
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1:
2:
3: ..
.-;...
Shrub Cover Slope Aspect Elevation '_--';"-~;). -
- -:-:;:
-
Sighting #: Number of individuals: Species: CAGN CAWR
Sex: female male pair Age: adult juvenile fledgl-i!1g
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1:
2:
3:
Shrub Cover Slope Aspect Elevation
Sighting #: Number of individuals: Species: CAGN CAWR
Sex: female male pair' Age: adult juvenile fledgl-i!1g
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub % Relative Cover Average Height
1:
2: . .. . -
3: . .~....v..
....-...
, '"" ' ~
, - -, -- .;..,.:;.,..,.... -
..~.- Elev~~ion ~o(;.. _ ~
.. . _n . .,;.. -","
Shrub Cover - .- . _ Slope ,. Aspect .~
.' -- $
- ,
.: _ '_ <-::>"r=: - _...~_ ~ oor,:"":"-::
- . _.t. --. _._ - ~ "'..;> -..... . -
. '. '- -'- - ,"'" - '-..- 0.-: ;<;:'
. "';,-.' .~,
-~.\~>~..- ;-~"(;~.:;~: '.~=!1. : . .--
-.
. :".,-.,.. -,- ,:"',
.... ,'.'
..."f:.,,_,~~-,-
... --
I' ,"-- I 't/;
~, J I!!' ' '7 I
' Lt < , I'A II, f" 1\\\, , ~
l ~}~~~ I~ ~ 't~~~ I ",] ",,1!:JJ .': ,
'-'"/ ~j kV lit-- -s '\\,-, ~/" N . I t.t'
"((1(t01 \ I..;t '." 'I\~ U '. ',u
' -0 I~ ,Q ~ 'ts mll:( ~~ tn, '7.') > ,~'fdJJ" ~
' ( ?l!v~ dll.R/i, Je;//YI, ,Of<, ,~ -r'o
~, ~v '({ "-0r j\ ',0 V Ifllll '(y )): '" i \ ~
)~ . .' \~ ~'~~r.0~t{:>" ,~' ,
~" ,\ Cr, , b!..I:i:i', 'tMJ,
~ . \j~J, ~'?I''9CI ~~I.\.~<~:\11-~:J
~,~...,; ',: '7 -:t'S) ." (V~r-..::::1...... "\ \'\)) ~"""
. '~.. " !, 'i ~ ~). :;::..JJ,~ ;;;
","I' -. -/ ~I!(, "k I a ~ ~~/G
~~~ ~:J\j ,,'~:::;,c '~~~) )) ~ ~~~
Ii { /I':;; ; '~ r.~d it"~,-;; i dJJ~,[~ @@ c ~~ ~
,""I:! )~1" /,ts,:" '" r~~\ . 0 )\' ~~ ~J:-':'
\,/
'. - J ~ ~)1" ~ ~
',. "~ ~ I'''''', '\J lI(l:~ ~/_ ,
" ~! . ~ . '=-= ... i.1 " "'-1.J'~ '.k{ ,
~J (~"'~'}i 1\ ~-~~ro "10..=", , "
.,\< ~, 'r ",,''e'i'1 \ = __ <. '" ,
.~,)\.. ., /1/ ~r ~i ~~~ I , , "'''-_,. """~.~'1! ~_':;: : ':- _ . .
) ~~'. [j ~'/;~cfJ~~ ..... ~/~\ . ...I. ...:..'c...........-.:.......... . : ~. ~,,: Cil -:-_". ....
- -- . . ~I f(.~~ ( r--.., ~ ~,,.,,, u " '" .' cc, . '7 , , '"
-, ", V_,lL, ""'"'' ' ,_ , ~ ~.,",,:c... . :.'.'~,__
I --.t --".. . . '. . ::.:..~_. '7' " ....... .: ,..,;" (:) , :;;:''''0'.
,.. " J'''-'', , c, c' 'T," "e "",,, ,'. ,,,,or,,,, C', .,,",'"
'--...:f:'~o;.:2O~. . ''''~ii,,',:;... ., . , ,. '. .'. ,..;.-1 '~_.. ~'o.) _. ";"--. .,._.... ,'. '.,. ..~.,: '.~ '_
.r....'.- '~" '<.;~<.. '.. 0.'4 C.c.~ .'*~ .eQ -J:; .'7.. .... ~ ~
... "'".. "Q ~ '", ,::..,.~ ~;. "3,
"""'.,~,.?? - ~ s tI'=~ '0 ~ _ 'w '
.0-- <"'.c-~~:~~u:~ ~ (:J ..... ., -() 2. ~ 01. ? ..
-......:.: '1Sl~\a,/''''~o' "'" '< ;;- c .....
r--:~o\"~~~,'-r- "'t _ .
- <
. '-0"" .' T'3..s~
.." . .~.orClt()",-:s::
. .Q..~ I-=~ 3 3 f,
.. . ??_"'S"'" Q~"'''6l.
v- 'jCfo - L%~~~ Q.J eQ{;::2 v DO
()-- -: ~... ~I.I. ~ '2 '<' - . 2 1 .,
-_r:I. "'~ () ~< u It. 4
r- ()1o)~c.J":I:._1
- -.J Co
-'
CALIFORNIA ( iA TCA TCHERlCACIT WREN SURVEY
:PROJECT: ()r A If - ~ A #: CLIENT:
Investigator :B,A-D
Date I:; P~b 1"I't';'
Alignment
RegioD/Location .5> "I-I..t fJ\ I>~",
Aerial photo #
Site visit #
Page of ~
Start
Stop
12=
{;7~F-
o
t.o Yn
IN .\.(,..
TlIDe 6& S D
Temp 1"'2-'P
Wind 0
Cloud cover (00 Po
Precipitition M NL
Sighting #: I Number of individuals: Z
Sex: female male@P Age: ~ juvenile fledgli~g
Vegetation type: C S :s
Dominant Shrub
1: ,O".v""e, ,;" Co. \ .
2: \0)"1,,c.
3: O€. ~ro\'l~rc....
% Relative Cover
J()
<10
/0
Shrub Cover
7() '1,.,
Slope 20' Aspect
Number of individuals: 2-
Age: adult juvenile fledgli~g.
Sighting #: 2-
Sex: female male pair
Vegetation type: fV'.::5J
Dominant Shrub
1: o. ~1'o\'I4rU
2: I!t~Q"tS-)o.. c.. (
3: l~Dlou
Shrub Cover 80 %
% Relative Cover
ifo
<:0
/0
"
Slope ~
Aspect
Sighting #: 3 Number of individuals: .5
Sex: female @1e+ I@Y' Age: ~ juvenile fledglipg
Vegetation type: C s:s
Dominant Shrub
1: Ak.~n)" c~1
2: ~y froUi,o
3: -,::/Jo~:. "
.,~~<~~~~~~j~J'40~.~~:' ~,~~. :;"..~. ;\.
,ShrUb Covet;' r;; t') ~
% Relative Cover
'10
3.D
2-D
.
"
.'20. .
,_ .Aspect
Slope
_' .". ,,~~,,-,;.., eo....,.
_ ." ...~~~...._<7-. - - :.. -"_(
:..,. ..: ~ ,.....
.'Yi :"f~.. . <,.
Species:
CAWR
Average
{ ""
I ....
I ..
Height
;SW
Elevation
.....~. .
..-.;;.
<loo';;~~
-<0..--'
Species:
CAWR
,
Average
I.JM
/. r '"
,)""
Height
...:5"-.J
I./C;,,) ,
Elevation
CAWR
Species:
r MQ..(.... + fa:,.,
Average
1.5M
I, 'i ""
I
Height
s
"" - :. _'Z~~j:~
..- .-
. . ~~~ ~~
, .r.~ 'V
Elevation .:' ,., "j;.
.. ..__.'/i~~.".'_. '.
. .'~ ._'.'~.' '._..J4....?>.~'
-. ,~,;,'.-...". r.......".:_~ ':'_~.. _.'"""', . ~.~'.'
,
/;{ CALIFORNIA r'iA TCA TCB.ER/CACTI: WREN SURVEY
PROJECT: (JT A If - S /J A I - #: CLIENT: ;,,~).', .
>
. ~"
Page .3::..,~ of .;2. ._
/
,
"
-
Start
Stop ~'>-:
Investigator R, ~
Date J'5' kJ, 1'19 ~
Alignment
RegioD/Location 5<'UH, BMd.
Aerial photo #
Site visit #
Sighting #: t.f Number of individuals: I
Sex: c(e""m~ male pair Age: adult juvenile fledglipg
Vegetation type: ' C ~ J
Dominant Shrub
1: ;~J,." "''';0
2: o'.ro\~
3: '~.~o\..:,,,,
"
Sig~ting .#::if' -
Sex:.-female'male pair
- . ".;1
Vegetation tYPe: -
j ..... .;',..JI,:" .
''\c.D_ominant Shrub
> 1.'.~""'!""":'"
:;"(2;~'r":',~ .
. ~~3~h:;~:"~"-
..:~~-..;;.,,-,,-c"-'.' .
--~~-'-'-
, ;Shrub~COy'er..;,,:i" ~-. .. - ,_ Slope;
Shrub Cover 7 o?~
Sighting #:
Sex: female male pair
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub
1:
2:
3:
Shrub Cover
,:t~_ . ,~.'~ _~,
-,#..".-:-.,.
Tune
Temp
Wind
Cloud cover
Precipitition
Species: @ CA WR
% Relative Cover
'to
30
Average Height
'''''
20
",..
,~ ';::.., .:.:
::1
. . - ~-'-
Elevation' 'I;~.;. '"
-' .............-
I "....D A.
S ope?d!!1. /"\..:Spect
Number of individuals:
Age: adult juvenile fledglipg
IN
Species:
. ..,.~~
.CAGN CAWR'''''',,?
- . ... J~.,..:t.~
. -'. ~ " .~ ~ \i1.;."'~
; . . : ,': :.~~.:.~..J_?-,=,~
.";;':::-'. '--~~~ .,~.
.. ""'~--.'.
,#.. "!..~--';
, ..'--
.,
-
-
........_...r.
% Relative Cover
Average Height
:" .-'~-,
,/', --
_.
Slope
Aspect
Elevation
Number of individuals:
Age: adult juvenile fledglipg
Species: CAGN CAWR ...,
r .~.
"
.'
.
% Relative Cover
Average Height
r
,-
-
, "J"
'M-..;'~.
.
.
.'
-
-
~
-
.~.-~~~
,'2,~ '
..~----:;
- --111
~,.:. ~
'.:,,~.. . .,.
.-... .
. :.-'-::.' .:
.
~; -.'
. ,
~"J~
',.. Elevation
.
.,
",: c' Aspect
" " ;; "'4;~',~~ "'. '..:"- .
,_ '":: I' ~~".-,?-':::':I;.. ~''.: -. ~ ',-' --
.. .'-~)
. '''t'-_~
~ -:~
i!'"'\.
.~.. ..
'-~~" -< I; ) \\~7~ l V 9'1\ \ \ J I' lj17:--
;:.... II) \\c../: ~v (:-\) '71 J /' V /
:~= ~ ) l(,,\\~\ ,l) ,,'(( ( , '....
";~' ~,J.lWi ~i~ .!l ^" I 'I- f)fJ,i
. '::1~""'/ ,) . VJJ\\ ~ ~/V)' -~ 1 () '.J( "J/, . 1
,', d:f. ~~, ~V}l/" IJ" I U'
, K\V ~~~~""J - iL ~2((' 7/11fJ';' ,I, t
~i ~ - '/ ~ "'" L J!1?r- ~r 'I (----Ii)
. ~ ?r -<- - \ rt:n '" ! '"" "~e::::
~' 7/ \)" W) ,v: 0 f( V~ ~" ,~i}
) .. \ :> < ~ Il~~ II, \ \ " (
~,\ \ ~ '/, ~ 'fI'/C" I ~~, .\'
\ ~ I . -:-0. r, ~ 'l ~ :;\ I , .'. ~ ~~
~,~ '-'lQ J.o..:-O;:- ,"\, rv;; \.(~ ~'~~
~~ . 1~ - fj ~ - I ~
~ -,: '7 ,,~ ~- -")0 j~1Q] ,I
/" \'\\ ,rf'/ --/. I ~ J)'f ~~-'< ~
J({ t;. it J" .', ~:,( 1fp. ~( ( Z ((J\y (I//" ~
, ',,'J. jo" <J ~ ~' ~ j <1I1~
~~~'=s- \ _ _,:> ~I /.1.) \: .. I~~ ~C:3
". ~ ' c.), J I \ Jl};"t~~ ~,' J j.;'''' "" ~:~;; <<~,
I_:~ _ ~ J \ J" N , :' ........ ",
'~ ~ (, -' '''''''- ~ i~!!/1Jt11c ~, '" ~p >-::-
~. ~r ~~ I};;..I~ - "~I' ~~. ) (
.~ . 0 :~ .1" . ,;l(t~ ~"~.'''"' 'j ~ UJ l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,\
'#~. , __~ ,.-.~ \..~ ~~. ~1 ~~
'~~ =--"'" -~ '" "-' 0, , -:::-: z r 0 -. 1
~ii)I~~;~~. -- ~ ')~\ "'S ~ ~ -
) ~,. U rc,~-~ r. ,~ I'
'\. ~~ . ,,_j.~ '!r~ " -
'. /'/ ~ I ':;1
- 'f'.... \~
I ,/ I / ....~...... ~" .
, ' ' ~ '__CL..~ \ '; .'. '1..;>-';:
, ..",-" . ,
-
I
I
~
I), .
,... .' .
.o(;j
. ,~~
..) \) :,.):.. . . : ~.JI .
...4)"'if'\a~--::O"'!!i:4.-OO-'C - ~ '~.,.
,~~! t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ }~ ~ ~.~ ~ t ~! ~ ~
_ .. <'="" "iZ.c:,q..V).....v.....u2-.J~~~~cai~~
. _0- ,_
1J.~..;r..,_..~;~ALlFORNIA. ~ATCATCHERlCAcn WREN SURVEY
,;~PROJECT: 01 A- V - :;f A - I #: CLIENT:" . .
'~;.>... '.
!f":;!\""" "
~:i" .
,~.
'&A-V
/q q c;-
hlvestigator
Date I~ R~
~
.. Alignment
Region/Location
Aerial photo #
Site visit #
T 1IIle () 7 C/O
Temp ~ 'fD'
Wind ()
Cloud cover ~ 'i
Precipitirion \'\<> M
~rlI....M.... &..".I
Sighting #: Number of individuals: 2-
Sex: female male @ Age: ~ juvenile fledgliflg
Vegetation type: C 5" )'
Dominant Shrub
1: ~~J~LI ~I. ~
2: (<.Vj,tVJ
3:
:)~",l.-:J,-,
Shrub Cover r ~() 7'0
Sighting #:
Sex: female male pair
Vegetation type:
Dominant Shrub
1:
2:
3:
Shrub Cover
Sighting #:
Sex: female male pair
Vegetation type:
. Dominant Shrub
I:','
',", 2 ','~.;"
...... . - - .....-._-.
S3.:~~-'~;.3'~>
is!..''''~v<'''''.
~ ~.~~~.~7~..J,\> - .
~ iSlJGbt~ver
'~"-".
"", s<?~~.;._..;-
.' '-''''~''''-~
.1fL;~ i....
% Relative Cover
-!So
t/-o
10
Slope 10' Aspect
Number of individuals:
Age: adult juvenile fledgliflg
k,
% Relative Cover
. Slope
Aspect
Page
of-
Start
Stop
/(00
~ ~S.
6-~ ",.,10,
"20'0 c. {"uJ~
,
\/loAf
Species: @' CA WR
Average Height
j .S ""
2...5""
\""-.
.,~ -.'
..
"
. . Elevation <100 I -~-;""t:
, . -.'"
Species:
CAGN' CAWR ,\"
. . -' --:. --~'::-;~'-~''''
.. :-~ --;. '. ~.~'-:
~- ......."'---. .
Average Height
Elevation
Species: CAGN CA WR
Number of individuals:
Age: adult juvenile fledgliflg
% Relative Cover
.. Slope
""> '.
~ ,~.-
Aspect
'.
;J. -~
, ;_;1:-', \~'~..;_: .
Average Height;-,' :c',
. ~ r...".
, ..:.' \F.'
.. ." a;;:;uu..~"
-.... '-'~~-"~
~
Ele~~ti~';' ,..-. "' .~.
...:;f>~
." .~t~';.~~r
\.1 t~tC;~~; \ \~~ V ~ j I \ \} ., lL;,::;
. ~ > \,,~~' -v :-\ ~~(JJ ( , ~, / ( 'j}
':\ ~~~.., ~ul/K/;;' ). .'\ ~I L L::uYI / '- ~~( \~ ~\ I \ JJ I
~Vl?: \ ~'-' JA S "\l~ I ('/J 1/
~ y.l.l ~o ~ \~) "' :\' 7 lA _ ,~ '/ l \. 0 :--/
.( ~'?:~C-/ /: ~ ....\ @/J/.'f":"..?/' ( ~J: ';>", t
\... V, '%' c ~ ~':J: ~ ". '~J/J i.)}!/;? 711 'I< . \ '4
~ ~ fI - ---- v~' -:/{~il('- :r W~
~ ra~ ~ _ \, KCc ~ v 1. r f\ ~,r- D\\\ ~
) 7: >> (/; ~ "SJ ~ /1\11 ~J '(" v)" \ y)\'~:-...~ \ f \~..~(
~(\ . . \ (r L./''''----:: \ ,v '1/111 . :V'f ..~ \~:'\\
,~\~ :",,~'V~ \ f/lNI ~ ~C:( I \j ~ ~
~.:.." II .. k "\, y' Il? / \" ~ ::::-.
~~}~" ~ ( \.......~ ~" 1 / ) \~:-;~ \'
'\'.'~~ \' ~/ ~ ;:::.1..:" /,:..--'~ Ie
.<:'~.;:::::;;-'-' . .' I:' ,,) )' )}~~. - , ~(
.>\:....... ',:1. i' -f-~ . v/J<; ( . ~\\
,) ''-' . \....~ ,......~~' (/;J '\ L..-?" :;.. y~
\"/~-~ . 1 fff!::.~' </'/':'-~ '?::=
~r',' ;~}~ .' /""~. ::=QI .~ ~11.) ~\ \ ~r;~
;~~'=- ~~ -<V) I: . .' ~C:3
f~.;~,11 ;>.~ ~.~:~ ~ ,\~./N. " ,~~
I
'0 ,"rr: ....." '\ ~ 1,\\\" \~ ~ ~'\\. './
. ,,!J. ' ~ ~~ tJ)~ == ~\B
~ ~~ ". II~ r)1>: : .~ A /;... .!
'l,l~ .~ ~~l~~ '. c:', !m~- li"S'~
iM' rtiV'Y~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ .
j"':' '. o~}~b~ /I~:,'p ,..,;.,~\ _,'
~ .7:~ . .' -
~ . - -,';.'." : . '..- ~.-. . - ..
~. ~ ~~":"~:~ ~~;; ~~.~~3. ~ ~
. ~ ~,~ ~~ c t-; ~ ~ ~ 0(, ~ .,) ;:. ~~
;.J a: .~ u ~.~ 3 ..1 ~ ....~
,
-
_' t'..:__
".
- <.
.~<~ -~<~.
-..~_ .:>-"" _ -. '.--A~.A.
_ ~', ,.,",!'_L_.__,~': '~;;.,..
. -
(:{ .
0\-'-- \
~ cfl
v -
5'1, POS;r-="Dc-
bo~ :- Sb
$ PPr I = L s
OTAY RANCH REVEGETATION INFORMATION
DATA SHEET
POLYGON NUMBER It{", Requires .fub?ivision ~ t..c>
Slope " Aspect Ik.ll~~, .",-- 4./S'olt"fype Sb
Date oC Survey "2. -'1-4 - 'i r Surveyor iJih>
Access (quality and direction) - 4WD ~ 2WD D~~ All Weather Road _
Pavement River Crossing JJ/f. ~~-I' 9"70.1
Habitat type ';;!P..sl...t.... - )/~~L
Percent Native Shrub Cover (
Dominant shrubs 00,jO'!:>...
(2J..f ~~"
0-10% = 1
11-30% = 2
31-60% = 3
> 60% = 4
Percent Exotic Cover ~
Dominant weeds tro 1....,
\'\:.A. ..A.-t" ~
'i^~" \
~...I,,4"""''''"
Percent Bare Ground , .. -.. ~ ...!,..
Cryptogrammic soil present ).t.
Eroded Soils (circle one)
@ no soil erosion
1 - eroded soil without rills
2 - eroded soil with small rills
3 - eroded soil with major rills
4 - eroded soil with "canyons"
Percent area oC polygon effected 1/A
Evidence oC other disturbance
Agriculture P(,w;1
Grazing h~ tr.,1, ,
/
f);((. .
.
'-4U"
Mining
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Species present within polygon (field),hcj..;A, tJ'T/f.J
Species present within polygon (lab)
Species present adjacent to polygon (field) 1:~."",,4..Ar;rA ,bC104J.~
Species present adjacent to polygon (lab)
Where .
Sensitive Plant Species
Species present within polygon (field) ~
Species present within polygon (lab)
OTAY RANCH REVEGETATION INFORMATION
DATA SHEET
POLYGON NUl\iIBER 14~ Requires subdivision /I.-
Slope "111 Aspect ~..rr Soil Type l)A
Date of Survey 'Z~'2.~ ~O\ <( Surveyor ~ ~
Access (quality and direction) - 4WD ~.j... 2WD ><..I All Weather Road
Pavement River Crossing
Habitat type c..-;S
Percent Native Shrub Cover ~
Dominant shrubs pu.!. "t,. ~
tJr+.<",,' ,
""V< lAk'l
'P ..... q-- ."" \.Io.~ ...\I....!:I_...H,\J.
'3 ' 61..u..rfd.l
'f- fo'.r.",
0-10% = 1
11-30% = 2
31-60% = 3
> 60% = 4
Percent Exotic Cover
Dominant weeds
rJ W 41'"ff,r-
~r..~ ~,...,
Percent Bare Ground \
Cryptogr:lmmic soil present ~
Erodcrolls (circle one)
o no soil erosion
- eroded soil without rills
2 - eroded soil with small rills
3 - eroded soil with major rills
4 - eroded soil with "canyons"
Percent area of polygon effected
NrA
,
Evidence of other disturbance
Agriculture
Grazing '(IS"
r ..-HJ~ ~(.;(s
. ~.J......,..J J..~
Mining
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Species present within polygon (field)~wll. .{l.I.:f( :,,,,IoIA
Species present within polygon (lab)
Species present adjacent to polygon (field) Utwt.
Species present adjacent to polygon Qab)
Where +q $H\.I...
Sensitive Plant Species
Species present within polygon (field) ....,-"t,.
SDecies nresent within Do1ygon (lab)
OTAY RANCH REVEGETATION I1\'FORMATION
DATA SHEET
POLYGON NUMBER 11/ " Requires subdivision "'0
Slope ,?V Aspect ~~" Soil Type t s
Date of Survey ~-t.;-,,'S' Surveyor EIr<:>
Access (quality and direction) - 4WD I..'\" 2WD .!r. All Weather Road NF
Pavement River Crossing
Habitat type
L5~
Percent Native Shrub Cover ~
Dominant shrubs .'Ic~,,-
~~.".I.
-:L~ I'., lI.llic""
~IICC'" ~"",:,.
I' 7
tnet I ~ .
0-10% = 1
11-30% = 2
31-60% = 3
> 60% = 4
Percent Exotic Cover ~
Dominant weeds
~\4... sf'
~\"..... ".
",,.,..,_nts
_s.f...r1
Percent Bare Ground \
Cryptogrammic soil present I' <,
Eroded Soils (circle one)
to) no soil erosion
y_ eroded soil without rills
2 . eroded soil with small rills
3 - eroded soil with major rills
4 - eroded soil with "canyons"
Percent area of polygon effected 0
Evidence of other disturbance
Agriculture
Grazing .Ji"'~
Mining"
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Species present within polygon (field) C.O I1A
Species present within polygon (lab)
Species present adjacent to polygon (field)
Species present adjacent to polygon (lab)
Where
Sensitive P12nt Species
Species present within polygon (field)
<;n~e;~. nre,.ent within 'QQlygon (lab)
. .
OTAY RANCH REVEGETATION INFORMATION
DATA SHEET
POLYGON NUMBER I~ ~
./
Slope h Aspect ~...kL Soil Type
Date of Survey '-7.01 -q " Surveyor ~ A-!>
Access (quality and direction) - 4WD ....<1,. 2WD ~N
Pavement River Crossing .
,
Requires robdivision
f.,S
...
All Weather Road
tjlV .....
Habitat type JIIss IdM~
,
Percent Native Shrub Cover
Dominant shrubs
'3
~'~.-;I'
""'.e ;~~~.
0-10% = 1
11-30% = 2
31-60% = 3
> 60% = 4
cvUft \oi... .,htt:.u...
oc. J.\'A
o.rJ,...<~- c...!i!:..,.,.;...
Percent Exotic Cover
Dominant weeds
'3
,,/'6 ~~.... .
/01'" ~r&..' r
1NJ".. .
bl.,j. .. ..J..--J.
Percent Bare Ground \
ot~ ("...l".~
Cryptogrammic soil present """
Eroded Soils (circle one)
@::l no soil erosion
1 - eroded soil without rills
2 - eroded soil with small rills
3 - eroded soil with major rills
4 - eroded soil with "canyons"
Percent area of polygon effected
C>
Evidence of other disturbance
Agriculture N-
Grazing .sdlfL IT.;!'
Mining: ~
. ~#A~'
.
,,;<
..
fr-"'I;~
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Species present within polygon (field) (4\..112.. ~~
Species present within polygon (lab)
Species present adjacent to polygon (field) cA4.ll , . u~
Species present adjacent to polygon (lab)
Where
Sensitive Plant Species
Species present within polygon (field) No"-
Species present within polygon (lab)
. .
OTA Y RANCH REVEGETATION INFORMATION
DATA SHEET
POL YGON......NUMBER /l t' Requires subdivision 11\0
Slope \ ') Aspeet -:O;~<f^ Soil Type L5
Date of Survey Z./H.f'~ Surveyor B.-u
Access (quality and direction) - 4WD ~ 2WD Jr~ All Weather Road ~w
Pavement River Crossing
Habitat type /Ass!J.IA:rs
I
Percent Native Shrub Cover ~
Dominant shrubs ~.- -'f'.I..cr..
jd~l,..
lI,,,.,. ,.~
"0<&<0 :J._;..
..r~".j.
0-10% = 1
11-30% = 2
31-60% = 3
> 60./. = 4
Percent Exotic Cover '3
Dominant weeds (.-..I.."
AJ"; 4,,_("01"
1,1.d. _h.").
....:...... ....\(,
.;..--! ~
. - ,
Percent Bare Ground ~
Cryptogrammic soil present ....
Erodec!:~oiIs (circle one)
<J!) no soil erosion
1 - eroded soil without rills
2 - eroded soil with small rills
3 - eroded soil with major rills
4 - eroded soil with "canyons"
Percent area of polygon effected
o
Evidence of other disturbance
Agriculture '"
Grazing cJ(<. t.:l! . fl. (
Mining: w
./ it< I:.... -1 J As ~..f.. J ..-1...+
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Species present within polygon (field) {. A wP. ,(,A-..";
Species present within polygon (l2b)
Species present adjacent to polygon (field) IAwl
Species present adjacent to polygon (lab)
Where
Sensitive Plant Species
Species present within polygon (field) ~
Species present within polygon (l2b)
Issue 5. Additional ol:servational information on the tricolored blackbird.
A large flock (approximately 10(0) of tricolored blackbirds was observed during the
California gnatcatcher survey in 1995. They were observed perched in trees and within the
channel near the entrance road to the ranch in Poggi Canyon. The birds were not observed
to be nesting in Poggi Canyon but were foraging randomly in the bottom of Poggi Canyon.
The species requires large areas of freshwater marsh vegetated with cattails or tules for a
suitable breeding site. The tricolored blackbird is an opportunistic bird in its foraging
behavior. It will forage on agriculture fields, lawns, golfcourses, and along lakeshores.
Although most of the agriculture areas within SPA One will be lost, no wetlands will be
impacted and there will be over 11,000 acres of preserve area within which they may forage.
Therefore. there should be no conflict between the 100% preservation criterion for the
tricolored blackbird in the RMP and the loss of the area where the blackbirds were observed
foraging within SPA One.
Issue 6. Performance standards for the habitat replacement master plan treatments:
are they the same for all treatment types?
The performance standards for the habitat replacement activities, outlined on pages 29 and 30
of the Habitat Replacement Master Plan, apply to all of the treatment types discussed in
sections 5.1 through 5.4.
THE ( '( OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE ~ TEMENT
You are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments. or campaign
contributions, on all matters which will require discretionary action on the pan of the City Council. Planning Commission, and
all other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed:
I. List the names of all persons having a financial intercst in the property which is the subject of the application or the
contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier.
'1b, Ct:.aj Pard1, L.P., a C3lifcrma Limite::J Farbl=Ld,;p
li1i tEC Ehteq:riEes, L.P.
E'alo.lli1 &rilcErs, a caJ.ifcrnia O:::rp:ratim
Smith Gr:-egory T.
Tiger r::eveJ.c:prEnt 'I\.iQ, a caJ.ifcrnia Lirnita:J PaI:TEr.31ip
S N M B, Ltd. par:-tner:-ship
2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals o"'l1ing
more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership.
.:r2!Te3 P. E'ald.;in
Alfi:e::J E. B31o.lli1
3. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person
serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust.
~A
4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards. Commissions.
Committees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No~ If yes. please indicate person(s):
5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employecs, consultants, or independent contractors who
you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter.
Kin> Jct.n Kilka1ny
Panie H..nte::
T:im:Jthy J. o'crady
Jares B31o.lli1
Ka1t !'d31
Alfred PaldYin
6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate. contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the
current or preceding election period? Yes_ No,lL If yes, state whi~h Councilmember(s):
Date:~94
. . . (N01E: Attach additional pages as necessary) . . .
,~
ractor/applicant
KirnJd1nKiJkaTIy
Print or type name of contractor/applicant
* ~ is rkfilled as: "Any il/.di~'idua~ finn, co'panm:rship, joim \'t:rlture, association, social club,fratanal organizotion, corporation, estate, trust, receiva, S)'1tdicare.,
this and allY other cDum)', ciry and COUIll1)~ ciry mUllicipaliry, district, or OIher political subdidsiofJ, or any other 170up or combination acring as a uniL"
Sweetwater Union High School District
Adminisuation Center
1130 Fifth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 91911-2896
(619) 691-5500
OCT I 6 1995
Division of Plannin/J and Facilides
October 11, 1995
Mr. Gerry ]amriska, AICP
Special Planning Project Manager
Otay Ranch Project Office
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91 91 0
Dear Mr. ]amriska:
Re: Ouy Ranch SPA I and AnneJG1don Draft Second-der
EnvironmenullmpaCl Report
The Sweetwater Union High School Disuict is in receipt of the proposed Otay Ranch SPA I and
AnneXJtion Draft Second-tier Environmental Impact Report and makes the following comments.
The school disuict is responsible for providing education to students 7-1 2 residing within the
project area. Because all of the district's high schools are operating over capacity and all the
middle schools are operating between 90 and 100 percent capacity, the new students from SPA I
will definitely impact classroom space. The anticipated 760 middle school students can potentially
be housed on an interim basis in the future middle school in Rancho del Rey which is scheduled to
open in the fall of 1998. However, the 1,443 high school students cannot be housed at existing
facilities. Sentence three of paragraph two on page 4.1 3-1 8 is wrong; existing facilities cannot
serve high school students from SPA I.
The mitigation measures one through six are acceptable to the disuict. When SPA I generates 300
high school students, regardless if they are residing in Village 1 or Village 5, the site grading for
the high school will need to commence. The disuict will endeavor to purchase the land when
approximately 500 students are generated providing that all utilities and services are brought to
the rough graded site. If mitigation measures one through six are implemented then the impact to
schools could be reduced.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 691-5553.
Sin~~.?~
Thomas Silva
Director of Planning
TS/ml
c: Mr. Robert Leiter, City of Chula Vista
Mr. Kent Aden, The Baldwin Company
Ms. Kate Shurson, Chula Vista EJementary School District
U-\f~(Q)
1600 Pacific Highway. Room 452
San Diego, CA 92101 . (619) 531-5400
San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission
Chairwoman
Dr. Line!! Fromm
Public Member
Members
Bill Horn
County Board of
Supervisors
Dianne Jacob
County Board of
Supervisors
Shirley Horton
Mayor, City of
Chula Vista
Lori Howard
Cauncilmember, City of
Santee
Harry Mathis
Councilmember, City of
San Diego
Dr. Ullian M. Childs
Helix Water District
John Sasso
President, Borrego
Water District
Alternate Members
Pam Slater
County Board of
Supervisors
Julianne Nygaard
Councilmember, City of
Carls bad
Juan Vargas
Deputy Mayor, City of
San Diego
Ronald W. Wootton
Vista Fire Protection District
David A. Perkins
Public Member
Executive Officer
Michael D. Ott
Counsel
Lloyd M. Harmon. Jr.
November 2, 1995
NOV -2 E
Gerald Jamriska
Special Projects Planning Manager
Otay Ranch Project Office
315 Fourth Avenue, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
SUBJECT: Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area One Plan and
Annexation Draft Second-Tier Environmental Impact Report
Dear Jerry:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). We offer the following comments:
GENERAL COMMENTS:
In our February 23, 1995 response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for
this Draft EIR, we made a number of comments, some of which appear to
have been ignored and not included in the Draft EIR. The following
comments were made in response to the NOP, but are not addressed in
the Draft EIR:
.
The Draft EIR should discuss in detail the justification for annexing
areas that are not proposed for development at this time.
.
The Draft EIR should discuss, based on the best information
available, the approximate development timeframe for the
annexation area not proposed for development at this time.
.
The Draft EIR should discuss issues associated with the inclusion
of the Otay Landfill in the City of Chula Vista.
A discussion of the above items, especially the potential for region-wide
impacts associated with the future status of the Otay Landfill, is considered
critical to the adequacy of the EIR. The EIR should also discuss impacts
associated with leaving the landfill as an unincorporated island, or creating
an unincorporated peninsula that includes the landfill and other nearby
properties as recommended by the County Board of Supervisors. Unless
issues associated with landfill are discussed in greater detail in the Final
Gerald Jamriska
November 2, 1995
Page Two
EIR, LAFCO will not be able to use this environmental document in its role as a
responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In addition to the above, we also have the following general comment:
.
The discussion of impacts associated with the "Annexation Component" is cursory
at best, and does not discuss the possibility for premature or leapfrog
development associated with annexation of all of Planning Areas One and Three
as was identified by the City of Chula Vista in its Sphere of Influenr.e Update
Study. The EIR should include a discussion of the potential for premature or
leapfrog development associated with the annexation of large areas of vacant
territory.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
. Section 2.0 - Project Description
Paqe 2-24
The last two items under Project Objectives are "Annexation of Planning Areas 1, 3, and
the Mary Patrick Estate to encourage the efficient and cost-effective provision of public
services" and "Foster development patterns which promote orderly growth and prevent
urban sprawl." If these constitute the rationale for the annexation of these areas, the
EIR should identify how the annexation will achieve these objectives,
Paqe 2-25
In the discussion of Project Phasing, build out of the project is forecast for the year 2010.
in the context of the discussion, and additional phasing comments on page 4.2-17, it
appears that this is the buildout forecast for SPA One and not Planning Area One. Is
this correct? Does it follow that the remainder of Planning Area One will be developed
subsequent to the year 201 O?
. Section 4.0 - Environmental Impact Analysis
Paqe4.1-1
The footnote at the bottom of this page is incorrect in that SPA One has not been
included in Chula Vista's sphere of influence.
Paqe 4.1-5
Gerald Jamriska
November 2, 1995
Page Three
The fifth line down from the top of the page refers to the MCSP. We believe this should
be MSCP.
Pace 4.8-5
In the Annexation Component discussion, the Draft EIR notes that "Future development
plans for these properties [it is assumed that 'properties' refers to all of the proposed
annexation area with the exception of SPA One] will be subject to environmental review.
As such, growth-inducement and public services analysis will be conducted prior to
development." In our review of propos2ls, which includes anne:-:ations. LAFCO iz
required to consider a number of factors (Government Code Section 56841). Among
these factors is the "... need for organized community services. . . and adequacy of
services and controls in the area and adjacent areas. .." Because LAFCO loses its
jurisdictional authority once the area has been annexed, it cannot defer its analysis of
public services to a subsequent stage. Therefore, sections of the EIR that address
service-related issues, such as Housing and Population and Public Services and Utilities,
should address the need for services and the ability of the designated agencies to
extend services to the annexation area in the future.
Pace 4.13-3
In the discussion of local water supply systems the Draft EIR states that the City of
Chula Vista is a member of the County Water Authority (CWA). A recent listing obtained
by LAFCO from the CWA does not show Chula Vista as a member agency. The EIR
should explain this apparent discrepancy.
Pace 4.13-4
The discussion of water issues indicates that the project area will need to annex to the
appropriate water jurisdiction as necessary. Planning Areas One, Three, and the Mary
Patrick Estate are already within the boundaries of the Otay Water District (WD) and
annexation to that agency will not be necessary. The EIR should correct this section or,
if another agency is being considered to provide water services, the EIR should address
the impacts associated with the provision of water services by an agency other than the
Otay WD.
Pace 4.13-31
The EIR indicates that if the project area is annexed to Chula Vista, it will be detached
from the Rural Fire Protection District. The EIR should clarify that, although LAFCO
does not generally overlay fire district territory over a city that provides its own fire
protection services, detachment from the fire district is not automatic.
Gerald Jamriska
November 2, 1995
Page Four
Neither the GDP/SRP EIR nor the Sphere EIR indicate that once an area is annexed to
a city, responsibility for wildland fires shifts from the California Department of Forestry
to the city. Because of the large area proposed for annexation, the extended timeframe
of development, and the expense associated with fighting wildland fires, the Annexation
Component discussion of fire services should indicate that if these areas are annexed
to the City, wildland fires will no longer be a state responsibility. The environmental
consequences associated with this jurisdictional change should be analyzed in the EIR.
. Section 5,0 - Alternatives
Paqes 5-30. 31. and 33
Annexation Alternatives A, B, and C include the Mary Patrick Estate in the annexation
area, but do not show the Estate on the accompanying annexation maps (Figures 5-6,
7, and 8).
We urge you to seriously consider our comments so that the final environmental
document for the proposed annexation will be adequate for LAFCQ's purposes. If you
have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 531-5400.
Sincerely,
~ ~-t::;;/e
~J~,SEPI"f F. CQNVER~ ----.
Local Governmental Analyst
JFC:hm
NOV - 2 ' ;J
November I, 1995
FROM:
Jerry Jamriska, Spccial Planning Projects Manager
'lZ!
Bob Leiter, Director of Planning ~
Population Per Household Factors Used in Otay Ranch Draft SPA One EIR and
Public Facilities Finance Plan
TO:
SUBJECT:
In conjunction with the current staff review of above referenced draft documents, qucstions have
bcen raised regarding the appropriatc population per household factor to bc used in thcsc
documcnts. For example, the draft EIR indicates on p. 4.8-2 that the Otay Ranch Gencral
Devclopment Plan utilized separate factors for single family detached and multifamily attachcd
units, but that a single factor of 2.88 persons per dwelling unit is being used in the SPA ElR
analysis. However, on p. 3.7-7 of the draft PFFP, a population factor of 2.909 persons pcr
dwclling unit is used for calculating population from approved projects, whilc the 2.88 factor
is uscd for Otay Ranch SPA One.
Thc derivation of population per household factors in recent Planning Department projects has
bcen based on the latest available State Department of Finance (DOF) figures which arc
published annually for the City of Chula Vista. DOF updates these factors each May, with thc
published figure representing a January 1 estimate. The factor of 2.88 persons per household
represents the January 1993 DOF estimate for Chula Vista: DOF has since published a January
1994 factor (2,909) and a January 1995 factor (2.957).
It is my understanding that the SPA One EIR was initiated prior to the publication of the January
1994 DOF factor, and therefore the 2.88 factor was used. The same factor was used in the first
draft of the PFFP. However, in commenting on the first draft PFFP, our staff had provided the
1994 updated DOF figure to the PFFP consultant, and it was included in the second draft.
I would recommend that a single population per household factor be utilized in all Otay Ranch
SP A One documents. Based on the fact that the 1993 factor was the most current figure at the
time the EIR was started, it would appear to be appropriate to continue to use that factor.
However, you should note in the final EIR the source of that figure, and may also wish to note
thc current factors for comparison purposes.
You should also make sure it is clearly noted in the final PFFP that the population-based analysis
of park requirements and other population-related requirements in the PFFP is preliminary in
nature, and actual park dedication and fee requirements, as well as other population-based
requirements, if any, will be finally determined at the tentative map level or other appropriate
level in accordance with applicable City ordinances and policies. With regard to park
Jerry Jamriska
-2-
November I. 1995
requirements, it should be noted that the Park Dedication Ordinance current includes different
population factors for detached and attached housing units.
Please let me know if you have any questions on this matter.
cc: Duane BazzeL Principal Planner
Ed Batchelder, Senior Planner
Rick Rossaler, Senior Planner
Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks and Recreation
Ken Lee, Assistant Planning Director
Doug Rcid, Environmental Review Coordinator
(];k\[Wl't'l>CLm)
{CC":-!VED
liD~' 0 1 1995
November I, 1995
P LJ. c >.'"
"''il'''~
Mr Robert A. Leiter
Director of Planning
City ofChula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 919 I 0
RE: Otay Ranch SPA One Traffic Study
Dear Bob:
I have reviewed the above referenced document (dated September 1995) and
would request that the City address the following questions/concerns during the
SPA and EIR public review period.
Phasing Studv Land Use/Absorption Analvsis
The second paragraph of section 5.3 reads as follows:
"The second set of model runs involved the development of phased land use
inputs for Eastern Chula Vista to reflect growth for Years 2000, 2005 and
2010. It is important to recognize that Phase III (Year 2005-2010) of the
associated Transportation Phasing Analysis report only includes those
developments for which tentative map approval has been granted. This
assumption is important so as not to subject planned, yet unapproved, projects
to the "fair-share" requirements recommended in the phasing plan. The SPA
One model runs conducted for Year 2010 or phasing (Years 2000, 2005 and
20 I 0) utilized the Series 8 growth forecasts for areas beyond the Study Area as
defined by SANDAG."
The assumption that those areas without approved tentative maps should be
omitted !Tom the phasing modeling is flawed. There is presently capacity on
Telegraph Canyon Road and Otay Lakes Road which was constructed by
EastLake Development Company. The EastLake III project, which unlike the
Otay Ranch,:
a) Was annexed to the City ofChula Vista in 1990.
b) Has invested $6.9 M in water storage facilities.
c) Has in place and is encumbered by Community Facility Districts to fund all
schools anticipated to be needed for the entire 3,200 acre project.
~,.,
,....",-'
.~
~
~t!;j
EASTLAKE
DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
900 Lane Avenue
Suite 100
Chula Vista. CA 91914
(619) 421-0127
fAX (619) 421-1830
Mr. Robert Leiter
November 1,1995
Page Two
d) Has major backbone utilities in place which are financed in part by eXlstmg Assessment
District 90-3 (whose boundary encompasses all of EastLake III) and is currently paying
$396,465 per year in Assessment District 90-3 special taxes to pay for such backbone
facilities.
e) Has a development agreement with the City (EastLake III Development Agreement) which
was brought about (in part) by EastLake's donation of 150 acres to the United States Olympic
Committee for the pUll'ose of bringing the Olympic Training Center to the City of Chula
Vista.
f) Has a continuing obligation to construct (in 1997) approximately $6 million in major roadway
improvements to provide better access to the Olympic Training Center facility. These
roadway improvements (South Hunte Parkway and East Orange Avenue (Hunte Parkway to
Wueste Road)) are Transportation DIF eligible expenses which will satisfy Transportation
DIF obligations of a substantial portion of the EastLake III Trails and Vistas projects.
g) Has advance funded major transportation facilities within the Eastern territories through
Assessment District 94-1 which has satisfied the Transportation DIF obligation of
approximately 350 dwelling units in the EastLake III Trails project.
h) Has advance funded the fire station serving the area and by this action has satisfied the Public
Facilities DIF Fire Suppression Fund Fee for the majority of the EastLake III project.
Allowing the Otay Ranch project to develop and utilize existing transportation capacity created by
the EastLake project without creating additional capacity in advance of its development must be
reconsidered by the City. In recognizing the prior investment made by EastLake Development
Company (outlined by the eight (8) points detailed above) we would request that the phasing
analysis be re-run with at least an equal number of units being developed by phase within the
EastLake and Otay Ranch Projects.
Land Use Assumptions
I. The high school at EastLake Greens is not included as future development in Table 5.1. This
facility is complete but only 50% occupied at the present. Please verifY that the facility is
appropriately accounted for in terms of traffic demand in the model runs.
2. The future development shown in Table 5.1 contains 1,259 units within the EastLake Greens
project. As of June 30, 1995, 861 units had been sold and closed within the EastLake Greens
project. The total Greens project contains 2,738 units leaving an absoll'tion of 1,479 units to
occur after June 30, 1995. From the information presented above it appears that a substantial
number of units in the EastLake Greens development may be unaccounted for by the study.
Please verifY that the traffic impacts of the EastLake Greens project have been modeled
adequately.
Mr. Robert Leiter
November I, 1995
Page Three
3. In Table 5. I T AZ 73 contains development south of Orange Avenue in the vicinity of the
Olympic Training Center site. The summary below provides data and comments regarding the
approved land uses (General Development Plan level) for this area.
Parcel/Site
Olympic Training Center
Status
Phase 1 Development
Complete
Comment
The traffic impacts of the facility are
not contained in the off-site trip
generators shown in Table 5. 1.
Multi-Family
Undeveloped
This site is west of the Training Center
entrance and south of Orange Avenue.
The number of units in Table 5.1 (215)
are greater than the 150 units included
in the General Development Plan
approval of ELIII.
Specialty Commercial, Undeveloped
Retail, Office
These sites appear to be properly
located and sized within the T AZ
shown in Table 5.1.
Please verify that the traffic impact of the areas outlined above are adequately modeled.
4. The light industrial uses shown in Table 5.1 for Phase I of the EastLake Business Center are
shown in TAZ 33 and 34. It appears that it would be more appropriate to indicate a portion
of this future development in T AZ 61. By utilizing only T AZs 33 and 34 the traffic report
may underestimate the impacts approved development within the Business Center will have on
Otay Lakes Road. It should also be noted that only 50% of the EastLake Business Center
light industrial uses (60 acres) are included in Table 5.1.
5. The EastLake Trails project, as approved by the EastLake III General Development Plan and
the EastLake III Development Agreement, contains 1,260 residential units. The future
development shown in Table 5.1 of the traffic study only indicates 944 units in TAZ No. 74.
The understated land use intensity outlined above may cause the existing traffic study impact
predictions on Otay Lakes Road and Orange Avenue to be less than should be expected.
Please verifY that the traffic study adequately models to impact of development of this area.
6. The EastLake Vistas project, as approved by the EastLake III General Development Plan and
the EastLake III Development Agreement, contains 942 residential units. The future
development shown in Table 5.1 of the traffic study only indicates 566 units in this TAZ No.
S!. Please verifY that the traffic study adequately models to impact of development of this
area.
Mr. Robert Leiter
November I, 1995
Page Four
7. We are unable to verify the development intensity assumed in TAZ No. 28. In Table 5.1 this
TAZ is shown to have 1,307 residential units located within the EastLalce Woods project. In
fact, the TAZ actually covers an area occupied by both the EastLake Woods project and the
Salt Creek Ranch project. We would ask that the landuse intensity within this TAZ be verified
to include 420 residential units !Tom the EastLake Woods project.
I am available to you and your staff at any time to discuss the points outlined above.
We have yet to complete our review of the Otay Ranch SPA One, EIR, mitigation measures,
Public Facility Financing Plan and other associated documents. We will forward additional
comments regarding these documents (as needed) to you as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
BNS:gmo
f:\winw~tt\sloanlJettenlJeitercV.doc