HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard ...

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com

September 8, 2016 Mr. Jon Corn Grandview Community Homes, LLC 160 Chesterfield Drive, Suite 201 Cardiff, CA 92007 Subject: Biological Resources Addendum for the Grandview Pointe Project Dear Mr. Corn: At the request of Grandview Community Homes, LLC, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has prepared this letter report to serve as an addendum to the April 2015 biological technical report (DUDEK 2015) for the Grandview Pointe Project (project) located in the City of Oceanside, San Diego County, California. The project generally consists of a 30-lot residential community. Subsequent to preparation of the April 2015 report, minor modifications have occurred to the project design and corresponding impact footprint. Additionally, new project components are currently proposed that were not addressed in the April 2015 report. The previous project in combination with the project modifications and new components are collectively referred to herein as the project and are the subject of this report. This addendum report documents the existing biological conditions within the project boundary, including the new component areas, and provides a focused analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the City of Oceanside (City) and other responsible agencies for the project. INTRODUCTION Project Location The proposed project site is located in the City of Oceanside (City) in northern San Diego County, California (Figure 1). Specifically, the site is located on Grandview Street, approximately 0.5 mile east of Interstate 5, just south of Oceanside Boulevard (Figures 2 and 3). Two single-family homes are on site within the southern area of the project site, additional residential development surrounds the site to the south, west, and east, and commercial development is to the north and northwest.

Letter to Mr. Jon Corn Page 2 of 13 September 8, 2016

The site lies within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute map, San Luis Rey Quadrangle: Section 25, Township 11 South, Range 5 West, assessor’s parcel number 151-310-38. Project Description The project proposes the subdivision of an existing parcel into 30 lots and the construction of 25 new single-family homes, a duplex with two attached homes, a private street, utilities improvements, and preservation of open space. The applicant has elected to utilize provisions under the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915) and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance Section 3032). Revisions to the project design have occurred as the project has progressed through the design process and as a result, the overall grading footprint has changed since the April 2015 report. New project components are also currently being proposed that were not addressed in the April 2015 report. These new components include: (1) the addition of an on-site detention basin and storm drain outfall in the northern portion of the site; (2) the addition of an off-site water and sewer line connection to Union Plaza Court to the north installed via a trenchless construction method; and (3) slope remediation areas in the northern portion of the site. The current grading footprint and these new components, in addition to the other project components, are the subject of this report. METHODS Literature Review Prior to conducting biological field surveys, HELIX reviewed the April 2015 report (DUDEK 2015) and conducted an updated search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2016a-c) for information regarding sensitive species known to occur within one mile of the project site, as well as a review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. No additional sensitive species were noted. General Biological Survey A general biological survey for the proposed project was conducted by HELIX biologist Summer Schlageter on August 24, 2016. Previous vegetation mapping of the project site that was conducted for the April 2015 report was used as a basis and verified during the general survey. Vegetation in off-site areas was mapped on a 1"=100' scale aerial photograph. The project site was surveyed on foot and with the aid of binoculars. Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected during the survey were recorded (Attachments A and B). Animal identifications were made in the field by direct, visual observation, or indirectly by detection of calls, burrows, tracks, or scat. Plant identifications were made in the field or in the lab through comparison with voucher specimens or photographs.


Survey Limitations Noted animal species were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other signs. However, the lists of species identified are not necessarily comprehensive accounts of all species that utilize the project site as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed. Nomenclature Nomenclature for this report is from Baldwin et al. (2012), and the CNPS (2016) for plants; Holland (1986) and Oberbauer (2008) for vegetation communities; Collins and Taggart (2006) for reptiles and amphibians; American Ornithologists’ Union (2014) for birds; and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. Sensitive plant species status is taken from CNPS (2016). Sensitive animal species status is taken from CDFW’s CNDDB (2016a-c). Soils information was taken from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; 2015). EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY Regional Context The site and off-site improvement areas are located within a relatively urbanized area. There are no large habitat blocks or large open space areas in the site vicinity. General Land Uses The project site is undeveloped, with the exception of two single-family homes and associated outbuildings. General land uses include residential development to the south, west, and east, and commercial development to the north and northwest. The off-site improvement areas are developed with paved roadway within Union Plaza Court. Disturbance The project site and immediate vicinity contain evidence of previous and ongoing human-related disturbances. Notable disturbances include graded pads, brow ditches, and fencing. Topography and Soils Elevations on the project site range from approximately 60 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 155 feet amsl. Three soil types have been mapped within the project site: Las Flores loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded; Las Flores-urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes; and Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (NRCS 2016).


Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types Six vegetation communities/habitat types occur in the project site, as presented in Table 1 and shown on Figure 4. All vegetation communities found to occur on the site are upland habitat types; no wetland habitat types occur. Vegetation community/habitat type names are from the Holland classification system (Holland 1986) and amendments by Oberbauer (2008). The communities/habitat types are presented in Table 1. The off-site improvement areas consist entirely of developed land.

Table 1 VEGETATION COMMUNITY/HABITAT TYPE

Vegetation Community/Habitat Type Project Site (acres)*

Developed 0.5 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 1.2 Disturbed Habitat 1.5 Eucalyptus Woodland 2.4 Non-native Grassland Broadleaf-dominated 0.9 Non-native Woodland 0.6

TOTAL 7.1 *Acreages rounded to the nearest tenth acre

Flora HELIX identified a total of 24 plant species in the survey area, of which 12 (50 percent) are non-native species (Attachment A). Fauna A total of 9 animal species were observed or otherwise detected in the survey area during the biological survey, including 8 bird species, and 1 mammal species (Attachment B). SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types Sensitive vegetation communities/habitat types are defined as land that supports unique vegetation communities or the habitats of rare or endangered species or subspecies of animals or plants as defined by Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Two sensitive vegetation communities occur within the project site: Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland broadleaf-dominated (Table 1). No sensitive habitat types occur within the off-site improvement areas.


Nesting Birds The project site supports trees and shrubs that provide suitable nesting habitat for several common (non-sensitive) bird species known to the region and protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code). The off-site improvement areas do not support vegetation suitable for nesting habitat. Raptor Foraging A red-shouldered hawk was observed foraging over the canyon to the northeast of the project site, however, the project site itself does not provide raptor foraging habitat due to its developed nature, small size, overall poor quality habitat, and proximity to regular human activity. The off-site improvement areas are developed and do not support raptor foraging habitat. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands The project site is characterized entirely by uplands that lack evidence of potential jurisdictional waters and wetlands. No potential wetland conditions were observed in the project site or off-site improvement areas. No drainage features occur in the project site or off-site improvement areas. No riparian habitat occurs in the project site or off-site improvement areas. Therefore, there are no resources subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW on the project site or off-site improvement areas. Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridors Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of their daily routine. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. A corridor is a specific route that is used for the movement and migration of species, and may be different from a linkage in that it represents a smaller or narrower avenue for movement. A linkage is an area of land that supports or contributes to the long-term movement of animals and genetic exchange by providing live-in habitat that connects to other habitat areas. Many linkages occur as stepping-stone linkages that are made up of a fragmented archipelago arrangement of habitat over a linear distance. The project site or off-site improvement areas do not occur within any known wildlife corridors or linkages. No portions of the project site or off-site improvement areas contribute to or by themselves function as linkage or corridor habitat. The project site is largely developed with very limited areas of non-native vegetation and the off-site improvement areas are completely developed. As such, wildlife is not expected to use any portion of the site or off-site improvement areas during migration, dispersal, or moving to and from nursery sites.


Draft Oceanside Subarea Plan The project site and off-site improvement areas are located in the urban/developed portion of the Draft Oceanside Subarea Plan area (City 2010), and are not located within any of the pre-approved mitigation areas, softline preserve areas, or hardline preserve areas (City 2010). The site and off-site improvement areas are not located within any of the Biological Core and Linkage Areas identified in the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) (SANDAG 2003). ANALYSIS OF PROJECT EFFECTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES An analysis of project effects and proposed mitigation measures is presented below in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. ISSUE 1 – SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS? Issue 1 Impact Analysis Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. No special status plant or animal species were determined to have a high potential to occur at the project site; none were observed or otherwise detected during the April and May 2015 biological surveys (DUDEK 2015), nor during the August 24, 2016 general biological survey. The project site is mostly disturbed, locally and regionally isolated, and relatively small in size. Special status species would not be expected to occur on site due to lack of high quality suitable habitat, inappropriate soil conditions, inappropriate elevations, existing disturbances, prevalence of non-native plant species, and past and ongoing disturbances, including noise and lighting. In addition, the off-site impact areas are developed and do not contain habitat to support special status species. Therefore, no direct impacts to special status species would occur as a result of the proposed project. Coastal California gnatcatcher is federally listed as threatened and designated as a California Species of Special Concern. The project site contains coastal sage scrub, which is associated with the species. Focused surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher within the project site were conducted by DUDEK in March and April 2015 in accordance with USFWS survey protocol under the authority granted by permit 10(a)(1)(A) held by Thomas S. Liddicoat (TE 139634-2) (DUDEK 2015). No coastal California gnatcatchers were detected within the project site during the protocol surveys or during the August 2016 general biological survey. The general conditions of the habitat on site were confirmed during the updated general biological survey conducted by HELIX in August 2016. The coastal sage scrub on site is dominated by California encelia (Encelia californica), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia). As noted in DUDEK’s April 2015 report and confirmed by the August 2016 site visit, the coastal sage scrub was noticeably


disturbed by trash and foot trails, and is considered poor habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher (DUDEK 2015). Coastal California gnatcatcher is presumed to be absent from the project site and no impacts are expected as a result of the proposed project. The project could require removal and/or trimming of several non-native trees on the project site that provide marginal nesting habitat for common (non-sensitive) birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. Removal and/or trimming activities that occur during the general bird breeding season (February 15 – August 31) could result in an impact to an active bird nest, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation is proposed to ensure that removal and/or trimming activities required during the general bird breeding season avoid significant impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code. With the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 from the April 2015 report, impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant. Mitigation measure BIO-3 from the April 2015 report is included below for reference. Issue 1 Mitigation Measures BIO-3 Within 72 hours of ground-disturbing activities associated with construction activities

during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically March 1 through September 15 in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the applicant shall have surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and/or the CFG Code are present in the impact area or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the impact area.

If active nests are found, the biological monitor shall establish an avoidance buffer at his/her discretion (typically 50 to 500 feet, depending on the species) until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests occur.

Conclusions The project could result in impacts to nesting birds protected under the MBTA and CFG Code; however, with implementation of mitigation measure BIO-3 from the April 2015 report, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. ISSUE 2 – RIPARIAN HABITAT AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?


Issue 2 Impact Analysis Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Table 2 summarizes project impacts to on-site vegetation communities. The project site supports two sensitive natural communities: Diegan coastal sage scrub and non-native grassland broadleaf-dominated. Of the 1.2 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub within the project site, 0.5 acre will be permanently impacted as a result of the proposed project. All of the 0.9 acre of non-native grassland located within the project site will be permanently impacted (Table 2). Impacts to these two sensitive natural communities are considered significant. Off-site improvements would impact approximately 400 square feet of developed land within the paved roadway of Union Plaza Court and thus, no significant impacts would occur as a result of proposed off-site improvements. In accordance with regional standards for compensating the loss of sensitive habitat, including that which has been proposed in the Draft Oceanside Subarea Plan, impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are to be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 and impacts to non-native grassland are to be mitigated at a ratio of 0.5:1. Mitigation measure BIO-1 from the April 2015 report is proposed to be modified as provided below. With the implementation of modified mitigation measure BIO-1 from the April 2015 report, impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

Table 2 VEGETATION COMMUNITY IMPACTS

Vegetation Community/Habitat Type Impacts within

project boundary (acres)*

Developed 0.5 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 0.5 Disturbed Habitat 1.0 Eucalyptus Woodland 0.7 Non-native Grassland Broadleaf-dominated 0.9 Non-native Woodland 0.4

TOTAL 4.0 *Acreages rounded to the nearest tenth acre

Issue 2 Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Impacts to 0.5 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub, a special-status vegetation community

listed in Habitat Group C located within an Off-site Mitigation Zone (City of Oceanside 2010), require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio (City of Oceanside 2010, Table 5-2). Approximately 0.7 acre of Diegan coastal sage scrub shall be preserved on site. The remaining 0.3 acre of mitigation obligation shall be fulfilled through purchase of off-site conservation credits from a conservation bank in the region, such as the Buena Creek Conservation Bank or Heights of Pala Mesa, as approved by the City.


Impacts to 0.9 acre of non-native grassland broad-leaf-dominated, a special-status vegetation community listed in Habitat Group D located within an Off-site Mitigation Zone (City of Oceanside 2010), require mitigation at a 0.5:1 ratio (City of Oceanside 2010, Table 5-2). Approximately 4.8 2.4 acres of native and non-native vegetation communities (Diegan coastal sage scrub [1.2 acres], eucalyptus woodland [1.9 1.7 acres], non-native woodland, [0.60.2 acre] and disturbed habitat [1.00.5 acre]) shall be preserved on site and will provide similar or greater functions and values as non-native grassland, particularly in terms of foraging and nesting opportunities for bird species, especially raptors. Therefore, preservation of 42.4 acres of vegetation communities will mitigate for impacts to 0.9 acre of non-native grassland broad-leaf-dominated.

Conclusion The project would result in impacts to sensitive natural communities, including non-native grassland and Diegan coastal sage scrub; however, with implementation of modified mitigation measure BIO-1 from the April 2015 report, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. ISSUE 3 – JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally-protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? Issue 3 Impact Analysis No Impact. The project site and off-site improvement areas have no direct contact with federally protected wetlands. The site is generally self-contained and does not receive or discharge waters to any surface water bodies or drainage features nearby. No potential jurisdictional waters and wetlands were identified during the general biological survey. Therefore, no federally protected wetlands will be affected by the project and no mitigation is required. Issue 3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Conclusion The project would not result in impacts to federally-protected wetlands and no mitigation is required. ISSUE 4 – WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND NURSERY SITES Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?


Issue 4 Impact Analysis Less than Significant Impact. No wildlife corridors or linkages occur on the site or on the off-site improvement areas. The project site and off-site improvement areas do not support habitat that would contribute substantially to the assembly and function of any local or regional wildlife corridors or linkages. Impacts to wildlife movement and nursery sites would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Issue 4 Mitigation Measures None required. Conclusion Project implementation would result in less than significant impacts on wildlife movement and nursery sites. No mitigation is required. ISSUE 5 – ADOPTED PLANS Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Issue 5 Impact Analysis No Impact. The project site and off-site improvement areas are not located within the boundaries of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project site and off-site improvement areas occur within the boundaries of the draft Oceanside Subarea Plan; however, these areas are located in the urban/developed overlay designation and are not located within any of the pre-approved mitigation areas, softline preserve areas, or hardline preserve areas (City 2010, Figure 4-1). The site and off-site improvement areas are further not located within any of the Biological Core and Linkage Areas identified in the North County MHCP (SANDAG 2003, Figure 2-4). Therefore, the project would not conflict with such plans and no impact would occur. Issue 5 Mitigation Measures None required. Conclusion Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No mitigation is required.


ISSUE 5 – LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Issue 5 Impact Analysis No Impact. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project would not conflict with any City policies or ordinances and no impact would occur. Issue 5 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Conclusion Project implementation would not result in significant impacts to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No mitigation is required. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this letter report. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Karl Osmundson at (619) 462-1515 if you have any questions or require further assistance. Sincerely, Summer Schlageter Biologist Enclosures: Figure 1 Regional Location Map Figure 2 Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph) Figure 3 Project Vicinity (USGS) Figure 4 Vegetation/Impacts Attachment A Plant Species Observed Attachment B Animal Species Observed or Detected Attachment C Representative Site Photos


REFERENCES American Ornithologists’ Union. 2014. American Ornithologists' Union Checklist of North and

Middle American Birds. 7th Edition and Supplements. Online: http://www.aou.org/ checklist/north/print.php.

Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A.

Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American Mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 223.

Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors.

2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016a. State and Federally Listed Endangered,

Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. April.Online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109390&inline=1

2016b. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California.

State of California. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. April. Online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline=1

2016c. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity

Database. Periodic publication. 51 pp. April. Online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler. ashx?DocumentID=109406&inline=1.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2016. Inventory of Rare and

Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Online: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed May 2016.

City of Oceanside. 2010. Draft Oceanside Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural

Communities Conservation Plan. Accessed September 2016. http://www.ci.oceanside.ca.us /gov/ dev/planning/subarea.asp.

Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2006. The Center for North American Herpetology

(CNAH): The Academic Portal to North American Herpetology. Online: http://www.cnah.org.

Dudek. 2015. Draft Biological Technical Report for the 1902 Grandview Street Project. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of

California. State of California, The Resources Agency, 156 pp.


Natural Resource Conservation Service [NRCS] 2015. Web Soil Survey. Online: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed June 2016.

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego

County. Based on "Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California," R. F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. March. Revised from 1996 and 2005. July.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2003. Final MHCP Plan. March. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Species Occurrence Database (Accessed June

2016).

A×

Poway

Oceanside

Carlsbad

Vista

Escondido

Otay

Chula Vista

Santee

San Marcos

Encinitas

El Cajon

La Mesa

CoronadoNational

City

ImperialBeach

LemonGrove

SolanaBeachDel Mar

San Diego

Camp Pendleton

Lake San Marcos

Lake Hodges

Lake Wohlford

Lake RamonaLake Poway

Miramar Reservoir

San VicenteReservoir

Lake Murray

SweetwaterReservoir

Lake Jennings

Otay Reservoir

Pacific Ocean

San Diego Bay

Santee Lakes

SutherlandReservoir

Lake Henshaw

El Capitan Reservoir

Loveland Reservoir

Vail Lake

O'Neill Lake

Barrett Lake

Tijuana

UNITED STATESMEXICO

Dulzura

Julian

Ramona

Warner Springs

RIVERSIDECOUNTY

ORANGECOUNTY

SAN DIEGOCOUNTY

!

Project Site

San Diego

AlpineLa Jolla Aª

Aª

WÛ

WÛ

WÙ

A©

Fallbrook

?z

A©

?z

A

A©

!"$

56

!"a$

?z

?h

%&s(

!"$ AÛ

AÀ

!"_$Aù

!"a$

!"_$

AÀ

?j

!"$

A×

?j

%&s(

Figure 1GRANDVIEW POINTE

Regional Location Map

I:\PRO

JECT

S\G\G

CH\G

CH-01

_Gran

dview

Point

e\Map

\BLR

\Fig1

_Reg

ional.

mxd

GCH

-01 1

2/18/1

5 -CL

0 8MilesN

!"$

Project Site

Grandview Street

California Street

Oceanside Boulevard

Crouch Street

Hunsaker Street

Apple Street

Kurtz Street

Goat Hill Drive

Skylark Drive

Ridgeway Street

Belleaire Street

State Tree

S Oceanside Boulevard

Greenbrier Drive

Moreno Street

Burroughs Street

Downs Street

Woodbine Place

Mountain View Avenue

Della Lane

Cole WayKurtz Street

Union Plaza Court

I:\PRO

JECT

S\G\G

CH\G

CH-01

_Gran

dview

Point

e\Map

\BLR

\Fig2

_Aeri

al.mx

d GC

H-01

12/1

8/15 -

CL


Project Vicinity (Aerial Photograph)

0 500FeetN

!"$

Project Site

Copyright:© 2011 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

I:\PRO

JECT

S\G\G

CH\G

CH-01

_Gran

dview

Point

e\Map

\BLR

\Fig3

_USG

S.mxd

GCH

-01 0

9/07/1

6 -EV


Project Vicinity (USGS)

0 2,000FeetN

Rue D

e La M

ontag

ne

Grandview Street

Cole Way

Union Plaza Court

I:\PRO

JECT

S\G\G

CH\G

CH-01

_Gran

dview

Point

e\Map

\BLR

\Fig4

_Veg

Impa

cts.m

xd G

CH-01

08/2

9/16 -

CL,EV


Vegetation/Impacts

0 100FeetN

Project BoundaryImpact

GradingSlope RemediationUtility Access

VegetationDiegan Coastal Sage ScrubNon-Native Grassland: Broadleaf-DominatedNon-Native WoodlandEucalyptus WoodlandDisturbed HabitatDeveloped

A-1

Attachment A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Aizoaceae Amaranthaceae Anacardiaceae Apiaceae Asteraceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae Cactaceae Euphorbiaceae Fabaceae Geraniaceae Iridaceae Lamiaceae Myrtaceae Phrymaceae Platanaceae Primulaceae Solanaceae

Carpobrotus edulis* Salsola tragus* Malosma laurina Rhus integrifolia Schinus molle* Foeniculum vulgare* Artemisia californica Baccharis pilularis Centaurea melitensis* Encelia californica Hazardia squarrosa Heliotropium curvassavicum Brassica nigra* Opuntia littoralis Ricinus communis* Acacia sp.* Erodium sp.* Sisyrinchium bellum Salvia mellifera Eucalyptus camaldulensis* Mimulus aurantiacus Platanus racemosa Anagallis arvensis* Nicotiana glauca*

hottentot-fig Russian thistle laurel sumac lemonadeberry Peruvian pepper tree fennel California sagebrush coyote bush star thistle California encelia sawtooth goldenbush salt heliotrope black mustard coast prickly-pear castor-bean acacia filaree blue-eyed grass black sage river red gum monkey-flower California sycamore scarlet pimpernel tree tobacco

* Non-native/invasive species

A-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-1

Attachment B ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED

TAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME VERTEBRATES Birds Order Family Accipitriformes Apodiformes Columbiformes

Accipitridae Trochilidae Columbidae

Buteo lineatus Calypte anna Zenaida macroura

red-shouldered hawk Anna’s hummingbird mourning dove

Passeriformes Corvidae Emberizidae Fringillidae

Corvus corax Melozone crissalis Melospiza melodia Haemorhous mexicanus Spinus psaltria

common raven California towhee song sparrow house finch lesser goldfinch

Mammals Rodentia

Sciuridae Otospermophilus beecheyi

California ground squirrel

B-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

G:\PROJECTS\G\GCH-ALL\GCH-01_Grandview\_Photos\Biological Assessment_082416_SS Representative Site Photos BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ADDENDUM

FOR THE GRANDVIEW POINTE PROJECTAttachment C

Photo 1: Looking east along brow ditch

Photo 2: Looking north toward Union Plaza Court

G:\PROJECTS\G\GCH-ALL\GCH-01_Grandview\_Photos\Biological Assessment_082416_SS Representative Site Photos BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ADDENDUM

FOR THE GRANDVIEW POINTE PROJECTAttachment C

Photo 3: Looking north toward 1315 Union Plaza Court

Photo 4: Looking east toward the canyon, off site

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard ...

Documents