Ncil20250924 — Santee City Council, September 24, 2025 (part 2 of 8)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — 30,000 90.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.37

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Condo/Townhouse — 0%
Enclosed Parking Structure 6.44 100%
Parking Lot 2.93 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 38 / 47

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Total all Land Uses 2,368 2,368 2,368 864,320 19,655 19,655 19,655 7,173,904

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
768447 256,149 12,632 1,404 24,500

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Condo/Townhouse 1,478,309 589 0.0330 0.0040 7,362,174
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 39 / 47
Enclosed Parking Structure 1,002,810 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 111,805 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Condo/Townhouse 12,577,641 0.00
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 1,097,499

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Condo/Townhouse 265 —
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Condo/Townhouse Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Condo/Townhouse Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 40 / 47

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 41 / 47
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.4 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.90 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 7.98 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 42 / 47
Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding 0 0 0 N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding 1 1 1 2
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 43 / 47

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 64.7
AQ-PM 45.1
AQ-DPM 25.7
Drinking Water 10.9
Lead Risk Housing 17.5
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 25.6
Traffic 48.6
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 37.8
Groundwater 40.8
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 84.7
Impaired Water Bodies 77.3
Solid Waste 9.67
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 35.6
Cardio-vascular 30.2
Low Birth Weights 18.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 44 / 47
Education 43.4
Housing 19.8
Linguistic 10.4
Poverty 16.6
Unemployment 28.2

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 66.11061209
Employed 1.296034903
Median HI 58.75785962
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 47.36301809
High school enrollment 17.87501604
Preschool enrollment 14.26921596
Transportation —
Auto Access 76.73553189
Active commuting 33.56858719
Social —
2-parent households 27.65302194
Voting 75.72180162
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 42.80764789
Park access 24.26536635
Retail density 59.4636212
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 45 / 47
Supermarket access 60.82381625
Tree canopy 8.135506224
Housing —
Homeownership 43.19260875
Housing habitability 69.11330681
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.55498524 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 83.49801104
Uncrowded housing 47.26036186
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 74.51559091
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 59.9
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 1.7
Cognitively Disabled 36.6
Physically Disabled 78.7
Heart Attack ER Admissions 49.6
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 46 / 47
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 48.8
Elderly 83.1
English Speaking 76.6
Foreign-born 6.0
Outdoor Workers 58.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 55.9
Traffic Density 49.3
Traffic Access 51.5
Other Indices —
Hardship 31.7
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 76.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 18.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 34.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Cottonwood & Park Multifamily Detailed Report, 3/22/2024 47 / 47
Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Per site plan
Construction: Construction Phases No demolition required Operations: Hearths No hearths
Appendix B:

EMFAC2017 Output
Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: Air DistrictRegion: South Coast AQMDCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel ConsumptionRegion Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips Fuel Consumption Fuel Consumption Total Fuel Consumption VMT Total VMT Miles Per Gallon Vehicle ClassSouth Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75.10442936 8265.097 1502.689 1.936286145 1936.286145 1913466.474 8265.097 13656273.03 7.14 HHDSouth Coast AQMD2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 109818.6753 13648008 1133618 1911.530188 1911530.188 13648008South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 6635002.295 2.53E+08 31352477 7971.24403 7971244.03 8020635.698 2.53E+08 255180358.3 31.82 LDASouth Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 62492.97958 2469816 297086.6 49.3916685 49391.6685 2469816South Coast AQMD2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 150700.3971 6237106 751566 0 0 6237106South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 758467.6481 27812996 3504563 1023.913006 1023913.006 1024279.466 27812996 27821405.09 27.16 LDT1South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 360.7799144 8408.618 1256.88 0.366459477 366.4594769 8408.618South Coast AQMD2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 7122.93373 303507.5 35798.19 0 0 303507.5South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2285150.139 85272416 10723315 3338.798312 3338798.312 3356536.438 85272416 85922778.34 25.60 LDT2South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 15594.68309 650362.8 76635.83 17.73812611 17738.12611 650362.8South Coast AQMD2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 28809.63735 917592.8 145405.4 0 0 917592.8South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 174910.3847 6216643 2605904 583.3851736 583385.1736 811563.1022 6216643 11211395.79 13.81 LHDT1South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 125545.0822 4994753 1579199 228.1779285 228177.9285 4994753South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 30102.75324 1034569 448486.2 111.5753864 111575.3864 209423.5025 1034569 2969599.008 14.18 LHDT2South Coast AQMD2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 50003.13116 1935030 628976.5 97.84811618 97848.11618 1935030South Coast AQMD2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 305044.5141 2104624 610089 57.849018 57849.018 57849.018 2104624 2104623.657 36.38 MCYSouth Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1589862.703 55684188 7354860 2693.883526 2693883.526 2744536.341 55684188 57109879.73 20.81 MDVSouth Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 36128.1019 1425691 176566.9 50.65281491 50652.81491 1425691South Coast AQMD2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16376.67653 537591.7 83475.95 0 0 537591.7South Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 34679.50542 330042.9 3469.338 63.26295123 63262.95123 74893.26955 330042.9 454344.9436 6.07 MHSouth Coast AQMD2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13122.69387 124302 1312.269 11.63031832 11630.31832 124302South Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25624.3151 1363694 512691.3 265.2060557 265206.0557 989975.6425 1363694 9484317.768 9.58 MHDTSouth Coast AQMD2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 122124.488 8120623 1221858 724.7695868 724769.5868 8120623South Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 5955.291639 245774 119153.5 48.07750689 48077.50689 86265.88761 245774 579743.8353 6.72 OBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4286.940093 333969.8 41558.29 38.18838072 38188.38072 333969.8South Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 2783.643068 112189.6 11134.57 12.19474692 12194.74692 39638.85935 112189.6 323043.5203 8.15 SBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6671.825716 210853.9 76991.94 27.44411242 27444.11242 210853.9South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 957.7686184 89782.63 3831.074 17.62416327 17624.16327 17863.66378 89782.63 91199.2533 5.11 UBUSSouth Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 13.00046095 1416.622 52.00184 0.239500509 239.5005093 1416.622South Coast AQMD2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16.11693886 1320.163 64.46776 0 1320.163 Appendix B
Biological Technical Report – Cottonwood and Park
Project
DRAFT
Biological Technical Report
Cottonwood and Park Project
JUNE 2025
Prepared for:

CITY OF SANTEE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
10601 Magnolia Avenue
Santee, California 92071
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Brock Ortega
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
15269.02 i
JUNE 2025
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

1.1 Project Location and Description ..........................................................................................................1 2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................................3

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act.............................................................................................3

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act..........................................................................................................3

2.1.3 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................3

2.2 State........................................................................................................................................................5

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act..........................................................................................5

2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code ...............................................................................................5

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act .......................................................................................6

2.2.4 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act ..............................................................................7

2.3 Regional Resource Planning Context....................................................................................................8

2.3.1 Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan.........................................................................8

2.3.2 Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan....................................8 3 Methods............................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Literature Review................................................................................................................................. 11

3.2 Survey Methods................................................................................................................................... 12 4 Results............................................................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Vegetation Mapping and Land Covers ............................................................................................... 15

4.2 Plant and Wildlife Species .................................................................................................................. 17

4.2.1 Special-Status Plant Species ................................................................................................ 17

4.2.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species............................................................................................. 18

4.3 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources........................................................................................................ 19

4.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages............................................................................................. 19 5 Project Impacts ................................................................................................................................................. 21

5.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance ............................................................................................. 21

5.2 Definition of Impacts........................................................................................................................... 22

5.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................................... 22

5.4 Impact Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 26

5.4.1 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Species .................................................................................. 27

5.4.2 Impact BIO-2: Sensitive Vegetation Communities ............................................................... 28

5.4.3 Impact BIO-3: State or Federally Protected Wetlands ......................................................... 33

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 ii
JUNE 2025

5.4.4 Impact BIO-4: Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages ....................................................... 35

5.4.5 Impact BIO-5: Local Policies and Ordinances ...................................................................... 35

5.4.6 Impact BIO-6: Habitat Conservation Plans........................................................................... 36 6 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 37 TABLES
1 Survey Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 11 2 Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Project Site................................................................ 15 3 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources within the Project Site................................................................................ 19 4 Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Project Site (Acres)............................................................................................................................................ 27 5 Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities within the Project Site.......................................................... 29 6 Mitigation for Permanent Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities within the Project Site ............... 29 7 Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Potential Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources within the Project Site (Acres)............................................................................................................................................ 33

FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 41 2 Soils and Hydrology........................................................................................................................................... 43 3 Biological Resources......................................................................................................................................... 45 4 Impacts to Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 47

APPENDICES
A Plant Compendium
B Wildlife Compendium
C Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur
D Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur
E Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
15269.02 iii
JUNE 2025
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
GIS geographic information system
MHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area
MM Mitigation Measure
MSCP Multiple Species Conservation Program
PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report
Porter–Cologne Act Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act Project Cottonwood and Park Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 iv
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 1
JUNE 2025
1 Introduction
This Biological Technical Report describes the existing biological conditions of the site proposed for the Cottonwood and Park Project (Project) within the City of Santee (City), California. Included in this report are a discussion of the biological survey methods and results and the impacts to vegetation communities and potential special-status species evaluated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan (City of San Diego 1998), the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2023), and the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. Additionally, measures taken directly from the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) (City of Santee 2022) are recommended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts, where feasible, to less-thansignificant levels.

1.1 Project Location and Description
The 23.32-acre Project site, which includes 22.18 acres on site and 1.15 acres off site, is in the south-central portion of Santee in San Diego County, as shown in Figure 1, Project Location. The Project site is at the southern end of Park Center Drive and is bound by the San Diego River to the south. The Project site lies within the U.S.

Geological Survey El Cajon quadrangle with a latitude of N 32°50′ 54.72″ and longitude of W 116°58′ 32.76″. The Assessor’s Parcel Number for the Project site is 381-051-1800, and the off-site impacts occur within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 381-051-1400, 381-051-1700, and 381-050-7700. Land uses adjacent to the Project site include Town Center Community Park along the northern and western boundaries, residential housing to the east, and the San Diego River corridor along the southern boundary.

The Project site is currently undeveloped land containing mostly non-native vegetation communities and land cover types (i.e., disturbed habitat, non-native grassland, eucalyptus woodland, and urban/developed lands), with a patch of native arrowweed scrub along the western boundary of the Project site and a small area of riparian habitat (i.e., freshwater marsh and southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest) associated with the San Diego River corridor that overlaps the southern site boundary. Elevations within the Project site range from 335 feet to 345 feet above mean sea level. Soils on site are characterized as Tujunga Sand, 0% to 5% slopes, which are considered hydric soils; Water; and Riverwash, which is not considered a hydric soil (USDA 2023a) (Figure 2, Soils and Hydrology). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory data (USFWS 2023a) has freshwater forested/shrub wetland habitat, associated with the San Diego River, mapped as overlapping the southern edge of the Project site (Figure 2). No features depicted by the U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Database (USGS 2023) are present within the Project site; however, there are two flowlines north and south of the Project site (Figure 2).

The proposed Project would involve construction of 291 multifamily residential units, in addition to on-site parking and recreation areas. Off-site road improvements are proposed to the west side of Cottonwood Avenue, and a detention basin located within southwestern corner of the site would include an off-site storm drain outfall that directs overflow to the San Diego River immediately south of the site. To comply with the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation PEIR (City of Santee 2022), all riparian habitats within the main stem of

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 2
JUNE 2025
the San Diego River would be avoided by the proposed Project1 and would be designated as biological open space and incorporated into the City of Santee’s preserve system, including recordation of an easement to ensure their protection in perpetuity. Additionally, a 100-foot buffer from the edge of the riparian habitat associated with the San Diego River would be established within the Project site and would be managed for natural biological values as part of the City of Santee’s preserve system.
1 All impacts to the riparian resources within the main stem of the San Diego River would be avoided by the proposed Project, with the exception of a small impact (0.01 acres) occurring from the Project’s proposed storm drain outfall (i.e., desiltation or erosion control facilities or other improvements necessary to protect the habitat). 15269.02 3
JUNE 2025
2 Regulatory Setting

2.1 Federal

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by USFWS for most plant and animal species and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service for certain marine species. This legislation is intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and to provide programs for the conservation of those species, thus preventing the extinction of plants and wildlife. FESA defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under FESA, it is unlawful to “take” any listed species; “take” is defined as, “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
FESA allows for the issuance of incidental take permits for listed species under Section 7, which is generally available for projects that also require other federal agency permits or other approvals, and under Section 10, which provides for the approval of habitat conservation plans on private property without any other federal agency involvement.

2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the intentional and unintentional take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16 USC 703 et seq.). Currently, the Migratory Birds office considers nests that support eggs, nestlings, or juveniles to be active. Additionally, Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). Executive Order 13186 requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding. USFWS reviews actions that might affect these species.

2.1.3 Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Section 401 requires a project applicant for a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain state certification, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer the certification program in California. Section 402 establishes a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. USACE implementing regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 33 CFR Parts 320 to 332. Guidelines for implementation are referred to

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 4
JUNE 2025
as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with USACE (40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there is no practicable alternative that would have less-adverse impacts.

Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States
Based on a recent court case ordering vacation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have halted implementation of the rule and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further notice. Per 33 CFR 328.3(a), waters of the United States are defined as follows:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section;

6. The territorial seas;

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)–(6) of this section; and
Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11[m] which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.

The USACE/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rapanos Guidance states that USACE will regulate traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands and relatively permanent waters tributary to traditional navigable waters and adjacent wetlands. Non-relatively permanent waters (those exhibiting less than 3 months of continuous surface flows) and their adjacent wetlands would be regulated if there is a significant nexus from the site to traditional navigable waters.

The State Water Resources Control Board has authority over wetlands through Section 401 of the CWA, the Porter– Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter–Cologne Act), California Code of Regulations Section 3831(k), and California Wetlands Conservation Policy. The CWA requires that an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 5
JUNE 2025
dredge or fill material into waters of the United States) first obtain certification from the appropriate state agency stating that the fill is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to either grant certification or waive the requirement for permits is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board to the nine RWQCBs. A request for certification is submitted to the RWQCB at the same time that an application is filed with USACE.

2.2 State

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050–2068) provides protection for and prohibits the take of plant, fish, and wildlife species listed by the State of California. Unlike FESA, under CESA, state-listed plants have the same degree of protection as wildlife, but insects and other invertebrates may not be listed. Take is defined similarly to FESA and is prohibited for both listed and candidate species. Take authorization may be obtained by a project applicant from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under CESA Section 2081, which allows take of a listed species for educational, scientific, or management purposes. In this case, developers consult with CDFW to develop a set of measures and standards for managing the listed species, including full mitigation for impacts, funding of implementation, and monitoring of mitigation measures.

2.2.2 California Fish and Game Code
Fully Protected Species
Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code outline protection for fully protected species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Species that are fully protected by these sections may not be taken or possessed at any time. CDFW cannot issue permits or licenses that authorize the “take” of any fully protected species, except under certain circumstances, such as scientific research and live capture and relocation of such species pursuant to a permit for the protection of livestock. Senate Bill 147, which amends the California Fish and Game Code to allow a 10-year permitting mechanism for a defined set of projects within the renewable energy, transportation, and water infrastructure sectors, was signed into law on July 10, 2023. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the CDFW to maintain viable populations of all native species. Toward that end, CDFW has designated certain vertebrate species as Species of Special Concern because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction.

Sections 1600–1616
CDFW jurisdiction includes ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial watercourses (including dry washes) and lakes characterized by the presence of (1) definable bed and banks, and (2) existing fish or wildlife resources. CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream, or the limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation, which may include oak woodlands in canyon bottoms. Historical court cases have further extended CDFW jurisdiction to include watercourses that seemingly disappear but reemerge elsewhere. Under the CDFW definition, a watercourse need not exhibit evidence of an ordinary high water mark to be claimed as jurisdictional. CDFW does not have jurisdiction over ocean or shoreline resources.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 6
JUNE 2025
Under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1616, CDFW has the authority to regulate work that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from, the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. CDFW also has the authority to regulate work that will deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. This regulation takes the form of a requirement for a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement and is applicable to all projects. Applications to CDFW must include a complete certified CEQA document.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (see Section 1900 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code) directed CDFW to carry out the legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The Native Plant Protection Act gave the California Fish and Game Commission the power to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA expanded on the original Native Plant Protection Act and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the Native Plant Protection Act remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with federal regulations, CESA created the categories of “threatened” and “endangered” species. It converted all “rare” animals into the act as threatened species but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, there are three listing categories for plants in California: rare, threatened, and endangered. Because rare plants are not included in CESA, mitigation measures for impacts to rare plants are specified in a formal agreement between CDFW and the project applicant.

Nesting Birds
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.

Section 3503.5 protects all birds of prey (raptors) and their eggs and nests. Section 3511 states that fully protected birds or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time. Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and of ways that such impacts can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. CEQA also provides guidelines and thresholds for use by lead agencies for evaluating the significance of proposed impacts.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.” A rare animal or plant is defined in Section 15380(b)(2) as a species that, although not presently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout all or a significant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or … [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(c).

CDFW has developed a list of “Special Species” as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the California Natural Diversity Database is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.” This is a broader list than

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 7
JUNE 2025
those species that are protected under FESA, CESA, and other California Fish and Game Code provisions, and includes lists developed by other organizations, including, for example, the Audubon Watch List Species. Guidance documents prepared by other agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Sensitive Species and USFWS Birds of Special Concern, are also included on this CDFW Special Species list. Additionally, CDFW has concluded that plant species listed as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 and 2 by the California Native Plant Society, and potentially some CRPR 3 plants, are covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.

Section IV, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), of the CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of impacts to “any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

2.2.4 Porter–Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Pursuant to provisions of the Porter–Cologne Act, the RWQCBs regulate discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect a water of the state (California Water Code Section 13260[a]).

The State Water Resources Control Board defines a water of the state as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code Section 13050[e]). All waters of the United States are waters of the state. Waters of the state include wetlands; the State Water Resources Control Board definition of wetlands (SWRCB 2021) includes the following:

1. Natural wetlands.

2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state.

3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration. b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state. c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape. d. Greater than or equal to 1 acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed and is currently used and maintained primarily for one or more of the following purposes: industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal; settling of sediment; detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial permitting program; treatment of surface waters; agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering; fire suppression; industrial processing or cooling water; active surface mining—even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values; log storage; treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water; maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or fields flooded for rice growing.

Wetlands that may not meet all of USACE’s wetland delineation criteria are considered wetland waters of the state if, “under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation” (SWRCB 2021). Additionally, aquatic resources that USACE determines to not be waters of the United States because they lack a significant nexus to a traditional navigable water or are above the ordinary high

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 8
JUNE 2025
water mark limit of federal jurisdiction may also be considered waters of the state. If a CWA Section 404 permit is not required for a project, the RWQCB may still require a permit (waste discharge requirements) for impacts to waters of the state under the Porter–Cologne Act.

2.3 Regional Resource Planning Context

2.3.1 Multiple Species Conservation Program Plan
The Project site is within the boundaries of the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998). The MSCP Plan is a multijurisdictional habitat conservation planning program that involves USFWS, CDFW, the County of San Diego, the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, and other local jurisdictions and special districts. Local jurisdictions and special districts implement the MSCP Plan for their respective portions through subarea plans. The combination of the MSCP Plan and subarea plans serve as a habitat conservation plan pursuant to FESA Section 10(a)(1)(B), and as a natural community conservation plan pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (City of San Diego 1998).

The MSCP Plan study area encompasses 582,243 acres within the southwestern portion of San Diego County. As stated in the MSCP Plan, an objective of the MSCP is to conserve a connected system of biologically viable habitat lands in a manner that maximizes the protection of sensitive species and precludes the need for future listings of species as threatened or endangered. The MSCP Plan identifies a Multi-Habitat Planning Area (MHPA), which is the area within which the permanent MSCP Preserve is assembled and managed for its biological resources. The MHPA is defined in many areas by mapped boundaries in figures in the MSCP Plan and is also defined by quantitative targets for conservation of vegetation communities and goals and criteria for Preserve design. The MSCP Plan targets 171,917 acres within the MHPA for conservation (City of San Diego 1998).

A total of 85 plant and animal species are “covered” by the MSCP Plan. The MSCP Plan Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement identifies “Vegetation Community Conservation Target Areas” for conservation by subarea (Appendix B of the MSCP Plan [City of San Diego 1998]). A total of 2,067 acres is expected to be conserved within the Santee Subarea MHPA. With approval of each subarea plan and corresponding implementing agreement, each participating local jurisdiction receives permits and/or authorization to directly impact or take MSCP Covered Species. The Covered Species include species listed as endangered or threatened by FESA and/or CESA, as well as unlisted species. Table 3-5 in the MSCP Plan provides a list of the MSCP Covered Species and includes specific conditions required for take authorizations (City of San Diego 1998).

2.3.2 Draft Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan
The City has been preparing its subarea plan since the original approval of the San Diego MSCP Plan and is currently in the process of completing the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. Although the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not yet been approved or permitted, it is used as the guidance document for projects occurring within the City. The current Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan seeks coverage for up to 23 species and relies on a combination of hardline conservation areas, criteria-based upland standards areas, San Diego River conservation opportunities areas, and City-owned Preserve lands to protect species and habitat (City of Santee 2023). Coverage for species is dependent on a number of factors, including multijurisdictional participation, adequate building of the Preserve system, adequate protection of certain populations, permanent management funding, and other factors.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 9
JUNE 2025
The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan Preserve boundaries are a result of the City’s efforts to refine and expand the MHPA boundaries to better define conservation priorities within the City and to formulate a Habitat Conservation Plan under the MSCP Plan. Because the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan is still in development, portions of the subarea plan may still change, including hardline Preserve areas and Covered Species. As of June 2025, the Project site is located outside any of the Preserve areas currently identified in the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan. The portion of the San Diego River that is adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site is part of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan’s San Diego River Subunit (Figure 1). This portion of the San Diego River is County-owned and contributes to the overall functional east-west ecological linkage and wildlife corridor through the Subarea Plan Area but is not currently part of the City of Santee’s preserve system.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 10
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 11
JUNE 2025
3 Methods
Data regarding biological resources present within the Project site were obtained through a review of pertinent literature and through field surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024; both are described in detail below. Survey conditions are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Survey Conditions
Date Hours Personnel Survey Focus Survey Conditions
05/03/2023 09:01 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
55–57°F, 90% cc,
1–3 mph
05/13/2023 06:05 a.m. – 08:30 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
60–62°F, 100–80% cc,
0–1–3 mph
05/23/2023 08:50 a.m. – 10:55 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
64–67°F, 70–60% cc,
1–3 mph
06/03/2023 06:05 a.m. – 07:55 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
55–63°F, 100–90% cc,
0–3 mph
06/18/2023 08:25 a.m. – 10:55 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
70–80°F, 20–0% cc,
1–3 mph
06/27/2023 06:05 a.m. – 08:20 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
72–77°F, 50–10% cc,
0–3 mph
07/07/2023 08:25 a.m.–11:00 p.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
65–78°F, 50–0% cc,
0–3 mph
07/09/2023 10:02 a.m.– 05:11 p.m. Erin Bergman Vegetation Mapping, Rare Plant Survey
77–83°F; 10–20% cc;
0–3 mph
07/11/2023 10:03 a.m.–12:58 p.m. Dylan Ayers Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource
Assessment
80–89°F; 0% cc;
0–3 mph
07/20/2023 08:45 a.m.–11:00 a.m. Brock Ortega Least Bell’s Vireo Survey
72–80°F, 0% cc,
0–3 mph
08/22/2023 11:34 a.m.–12:20 p.m. Dylan Ayers Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource
Assessment
75–76°F; 0% cc;
3–5 mph
06/07/2024 09:02 a.m. – 11:05 a.m. Dylan Ayers Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource
Assessment
66–75°F; 20-100% cc;
1–3 mph
Notes: °F = degrees Fahrenheit; cc = cloud cover; mph = miles per hour winds.

3.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting field surveys, Dudek biologists reviewed the latest CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2023a), California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2023), and USFWS Critical Habitat and Occurrence databases (USFWS 2023b) to identify special-status species that are known to occur or may potentially occur within the Project site based on the physical characteristics of the site (including biogeography, elevation, soils, and vegetation communities).

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 12
JUNE 2025
The following databases were reviewed prior to the jurisdictional delineation: historical aerial photographs (Google Earth 2023; Historic Aerials 2023); U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2023); U.S.

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (USDA 2023a); and the USFWS National Wetland Inventory (USFWS 2023a).

3.2 Survey Methods
Vegetation mapping within the Project site was conducted on July 9, 2023, by Dudek biologist Erin Bergman.

Vegetation community classifications follow Holland (1986), as revised by Oberbauer et al. (2008). Vegetation communities and land covers were mapped in the field using a mobile data collection application. Vegetation surveys were conducted throughout the site on foot. Following the completion of fieldwork, vegetation polygons were digitized using ArcGIS, and geographic information system (GIS) coverage was created. Acreage calculations of vegetation communities and land covers were determined using ArcGIS.

A rare plant survey for special-status plant species was conducted concurrently with the vegetation mapping. Given the typical blooming periods of the special-status plant species potentially occurring within the Project site, based on soils, elevation, and vegetation communities, and due to the level of disturbance within the site, it was determined that all target special-status species could be surveyed for in one pass in July. The survey methods conformed to the California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), and the USFWS General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified to subspecies or variety, if applicable, to determine sensitivity status. If special-status plant or wildlife species were encountered, field personnel recorded data points demarcating the edge of the polygon and assessed population numbers using the Esri ArcGIS mobile application. Latin names for plant species observed during the survey follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson Flora Project 2023), and common names follow the CDFW California Natural Community List (CDFW 2023b) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2023b).

Due to the proximity of the Project site to the San Diego River, it was determined that a protocol-level least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) survey should be conducted within the riparian habitat adjacent (i.e., within 500 feet) to the Project site. The eight surveys for least Bell’s vireo followed the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001), which states that a minimum of eight survey visits should be made to all riparian areas and any other potential least Bell’s vireo habitats between April 10 and July 31. The site visits are required to be conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of early and late arrivals, females, non-vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Taped playback of least Bell’s vireo vocalizations was not used during the surveys, per USFWS 2001 protocol.

Surveys were conducted between dawn and noon and were not conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather. All surveys consisted of slowly walking a methodical, meandering transect along the Project site’s southern boundary, which is adjacent to the riparian habitat within the San Diego River corridor, and suitable habitat areas within the Project site’s 500-foot buffer. This route was arranged to cover all suitable adjacent habitat. If least Bell’s vireo or any other special-status species were encountered, field personnel recorded data points demarcating the location using the Esri ArcGIS mobile application. Survey conditions are summarized in Table 1.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 13
JUNE 2025
All wildlife species detected during the field surveys by sight, vocalizations, burrows, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded. The site was visually scanned with and without binoculars to identify wildlife. Latin and common names of animals follow Crother (2017) for reptiles and amphibians, the American Ornithological Society for birds (AOS 2023), and Wilson and Reeder (2005) for mammals.

The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008a). A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual (USACE 2008b) was used to determine the limits of non-wetland waters. RWQCB typically asserts jurisdiction over the same areas as USACE. The delineation defined areas under the jurisdiction of CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1603 of the California Fish and Game Code using the Cowardin method of waters classification, which defines waters boundaries by a single parameter (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology) (Cowardin et al. 1979). Additionally, waters of the state were delineated based on watercourse characteristics present in the field, which include surface flow, sediment transportation and sorting, physical indicators of channel forms, channel morphology, and riparian habitat associated with a streambed. The limits of aquatic resources were collected in the field using the Esri Collector mobile application with submeter accuracy. The geographic extents were digitized in GIS using ArcGIS software.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 14
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 15
JUNE 2025
4 Results

4.1 Vegetation Mapping and Land Covers
Based on species composition and general physiognomy, nine vegetation communities or land cover types occur within the Project site. Acreages for each vegetation community or land cover type are provided in Table 2, and their spatial distribution is shown in Figure 3, Biological Resources. Descriptions for each vegetation community or land cover type are provided below.

Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Project Site Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Holland/
Oberbauer Code
Off-Site
Acreage
On-Site
Acreage
Total
Acreage
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest 61330 0.24 0.38 0.62 Arrowweed Scrub 63820 N/A 2.52 2.52
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 52410 0.21 0.01 0.22 Open Water 64140 0.23 N/A 0.23
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 0.68 2.91 3.59 Upland Vegetation Communities
Non-Native Grassland 42200 N/A 6.98 6.98
Non-Native Grassland (broadleaf-dominated) 42210 0.14 3.77 3.92 Upland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 0.14 10.75 10.89 Land Cover Types
Eucalyptus Woodland 79100 N/A 0.63 0.63
Disturbed Habitat 11300 0.05 7.26 7.31
Urban/Developed 12000 0.27 0.63 0.90
Land Cover Types Subtotal 0.32 8.52 8.84
Total 1.15 22.18 23.32
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

N/A = not applicable.

Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest (61330)
Southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest is a tall, open, broadleafed, winter-deciduous riparian forest dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and several tree willow species (Salix sp.), with an understory of shrubby willows (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This habitat occurs on frequently overflowed lands along rivers and streams (Oberbauer et al. 2008).

Southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest totals 0.62 acres within the Project site and is associated with the San Diego River corridor. As a wetland community, southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest is typically regulated by the aquatic resource agencies.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 16
JUNE 2025
Arrowweed Scrub (63820)
Arrowweed scrub consists of moderate or dense thickets where arrowweed (Pluchea sericea) is the heavily dominant species (Oberbauer et al. 2008). This vegetation community typically occurs on banks of streams and washes and is maintained by disturbance. Species that may also be present in sparse amounts include salt grass (Distichlis spicata), rushes (Juncus spp.), sandbar willow (Salix exigua), tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), and southern cattail (Typha domingensis) (Oberbauer et al. 2008).

Arrowweed scrub totals 2.52 acres within the Project site and occurs approximately 130 feet north of the riparian edge of the San Diego River with no direct surface connection to the river or any other watercourse. This community occurs within a flat area on the western boundary of the Project site approximately 15 feet in elevation above the San Diego River. The combination of human development and other urban manipulations in and around the project site have likely caused an increase in runoff, such that the arrowweed scrub is at least partially fed by the community park irrigation along the western boundary. Although it is disconnected from the active streambed channel associated with the San Diego River, as a wetland community, arrowweed scrub is typically regulated by the aquatic resource agencies.

Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (52410)
Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent monocots, often forming closed canopies (Oberbauer et. al. 2008). This community is permanently flooded by freshwater lacking a significant current (Oberbauer et al 2008). Because it is permanently flooded by freshwater, there is an accumulation of deep, peaty soils. It typically is dominated by species such as cattail (Typha spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.).

Coastal and valley freshwater marsh totals 0.22 acres within the Project site. As a wetland community, coastal and valley freshwater marsh is typically regulated by the aquatic resource agencies.

Open Water (64140)
Open water is defined by Oberbauer et al. (2008) as year-round bodies of fresh water (extremely low salinity) in the form of lakes, streams, ponds, or rivers that contain less than 10% vegetative cover. The open water within the Project site is associated with the San Diego River and totals 0.23 acres. As a wetland community, open water is typically regulated by the aquatic resource agencies.

Non-Native Grassland (42200)
Non-native grassland consists of dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms between 0.5 to 3 feet in height (Oberbauer et al. 2008). In some areas, depending on past disturbance and annual rainfall, annual forbs may be the dominant species. However, it is presumed that grasses will dominate. According to Oberbauer et al. (2008), the subcategory of broadleaf-dominated non-native grassland applies to areas in which previous disturbance or presence of a nearby seed source has caused one or multiple invasive, non-native broadleaf species to make up over 50% of the vegetative cover. This is a common vegetation community in San Diego County in disturbed areas.

Characteristic species include but are not limited to black mustard (Brassica nigra), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and knapweeds (Centaurea spp.) (Oberbauer et al. 2008).

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 17
JUNE 2025
Within the Project site, 10.89 acres of non-native grassland (including broadleaf-dominated) is dominated by slender oat (Avena barbata), bromes (Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus, B. madritensis, B. rubens), redstem stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), Maltese star-thistle (Centaurea melitensis), and mustard.

Eucalyptus Woodland (79100)
This “naturalized” vegetation community is fairly widespread in Southern California and is considered a woodland habitat. It typically consists of monotypic stands of introduced Australian eucalyptus trees such as blue gum (E. globulus) and red gum (E. camaldulensis) species. The understory is either depauperate (i.e., lacking species variety) or absent, owing to high leaf litter. Although eucalyptus woodlands are of limited value to most native plants and animals, they frequently provide nesting and perching sites for several raptor species.

Within the Project site, 0.63 acres of eucalyptus woodland occurs along the eastern boundary and central portion of the Project site. This vegetation community is composed of sugar gum (Eucalyptus cladocalyx).

Disturbed Habitat (11300)
Disturbed habitats are areas that have been physically disturbed and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association (Oberbauer et al. 2008). These areas may continue to retain soil substrate. If vegetation is present, it is almost entirely composed of non-native vegetation, such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species. Examples of these areas may include graded landscapes or areas, graded firebreaks and construction pads, temporary construction staging areas, off-road-vehicle trails, areas repeatedly cleared for fuel management, or areas that are repeatedly used in ways that prevent revegetation (e.g., parking lots, trails that have persisted for years) (Oberbauer et al. 2008).

Disturbed habitat totals 7.31 acres within the Project site. Within the Project site, this land cover type includes dirt roads and areas lacking vegetation.

Urban/Developed (12000)
Urban/developed land consists of buildings, structures, homes, parking lots, paved roads, and maintained areas.

Urban/developed areas do not support vegetation. Urban/developed land covers 0.90 acres of the Project site. The developed area is associated with Park Center Drive, Cottonwood Avenue, and a paved path with landscaping associated with Town Center Community Park.

4.2 Plant and Wildlife Species
A total of 64 vascular plant species consisting of 29 native species (45%) and 35 non-native species (55%) were recorded during the surveys (see Appendix A, Plant Compendium). A total of 80 wildlife species were observed within the Project site, including 62 bird species, 4 amphibian species, 4 reptile species, 7 mammal species, and 3 invertebrate species (see Appendix B, Wildlife Compendium).

4.2.1 Special-Status Plant Species
Special-status plant species include those listed, or candidates for listing, as threatened or endangered by USFWS and CDFW, and species identified as rare by the California Native Plant Society (particularly CRPR 1A, presumed

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 18
JUNE 2025
extinct in California; CRPR 1B, rare, threatened, or endangered throughout its range; and CRPR 2, rare or endangered in California, more common elsewhere). Appendix C, Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur, provides a table of all special-status plant species whose geographic ranges fall within the general vicinity of the Project site. Each special-status species’ potential to occur within the Project site was evaluated based on known species distribution, species-specific habitat preferences, and Dudek biologists’ knowledge of regional biological resources. Each special-status species was assigned a rating of “not expected,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high” potential to occur within the Project site based on location relative to known occurrences, vegetation community, soil, and elevation.

One special-status plant species, white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), was observed within the Project site and immediately adjacent to the Project site boundary during the rare plant survey conducted in July 2023 (Figure 3). A total of 15 individuals (0.20 acres) occurred within an area composed entirely of sand, and 6 of these individuals (0.07 acres) occurred within the southeastern corner of the Project site. No other specialstatus plant species included in Appendix C are expected to occur within the Project site, based on the survey results, soils, elevation, and prior disturbances occurring within the Project site. Additionally, there is no USFWSdesignated critical habitat for plant species within or directly adjacent to the Project site (USFWS 2023b).

4.2.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species
Special-status wildlife species include those listed, or candidates for listing, as threatened or endangered by USFWS and CDFW, and those designated as Species of Special Concern by CDFW and as sensitive by USFWS. Appendix D, Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur, provides a table of all special-status wildlife species whose geographic ranges fall within the general vicinity of the Project site. Each special-status species’ potential to occur within the Project site was evaluated based on known species distribution, species-specific habitat preferences, and Dudek biologists’ knowledge of regional biological resources. Each special-status species was assigned a rating of “not expected,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high” potential to occur within the Project site, based on location relative to known occurrences, vegetation community, soil, and elevation.

One special-status wildlife species, monarch (Danaus plexippus), was observed passing through the Project site during the biological surveys. However, the Project site is not an established overwintering area for this species, the site does not provide any host plants (i.e., milkweed), and the site supports very limited nectar plants (i.e., the majority of the site contains non-native grasses). Two special-status wildlife species—least Bell’s vireo and yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia)—were observed both within the Project site and within the Project site’s 500-foot buffer, which overlaps the riparian habitat associated with the San Diego River (Figure 3). A total of two nesting pairs of least Bell’s vireos were observed within the Project site and south of the Project site within the San Diego River corridor (Figure 3). A third nesting pair of least Bell’s vireos were detected just outside the 500-foot buffer, along the riparian strip northwest of the Project, on the southern side of the baseball fields (Figure 3). This pair occasionally came within 500 feet of the Project site but mainly stayed within the confluence area of the San Diego River and the tributary to the north. This pair did not seem distressed by the abundant human activity in the area.

A number of yellow warblers were detected in the riparian habitat areas within the Project site’s 500-foot buffer.

Appendix D provides a summary of the special-status wildlife species documented within the Project vicinity and their potential to occur on site, based on the location of the site, species’ range and distribution, and the vegetation communities found on site. Where pertinent, a distinction is made between foraging and breeding habitat available on site. A total of nine special-status wildlife species have moderate potential to occur within the Project site, and

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 19
JUNE 2025
one species has high potential to occur adjacent to Project site due to presence of suitable habitat within the San Diego River corridor.

There is no USFWS-designated critical habitat for any wildlife species within or directly adjacent to the Project site (USFWS 2023b).

4.3 Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
The jurisdictional aquatic resource delineation determined there are potentially 0.45 acres of non-wetland waters/streambeds under USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction, and an additional 3.14 acres of CDFW-only riparian habitat within the Project site (Appendix E, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report). The non-wetland water/streambed includes the freshwater marsh and open water associated with the San Diego River occurring at the southern edge of the Project site. This area contained flowing water and was dominated by thick freshwater marsh vegetation, made up mostly of southern cattail, with a mature canopy of large willow (Salix gooddingii) and Fremont cottonwood trees intermixed around the margins of the active channel. Additionally, a total of 3.14 acres of riparian habitat under CDFW jurisdiction occurs within the Project site. The riparian habitat is mapped as arrowweed scrub (2.52 acres) and southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest (0.62 acres). The southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest is associated with the riparian canopy immediately above the San Diego River channel. The arrowweed scrub is approximately 130 feet north of the riparian edge of the San Diego River with no direct surface connection to the river or any other watercourse. Table 3 summarizes the acreage of the non-wetland water/streambed and riparian habitat within the Project site; the extent of jurisdictional aquatic resources is depicted in Figure 3.

Table 3. Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources within the Project Site Feature Name/Dominant Vegetation USACE/RWQCB (acreage) CDFW (acreage) Non-Wetland Water/Streambed
Freshwater Marsh 0.22 0.22
Open Water 0.23 0.23
Non-Wetland Water/Streambed Subtotal 0.45 0.45
Riparian Habitat
Arrowweed Scrub N/A 2.52
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest N/A 0.62
Riparian Habitat Subtotal N/A 3.14
Total 0.45 3.59
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; N/A = not applicable.

4.4 Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by ensuring continual exchange of genes between populations, providing access to adjacent habitat areas for foraging and mating, and providing routes for recolonization of habitat after local extirpation or ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires). Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Habitat

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 20
JUNE 2025
linkages provide a potential route for gene flow and long-term dispersal of plants and animals and may also serve as primary habitat for smaller animals, such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping-stones for dispersal.

The MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998) defines core and linkage areas as those maintaining ecosystem function and processes, including large animal movement. Each core area is connected to other core areas or to habitat areas outside of the MSCP study area, either through common boundaries or through linkages. Core areas have multiple connections to help ensure that the balance in the ecosystem will be maintained.

The Project site is not mapped as a core area or habitat linkage under the MSCP (City of San Diego 1998). Therefore, the Project site is not an established wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. However, the Project site is currently undeveloped land adjacent to the San Diego River and could potentially function as a wildlife corridor for local populations of common species. Larger species, like mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor), are not expected to use this highly urbanized vicinity of the river corridor due to the amount of adjacent commercial and industrial uses, significant presence of human encampments, and general lack of connectivity to larger core areas of suitable habitat. For the same reasons, it is unlikely that bobcat (Lynx rufus) would use this area. Species most likely to use this area include coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). 15269.02 21
JUNE 2025
5 Project Impacts
This section addresses direct and indirect impacts to biological resources that would result from implementation of the Project, provides the significance determinations for proposed or potential impacts, and proposes mitigation.

Cumulative impacts are addressed in the Project’s Environmental Impact Report.

5.1 Explanation of Findings of Significance
Impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, special-status plant and wildlife species, and jurisdictional aquatic resources, including wetlands, must be quantified and analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that an ironclad definition of a “significant” effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, however, does provide “examples of consequences which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment” (14 CCR 15064[e]). These effects include substantial effects on rare or endangered animal or plant species or the habitat of the species. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) is also helpful in defining whether a Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Under that section, a proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment if the Project has the potential to (1) substantially degrade the quality of the environment, (2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, (3) cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, (4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, (5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or (6) eliminate important examples of a major period of California history or prehistory.

The following are the significance thresholds for biological resources provided in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist, which states that a Project would potentially have a significant effect if it does any of the following:
▪ Impact BIO-1. Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
▪ Impact BIO-2. Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. ▪ Impact BIO-3. Has a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
▪ Impact BIO-4. Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
▪ Impact BIO-5. Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
▪ Impact BIO-6. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 22
JUNE 2025
The evaluation of whether an impact to a particular biological resource is significant must consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context. Substantial impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important resource, such as a population of a rare plant or wildlife species.

Impacts may be important locally because they result in an adverse alteration of existing site conditions but considered not significant because they do not contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that resource regionally. The severity of an impact is the primary determinant of whether that impact can be mitigated to a level below significance.

5.2 Definition of Impacts
Direct permanent impacts refer to complete loss of a biological resource. For the purposes of this report, direct permanent impacts refer to the area where vegetation clearing, grubbing, or grading replaces biological resources.

Direct permanent impacts were quantified by overlaying the proposed impact limits on the biological resources map of the Project site. Direct permanent impacts would occur from construction of the multifamily residential units, recreation and parking areas, associated off-site road improvement areas, and the storm drain outfall (i.e., headwall and riprap).

Direct temporary impacts refer to temporary loss of a biological resource. For the purposes of this report, it refers to the area where vegetation will be cleared but then restored to pre-existing conditions. Direct temporary impacts consist of an approximately 10-foot construction buffer, which surrounds the on-site permanent impacts, and the 20-foot-wide temporary work area associated with the storm drain pipe.

Indirect impacts are reasonably foreseeable effects on remaining or adjacent biological resources outside the direct disturbance zone caused by a Project’s implementation. For the purposes of this report, indirect impacts may affect areas associated with biological resources present within the San Diego River corridor. Indirect impacts may be short term and construction related, or long term and associated with development in proximity to biological resources.

Cumulative impacts refer to the combined environmental effects of a Project and other relevant Projects. These impacts may be minor when analyzed individually but become collectively significant as they occur over time.

Cumulative impacts are addressed in the Project’s Environmental Impact Report.

The evaluation of Project impacts is organized by the resource potentially affected: riparian and sensitive vegetation communities (special-status vegetation communities), special-status species, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and wildlife movement.

5.3 Mitigation Measures
These mitigation measures (MMs) have been taken directly from the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation PEIR (City of Santee 2022).

MM-BIO-1 Applications for future development, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure. a) Prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth-moving activities, a site-specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted to identify the presence of any sensitive

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 23
JUNE 2025
biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife species. A biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey.

The report shall include: (1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project. If suitable habitat for sensitive species is identified based on the general biological survey, then focused presence/absence surveys shall be conducted in accordance with applicable resource agency survey protocols and incorporated into the biological resources report. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features to avoid or minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance, where feasible. Mitigation measures shall be consistent with the standards contained in Section 5.3 of the 2018 Draft Santee Subarea Plan, and projects shall be required to obtain all necessary permits to ensure compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as the federal and state Endangered Species Acts.
b) Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be identified in the biological resources report and avoided to the maximum extent practicable. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas (i.e., natural habitats and vegetation, wetlands, wildlife areas, wildlife corridors), the biological resources report will consider the following measures:

Avoidance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, construction limits shall be clearly demarcated using highly visible barriers (such as silt fencing), which shall be installed under the supervision of a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the project footprint, including designated staging areas, and routes of travel. The construction areas shall be limited to the minimal area necessary to complete the proposed project. The fencing shall remain in place until the completion of all construction activities and shall be promptly removed when construction is complete.

Biological Monitoring. A qualified biological monitor shall conduct construction monitoring of all work conducted within/adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas during all vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities such as staging and grading, for the duration of the proposed project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat outside the project footprints and to survey for sensitive wildlife species. When vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities are not occurring, as-needed monitoring at the project sites shall occur.

Worker Environmental Awareness Program. In areas near or adjacent to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, a qualified biologist shall conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training session for project and construction personnel prior to the commencement of work. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and their habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Acts (FESA and CESA), the penalties associated with violating the provisions of

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 24
JUNE 2025
the acts, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries.

Best Management Practices. During future project construction activities, the following best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented:
▪ All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities shall occur in developed or designated non-sensitive upland habitat areas. The designated upland areas shall be located to prevent runoff from any spills from entering Waters of the US. ▪ A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a soil erosion and sedimentation plan shall be developed (where requirements are met) to minimize erosion and identify specific pollution prevention measures that shall eliminate or control potential point and nonpoint pollution sources on site during and following the project construction phase. The SWPPP shall identify specific BMPs during project construction to prevent any water quality standard exceedances. In addition, the SWPPP shall contain provisions for changes to the plan such as alternative mechanisms, if necessary, during project design and/or construction to achieve the stated goals and performance standards.
▪ Trash shall be stored in closed containers so that it is not readily accessible to scavengers and shall be removed from the construction site on a daily basis. ▪ Water quality shall be visually monitored by the biological monitor to ensure that no substantial increases in turbidity occur during construction.
▪ All relevant natural resource permits and authorizations shall be obtained from appropriate agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW) prior to the initiation of construction activities.

Permit conditions contained within the permits and authorizations shall be employed throughout the duration of the project.
▪ Hydrologic connectivity shall be maintained within drainages during the duration of construction. Brush, debris material, mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities shall not be placed within drainages and shall not be allowed to enter a flowing stream. ▪ Dust control measures shall be implemented by the contractor to reduce excessive dust emissions. Dust control measures shall be carried out at least two times per day on all construction days, or more during windy or dry periods, and may include wetting work areas, the use of soil binders on dirt roads, and wetting or covering stockpiles. ▪ No pets shall be allowed in, or adjacent to, the project sites. ▪ Rodenticides, herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm wildlife or native plants shall not be used near or within Environmentally Sensitive Areas within or near the roadway segments.
▪ Construction equipment shall be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during the course of construction. ▪ The cleaning of equipment will occur at least 300 feet from Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing.
▪ Use of Native Plants. All project-related planting and landscaping shall not use plants listed on California Invasive Plant Council. Locally native plants shall be used near open space and native areas to the greatest extent feasible.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 25
JUNE 2025
MM-BIO-2 Applications for future development, wherein the City has determined a potential for impacts to least Bell’s vireo, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework. Prior to issuance of a permit for grading or vegetation removal, USFWS protocol surveys for least Bell’s vireo shall be required should project construction occur within 300 feet of riparian habitat during the breeding season (April 10 to July 31). If least Bell’s vireo are identified during the protocol surveys, then noise attenuation measures shall be required to ensure that noise levels from construction do not exceed a 60 dB(A) hourly average per hour at the edge of the riparian habitat or to the ambient noise level if it exceeds 60 dB(A) prior to construction. Construction noise monitoring shall be required to verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB(A) hourly average unless an analysis completed by a qualified acoustician shows that noise generated by construction activities would not exceed 60 dB(A) hourly average at the edge of occupied habitat.

MM-BIO-4 Applications for future development, where the City has determined a potential for impacts to mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework. If any construction commences during the bird breeding season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall occur within three days prior to construction activities by an experienced avian biologist. The survey shall occur within all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area and a minimum 250-foot buffer (or as otherwise mandated by wildlife agencies [CDFW and USFWS]). If nesting birds are found, an avoidance area shall be established, in consultation with the wildlife agencies as appropriate, by a qualified biologist around the nest until a qualified avian biologist has determined that young have fledged or nesting activities have ceased. The project site shall be re-surveyed if there is a lapse in construction activities for more than 3 days.

MM-BIO-5 Prior to issuance of any grading or removal of sensitive vegetation communities, the applicant shall provide evidence to the City that replacement habitats have been preserved in accordance with the mitigation ratios in the 2018 Draft Santee Subarea Plan. The required acreages and types of replacement habitat shall be included as a note on the grading plans and the City shall require evidence of satisfaction prior to grading. Replacement habitats may be in the form of a dedicated easement, proof of purchase of mitigation credits, or other method of conservation. The applicant shall additionally implement all feasible avoidance and minimization measures to protect habitats remaining on site.

MM-BIO-6 Applications where the City has determined a potential for impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework. Prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth-moving activities, a site-specific general biological resources survey (BIO-1) shall be conducted to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any wetlands. Should any potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands be identified on site during the general biological resources survey, then a jurisdictional wetlands delineation shall be conducted following the methods outlined in the USACE’s 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual for the Arid West Region.

The limits of any wetland habitats on site under the sole jurisdiction of CDFW shall also be delineated, as well as any special aquatic sites that may not meet federal jurisdictional criteria but are regulated by the RWQCB. Avoidance measures based on project-level grading and site plans shall be incorporated into the project design to minimize direct impacts to jurisdictional waters

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 26
JUNE 2025
consistent with federal, state, and City guidelines. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable and would be subject to alternatives and mitigation analyses consistent with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 404(b)(1) findings and procedures under the USACE’s permit process. Unavoidable impacts would require the in-kind creation of new wetland of the same type lost, at a ratio determined by the applicable regulatory agencies that would prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values. Wetland creation on site or within the same wetland system shall be given preference over replacement off site or within a different system. The City shall also control use and development in surrounding areas of influence to wetlands with the application of buffer zones. Buffer widths shall be 50 to 200 feet from the edge of the wetland/riparian habitat, unless the applicant demonstrates that a buffer of lesser width would protect the resources of the wetland based on site-specific information related to construction and operation. Use and development within buffer areas shall be limited to minor passive recreational uses with fencing, desiltation or erosion control facilities, or other improvements deemed necessary to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper (upland) half of the buffer when feasible wetlands and buffers shall be permanently conserved or protected through the application of an open space easement or other suitable device.

Additional requirements apply for development along the San Diego River to implement Draft Subarea Plan Section 5.3.4. Specifically, wherever development is proposed in or adjacent to riparian habitats along the main stem San Diego River, the riparian area and other wetlands or associated natural habitats located on the project site shall be designated as biological open space and incorporated into the preserve, including recordation of an easement to ensure their protection in perpetuity. In addition, a minimum 100-foot biological buffer shall be established for upland habitats, beginning at the outer edge of riparian vegetation. Within the 100-foot biological buffer, no new development shall be allowed, and the area shall be managed for natural biological values as part of the preserve system. In the event that natural habitats do not cover the 100-foot buffer area at the time of the proposed action, habitats appropriate to the location and soils shall be restored as a condition for the proposed action. In most cases, coastal sage scrub vegetation shall be the preferred habitat to restore within the biological buffer.

5.4 Impact Analysis
The majority of the Project site, 18.75 acres, would be directly impacted with Project implementation. Acreages for each vegetation community or land cover type permanently or temporarily impacted by the proposed Project are provided in Table 4, and their spatial distribution is shown in Figure 4, Impacts to Biological Resources.

Sensitive vegetation communities, including southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest, arrowweed scrub, and non-native grassland (including broad-leaf dominated), are further analyzed in Section 5.4.2. No mitigation is required for permanent impacts to eucalyptus woodland, disturbed habitat, or urban/developed within the Project site because these land cover types are not considered sensitive and do not provide habitat value for Covered Species. All temporary impacts to disturbed habitat would be revegetated with native vegetation in accordance with PEIR MM-BIO-6.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 27
JUNE 2025
Table 4. Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Covers within the Project Site (Acres)
Vegetation Community/Land Cover Type
Holland/
Oberbauer Code Perm Temp Total
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest 61330 <0.01 0.01 0.01 Arrowweed Scrub 63820 2.49 0.03 2.52
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 2.49 0.03 2.53 Upland Vegetation Communities
Non-Native Grassland 42200 6.09 0.08 6.17
Non-Native Grassland (broadleaf-dominated) 42210 2.32 0.24 2.56 Upland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 8.41 0.32 8.73
Land Cover Types
Eucalyptus Woodland 79100 0.63 0 0.63
Disturbed Habitat 11300 6.19 0.14 6.33
Urban/Developed 12000 0.44 0.09 0.53
Land Cover Types Subtotal 7.26 0.23 7.49
Total 18.16 0.58 18.75
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Perm = permanent direct impacts; Temp = temporary direct impacts.

5.4.1 Impact BIO-1: Special-Status Species
Direct impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species could potentially result from the removal of occupied habitat through grading and other land development activities. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status plant or wildlife species could also result from excess noise, lighting, or runoff generated during project construction.

Implementation of the PEIR (City of Santee 2022) proposed MM-BIO-1 would reduce potential direct and indirect impacts to special-status species to less than significant.

One special-status plant species, white rabbit-tobacco, was observed within the Project site and immediately adjacent to the Project site boundary. No other special-status plant species included in Appendix C are expected to occur within the Project site. All white rabbit-tobacco individuals (0.20 acres; 15 individuals) would be avoided by the proposed Project with the establishment of the 100-foot buffer required by MM-BIO-6.

A pair of least Bell’s vireos were observed during protocol-level breeding season surveys within the riparian habitat within the Project site, and two other least Bell’s vireo pairs were detected in the riparian habitat areas within the Project site’s 500-foot buffer. Direct impacts to least Bell’s vireo individuals are not anticipated due to the Project’s avoidance of impacts to occupied habitat through the establishment of a 100-foot buffer from the edge of the riparian habitat. However, indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireos from construction noise would be significant, and impacts would be mitigated through implementation of PEIR MM-BIO-2, which would require noise attenuation measures for occupied habitat. Protocol-level surveys for least Bell’s vireo required by MM-BIO-2 were conducted as part of the evaluation for this Project.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 28
JUNE 2025
The PEIR (City of Santee 2022) identifies potential significant direct and indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica) within the Project site. However, there is no suitable habitat for this species within the Project site, and this species was not incidentally observed during field surveys. Therefore, the PEIR’s MM-BIO-3 does not apply to this Project.

Direct impacts to nesting birds protected under Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code could occur within vegetated areas of the Project site. Project implementation of PEIR proposed MM-BIO-4 would reduce potential direct impacts to nesting birds (including least Bell’s vireo) to a less-than-significant level through performance of a pre-construction nesting bird survey if construction occurs during the nesting season. Therefore, no significant direct impacts to nesting birds are anticipated with Project implementation.

Three special-status wildlife species were either within the Project site (i.e., monarch and least Bell’s vireo) or immediately outside the Project site within the 500-foot buffer (i.e., yellow warbler). One monarch individual was observed passing through the Project site during the biological surveys. However, the Project site is not an established overwintering area for this species, the site does not provide any host plants (i.e., milkweed), and the site supports very limited nectar plants (i.e., the majority of the site contains non-native grasses); therefore, direct or indirect impacts to this species are not anticipated. Additionally, a total of nine special-status wildlife species have moderate potential to occur, and one special-status wildlife species has high potential to occur within the Project site or adjacent to the Project site within the San Diego River corridor due to the presence of suitable habitat (Appendix D). Direct impacts to foraging or nesting habitat for special-status species would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of PEIR proposed MM-BIO-5, which would require preservation of suitable habitats.

The Project site does not occur within USFWS-designated critical habitat for plant or wildlife species. Therefore, no direct impacts would occur to USFWS-designated critical habitat with Project implementation.

5.4.2 Impact BIO-2: Sensitive Vegetation Communities

5.4.2.1 Direct Impacts
A total of 11.26 acres of sensitive vegetation communities would be impacted with Project implementation (Figure 4). Table 5 summarizes the permanent and temporary direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities within the Project site. Communities listed by the CDFW as high priority for inventory (i.e., State Rank [S] 1, 2, or 3) are considered sensitive and typically require mitigation (CDFW 2023b). Southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest and arrowweed scrub both have a CDFW state ranking of S3 (CDFW 2023b). Therefore, impacts to these vegetation communities would be considered significant and require mitigation. Mitigation shall include reestablishment of the permanent impact acreage at a minimum ratio of 1:1 to meet the regional MSCP (City of San Diego 1998) “no net loss” policy. Additionally, although non-native grassland (including broadleaf-dominated) is not considered sensitive by CDFW, direct impacts to non-native grassland (including broadleaf-dominated) would require mitigation to comply with regional MSCP conservation goals (City of San Diego 1998).

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 29
JUNE 2025
Table 5. Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities within the Project Site Vegetation Community
Holland/
Oberbauer Code
Perm
(acres)
Temp
(acres)1
Total
(acres)
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest2 61330 <0.01 0.01 0.01 Arrowweed Scrub 63820 2.49 0.03 2.52
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 2.49 0.03 2.53 Upland Vegetation Communities
Non-Native Grassland 42200 6.09 0.08 6.17
Non-Native Grassland (broadleaf-dominated) 42210 2.32 0.24 2.56 Upland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 8.41 0.32 8.73
Total 10.90 0.35 11.26
Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Perm = permanent direct impacts; Temp = temporary direct impacts. 1 All temporary direct impact areas will be restored in-place to pre-Project conditions or biologically superior conditions. In accordance with PEIR MM-BIO-5 and MM-BIO-6, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared for the project and will include restoration of the temporary impact areas. If restoration is not feasible, all temporary impacts should be considered permanent impacts and mitigated according to the ratios provided in Table 6.
2 Permanent impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest total 0.004 acres.

Mitigation for the permanent loss of sensitive vegetation communities would occur through implementation of MM-BIO-5 and MM-BIO-6. Per Table 6, the proposed Project would require 15.89 acres of mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities within the Project site.

Table 6. Mitigation for Permanent Impacts to Sensitive Vegetation Communities within the Project Site
Vegetation Community
Holland/
Oberbauer
Code
Perm Impact
Total (acres)
Mitigation
Ratio1
Required
Mitigation
(acres)
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest2 61330 <0.01 3:1 0.01 Arrowweed Scrub 63820 2.49 3:1 7.47
Riparian/Bottomland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 2.49 N/A 7.48 Upland Vegetation Communities
Non-Native Grassland 42200 6.09 1:1 6.09
Non-Native Grassland (broadleaf-dominated) 42210 2.32 1:1 2.32 Upland Vegetation Communities Subtotal 8.41 N/A 8.41
Total 10.90 N/A 15.89
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Perm = permanent direct impact; N/A = not applicable.
1 Mitigation rations are based on the Draft Santee Subarea Plan. 2 Permanent impacts to southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest total 0.004 acres. Therefore, at a 3:1 ratio, the required mitigation totals 0.01 acres.

Implementation of MM-BIO-6 would provide a portion of the arrowweed scrub mitigation requirements (a minimum of 2.49 acres) through the establishment of this vegetation community within the 100-foot buffer area adjacent to

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 30
JUNE 2025
the San Diego River. The existing arrowweed scrub is approximately 130 feet north of the riparian edge of the San Diego River with no direct surface connection to the river or any other watercourse. This community occurs within a flat area on the western boundary of the Project site approximately 15 feet in elevation above the San Diego River. The arrowweed scrub is at least in part being fed by irrigation from the community park off-site and is completely surrounded by non-native land covers (i.e. non-native grassland, disturbed habitat, and developed lands). Therefore, establishing a minimum of 2.49 acres of arrowweed scrub within the on-site 100-foot buffer area would provide higher value habitat than at its current location (i.e. connectivity to native habitats associated with the San Diego River, increase in species diversity, increase in aerial extent, and a reduction in edge effects) and would satisfy the “no net loss” requirement for riparian communities as would the establishment of 0.01 acres of southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest within the 100-foot buffer. Should more than 2.49 acres of arrowweed scrub establishment occur within the 100-foot buffer, acreages identified under Arrowweed Scrub options 2 through 7, as described below, would be reduced proportionally. Portions of the site that will be revegetated in compliance with MM-BIO-6 shall be designated as biological open space and incorporated into the City of Santee’s preserve system, including recordation of an easement to ensure their protection in perpetuity. Designated biological open space easement areas will be detailed on Project building and landscape plans. Implementation of the Santee Housing Element Implementation PEIR MM-BIO-5 would satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements for southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest, arrowweed scrub and non-native grassland through the following methods:

Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest

1. Establishment of a minimum of 0.01 acres of southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest within the Project Site 100-foot buffer;
if option 1 is not available, option 2 would be considered

2. Restoration of 0.01 acres of southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest within the boundary of the draft Subarea Plan San Diego River Subunit;
if option 2 is not available, option 3 would be considered

3. Preservation of 0.01 acres of existing southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan San Diego River Subunit through a dedicated conservation easement; if option 3 is not available, option 4 would be considered

4. In-kind creation of 0.01 acres of southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan San Diego River Subunit to be preserved in perpetuity through a dedicated conservation easement;
if option 4 is not available, option 5 would be considered

5. In-kind creation of 0.01 acres of southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (other subunits) to be preserved in perpetuity through a dedicated conservation easement;
if option 5 is not available, option 6 would be considered

6. Purchase of 0.01 acres of riparian forest mitigation credits from a mitigation bank whose service area includes the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan;
if option 6 is not available, option 7 would be considered

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 31
JUNE 2025

7. Purchase of 0.01 acres of riparian forest mitigation credits from a mitigation bank whose service area is outside of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, and within San Diego County.

Arrowweed Scrub

1. Establishment of a minimum of 2.49 acres of arrowweed scrub within the Project Site 100-foot buffer; And a combination of the following, in the preferred order as follows:

2. Restoration of up to 4.98 acres of arrowweed scrub or up-tiered restoration of mulefat scrub within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan San Diego River Subunit; if option 2 is not available, option 3 would be considered

3. Preservation of up to 4.98 acres of existing arrowweed scrub within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan San Diego River Subunit through a dedicated conservation easement; if option 3 is not available, option 4 would be considered

4. In-kind creation of up to 4.98 acres of arrowweed scrub within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan San Diego River Subunit to be preserved in perpetuity through a dedicated conservation easement;
if option 4 is not available, option 5 would be considered

5. In-kind creation of up to 4.98 acres of arrowweed scrub within the boundary of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan (other subunits) to be preserved in perpetuity through a dedicated conservation easement; if option 5 is not available, option 6 would be considered

6. Purchase of up to 4.98 acres of riparian forest mitigation credits from a mitigation bank whose service area includes the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan;
if option 6 is not available, option 7 would be considered

7. Purchase of up to 4.98 acres of riparian forest mitigation credits from a mitigation bank whose service area is outside of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, and within San Diego County.

Non-Native Grassland

1. Purchase of 8.41 acres of non-native grassland mitigation credits from Cleveland Corridor Mitigation Bank.

Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP)
The Project applicant will submit an HMMP for establishment and in-kind creation within the 100-foot San Diego River buffer and off-site mitigation areas (if acquired). The HMMP will include:
▪ goals and objectives
▪ regulatory setting
▪ site selection criterion
▪ baseline site condition information

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 32
JUNE 2025
▪ restoration design approach
▪ rationale for success
▪ implementation program (including the construction period and a 5-year maintenance and monitoring program)
▪ annual performance standards for native and non-native vegetation cover designed to assess progress toward final mitigation goals (e.g. by the end of Year 5, the establishment area is expected to achieve at least 75% absolute native vegetation cover, non-native plant cover should not exceed 10%, with perennial invasive species maintained at 0%)
▪ long-term site protection and management
The HMMP shall detail the final mitigation implementation for permanent impacts to arrowweed scrub and southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest (i.e., establishment), temporary impact areas to be restored in-place to pre-Project conditions or biologically superior conditions, and preservation areas (i.e., southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and freshwater marsh). The HMMP will be submitted to CDFW and the City for review and approval. Once the HMMP is approved by CDFW and the City, the Project applicant will record a conservation easement in perpetuity and enter the land into the City of Santee’s preserve system.

As a condition of approval and in conformance with MM-BIO-5, prior to issuance of the first grading permit for the Project, the Project applicant will submit a biological mitigation compliance memo to the City outlining the feasibility of each method, identifying the selected approach(es) and providing verification that mitigation for impacts to arrowweed scrub, southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest, and non-native grassland has been satisfied.

Mitigation of impacts through the proposed implementation strategy would reduce Project impacts to these sensitive vegetation communities to less than significant. No new significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would occur, and no previously identified significant impacts would substantially increase in severity.

Similar to the conclusion of the PEIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.4.2.2 Indirect Impacts
Project implementation has the potential to result in indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities occurring adjacent to the Project site.

Construction-Related: Sensitive vegetation communities may be indirectly impacted during construction of the proposed Project. Potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities resulting from construction activities include inadvertent spillover impacts, including unintentional clearing, trampling, or grading outside of the Project footprint; generation of fugitive dust; changes in hydrology resulting from construction, including sedimentation and erosion; the release of chemical pollutants; and the adverse effect of invasive plant species. These potential construction-related, indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be potentially significant absent mitigation.

Implementation of PEIR proposed MM-BIO-1 would minimize the effect of construction-related indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities to less than significant with mitigation incorporated. No new significant indirect impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would occur, and no previously identified significant impacts would substantially increase in severity. Similar to the conclusion of the PEIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 33
JUNE 2025

5.4.3 Impact BIO-3: State or Federally Protected Wetlands

5.4.3.1 Direct Impacts
There are no impacts within USACE or RWQCB jurisdictional aquatic resources. A total of 2.53 acres of CDFW-regulated riparian habitat would be impacted by the proposed Project, as summarized in Table 7 and shown in Figure 4. Impacts to CDFW riparian habitat would be significant and require mitigation. Mitigation shall include reestablishment of the permanent impact acreage at a minimum ratio of 1:1 to meet the regional MSCP (City of San Diego 1998) “no net loss” policy.

Table 7. Permanent and Temporary Impacts to Potential Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources within the Project Site (Acres)
Vegetation Community Perm Temp1 Total Impacts
CDFW Riparian Habitat
Southern Cottonwood–Willow Riparian Forest <0.01 0.01 0.01 Arrowweed Scrub 2.49 0.03 2.52
Total 2.49 0.03 2.53
Notes: CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Perm = permanent direct impacts; Temp = temporary direct impacts.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.
1 All temporary direct impact areas will be restored in-place to pre-Project conditions or biologically superior conditions. In accordance with PEIR MM-BIO-5 and MM-BIO-6, a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared for the project and will include restoration of the temporary impact areas. If restoration is not feasible, all temporary impacts should be considered permanent impacts and mitigated according to the ratios provided in Table 6.

All jurisdictional aquatic resources would be avoided by the proposed Project to the extent feasible. All impacts to the riparian resources within the main stem of the San Diego River would be avoided by the proposed Project, with the exception of a small impact (less than 0.01 acres of southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest) occurring from the Project’s proposed storm drain outfall (i.e., desiltation or erosion control facilities or other improvements necessary to protect the habitat). The storm drain outfall is located on County-owned property and will require an easement issued by the County. Storm basin overflow discharging into the river would not be considered an impact as the quantity and quality of the discharge is consistent with the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit (see Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality for more information).

Implementation of PEIR proposed MM-BIO-6 would provide a portion of the arrowweed scrub mitigation requirements (a minimum of 2.49 acres) through the establishment of this vegetation community within the 100- foot buffer adjacent to the San Diego River. The existing arrowweed scrub is approximately 130 feet north of the riparian edge of the San Diego River with no direct surface connection to the river or any other watercourse. This community occurs within a flat area on the western boundary of the Project site approximately 15 feet in elevation above the San Diego River. The arrowweed scrub is at least in part being fed by irrigation from the community park off-site and is completely surrounded by non-native land covers (i.e. non-native grassland, disturbed habitat, and developed lands). Therefore, establishing a minimum of 2.49 acres of arrowweed scrub within the on-site 100-foot buffer area would provide higher value habitat than at its current location (i.e. connectivity to native habitats associated with the San Diego River, increase in species diversity, increase in aerial extent, and a reduction in edge effects) and would satisfy the “no net loss” requirement for riparian communities as would the establishment of

0.01 acres of southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest within the 100-foot buffer. Should more than 2.49 acres of arrowweed scrub establishment occur within the 100-foot buffer, acreages identified under Arrowweed Scrub

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 34
JUNE 2025
options 2 through 7, described in Section 5.4.2.1, would be reduced proportionally. Portions of the site that will be revegetated in compliance with MM-BIO-6 shall be designated as biological open space and incorporated into the City of Santee’s preserve system, including recordation of an easement to ensure their protection in perpetuity.

Designated biological open space easement areas will be detailed on Project building and landscape plans.

Implementation of the Santee Housing Element Implementation PEIR MM-BIO-5 would satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements for southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest, arrowweed scrub and non-native grassland through the methods described in Section 5.4.2.1. A Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared for the project’s on-site 100-foot buffer area and shall include the following information: details on the mitigation plan’s goals and objectives; site selection; baseline information; restoration design approach; rationale for success; the implementation program (including the construction period and the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program); annual performance standards for native and non-native vegetation cover designed to assess progress toward final mitigation goals (e.g. by the end of Year 5, the establishment area is expected to achieve at least 75% absolute native vegetation cover, non-native plant cover should not exceed 10%, with perennial invasive species maintained at 0%); and long-term site protection and management. The project’s Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the project’s on-site 100-foot buffer area shall include the mitigation for permanent impacts to arrowweed scrub (i.e. establishment), temporary impact areas to be restored in-place to pre-Project conditions or biologically superior conditions, and preservation existing sensitive vegetation communities within the 100-foot buffer areas (i.e. southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest and freshwater marsh).

Portions of the site that will be revegetated in compliance with MM-BIO-6 shall be designated as biological open space and incorporated into the City’s preserve, including recordation of an easement to ensure their protection in perpetuity. Designated biological open space easement areas will be detailed on Project building and landscaping plans. Mitigation for the remaining loss of CDFW riparian habitat areas will occur through implementation of MMBIO-6, which requires in-kind creation to prevent any net loss of wetland functions and values. Implementation of PEIR MM-BIO-5 would satisfy the remaining mitigation requirements for arrowweed scrub and southern cottonwoodwillow riparian forest through a combination of establishment, restoration and conservation of sensitive habitats as described above in section 5.4.2.1. The proposed Project will meet the mitigation requirements for CDFW riparian habitat in accordance with the ratios listed in Table 6. No new significant impacts to wetlands would occur, and no previously identified significant impacts would substantially increase in severity. Similar to the conclusion of the PEIR, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.4.3.2 Indirect Impacts
Project implementation has the potential to result in indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources associated with the San Diego River occurring within 500 feet of the Project site.

Construction-Related: Jurisdictional aquatic resources of the United States/state may be indirectly impacted during construction. Potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources resulting from construction activities include the generation of fugitive dust; changes in hydrology resulting from construction, including sedimentation and erosion; the release of chemical pollutants; and unintentional clearing, trampling, or grading outside of the proposed construction zone. Construction-related indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be potentially significant.

Implementation of PEIR proposed MM-BIO-1 would minimize construction-related indirect impacts through biological monitoring, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that will cover the special-status resources and mitigation requirements for the Project, delineation of Project boundaries, implementation of standard dust control

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 35
JUNE 2025
measures, development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and requiring all vehicles and equipment to be serviced in designated staging areas. Therefore, construction-related indirect impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

5.4.4 Impact BIO-4: Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages

5.4.4.1 Direct Impacts
The Project site is not mapped as a core area or habitat linkage under the MSCP (City of San Diego 1998) and is identified in the Draft Santee Subarea Plan as an anticipated development area (City of Santee 2022). Therefore, the Project site is not an established wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. However, the Project site is currently undeveloped land adjacent to the San Diego River, and the site could potentially function as a wildlife corridor for local populations of common species. Species most likely to use this area include coyote, raccoon, striped skunk, and Virginia opossum. None of these species are special status, and they would continue to use the areas adjacent to the Project site after buildout. Impacts to aquatic resources associated with the San Diego River corridor are minimal and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of PEIR proposed MM-BIO-6. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors and habitat linkages are less than significant.

5.4.4.2 Indirect Impacts
Project implementation has the potential to result in indirect impacts to the San Diego River corridor, which occurs adjacent to the Project site and may function as a local wildlife corridor.

Construction-Related: The San Diego River wildlife corridor may be indirectly impacted during construction of the proposed Project. Potential short-term or temporary indirect impacts to biological resources within the San Diego River wildlife corridor resulting from construction activities include inadvertent spillover impacts, including unintentional clearing, trampling, or grading outside of the Project footprint; generation of fugitive dust; changes in hydrology resulting from construction, including sedimentation and erosion; the release of chemical pollutants; night-time lighting; and the adverse effects of invasive plant species. These potential construction-related, indirect impacts to the San Diego River wildlife corridor would be potentially significant absent mitigation. Implementation of the PEIR proposed MM-BIO-1 would reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife corridors to less than significant.

5.4.5 Impact BIO-5: Local Policies and Ordinances
City of Santee
The City’s Urban Forestry Ordinance contains tree-related policies, regulations, and generally accepted standards for planting, trimming, and removing trees on public property and public rights-of-way (Santee Municipal Code, Section 8.06 [City of Santee 2020]). The ordinance gives the City control of all trees, shrubs, and other plantings in any street, park, public right-of-way, landscape maintenance district or easement, or other City-owned property. City staff review of development plans for the City-owned and maintained property would ensure that the proposed landscaping and maintenance requirements conform to the Urban Forestry Ordinance. The proposed Project would not require removal of any trees within the City’s purview according to Santee Municipal Code Section 8.06 (City of Santee 2020). Therefore, as no impacts are proposed by the Project, the Project would comply with the Urban Forestry Ordinance, and no mitigation measures are required.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 36
JUNE 2025
Biological resources are discussed and specific objectives and policies are presented in the Conservation Element of the City of Santee General Plan (City of Santee 2003). The proposed Project does not conflict with any objectives or policies as presented in the Conservation Element of the Santee General Plan. Therefore, impacts to local policies and ordinances would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

5.4.6 Impact BIO-6: Habitat Conservation Plans
MSCP Plan and Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan
The Project site is within the boundaries of the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998). The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan would serve as a habitat conservation plan under the MSCP Plan (City of San Diego 1998) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA and as a natural community conservation plan pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, once finalized, will contribute to the regional MSCP for preservation, mitigation for impacts, and conservation of sensitive biological resources within San Diego County. The Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan is also intended to provide cumulative mitigation for impacts to Covered Species within the City’s jurisdiction, as long as projects are consistent with and covered by provisions of the Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, and to ensure sufficient biological resources are conserved to assist in the conservation and recovery of Covered Species under the MSCP. Although the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan has not yet been approved or permitted, it is used as the guidance document for projects occurring within the City. The proposed Project is an anticipated development area under the Santee Subarea Plan (City of Santee 2022).

The portion of the San Diego River that is adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site is part of the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan’s San Diego River Subunit. This portion of the San Diego River is County-owned and contributes to the overall functional east-west ecological linkage and wildlife corridor through the Subarea Plan Area but is not currently part of the City of Santee’s preserve system. As directed by MM-BIO-6, the Project would establish a 100-foot buffer from the riparian edge to avoid any impacts to the San Diego River corridor (Figure 4).

MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 are proposed to prevent any direct or indirect impacts to special-status species, sensitive vegetation communities, and/or jurisdictional aquatic resources associated with the San Diego River Preserve. Furthermore, Project implementation would not significantly conflict with the provisions of the MSCP Plan or Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan, nor would it prevent the Draft Santee MSCP Subarea Plan from being approved or compromise continued implementation of the MSCP in San Diego County. Therefore, impacts to habitat conservation plans would be less than significant with the implementation of the project’s mitigation measures. 15269.02 37
JUNE 2025
6 References
AOS (American Ornithological Society). 2023. “Checklist of North and Middle American Birds.” Accessed April 2023. http://checklist.aou.org/.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities.” March 20, 2018. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

CDFW. 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). RareFind 5: Commercial version. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

CDFW. 2023b. “California Natural Community List.” Sacramento, California: CDFW, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. June 1, 2023. Accessed July 2023. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=153398&inline.

CDFW. 2025. CDFW Approved Mitigation/Conservation Banks and Service Areas for South Coast Region (Region 5). Accessed April 2025. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/ cec8127c28bf401d9b8e59ad7e99570e
City of San Diego. 1998. Final MSCP Plan. Multiple Species Conservation Program. Prepared by MSCP Policy Committee and MSCP Working Group. San Diego, California: MSCP Policy Committee and MSCP Working Group. August 1998. Accessed June 10, 2024. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/ pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/FinalMSCPProgramPlan.pdf.

City of Santee. 2003. “Chapter 6, Conservation Element.” In City of Santee General Plan. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/ home/showpublisheddocument/7199/636336570186700000.

City of Santee. 2020. Santee Municipal Code. Urban Forestry Ordinance. Accessed June 10. 2024. https://ecode360.com/43750246#43750246.

City of Santee. 2022. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the City of Santee Housing Element Rezone Program Implementation SCH #2021100263. Prepared June 17, 2022. City of Santee Development Services. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/22332/637910492391800000.

City of Santee. 2023. “Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, Notice of Public Scoping Meeting.” Santee Multiple Species Conservation Program – Subarea Plan EIR Notice of Preparation. March 2023. https://www.cityofsanteeca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/ 23374/638156253470070000.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. “CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines.” Published December 9, 1983; revised June 2, 2001. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 38
JUNE 2025
CNPS. 2023. Rare Plant Inventory (online edition, v9-01 1.5). California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. https://rareplants.cnps.org/.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979; reprinted 1992.

Crother, B.I. 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. 8th ed. Herpetological Circular No. 43., edited by J.J. Moriarty. Shoreview, Minnesota: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Cypher, E.A. 2002. “General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines.” Bakersfield, California: California State University, Stanislaus, Endangered Species Recovery Program. Revised July 2002. https://acceleratingrestoration.org/ wp-content/uploads/2023/08/20020700-Rare-plant-survey.pdf.

Google Earth. 2023. “Image of project site and surrounding area” [aerial image]. Historical Aerials and Topographic Maps. 1:200 scale. Google Earth. Mountainview California: Google Earth Mapping Service.

Historic Aerials. 2023. “Aerial image of project site and surrounding area.” NETRonline. Accessed 2023. www.historicaerials.com.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.

Jepson Flora Project. 2023. Jepson eFlora. The Jepson Herbarium. Berkeley, California: University of California.

Accessed January 2022. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html.

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

Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California” by Robert F.

Holland, October 1986. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/ Final-EIR-Files/references/rtcref/ch9.0/rtcrefaletters/O14%202014-12-19_OberbauerTM2008.pdf.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2021. State Policy for Water Quality Control: State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019; revised April 6, 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Online ed.

Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://erdc-library.erdc.dren.mil/jspui/bitstream/11681/6488/1/8677.pdf.

USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p266001coll1/id/7627.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 39
JUNE 2025
USACE. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Prepared by R.W.

Lichvar and S.M. McColley. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. August 2008. Accessed June 10, 2024. https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/Ordinary_High_ Watermark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023a. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey Staff. Accessed August 2023. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023b. PLANTS Database. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Accessed June 2023. http://plants.usda.gov/java/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2001. “Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines.” January 19, 2001. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services. Carlsbad, California. Accessed June 10, 2024. http://treecareforbirds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/LBVireo.2001.protocol.pdf.

USFWS. 2023a. “Wetlands Mapper [map].” National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed August 2023. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper.

USFWS. 2023b. Critical Habitat and Species Occurrence Database [map]. Accessed August 2023. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/ QVENGdaPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2023. “National Hydrography Dataset” [digital GIS data]. Accessed August 2023. http://nhd.usgs.gov/.

Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 3rd ed. (MSW3 database). Bucknell University. http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 40
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 42
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 4/9/2025 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BTR\Figure2_Soils_Hydrology.mxd Rm
TuB
W

SAN DIEGO -
Lower San
Diego - Santee

SAN DIEGO -
Lower San Diego
- El Cajon
San Diego River
Forester Creek
67 Soils and Hydrology
Cottonwood and Park Project / Biological Technical Report SOURCE: ESRI IMAGERY (ACCESSED 2025); USFWS 2024; USGS 2024 0 650 1,300
Feet
Project Site
Soil Type
Riverwash - Rm
Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes - TuB
Water - W
Hydrologic Unit - Area - Subarea
NHD Flowline
Stream/River
National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Lake
FIGURE 2

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 44
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 4/9/2025 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\BTR\Figure3_BiologicalResources.mxd FWM
DEV
OW FWM
DH
AWS
NNG
NNG
DEV
EUC
SCWRF
NNG
NNG DH
EUC
DEV
NNGB
DH
DEV

NNGB DH
DH
SCWRF
SCWRF
Biological Resources
Cottonwood and Park Project / Biological Technical Report SOURCE: ESRI IMAGERY (ACCESSED 2025) 0 110 220Feet
FIGURE 3
500-Ft Buffer
On-Site Area
Off-Site Area
Wildlife
Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), B-LBVI
Yellow Warbler(Setophaga petechia), B-YWAR
White Rabbit-Tobacco (Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum), Pseleu
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
Types
Arrowweed Scrub - AWS
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh -
Disturbed Habitat - DH
Eucalyptus Woodland - EUC
Non-Native Grassland - NNG
Non-Native Grassland: Broadleaf-Dominated -
NNGB
Open Water - OW
Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest -
SCWRF
Urban/Developed - DEV

USACE/RWQCB/CDFW
Open Water, OW
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, FWM
CDFW Riparian Habitat
Arrowweed Scrub, AWS
Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest,
SCW RF

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 46
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 15269.02 48
JUNE 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
Plant Compendium

APPENDIX A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
15269.02 A-1
JANUARY 2025
Vascular Species
Eudicots
AMARANTHACEAE – AMARANTH FAMILY
 Amaranthus albus – prostrate pigweed
ANACARDIACEAE – SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Malosma laurina – laurel sumac
ASTERACEAE – SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia acanthicarpa – flatspine bur ragweed
Ambrosia psilostachya – western ragweed
Baccharis salicifolia – mulefat
Baccharis sarothroides – desertbroom
 Centaurea melitensis – Maltese star – thistle
 Cotula australis – Australian waterbuttons
 Erigeron bonariensis – asthmaweed
Erigeron canadensis – Canadian horseweed
 Helminthotheca echioides – bristly oxtongue
Heterotheca grandiflora – telegraphweed
Isocoma menziesii – Menzies’s golden bush
 Lactuca serriola – prickly lettuce
 Logfia gallica – narrowleaf cottonrose
Pluchea sericea – arrow weed
Pseudognaphalium beneolens – Wright’s cudweed
Xanthium strumarium – cocklebur
BORAGINACEAE – BORAGE FAMILY
Amsinckia menziesii – Menzies’ fiddleneck
Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum – seaside heliotrope Phacelia minor – wild Canterbury bells
BRASSICACEAE – MUSTARD FAMILY
 Brassica nigra – black mustard
 Capsella bursa – pastoris—shepherd’s purse
 Hirschfeldia incana – shortpod mustard
CARYOPHYLLACEAE – PINK FAMILY
 Spergularia bocconi – Boccone’s sandspurry

APPENDIX A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
15269.02 A-2
JANUARY 2025
CHENOPODIACEAE – GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Atriplex serenana var. serenana – bractscale
 Salsola tragus – prickly Russian thistle
CUCURBITACEAE – GOURD FAMILY
Cucurbita foetidissima – Missouri gourd
EUPHORBIACEAE – SPURGE FAMILY
Croton californicus – California croton
Croton setiger – dove weed
 Ricinus communis – castorbean
FABACEAE – LEGUME FAMILY
Acmispon americanus var. americanus – American bird’s – foot trefoil Acmispon strigosus – strigose bird’s – foot trefoil
 Lotus corniculatus – bird’s–foot trefoil
Lupinus bicolor – miniature lupine
 Parkinsonia aculeata – Jerusalem thorn
GERANIACEAE – GERANIUM FAMILY
 Erodium botrys – longbeak stork’s bill
 Erodium cicutarium – redstem stork’s bill
 Erodium moschatum – musky stork’s bill
LAMIACEAE – MINT FAMILY
 Marrubium vulgare – horehound
MALVACEAE – MALLOW FAMILY
 Malva parviflora – cheeseweed mallow
MYRSINACEAE – MYRSINE FAMILY
 Lysimachia arvensis – scarlet pimpernel
MYRTACEAE – MYRTLE FAMILY
 Eucalyptus cladocalyx – sugargum
ONAGRACEAE – EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY
Camissoniopsis bistorta – southern suncup
PLANTAGINACEAE – PLANTAIN FAMILY
Plantago ovata – desert Indianwheat

APPENDIX A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
15269.02 A-3
JANUARY 2025
POLYGONACEAE – BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Lastarriaea coriacea – leather spineflower
 Polygonum aviculare – prostrate knotweed
 Rumex crispus – curly dock
SALICACEAE – WILLOW FAMILY
Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii – Fremont cottonwood
Salix gooddingii – Goodding’s willow
SOLANACEAE – NIGHTSHADE FAMILY
Datura wrightii – sacred thorn – apple
 Nicotiana glauca – tree tobacco
TAMARICACEAE – TAMARISK FAMILY
 Tamarix ramosissima—tamarisk
VIBURNACEAE – MUSKROOT FAMILY
Sambucus mexicana – blue elderberry
ZYGOPHYLLACEAE – CALTROP FAMILY
 Tribulus terrestris – puncturevine
Monocots
POACEA – GRASS FAMILY
 Avena barbata – slender oat
 Bromus diandrus – ripgut brome
 Bromus hordeaceus – soft brome
 Bromus madritensis – compact brome
 Bromus rubens – red brome
 Cynodon dactylon – Bermudagrass
 Festuca myuros – rat–tail fescue
Muhlenbergia rigens – deer grass
 Polypogon monspeliensis – annual rabbitsfoot grass
 Signifies introduced (non–native) species.

APPENDIX A / PLANT COMPENDIUM
15269.02 A-4
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B
Wildlife Compendium

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-1
JANUARY 2025
Amphibians
Frogs
HYLIDAE – TREEFROGS
Pseudacris hypochondriaca – Baja California treefrog
RANIDAE – TRUE FROGS
 Lithobates catesbeianus – American bullfrog
Salamanders
PLETHODONTIDAE – LUNGLESS SALAMANDERS
Batrachoseps attenuatus – California slender salamander Toads
BUFONIDAE – TRUE TOADS
Anaxyrus boreas – western toad
Birds
Blackbirds, Orioles, and Allies
ICTERIDAE – BLACKBIRDS
Agelaius phoeniceus – red–winged blackbird
Euphagus cyanocephalus – Brewer’s blackbird
Icterus cucullatus – hooded oriole
 Molothrus ater – brown–headed cowbird
Bushtits
AEGITHALIDAE – LONG–TAILED TITS AND BUSHTITS
Psaltriparus minimus – bushtit
Cardinals, Grosbeaks, and Allies
CARDINALIDAE – CARDINALS AND ALLIES
Passerina caerulea – blue grosbeak
Pheucticus melanocephalus – black–headed grosbeak

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-2
JANUARY 2025
Cormorants
PHALACROCORACIDAE – CORMORANTS
Nannopterum auritus – double–crested cormorant
Finches
FRINGILLIDAE – FRINGILLINE AND CARDUELINE FINCHES AND ALLIES Haemorhous mexicanus – house finch
Spinus psaltria – lesser goldfinch
Flycatchers
TYRANNIDAE – TYRANT FLYCATCHERS
Sayornis nigricans – black phoebe
Sayornis saya – Say’s phoebe
Tyrannus vociferans – Cassin’s kingbird
Grebes
PODICIPEDIDAE – GREBES
Aechmophorus occidentalis – western grebe
Podilymbus podiceps – pied–billed grebe
Hawks
ACCIPITRIDAE – HAWKS, KITES, EAGLES, AND ALLIES
Accipiter cooperii – Cooper’s hawk
Buteo jamaicensis – red–tailed hawk
Buteo lineatus – red–shouldered hawk
Herons and Bitterns
ARDEIDAE – HERONS, BITTERNS, AND ALLIES
Ardea alba – great egret
Ardea herodias – great blue heron
Egretta thula – snowy egret
Nycticorax nycticorax – black–crowned night–heron

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-3
JANUARY 2025
Hummingbirds
TROCHILIDAE – HUMMINGBIRDS
Calypte anna – Anna’s hummingbird
Calypte costae – Costa’s hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin – Allen’s hummingbird
Jays, Magpies, and Crows
CORVIDAE – CROWS AND JAYS
Aphelocoma californica – California scrub–jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos – American crow
Corvus corax – common raven
Mockingbirds and Thrashers
MIMIDAE – MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS
Mimus polyglottos – northern mockingbird
Toxostoma redivivum – California thrasher
Old World Sparrows
PASSERIDAE – OLD WORLD SPARROWS
 Passer domesticus – house sparrow
Old World Warblers and Gnatcatchers
POLIOPTILIDAE – GNATCATCHERS
Polioptila caerulea – blue–gray gnatcatcher
Pigeons and Doves
COLUMBIDAE – PIGEONS AND DOVES
Patagioenas fasciata – band–tailed pigeon
Zenaida macroura – mourning dove
 Columba livia – rock pigeon (rock dove)
Rails, Gallinules, and Coots
RALLIDAE—RAILS, GALLINULES, AND COOTS
Fulica americana – American coot

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-4
JANUARY 2025
Silky Flycatchers
PTILOGONATIDAE – SILKY–FLYCATCHERS
Phainopepla nitens – phainopepla
Swallows
HIRUNDINIDAE – SWALLOWS
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota – cliff swallow
Swifts
APODIDAE – SWIFTS
Aeronautes saxatalis – white–throated swift
Thrushes
TURDIDAE – THRUSHES
Sialia mexicana – western bluebird
Turdus migratorius – American robin
Vireos
VIREONIDAE – VIREOS
Vireo bellii pusillus – least Bell’s vireo
Waterfowl
ANATIDAE – DUCKS, GEESE, AND SWANS
Anas platyrhynchos – mallard
Branta canadensis – Canada goose
Bucephala albeola – bufflehead
Oxyura jamaicensis – ruddy duck
Spatula discors – blue–winged teal
Mareca strepera – gadwall
Spatula clypeata – northern shoveler
Mareca americana – American wigeon

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-5
JANUARY 2025
Wood Warblers and Allies
PARULIDAE – WOOD–WARBLERS
Geothlypis trichas – common yellowthroat
Setophaga petechia – yellow warbler
Woodpeckers
PICIDAE – WOODPECKERS AND ALLIES
Colaptes auratus – northern flicker
Dryobates nuttallii – Nuttall’s woodpecker
Wrens
TROGLODYTIDAE – WRENS
Cistothorus palustris – marsh wren
Troglodytes aedon – house wren
Thryomanes bewickii – Bewick’s wren
Waxbills
ESTRILDIDAE – WAXBILLS
 Lonchura punctulata – scaly–breasted munia
New World Sparrows
PASSERELLIDAE – NEW WORLD SPARROWS
Melospiza melodia – song sparrow
Melozone crissalis – California towhee
Pipilo maculatus – spotted towhee
Typical Warblers, Parrotbills, Wrentit
SYLVIIDAE – SYLVIID WARBLERS
Chamaea fasciata – wrentit

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-6
JANUARY 2025
Invertebrates
Butterflies
NYMPHALIDAE – BRUSH–FOOTED BUTTERFLIES
Danaus Plexippus – monarch
Vanessa cardui – painted lady
HESPERIIDAE – SKIPPERS
Erynnis funeralis – funereal duskywing
Mammals
Canids
CANIDAE – WOLVES AND FOXES
Canis latrans – coyote
Hares and Rabbits
LEPORIDAE – HARES AND RABBITS
Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit
Opossums
DIDELPHIDAE – NEW WORLD OPOSSUMS
 Didelphis virginiana – Virginia opossum
Pocket Gophers
GEOMYIDAE – POCKET GOPHERS
Thomomys bottae – Botta’s pocket gopher
Squirrels
SCIURIDAE – SQUIRRELS
Otospermophilus beecheyi – California ground squirrel

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-7
JANUARY 2025
Rats, Mice, and Voles
CRICETIDAE – RATS, MICE, AND VOLES
Microtus californicus – California vole
Raccoons
PROCYONIDAE – RACCOONS AND RELATIVES
Procyon lotor – northern raccoon
Reptiles
Lizards
PHRYNOSOMATIDAE – IGUANID LIZARDS
Sceloporus occidentalis – western fence lizard
Uta stansburiana – common side–blotched lizard

ANGUIDAEALLIGATOR LIZARDS
Elgaria multicarinata – southern alligator lizard
Snakes
COLUBRIDAE – COLUBRID SNAKES
Pituophis catenifer – gophersnake
 Signifies introduced (non–native) species.

APPENDIX B / WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM
15269.02 B-8
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix C
Special-Status Plant Species Potential to Occur

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-1
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Acanthomintha
ilicifolia
San Diego
thorn-mint
FT/SE/1B.1/Covered Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; clay, openings/
annual herb/Apr–June/35–3,145
Not expected to occur. No clay soils or
vernal pools present.

Acmispon
prostratus
Nuttall’s
acmispon
None/None/1B.1/
None
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub (sandy)/
annual herb/Mar–June (July)/0–35
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Adolphia californica California
adolphia
None/None/2B.1/
None
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland; clay/perennial deciduous shrub/
Dec–May/35–2,425
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey and there
are no clay soils present.

Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral (clay, openings)/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Apr–May/2,490–3,490
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Ambrosia
chenopodiifolia
San Diego
bur-sage
None/None/2B.1/
None
Coastal scrub/perennial shrub/Apr–June/
180–510
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Ambrosia monogyra singlewhorl
burrobrush
None/None/2B.2/
None
Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub; sandy/
perennial shrub/Aug–Nov/35–1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Ambrosia pumila San Diego
ambrosia
FE/None/1B.1/
Covered
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools; alkaline
(sometimes), clay (sometimes), disturbed
areas (often), loam (sometimes), sandy
(sometimes)/perennial rhizomatous
herb/Apr–Oct/65–1,360
Not expected to occur. This species
would have been observed during the
rare plant survey if present.

Aphanisma
blitoides
aphanisma None/None/1B.2/
None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub; gravelly (sometimes), sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/Feb–June/
5–1,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-2
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa ssp.
crassifolia
Del Mar
manzanita
FE/None/1B.1/None Chaparral (maritime, sandy)/perennial evergreen shrub/June–Apr/0–1,195
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Arctostaphylos
otayensis
Otay
manzanita
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland/perennial
evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/900–5,575
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and this perennial species would
have been observed during the rare
plant survey if present.

Artemisia palmeri San Diego
sagewort
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland; mesic,
sandy/perennial deciduous shrub/
(Feb) May–Sep/15–3,000
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Asplenium
vespertinum
western
spleenwort
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub; rocky/perennial rhizomatous
herb/Feb–June/590–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Astragalus deanei Dean’s
milk-vetch
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian forest/perennial herb/
Feb–May/245–2,280
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Astragalus
oocarpus
San Diego
milk-vetch
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral (openings), cismontane
woodland/perennial herb/May–Aug/
1,000–5,000
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s
saltbush
None/None/1B.2/
None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland; alkaline
(sometimes), clay (sometimes)/perennial
herb/Mar–Oct/10–1,505
Not expected to occur. This species
would have been observed during the
rare plant survey.

Atriplex pacifica south coast
saltscale
None/None/1B.2/
None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal
scrub, playas/annual herb/Mar–Oct/0–460
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Baccharis vanessae Encinitas
baccharis
FT/SE/1B.1/None Chaparral (maritime), cismontane
woodland; sandstone/perennial deciduous
shrub/Aug–Nov/195–2,360
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-3
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Bergerocactus
emoryi
golden-spined
cereus
None/None/2B.2/
None
Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal scrub; sandy/perennial stem/
May–June/10–1,295
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Bloomeria
clevelandii
San Diego
goldenstar
None/None/1B.1/
Covered
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools; clay/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Apr–May/165–1,525
Not expected to occur. No clay soils
present.

Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved
brodiaea
FT/SE/1B.1/None Chaparral (openings), cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools; clay
(often)/perennial bulbiferous herb/
Mar–June/80–3,670
Not expected to occur. No clay soils
present.

Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s
brodiaea
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools; clay, mesic/perennial bulbiferous
herb/May–July/100–5,550
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey and no clay soils are present.

Calandrinia breweri Brewer’s
calandrinia
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub; burned areas, disturbed areas, loam (sometimes), sandy
(sometimes)/annual herb/(Jan) Mar–June/
35–4,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Calochortus dunnii Dunn’s
mariposa-lily
None/SR/1B.2/None Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland; gabbroic
(sometimes), rocky/perennial bulbiferous
herb/(Feb) Apr–June/605–6,000
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range.

Carex obispoensis San Luis
Obispo sedge
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland; clay (often), gabbroic
(sometimes), seeps (often), serpentinite
(often)/perennial cespitose herb/Apr–June/
35–2,690
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey and there are no clay soils
present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-4
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Castilleja
plagiotoma
Mojave
paintbrush
None/None/4.3/None Great Basin scrub (alluvial), Joshua tree “woodland,” lower montane coniferous
forest, pinyon and juniper woodland/
perennial herb (hemiparasitic)/Apr–June/
985–8,200
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Ceanothus cyaneus Lakeside
ceanothus
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest/
perennial evergreen shrub/Apr–June/
770–2,475
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Ceanothus
otayensis
Otay Mountain
ceanothus
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral (gabbroic, metavolcanic)/
perennial evergreen shrub/Jan–Apr/
1,965–3,605
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Ceanothus
verrucosus
wart-stemmed
ceanothus
None/None/2B.2/
None
Chaparral/perennial evergreen shrub/
Dec–May/5–1,245
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth
tarplant
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland; alkaline/annual herb/Apr–Sep/
0–2,095
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird’s-beak
FE/SE/1B.2/None Coastal dunes, marshes and swamps
(coastal salt)/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/
May–Oct (Nov)/0–100
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Chorizanthe
polygonoides var.
longispina
long-spined
spineflower
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and
seeps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools; clay (often)/annual herb/Apr–July/
100–5,015
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey and there are no clay soils
present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-5
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Clarkia delicata delicate
clarkia
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland; gabbroic
(often)/annual herb/Apr–June/770–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Clinopodium
chandleri
San Miguel
savory
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland; gabbroic (sometimes), rocky
(sometimes)/perennial shrub/Mar–July/
395–3,525
Not expected to occur. This perennial
shrub species was not observed during
the rare plant survey.

Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
summer holly None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland/perennial
evergreen shrub/Apr–June/100–2,590
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Convolvulus
simulans
small-flowered
morning-glory
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral (openings), coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; clay, seeps,
serpentinite/annual herb/Mar–July/
100–2,425
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey.

Corethrogyne
filaginifolia var.
incana
San Diego
sand aster
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, coastal bluff scrub, coastal
scrub/perennial herb/June–Sep/10–375
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Cylindropuntia
californica var.
californica
snake cholla None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial stem/
Apr–May/100–490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Deinandra
conjugens
Otay tarplant FT/SE/1B.1/None Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; clay/annual herb/(Apr) May–June/80–985
Not expected to occur. No clay soils
present.

Deinandra
floribunda
Tecate
tarplant
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, coastal scrub/annual herb/
Aug–Oct/230–4,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Dicranostegia
orcuttiana
Orcutt’s
bird’s-beak
None/None/2B.1/
None
Coastal scrub/annual herb (hemiparasitic)/
(Mar) Apr-July (Sep)/35–1,145
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-6
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Dudleya variegata variegated
dudleya
None/None/1B.2/
Covered
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools; clay/perennial herb/Apr–June/
10–1,900
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey, and there are no clay soils
present.

Ericameria palmeri
var. palmeri
Palmer’s
goldenbush
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, coastal scrub; mesic/perennial
evergreen shrub/(July)Sep–Nov/
100–1,965
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Eriodictyon
sessilifolium
sessile-leaved
yerba santa
None/None/2B.1/
None
Coastal scrub; volcanic/perennial shrub/
July/560–560
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Eriogonum
evanidum
vanishing wild
buckwheat
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, pinyon and
juniper woodland; gravelly (sometimes),
sandy (sometimes)/annual herb/July–Oct/
3,605–7,295
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego
button-celery
FE/SE/1B.1/Covered Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; mesic/annual/perennial
herb/Apr–June/65–2,030
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species was not observed during the
rare plant survey, and no vernal pools
are present.

Euphorbia
abramsiana
Abrams’
spurge
None/None/2B.2/
None
Mojavean desert scrub, Sonoran desert
scrub; sandy/annual herb/(Aug)Sep–Nov/-
15–4,295
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Euphorbia misera cliff spurge None/None/2B.2/
None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, Mojavean
desert scrub; rocky/perennial shrub/
(Oct)Dec–Aug/35–1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Ferocactus
viridescens
San Diego
barrel cactus
None/None/2B.1/
Covered
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools/perennial stem/
May–June/10–1,475
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species was not observed during the
rare plant survey.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-7
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Frankenia palmeri Palmer’s
frankenia
None/None/2B.1/
None
Coastal dunes, marshes and swamps
(coastal salt), playas/perennial herb/
May–July/0–35
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Fraxinus parryi chaparral ash None/None/2B.2/
None
Chaparral/perennial shrub/Mar–May/
700–2,030
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Fremontodendron
mexicanum
Mexican
flannelbush
FE/SR/1B.1/None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest; gabbroic, serpentinite/perennial evergreen shrub/
Mar–June/35–2,345
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Galium proliferum desert
bedstraw
None/None/2B.2/
None
Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland;
carbonate, rocky/annual herb/Mar–June/
3,900–5,345
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Geothallus
tuberosus
Campbell’s
liverwort
None/None/1B.1/
None
Coastal scrub (mesic), vernal pools/
ephemeral liverwort/35–1,965
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Githopsis diffusa
ssp. filicaulis
Mission
Canyon
bluecup
None/None/3.1/None Chaparral (disturbed areas, mesic)/annual herb/Apr–June/1,475–2,295
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Grindelia hallii San Diego
gumplant
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland/perennial herb/May–Oct/
605–5,725
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range.

Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer’s
grapplinghook
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; clay, openings/annual herb/
Mar–May/65–3,130
Not expected to occur. No clay soils
present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-8
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Hesperocyparis
forbesii
Tecate
cypress
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest;
clay, gabbroic (sometimes)/perennial
evergreen tree/260–4,920
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Heterotheca
sessiliflora ssp.
sessiliflora
beach
goldenaster
None/None/1B.1/
None
Chaparral (coastal), coastal dunes, coastal
scrub/perennial herb/Mar–Dec/0–4,015
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Holocarpha virgata
ssp. elongata
graceful
tarplant
None/None/4.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, valley and foothill grassland/annual
herb/May–Nov/195–3,605
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey.

Horkelia truncata Ramona
horkelia
None/None/1B.3/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland; clay,
gabbroic/perennial herb/May–June/
1,310–4,265
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Isocoma menziesii
var. decumbens
decumbent
goldenbush
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, coastal scrub (often disturbed
areas, sandy)/perennial shrub/Apr–Nov/
35–820
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Iva hayesiana San Diego
marsh-elder
None/None/2B.2/
None
Marshes and swamps, playas/perennial
herb/Apr–Oct/0–1,640
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Juglans californica Southern
California
black walnut
None/None/4.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian woodland/perennial
deciduous tree/Mar–Aug/165–2,950
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Juncus acutus ssp.
leopoldii
southwestern
spiny rush
None/None/4.2/
None
Coastal dunes (mesic), coastal scrub,
marshes and swamps (coastal salt),
meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps)/
perennial rhizomatous herb/
(Mar)May–June/10–2,950
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter’s
goldfields
None/None/1B.1/
None
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), playas,
vernal pools/annual herb/Feb–June/
5–4,000
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-9
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Lathyrus splendens pride-ofCaliforniaNone/None/4.3/
None
Chaparral/perennial herb/Mar–June/
655–5,000
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Lepechinia
cardiophylla
heart-leaved
pitcher sage
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest/perennial shrub/ Apr–July/1,705–4,490
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Lepechinia ganderi Gander’s
pitcher sage
None/None/1B.3/
None
Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland;
gabbroic (sometimes)/perennial shrub/
June–July/1,000–3,295
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range.

Lepidium
virginicum var.
robinsonii
Robinson’s
pepper-grass
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, coastal scrub/annual herb/ Jan–July/5–2,900
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Leptosyne maritima sea dahlia None/None/2B.2/
None
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub/perennial
herb/Mar–May/15–490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Monardella breweri
ssp. microcephala
small-headed
monardella
None/None/2B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest; disturbed areas
(sometimes), granitic, openings/annual
herb/May–Aug/755–3,935
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
lanata
felt-leaved
monardella
None/None/1B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland/perennial
rhizomatous herb/June–Aug/985–5,165
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Monardella viminea willowy
monardella
FE/SE/1B.1/Covered Chaparral, coastal scrub, riparian forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland; alluvial
terraces, washes/perennial herb/
June–Aug/165–740
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Myosurus minimus
ssp. apus
little mousetail None/None/3.1/None Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools (alkaline)/annual herb/Mar–June/
65–2,095
Not expected to occur. No vernal pools
or clay soils present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-10
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Nama stenocarpa mud nama None/None/2B.2/
None
Marshes and swamps (lake margins,
riverbanks)/annual/perennial herb/
Jan–July/15–1,640
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Navarretia fossalis spreading
navarretia
FT/None/1B.1/None Chenopod scrub, marshes and swamps
(shallow freshwater), playas, vernal
pools/annual herb/Apr–June/100–2,145
Not expected to occur. This species is
strongly associated with vernal pools,
which are not present within the project
site (USFWS 2009).

Navarretia
prostrata
prostrate
vernal pool
navarretia
None/None/1B.2/
None
Coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley
and foothill grassland (alkaline), vernal
pools; mesic/annual herb/Apr–July/
10–3,965
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey, and no vernal pools are present.

Nemacaulis
denudata var.
denudata
coast
woolly-heads
None/None/1B.2/
None
Coastal dunes/annual herb/Apr–Sep/
0–330
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Nolina interrata Dehesa nolina None/SE/1B.1/None Chaparral (gabbroic, metavolcanic, serpentinite)/perennial herb/June–July/
605–2,805
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Orcuttia californica California
Orcutt grass
FE/SE/1B.1/None Vernal pools/annual herb/Apr–Aug/
50–2,165
Not expected to occur. No vernal pool
habitat present.

Packera ganderi Gander’s
ragwort
None/SR/1B.2/None Chaparral (burned areas, gabbroic
outcrops)/perennial herb/Apr–June/
1,310–3,935
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Pentachaeta aurea
ssp. aurea
golden-rayed
pentachaeta
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,
riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland/annual herb/Mar–July/
260–6,065
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey.

Piperia cooperi chaparral rein
orchid
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/
Mar–June/50–5,200
Not expected to occur. This species was
not observed during the rare plant
survey, and grassland areas present are
highly disturbed.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-11
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Pogogyne abramsii San Diego
mesa mint
FE/SE/1B.1/Covered Vernal pools/annual herb/Mar–July/
295–655
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Pogogyne
nudiuscula
Otay Mesa
mint
FE/SE/1B.1/None Vernal pools/annual herb/May–July/
295–820
Not expected to occur. No vernal pool
habitat present.

Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white
rabbit-tobacco
None/None/2B.2/
None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, riparian woodland; gravelly, sandy/
perennial herb/(July) Aug–Nov (Dec)/
0–6,885
Observed within the project site during
the rare plant survey in 2023. Six
individuals were observed within the
southeastern corner of the project site
immediately adjacent to the San Diego
River corridor.

Quercus
cedrosensis
Cedros Island
oak
None/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub/perennial evergreen tree/
Apr–May/835–3,145
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub
oak
None/None/1B.1/None Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub; clay, loam, sandy/perennial
evergreen shrub/Feb–Apr (May–Aug)/
50–1,310
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann
oak
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland/
perennial deciduous tree/Mar–June/
165–4,265
Not expected to occur. This perennial
species was not observed during the
rare plant survey.

Ribes
canthariforme
Moreno
currant
None/None/1B.3/None Chaparral, riparian scrub/perennial deciduous shrub/Feb–Apr/1,115–3,935
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and this perennial species would
have been observed during the rare
plant survey if present.

Romneya coulteri Coulter’s
matilija poppy
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub; burned areas (often)/perennial rhizomatous herb/
Mar–July (Aug)/65–3,935
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-12
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
Salvia munzii Munz’s sage None/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial evergreen shrub/Feb–Apr/375–3,490
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Selaginella
cinerascens
ashy
spike-moss
None/None/4.1/None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial
rhizomatous herb/65–2,095
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Senecio aphanactis chaparral
ragwort
None/None/2B.2/None Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub; alkaline (sometimes)/annual herb/
Jan–Apr (May)/50–2,620
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Sphaerocarpos
drewiae
bottle liverwort None/None/1B.1/None Chaparral, coastal scrub; openings/ ephemeral liverwort/295–1,965
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Stemodia
durantifolia
purple
stemodia
None/None/2B.1/None Sonoran desert scrub (often mesic,
sandy)/perennial herb/(Jan) Apr–Dec/
590–985
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Stipa diegoensis San Diego
County needle
grass
None/None/4.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub; mesic (often), rocky/perennial herb/Feb–June/
35–2,620
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna
Mountains
jewelflower
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, lower montane coniferous
forest/perennial herb/May–Aug/
2,195–8,200
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Stylocline citroleum oil neststraw None/None/1B.1/None Chenopod scrub, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; clay/annual herb/
Mar–Apr/165–1,310
Not expected to occur. No clay soils
present.

Suaeda esteroa estuary
seablite
None/None/1B.2/None Marshes and swamps (coastal salt)/
perennial herb/(Jan–May) July–Oct/0–15
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Tetracoccus dioicus Parry’s
tetracoccus
None/None/1B.2/None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial
deciduous shrub/Apr–May/540–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present. This perennial

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-13
JANUARY 2025
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/CRPR/
Santee Subarea Plan)
Primary Habitat Associations/
Life Form/ Blooming Period/
Elevation Range (feet) Potential to Occur
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Texosporium
sancti-jacobi
woven-spored
lichen
None/None/3/None Chaparral (openings)/crustose lichen
(terricolous)/195–2,165
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Triquetrella
californica
coastal
triquetrella
None/None/1B.2/None Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub/moss/ 35–330
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present.

Viguiera laciniata San Diego
County
viguiera
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial
shrub/Feb–June (Aug)/195–2,460
Not expected to occur. No suitable
vegetation present. This perennial
species would have been observed
during the rare plant survey if present.

Xanthisma junceum rush-like
bristleweed
None/None/4.3/None Chaparral, coastal scrub/perennial herb/ Jan–Oct/785–3,280
Not expected to occur. The site is
outside of the species’ known elevation
range, and there is no suitable
vegetation present.

Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank.

Status Legend
Federal
FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
State
SE: State listed as endangered
SR: State listed as rare
CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank
1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3: Plants about which more information is needed – A Review List 4: Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List
Threat Rank

0.1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 – Moderately threatened in California (20%–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 – Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)

APPENDIX C / SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 C-14
JANUARY 2025
References/Sources
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

RareFind 5: Commercial version. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. “Navarretia fossalis (Spreading navarretia) 5-Year Review:

Summary and Evaluation.” Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Carlsbad, California. August 10, 2009. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2574.pdf/.

USFWS. 2023. Critical Habitat and Species Occurrence Database [map]. Accessed August 2023. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?url=https://services.arcgis.com/ QVENGdaPbd4LUkLV/ArcGIS/rest/services/USFWS_Critical_Habitat/FeatureServer&source=sd.

Appendix D
Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-1
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Amphibians
Anaxyrus
californicus
arroyo toad FE/SSC/None Semi-arid areas near washes, sandy riverbanks, riparian areas, palm oasis, Joshua tree, mixed
chaparral and sagebrush; stream channels for
breeding (typically third order); adjacent stream
terraces and uplands for foraging and wintering
Not expected to occur. No
suitable stream channels present.

Outside of known range (USFWS
2009).

Spea hammondii western
spadefoot
PT/SSC/Covered Primarily grassland and vernal pools, but also in ephemeral wetlands that persist at least
3 weeks in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley–
foothill woodlands, pastures, and other
agriculture
Not expected to occur. No
suitable ephemeral wetlands, and
the grassland areas are highly
disturbed.

Reptiles
Anniella stebbinsi southern
California
legless lizard
None/SSC/None Coastal dunes, stabilized dunes, beaches, dry washes, valley–foothill, chaparral, and scrubs;
pine, oak, and riparian woodlands; associated
with sparse vegetation and moist sandy or
loose, loamy soils
Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable riparian habitat and
sandy soils occur along the
southern boundary of the project
site.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California
glossy snake
None/SSC/None Arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, chaparral, open areas with loose soil
Not expected to occur. No
suitable scrub or chaparral
present. Suitable soils are highly
disturbed.

Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
orangethroated
whiptail
None/WL/Covered Low-elevation coastal scrub, chaparral, and valley–foothill hardwood
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
San Diegan
tiger whiptail
None/SSC/None Hot and dry areas with sparse foliage, including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.

Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable riparian habitat and
sandy soils occur along the
southern boundary of the project
site.

Chelonia mydas green sea turtle FT/None/None Shallow waters of lagoons, bays, estuaries, mangroves, eelgrass, and seaweed beds
Not expected to occur. No
suitable habitat present.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-2
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Coleonyx
variegatus
abbotti
San Diego
banded gecko
None/SSC/None Rocky areas within coastal scrub and chaparral Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present.

Crotalus ruber red
diamondback
rattlesnake
None/SSC/None Coastal scrub, chaparral, oak and pine
woodlands, rocky grasslands, cultivated areas,
and desert flats
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Abundant human activity.

Actinemys pallida southwestern
pond turtle
PT/SSC/None Slow-moving permanent or intermittent
streams, ponds, small lakes, and reservoirs
with emergent basking sites; adjacent uplands
used for nesting and during winter
Suitable wetland habitat is
present around the project area
within the San Diego River.

However, southwestern pond
turtle is not currently known from
the San Diego River in the City of
Santee. Therefore, this species is
not expected to occur.

Masticophis
fuliginosus
Baja California
coachwhip
None/SSC/None In California restricted to southern San Diego County, where it is known from grassland and
coastal sage scrub; open areas in grassland
and coastal sage scrub
Not expected to occur. Grassland
areas are highly disturbed.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Blainville’s
horned lizard
None/SSC/Covered Open areas of sandy soil in valleys, foothills, and semi-arid mountains, including coastal
scrub, chaparral, valley–foothill hardwood,
conifer, riparian, pine–cypress, juniper, and
annual grassland habitats
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Salvadora
hexalepis
virgultea
coast
patch-nosed
snake
None/SSC/None Brushy or shrubby vegetation; requires small mammal burrows for refuge and overwintering
sites
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Thamnophis
hammondii
two-striped
gartersnake
None/SSC/None Streams, creeks, pools, streams with rocky beds, ponds, lakes, vernal pools
Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable riparian habitat
associated with the San Diego
River occurs along the southern
boundary of the project site.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-3
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Birds
Agelaius tricolor
(nesting colony)
tricolored
blackbird
BCC/SSC, ST/None Nests near freshwater, emergent wetland with cattails or tules, but also in Himalayan
blackberry; forages in grassland, woodland, and
agriculture
Low potential to occur. Marginal
suitable emergent wetlands
present. Only known historically to
occur at Santee Lakes (CDFW
2023).

Ammodramus
savannarum
(nesting)
grasshopper
sparrow
None/SSC/None Nests and forages in moderately open
grassland with tall forbs or scattered shrubs
used for perches
Low potential to occur. No
suitable nesting vegetation
present.

Aquila chrysaetos
(nesting and
wintering)
golden eagle None/FP, WL/None Nests and winters in hilly, open/semi-open areas, including shrublands, grasslands,
pastures, riparian areas, mountainous canyon
land, open desert rimrock terrain; nests in large
trees and on cliffs in open areas and forages in
open habitats
Not expected to occur. The site is
small, highly disturbed, and
surrounded by existing
development.

Athene
cunicularia
(burrow sites and
some wintering
sites)
burrowing owl BCC/SSC/Covered Nests and forages in grassland, open scrub, and agriculture, particularly with ground squirrel
burrows
Low potential to occur. Site
contains suitable ground squirrel
burrows; however, this species
was not observed during field
surveys. Not known from Santee
(CDFW 2023).

Buteo swainsoni
(nesting)
Swainson’s
hawk
None/ST/None Nests in open woodland and savanna, riparian, and in isolated large trees; forages in nearby
grasslands and agricultural areas such as
wheat and alfalfa fields and pasture
Not expected to occur. This
species no longer nests in
southern California.

Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
(San Diego and
Orange Counties
only)
coastal cactus
wren
None/SSC/Covered Southern cactus scrub patches Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation present.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-4
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
(nesting)
western snowy
plover
FT, BCC/SSC/None On coasts nests on sandy marine and estuarine shores; in the interior nests on sandy, barren, or
sparsely vegetated flats near saline or alkaline
lakes, reservoirs, and ponds
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
(nesting)
western
yellow-billed
cuckoo
FT/SE/None Nests in dense, wide riparian woodlands and
forest with well-developed understories
Not expected to occur. Not
observed during riparian bird
surveys. Riparian habitat not
dense enough to support this
species.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail BCC/SSC/None Nesting requires wet marsh/sedge meadows or coastal marshes with wet soil and shallow,
standing water
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
white-tailed kite None/FP/None Nests in woodland, riparian, and individual trees near open lands; forages opportunistically
in grasslands, meadows, scrubs, agriculture,
emergent wetland, savanna, and disturbed
lands
Low potential to occur. Species
not observed during field surveys.

Empidonax traillii
extimus (nesting)
southwestern
willow
flycatcher
FE/SE/None Nests in dense riparian habitats along streams, reservoirs, or wetlands; uses variety of riparian
and shrubland habitats during migration
Not expected to occur. Species
not observed during riparian bird
surveys. USFWS agreed that
focused surveys not needed in
this area.

Icteria virens
(nesting)
yellow-breasted
chat
None/SSC/None Nests and forages in dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine
tangles, and dense brush
High potential to occur. Species
not observed during riparian bird
surveys. However, this species is
known to occur in the immediate
vicinity (i.e. San Diego River).

Ixobrychus exilis
(nesting)
least bittern None/SSC/None Nests in freshwater and brackish marshes with dense, tall growth of aquatic and semi-aquatic
vegetation
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-5
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black
rail
None/FP, ST/None Tidal marshes, shallow freshwater margins, wet meadows, and flooded grassy vegetation;
suitable habitats are often supplied by canal
leakage in Sierra Nevada foothill populations
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Passerculus
sandwichensis
beldingi
Belding’s
savannah
sparrow
BCC/SE/None Nests and forages in coastal saltmarsh
dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp.)
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal
California
gnatcatcher
FT/SSC/Covered Nests and forages in various sage scrub
communities, often dominated by California
sagebrush and buckwheat; generally avoids
nesting in areas with a slope of greater than
40%; majority of nesting at less than 1,000 feet
above mean sea level
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present and
this species was not incidentally
observed during riparian bird
surveys within the site.

Rallus obsoletus
levipes
Ridgway’s rail FE/FP, SE/None Coastal wetlands, brackish areas, coastal saline emergent wetlands
Not expected to occur. No
suitable coastal wetland habitat
present.

Setophaga
petechia
(nesting)
yellow warbler None/SSC/None Nests and forages in riparian and oak woodlands, montane chaparral, open
ponderosa pine, and mixed-conifer habitats
Observed within riparian areas
immediately south of the project
site.

Sternula
antillarum browni
(nesting colony)
California least
tern
FE/FP, SE/None Forages in shallow estuaries and lagoons; nests on sandy beaches or exposed tidal flats
Not expected to occur. The site
lacks suitable habitat for this
species. This species establishes
nesting colonies along coastal
beach or estuarine habitats,
which is not present in the project
area.

Vireo bellii
pusillus (nesting)
least Bell’s
vireo
FE/SE/Covered Nests and forages in low, dense riparian
thickets along water or along dry parts of
intermittent streams; forages in riparian and
adjacent shrubland late in nesting season
Observed within riparian areas
within the project site (along the
southern boundary) and
immediately south, north, and
west of the project site. All
riparian vegetation around the
project is expected to be
occupied.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-6
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Mammals
Antrozous
pallidus
pallid bat None/SSC/None Grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, forests; most common in open, dry habitats with rocky
outcrops for roosting, but also roosts in trees
and human-built structures
Moderate potential to forage, not
expected to roost. Limited
suitable roosting vegetation
present.

Chaetodipus
californicus
femoralis
Dulzura pocket
mouse
None/SSC/None Open habitat, coastal scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, chamise chaparral, mixed-conifer
habitats; disturbance specialist; 0 to 3,000 feet
above mean sea level
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
northwestern
San Diego
pocket mouse
None/SSC/None Coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, sagebrush, desert wash, desert scrub, desert succulent
shrub, pinyon–juniper, and annual grassland
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Choeronycteris
mexicana
Mexican
long-tongued
bat
None/SSC/None Desert and montane riparian, desert succulent scrub, desert scrub, and pinyon–juniper
woodland; roosts in caves, mines, and buildings
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
None/SSC/None Mesic habitats characterized by coniferous and deciduous forests and riparian habitat, but also
xeric areas; roosts in limestone caves and lava
tubes, human-built structures, and tunnels
Moderate potential to forage, not
expected to roost. Limited
suitable roosting vegetation
present.

Dasypterus
xanthinus
western yellow
bat
None/SSC/None Valley–foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats; below
2,000 feet above mean sea level; roosts in
riparian and palms
Moderate potential to forage, not
expected to roost. Limited
suitable roosting vegetation
present.

Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff
bat
None/SSC/None Chaparral, coastal and desert scrub, coniferous and deciduous forest and woodland; roosts in
crevices in rocky canyons and cliffs where the
canyon or cliff is vertical or nearly vertical, trees,
and tunnels
Moderate potential to forage, not
expected to roost. Limited
suitable roosting vegetation
present.

Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert woodrat
None/SSC/None Coastal scrub, desert scrub, chaparral, cacti, rocky areas
Not expected to occur. No
suitable vegetation present.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-7
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed
free-tailed bat
None/SSC/None Pinyon–juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash,
alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm
oases; roosts in high cliffs or rock outcrops with
drop-offs, caverns, and buildings
Moderate potential to forage, not
expected to roost. Limited
suitable roosting vegetation
present.

Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed
bat
None/SSC/None Rocky areas; roosts in caves, holes in trees, buildings, and crevices on cliffs and rocky
outcrops; forages over water
Not expected to occur. No
suitable rocky habitat present.

Taxidea taxus American
badger
None/SSC/None Dry, open, treeless areas; grasslands, coastal scrub, agriculture, and pastures, especially with
friable soils
Not expected to occur. Site is
highly disturbed and surrounded
by existing development.

Lasiurus frantzii western red bat None/SSC/None Forest, woodland, riparian, mesquite bosque, and orchards, including fig, apricot, peach,
pear, almond, walnut, and orange; roosts in tree
canopy
Moderate potential to forage, not
expected to roost. Limited
suitable roosting vegetation
present.

Invertebrates
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
None/SCE/Covered Open grassland and scrub communities
supporting suitable floral resources
Not expected to occur. Site is
highly disturbed with limited floral
resources present (i.e., majority of
site contains non-native grasses).

Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy
shrimp
FE/None/Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Not expected to occur. No vernal pools present.

Euphydryas
editha quino
Quino
checkerspot
butterfly
FE/None/Covered Annual forblands, grassland, open coastal scrub and chaparral; often soils with cryptogamic
crusts and fine-textured clay; host plants
include Plantago erecta, P. patagonica, and
Antirrhinum coulterianum, among others
Not expected to occur. No primary
host plants are present (i.e., only
Plantago ovata was observed at
very low density within the site),
site lacks clay soils preferred by
primary host plants, very limited
flowering plants present for
nectar sources, the site is outside
the USFWS recommended survey
area, and the non-native
grassland is highly disturbed.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-8
JANUARY 2025
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Status
(Federal/State/Santee
Subarea Plan) Habitat Potential to Occur
Lycaena hermes Hermes copper FT/None/Covered Mixed woodlands, chaparral, and coastal scrub Not expected to occur. No suitable vegetation or host plants
present.

Streptocephalus
woottoni
Riverside fairy
shrimp
FE/None/Covered Vernal pools, non-vegetated ephemeral pools Not expected to occur. No vernal pools present.

Danaus plexippus
plexippus pop. 1
monarch –
California
overwintering
population
FC/None/None Wind-protected tree groves with nectar sources and nearby water sources
Observed during surveys within
project site. However, the project
site is not an established
overwintering area for this
species, nor does it provide any
host plants (i.e., milkweed) and
very limited nectar plants (i.e.,
majority of site contains nonnative grasses).

Notes: USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Status Legend
Federal
BCC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Bird of Conservation Concern FC: Candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered FE: Federally listed as endangered
FT: Federally listed as threatened
PT: Federally proposed as threatened
State
FP: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fully Protected species SCE: State candidate for listing as endangered
SE: State listed as endangered
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
ST: State listed as threatened
WL: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List species

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-9
JANUARY 2025
References/Sources
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).

RareFind 5: Commercial version. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/ CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2009. Arroyo Toad Bufo californicus (=microscaphus). 5-Year Review:

Summary and Evaluation. Ventura, California: USFWS Ventura Office. August 2009.

APPENDIX D / SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR 15269 D-10
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix E
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Cottonwood and Park Project
JANUARY 2025
Prepared for:

CITY VENTURES
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92612
Contact: Michael You
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Brock Ortega
__________________________
Dylan Ayers
Biologist
__________________________
Brock Ortega
Senior Biologist
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
15269.02 i
JANUARY 2025
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................................ iii Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... v 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Disclaimer Statement ............................................................................................................................1

1.2 Contact Information ...............................................................................................................................1 2 Review Area Description and Landscape Setting ..............................................................................................3

2.1 Soils.........................................................................................................................................................3

2.2 Watershed...............................................................................................................................................3

2.3 Vegetation...............................................................................................................................................3

2.4 Review Area Alterations, Current and Past Land Use ..........................................................................4 3 Precipitation Data and Analysis ..........................................................................................................................5 4 Investigation Methods .........................................................................................................................................7

4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ................................................................................................................7

4.2 Waters of the State ................................................................................................................................7 5 Aquatic Resource Narrative.................................................................................................................................9

5.1 USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources................................................................................9

5.1.1 NWW-1.......................................................................................................................................9

5.1.2 NWW-2.......................................................................................................................................9

5.1.3 NWW-3.......................................................................................................................................9

5.2 CDFW Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources............................................................................................. 10

5.3 Non-Jurisdictional Feature.................................................................................................................. 11

5.4 National Wetland Inventory ................................................................................................................ 12 6 Results and Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 13 7 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 TABLES
1 Contact Information.............................................................................................................................................1 2 Soils in the Review Area ......................................................................................................................................3 3 Vegetation Communities in the Review Area .....................................................................................................4 4 Antecedent Precipitation Tool Data for the Review Area...................................................................................5

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 ii
JANUARY 2025
5 Schedule of the Aquatic Resources Delineation................................................................................................7 6 USACE and RWQCB Aquatic Resource Summary............................................................................................ 10 7 CDFW Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource Summary ........................................................................................... 11

FIGURES
1 Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................................................... 17 2 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 4 Potential Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................... 23 5 Photo Point Locations....................................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDICES
A Antecedent Precipitation Tool Output
B Data Forms
C Review Area Photos
15269.02 iii
JANUARY 2025
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
APT Antecedent Precipitation Tool
ARC antecedent runoff condition
NWW non-wetland water
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index
Project Cottonwood and Park Project
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WSP wetland sampling point

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 iv
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 v
JANUARY 2025
Executive Summary
This aquatic resources delineation report was prepared in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports (USACE 2017). This report presents the results of the jurisdictional aquatic resource delineation conducted by Dudek for the 23.23-acre Cottonwood and Park Project site (i.e., Review Area) in Santee, California. The delineation was conducted to identify and map existing aquatic resources potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).

According to recent aerial imagery, the Review Area has remained largely undeveloped since at least 1994. Historic aerials show similar conditions in 1953, the earliest year available. In all years reviewed, the Review Area has been consistently mowed and otherwise managed, particularly in the flat non-native grasslands and disturbed habitats.

A storage yard was present at the southeast corner of the Review Area from around 2000 to 2010; some ornamental trees planted in association with that storage yard remain in the Review Area. Besides the storage yard, the development of the nearby Town Center Community Park, starting around 2000, also has created noticeable changes in the Review Area. These include the installation of expansive sections of impermeable surfaces (i.e., asphalt parking lot, concrete walking trails, buildings), as well as the use of irrigation systems to support installed landscaping north of the Review Area. The combination of human development and other urban manipulations in and around the Review Area may have caused an increase in runoff, such that the arrowweed scrub near the western edge of the Review Area has been increasing in size since it was first observed within the site, using historical aerials, around 1970. The conditions recorded during the 2023 site visit largely match the conditions shown in available aerial imagery.

The jurisdictional delineation was conducted by Dudek biologist Dylan Ayers on July 11, 2023, August 22, 2023, and June 7, 2024. Prior to conducting the jurisdictional delineation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory data was reviewed to determine if the Review Area contained any features mapped by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2023). Site-specific topographical data were reviewed in conjunction with aerials, both current and historical, to determine the potential presence of non-wetland waters. Current vegetation mapping was reviewed to assess whether the Review Area supported hydrophytic vegetation and potential wetlands; multiple areas supporting hydrophytic vegetation were also assessed for the presence of wetland hydrology and hydric soils to determine whether they were three-parameter wetlands. Jurisdictional boundaries were mapped in the field using the ESRI Field Maps application.

Three aquatic resources (non-wetland water [NWW]-1, NWW-2, and NWW-3) totaling 0.45 acres potentially under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was recorded at the Review Area. Five wetland sampling points— WSP-1, WSP-2, WSP-3a, WSP-3b, and WSP-4a—were established in areas that exhibited dominant stands of hydrophytic vegetation. Two ordinary high-water mark data forms, ODP-1 and ODP-2, were also collected. NWW-1, NWW-2, and NWW-3 include the portion of the San Diego River that occurs at the southern edge of the Review Area; the San Diego River is a perennial river feature that exhibits a direct surface connection to the Pacific Ocean. NWW-1, NWW-2, and NWW-3 would also be regulated as waters of the state under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A total of 3.59 acres of California Department of Fish and Wildlife–jurisdictional riparian habitat occurs in the Review Area. This includes NWW-1, NWW-2, and NWW-3, in addition to 0.62 acres of southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest (RIP-1, RIP-3, and RIP-4) associated with the San Diego River along the Review Area’s southern border, as well as 2.52 acres of arrowweed scrub (RIP-2), a hydrophytic vegetation community.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 vi
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 1
JANUARY 2025
1 Introduction
This aquatic resources delineation report was prepared in accordance with the Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports (USACE 2017). This report presents the results of the jurisdictional aquatic resource delineation conducted by Dudek biologists for the Cottonwood and Park Project (Project) in Santee, California. The delineation was conducted to identify and map existing aquatic resources potentially subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).

1.1 Disclaimer Statement
This report presents Dudek’s best effort to quantify the extent of aquatic resources potentially regulated by USACE, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) within the identified 23.23-acre Project site (i.e., Review Area) using the current regulations, written policies, and guidance from these regulatory agencies. The potential jurisdictional boundaries described in this report are subject to verification by the aquatic resource agencies (USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW). This report may be used to determine the presence and boundaries of the potential aquatic resources under USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictions.

1.2 Contact Information
Contact information for the Project applicant and agent are provided in Table 1. Access to the Review Area is not restricted, but if a site visit is requested, the project applicant or agent will accompany regulatory staff to the Review Area. City Ventures is the project applicant and landowner.

Table 1. Contact Information
Project
Applicant
City Ventures Agent Dudek
Contact Name Michael You Contact Name Brock Ortega
Address 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92612
Address 605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Phone 408.828.9498 Phone 760.479.4254
Email [email protected] Email [email protected]

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 2
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 3
JANUARY 2025
2 Review Area Description and
Landscape Setting
This report focuses on the approximately 23.23-acre Review Area in Santee in San Diego County. The Review Area is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 381-051-1800, 381 051-1400, 381-051-1700, and 381-050-7700 (Figure 1, Project Vicinity). The approximate center of the focused survey area is located at 32.848483°latitude and −116.975704° longitude. Directions to the Review Area are as follows: from the Interstate 8 and Interstate 5 interchange, take Interstate 8 east; drive approximately 15 miles toward Santee; take exit 2 toward CA-67; and continue on CA-67 for 1 mile until exiting at Prospect Avenue. After exiting onto Prospect Avenue, take the first right onto Magnolia Avenue and drive 2.5 miles northwest on Magnolia Avenue before taking a left onto Park Center Drive; the Review Area will be visible at the south end of Park Center Drive, near a large public parking lot. The northern and western edges of the Review Area border several parcels including the sports fields and parking lot associated with the nearby Town Center Community Park, the eastern edge borders Cottonwood Avenue, and the southern edge of the Review Area directly abuts the vegetation communities associated with the nearby San Diego River. Several informal footpaths transect the Review Area, which is dominated by non-native grasses and disturbed land. Topography in the Review Area is generally flat, with some variation near the northern and southern edges of the Review Area; the Review Area slopes downwards noticeably near the San Diego River. Elevations in the focused survey area range from 338 feet above mean sea level to 345 feet above mean sea level. The Project is within the El Cajon U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle map.

2.1 Soils
Soil types within the Review Area are shown in Table 2 and on Figure 2, Soils. Tujunga sands, 0% to 5% slopes, are considered partially hydric soils (USDA 2023a).

Table 2. Soils in the Review Area
Map Unit Symbol Soil Description Hydric Soil Rating
Rm Riverwash Not hydric
TuB Tujunga sand, 0% to 5% slopes Partially hydric
W Water Not hydric
Sources: USDA 2023a, 2023b.

2.2 Watershed
The Review Area is in the San Diego Hydrologic Unit, the Lower San Diego Hydrologic Area, and the Santee Subarea (Figure 3, Hydrology). The Lower San Diego Hydrologic Area includes the Lower San Diego River Watershed, which extends from the mouth of the San Diego River to Channel Road in Lakeside.

2.3 Vegetation
Eight vegetation communities or land cover types were mapped in the focused survey area: southern cottonwood– willow riparian forest, disturbed habitat, freshwater marsh, urban/developed land, eucalyptus woodland,

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 4
JANUARY 2025
arrowweed scrub, open water, and non-native grassland (including broadleaf dominated). The acreages of the mapped vegetation communities and landcovers in the Review Area are presented in Table 3 and shown in Figure 4, Potential Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources.

Table 3. Vegetation Communities in the Review Area
Vegetation Community
Location (Latitude/Longitude;
Decimal Degrees) Acres1
Arrowweed scrub 32.848691, −116.977185 2.52
Disturbed habitat 32.849030, −116.976162 7.31
Eucalyptus woodland 32.848763, −116.974817 0.63
Freshwater marsh 32.847591, −116.974639 0.22
Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest 32.847638, −116.975175 0.62 Non-native grassland (including broadleaf-dominated) 32.848266, −116.975589 10.89 Open water 32.847555, −116.978596 0.23
Urban/developed land 32.849399, −116.975709 0.80
Total 23.23
Note:
1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

2.4 Review Area Alterations, Current and Past Land Use
According to recent aerial imagery, the Review Area has remained largely undeveloped since at least 1994 (Google Earth 2023). Historic aerials show similar conditions in 1953, the earliest year available (Historic Aerials 2023).

Since 1953, the Review Area has been consistently mowed and otherwise managed, particularly in the flat non-native grasslands and disturbed habitats. A storage yard was present at the southeast corner of the Review Area from around 2000 to 2010; some ornamental eucalyptus trees planted in association with that storage yard still remain in the Review Area. Besides the storage yard, the development of the nearby Town Center Community Park, starting around 2000, also has created noticeable changes in the Review Area. Development all around the Review Area, including at the community park, involved the installation of expansive sections of impermeable surfaces (i.e., asphalt parking lot, concrete walking trails, buildings), as well as the use of irrigation systems to support installed landscaping. The combination of human development and other urban manipulations in and around the Review Area may have caused an increase in runoff, such that the arrowweed (Pluchea sericea) scrub near the western edge of the Review Area has been increasing in size since it was first observed within the site, using historical aerials, around 1970. The conditions recorded during the 2023 and 2024 site visit largely match the conditions shown in available aerial imagery.
15269.02 5
JANUARY 2025
3 Precipitation Data and Analysis
The USACE-developed Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) was used to assess whether the delineation date occurred in a drier, average, or wetter than normal period (USACE 2023). To determine what constitutes a “typical year,” USACE developed the APT. The information generated from the APT can help to determine whether normal hydrologic and/or climatic conditions were present during the site visit and assist with completing the Wetland Determination Data Form.

The APT provides three climatological parameters: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), season, and antecedent precipitation condition. The PDSI is a standardized index calculated on a monthly basis with PDSI value outputs ranging from −4 (extreme drought) to +4 (very wet) (NOAA 2023) to assess drought conditions (i.e., PDSI Class).

The APT determines wet vs. dry season based on related procedures provided in the applicable regional supplement for the Review Area (in this case, the Arid West Supplement). If the antecedent runoff condition (ARC) score is less than 10, then the antecedent precipitation condition is classified as drier than normal; normal conditions are present with an ARC score of 10 to 14; and conditions are wetter than normal when an ARC score is greater than 14 (USACE 2023).

Table 4 summarizes the key data extrapolated from the APT output: estimated drought conditions (PDSI class), wet or dry season determination, ARC score, and antecedent precipitation condition. The PDSI demonstrated that the Review Area was experiencing “severe wetness” during the July and August 2023 site visits, which occurred after the start of the region’s dry season. Based on the APT output provided in Appendix A and summarized in Table 4, the precipitation and climatic conditions for the Review Area were wetter than normal during the time of the delineation site visits.

Table 4. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Data for the Review Area Main Field
Survey Date PDSI Class Season ARC Score
Antecedent
Precipitation
Condition
07/11/2023 Severe wetness Dry season 15 Wetter than normal 08/22/2023 Severe wetness Dry season 12 Normal conditions Notes: PDSI = Palmer Drought Severity Index; ARC = antecedent runoff condition.

Additionally, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (USDA 2023c), the area around the Review Area receives an average of 12.8 inches of precipitation annually.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 6
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 7
JANUARY 2025
4 Investigation Methods
The jurisdictional delineation was conducted by Dudek biologist Dylan Ayers on July 11, 2023; supplementary site visits were conducted on August 22, 2023 and June 7, 2024 (Table 5). Prior to conducting the jurisdictional delineation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory data (USFWS 2023) was reviewed to determine if the Review Area contained any features mapped by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Site-specific topographical data were reviewed in conjunction with aerials, both current and historical, to determine the potential presence of non-wetland waters. Current vegetation mapping was reviewed to assess whether the Review Area supported hydrophytic vegetation and potential wetlands; multiple areas supporting hydrophytic vegetation were also assessed for the presence of wetland hydrology and hydric soils to determine whether they were threeparameter wetlands. Jurisdictional boundaries were mapped in the field using the ESRI Field Maps application.

Table 5. Schedule of the Aquatic Resources Delineation
Date Hours Personnel Conditions
07/11/2023 1003–1258 Dylan Ayers 80°F–89°F; 0% cloud cover; 3–5 mph winds 08/22/2023 1134–1220 Dylan Ayers 75°F–76°F; 0% cloud cover; 3–5 mph winds 06/07/2024 0902–1105 Dylan Ayers 66°F –75°F; 20–100% cloud cover; 1–3 mph winds Notes: °F = degrees Fahrenheit; mph = miles per hour.

4.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The USACE wetlands delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008a). A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual (USACE 2008b) was used to determine the limits of non-wetland waters. Non-wetland waters were delineated on topographical maps in conjunction with ESRI Collector on a mobile device. The widths of each non-wetland water were determined in the field according to the OHWM manual.

Wetland Determination Data Forms were taken at certain points within drainages or vegetation communities where a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation was present; hydrology, vegetation, and soils were assessed to determine whether USACE three-parameter wetlands were present. USACE OHWM forms were completed at representative cross-sections of non-wetland waters to capture their characteristics and widths. All data forms can be found in Appendix B, and photos of the potential aquatic features delineated within the Review Area are provided in Appendix C.

4.2 Waters of the State
The jurisdiction-specific methods used to delineate CDFW and RWQCB jurisdiction are described below.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Methods The RWQCB typically asserts jurisdiction over the same areas as USACE. Guidance from USACE was used to determine the extent of resources regulated by the RWQCB under the Porter–Cologne Act. Non-wetland waters subject to RWQCB jurisdiction were delineated based on the presence of an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM), as

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 8
JANUARY 2025
determined by USACE guidance, or any other surface water regulated under the Porter–Cologne Act. Wetland waters subject to RWQCB jurisdiction were assessed based on methods described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008a). A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b) and the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2010) were reviewed to assist in determining the limits of non-wetland waters under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. In 2019, the State Water Resources Control Board issued the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (SWRCB 2021). These procedures define wetlands that encompass “the full range of wetland types commonly recognized in California, including some features not protected under federal law, and reflects current scientific understanding of the formation and functioning of wetlands.” Per the SWRCB, “An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation” (SWRCB 2021).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction Methods The delineation defined areas under the jurisdiction of CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600–1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. CDFW asserts jurisdiction over rivers, streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation associated with these features. A predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, where associated with a stream channel, was used to determine CDFW-regulated riparian areas. Streambeds under the jurisdiction of CDFW were delineated using the Cowardin method of waters classification, which defines waters boundaries by a single parameter (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, or hydrology). Additionally, waters of the state were delineated based on watercourse characteristics present in the field, which include surface flow, sediment transportation and sorting, physical indicators of channel forms, channel morphology, and riparian habitat associated with a streambed. 15269.02 9
JANUARY 2025
5 Aquatic Resource Narrative

5.1 USACE/RWQCB Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
Three aquatic resources totaling 0.45 acres potentially under the jurisdiction of USACE and RWQCB were recorded within the Review Area (Figure 4). This was determined through the establishment of six wetland sampling points (WSPs) (WSP-1, WSP-2, WSP-3a, WSP-3b, WSP-4a, and WSP-4b) within the Review Area at locations that exhibited dominance of hydrophytic vegetation communities and potential wetland hydrology. Two OHWM data forms, ODP-1 and ODP-2, were collected; ODP-1 depicts a non-jurisdictional upland swale feature; ODP-2 depicts the edge of the San Diego River, described herein as Non-Wetland Water (NWW) 1, NWW-2, and NWW-3, which occurs at the southern edge of the Review Area. Photos of the potential aquatic features delineated within the Review Area are provided in Appendix C, and their locations are depicted in Figure 5, Photo Point Locations.

5.1.1 NWW-1
NWW-1 describes a 0.01-acre and 114-linear-foot portion of the San Diego River that occurs at the southern edge of the Review Area and is described in WSP-3a, WSP-3b, and ODP-2 (Table 6). NWW-1 is dominated by thick freshwater marsh vegetation, made up mostly of cattail (Typha domingensis), with a mature canopy of large Goodding’s willow (Salix gooddingii) and cottonwood (Populus fremontii) trees intermixed around the margins of the active channel. Water was flowing in the river during both site visits. The OHWM of NWW-1 is indicated by a clear change in slope. The flat portions of the Review Area give way to a noticeable slope downwards at the Review Area’s southern edge; NWW-1 occurs at the bottom of the slope as depicted in ODP-2. WDP-3b was collected at the top of slope and did not indicate wetland conditions. The change in slope near the OHWM is accompanied by a clearly visible change from riparian and upland vegetation species to obligate freshwater marsh vegetation, including cattails and yerba mansa (Anemopsis californica). WSP-3a was established at this location, just below the observed OHWM; all three federal wetland parameters were recorded at WSP-3a; as such, NWW-1 may be considered a wetland water. However, NWW-1 was defined as a non-wetland water of the United States throughout its extent because it is located entirely within a riverine feature (i.e., all recorded freshwater marsh vegetation is below OHWM) and because guidance has been received directly from USACE regional staff that potential aquatic resources exhibiting all three wetland parameters that are located within riverine features are to be considered potential vegetated non-wetland waters of the United States.

5.1.2 NWW-2
NWW-2 describes a 0.23-acre and 310-linear-foot portion of the San Diego River that occurs at the southern edge of the Review Area (Table 6). NWW-2 is dominated by ponded freshwater occurring below the OHWM, indicated by a clear change in slope. NWW-2 was defined as a non-wetland water throughout its extent because it is located entirely within a riverine feature (i.e., San Diego River).

5.1.3 NWW-3
NWW-3 describes a 0.21-acre and 250-linear-foot portion of the San Diego River that occurs at the southern edge of the Review Area and is described in WSP-4a (Table 6). NWW-3 is dominated by thick freshwater marsh vegetation, made up mostly of cattail, with a mature canopy of large Goodding’s willow and cottonwood trees intermixed around

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 10
JANUARY 2025
the margins of the active channel. The OHWM of NWW-3 is indicated by a clear change in slope. The flat portions of the Review Area give way to a noticeable slope downward at the Review Area’s southern edge; NWW-3 occurs at the bottom of the slope. WDP-3b was collected at the top of slope and did not indicate wetland conditions. The change in slope near the OHWM is accompanied by a clearly visible change from riparian and upland vegetation species to obligate freshwater marsh vegetation. WSP-4a was established at this location, just below the observed OHWM; all three federal wetland parameters were recorded at WSP-4a; as such, NWW-3 may be considered a wetland water. However, NWW-3 was defined as a non-wetland water throughout its extent because it is located entirely within a riverine feature (i.e., all recorded freshwater marsh vegetation is below OHWM) and because guidance has been received directly from USACE regional staff that potential aquatic resources exhibiting all three wetland parameters that are located within riverine features are to be considered potential vegetated nonwetland waters.

Table 6. USACE and RWQCB Aquatic Resource Summary Feature Name Cowardin Code1 Observed OHWM Indicators 2 Observed
Wetland Parameters
3 Presence of
OHWM/Wetland Dominant Vegetation Location (Lat, Long) Active Channel Width Range (feet) Linear Feet Acres NWW-1 PEM1 CVS,
CVC,
BBS

HV, WH,
HS
Yes/Yes Freshwater
Marsh

32.847610,
−116.974891
<5 114 0.01
NWW-2 POW CVS,
CVC,
BBS
WH, HS Yes/No Open
Water

32.847555,
−116.978596
400 310 0.23
NWW-3 PEM1 CVS,
CVC,
BBS

HV, WH,
HS
Yes/Yes Freshwater
Marsh

32.847601,
−116.978610
19–400 250 0.21
Total 674 0.45
Source: Cowardin et al. 1979.

Notes: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; NWW = non-wetland water.

See Appendix B for additional details.
1 PEM1 = persistent, emergent, palustrine; POW = palustrine, open water. 2 Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) indicators: CVS = change in vegetation species; CVC = change in vegetation cover; BBS = break in bank slope.
3 Wetland indicators: WH = wetland hydrology; HV = hydrophytic vegetation; HS = hydric soils.

5.2 CDFW Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
The three non-wetland waters associated with the San Diego River as described above are also potentially under CDFW jurisdiction as streambeds (i.e., NWW-2) and riparian habitat (i.e., NWW-1 and NWW-3). Adjacent to these three features, but above the OHWM, is 0.62 acres of forested riparian habitat (RIP-1, RIP-3, and RIP-4), which occurs along the southern portion of the Review Area associated with the San Diego River.

WSP-1 was established beneath a section of the riparian vegetation (i.e., RIP-4) at the southern edge of the Review Area, distinct from the sampling that occurred at NWW-1. This section of the Review Area directly abuts the San Diego River’s riparian corridor and slopes down significantly toward the river channel; WSP-1 is at the top of this

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 11
JANUARY 2025
slope. Similar to WSP-3b, this vegetation community was dominated by Gooding’s willow and was intermixed with non-native species, such as wild oat (Avena barbata) and tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca). No hydric soils indicators were recorded in the fine sandy soils at WSP-1, and no hydrology indicators were observed. Therefore, the riparian vegetation sampled at WSP-1 was considered CDFW-only.

WSP-2 was established beneath a thick canopy of arrowweed scrub (i.e., RIP-2) located toward the northwest corner of the Review Area. WSP-2 exhibited a clear dominance of hydrophytic vegetation due to the presence of the arrowweed canopy; no other plant species were recorded at WSP-2. Soils sampled from beneath the canopy consisted entirely of very fine sand with some loam texture present. This soil type present, Tujunga sand, 0% to 5% slopes, is considered partially hydric (USDA 2023a). Despite the clear expansion of this community as depicted in historical aerials and the proximity to a significant aquatic feature (the San Diego River), there were no primary indicators and insufficient secondary indicators of wetland hydrology recorded at WSP-2. Therefore, the riparian vegetation sampled at WSP 2 was considered CDFW-only.

In addition to the riparian habitats associated with the active river channel, 2.52 acres of arrowweed scrub, a hydrophytic vegetation community, is present approximately 130 feet north of the river, on flat lands adjacent to the nearby community park in the Review Area; although it is disconnected from the active streambed channel, this vegetation community may be considered CDFW-jurisdictional riparian vegetation. Figure 4 shows all CDFW jurisdictional aquatic resources identified within the Review Area, and each feature is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7. CDFW Jurisdictional Aquatic Resource Summary
Feature Name Vegetation Type Total (acres)
Streambed
NWW-2 Open water 0.23
Riparian Habitat
NWW-1 Freshwater marsh 0.01
NWW-3 Freshwater marsh 0.21
RIP-1 Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest 0.37
RIP-2 Arrowweed scrub 2.52
RIP-3 Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest 0.24
RIP-4 Southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest 0.01
Riparian Habitat Subtotal 3.36
Total 3.59
Notes: CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; NWW = non-wetland water; RIP = riparian habitat.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

5.3 Non-Jurisdictional Feature
One swale feature was recorded at the southern edge of the Review Area. This feature lacked any consistent indicators of an OHWM, as shown in ODP-1, and was uniformly dominated by upland non-native grasses. This swale feature appears to collect overland flows from the surrounding lands and focus them downslope and out of the Review Area toward the San Diego River. The lack of OHWM excludes this feature from potential USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW jurisdiction; as such, this feature is not depicted in any report figure and is not discussed further in this document.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 12
JANUARY 2025

5.4 National Wetland Inventory
The Review Area contains one mapped resource from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetland Inventory data (USFWS 2023) (Figure 3). Freshwater forested/shrub wetland and freshwater emergent wetland habitat is mapped as overlapping the southern edge of the Review Area, approximately at the same location where NWW-1, NWW-2, NWW-3 and the associated riparian canopy (RIP-1, RIP-3, and RIP-4) currently exists. One feature depicted by the National Hydrography Database, the San Diego River, is present within the Review Area, described above as NWW-1 and NWW-2.
15269.02 13
JANUARY 2025
6 Results and Conclusions
Dudek conducted a formal jurisdictional delineation of the Review Area in July 2023, August 2023, and June 2024.

Six WSPs were established at representative locations to determine the location and type of potential aquatic resources; two OHWM data points were also established. Based on the conditions observed, 0.45 acres and 674 linear feet of non-wetland water (NWW-1, NWW-2, and NWW-3) may be regulated by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW within the Review Area. All three federal wetland parameters were recorded at NWW-1 and NWW-3, although because it is within a riverine feature (San Diego River) and because the parameters were recorded below the OHWM of the river, it is considered a non-wetland water of the United States. Additionally, there are four riparian habitat areas (i.e., RIP-1, RIP-2, RIP-3, and RIP-4) under CDFW-only jurisdiction. Therefore, the CDFW jurisdictional total within the Review Area is 3.59 acres. This report can be used by the regulatory agencies to determine if they would regulate the features described herein.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 14
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
15269.02 15
JANUARY 2025
7 References
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979.

Reprinted 1992. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/documents/classification-of-wetlands-and-deepwaterhabitats-of-the-united-states.pdf.

Google Earth. 2023. Historical Aerials and Topographic Maps. Accessed 2023.Historical Aerials Online. 2023.

Historical Aerials by NETRonline. Accessed 2023. https://www.historicaerials.com/.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2023. Climate Division scale Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) dataset.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2021. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Adopted April 2, 2019; revised April 6, 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/procedures_conformed.pdf.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Online ed.

Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi:

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/Wetlands /1987-Army-Corps-Wetlands-Delineation-Manual.pdf.

USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet /FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046489.pdf.

USACE. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. Prepared by R.W.

Lichvar and S.M. McColley. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. August 2008. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic /tr/fulltext/u2/a486603.pdf.

USACE. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program, ERDC/CRREL TN-10-1.

Prepared by K.E. Curtis and R.W. Lichvar. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. July 2010.

USACE. 2017. Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. March 16, 2017. https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17 /Users/251/43/2043/Final%20Delin%20report%20standards%203-16-2017.pdf?ver =2017-03-16-170513-523.

USACE. 2023. Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) - v1.0.13. Accessed July 2023. https://github.com /jDeters-USACE/Antecedent-Precipitation-Tool/releases/tag/v1.0.13.

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 16
JANUARY 2025
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2023a. Web Soil Survey. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed July 2023. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

USDA. 2023b. “State Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov /Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1389479.html#reportref.

USDA. 2023c. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS). http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2023. “National Wetland Inventory” [map]. Accessed July 2023. http://www.fws.gov/data.

Mission Gorge Rd
Carlton Hills Blvd
N Cuyamaca St
Fanita Dr
N
Magnolia Ave
Mast Blvd
Prospect Ave
Woodside Ave
Cuyamaca St
Riverside Dr
El Nopal
Hal berns Blvd
Woodglen Vista Dr
Los Ranchitos Rd
Riverford Rd
Town Center Pkwy
Graves Ave
Civic Center Rd
Olive Ln River Park Dr
Carlton Oaks Dr
Lake Canyon Rd
Fanita Pkwy
N Woodside Ave
Be llCollo Ln
Riv erwalk Dr Carefre e Dr Jeremy St
Park Ave
Escadera Dr
Beck Dr Ranchitos Pl
Conejo Rd
Ed gemoor Dr
Via Nina
Delia Ln
Mavin Dr
Happy Ln
Cleary St
Bilteer Ct
Hinton Dr
N Ln
Bird St
Ramo Rd
Burrock Dr
Aquilla Dr
Valor P
C
l
arreta Dr
Amster Dr
Doheny Rd
Bellagio Rd
Les Rd
Larkridge St
Lairwood Dr
Julio Pl
Hillvale Ln
Ashdale Ln
CalleDella go
Pin o n Pl
Taffy Ln
Ruffin Rd
Ruo c c o Dr
Sunset Trail
Pinewood View
Maple Tree Rd
Sil vercreek Dr
Hartley Rd
C arita Rd
Molino R d
Pryor Dr
Wood sideTer
S toyer Dr
Mand eville Rd
Avanti Ave
Leavesly Trail
Vomac Rd
Via Leslie
LakeHill Rd
Claudia Av e
Holborn S t
Heatherdale St
North view Ln
Hillcreek Rd
Abraham
Way
Settle R d
Via Francis
WheatlandsAve
Ocotillo St
Bella Vista St
Gorge Ave
Bilteer Dr
Marand a Dr
Atlas View Dr
Via Rita
CecilwoodDr
Ramsgate Dr
Westhill RdShadow Hil l Rd
W Hean ey Cir
Braverman Dr
Abbeyfield Rd
Rai lroad Ave
Abbeywood Rd
SantanaSt
Susie Pl
Woodrose Ave
Cambury Dr
Pike Rd
Diamondback Dr
CalaLily
St
Len St
Canyo n Pa rk
Dr
E HeaneyCir
Pennywood Rd
Woodpark Dr
Karerllyn Dr
Lutheran W ay
Northcote Rd
Strath more Dr
Timberlane Way
Mariposa St
Cottonwood Ave
Galston Dr
2nd St
Willowgrove Ave
Sevilla Dr
Buena Vista Ave
D o mer Rd
Pebble Beach
Dr
125
52 67
San Diego River
Forester Creek

SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2023
Date: 1/7/2025 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ARDR\Figure1_ProjectVicinity.mxd Review Area
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
Imperial
Beach
La Mesa
La Quinta
Laguna
Niguel
Lake
Elsinore
Lemon Grove
Murrieta
Oceanside
Palm Springs
Poway
San Clemente
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Temecula
Vista
R i v e r s i d e
C o u n t y
905
52 54
94 163
188
241
125
56 86 111
78 74
74 67
76 79
805
215
15 5
8 Project Site

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
FIGURE 1
Project Vicinity
Santee 3 Project

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 18
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Frank Way
Leila Ln
Claudia Ave
Park Center Dr
Cottonwood Ave
Chubb La ne / Cottonwood Ave
Rm
TuB
Rm
W

SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2023, USDA Soils 2023
Date: 1/7/2025 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ARDR\Figure2_Soils.mxd Review Area
Soil Type
Riverwash - Rm
Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes - TuB
Water - W
0 125 250
Feet
San Diego River
FIGURE 2
Soils
Santee 3 Project

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 20
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 1/7/2025 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ARDR\Figure3_Hydrology.mxd

SAN DIEGO -
Lower San
Diego - Santee

SAN DIEGO -
Lower San Diego
- El Cajon
Sa
nD
ie
g
o
R
ive
r
Forester Creek
67 Hydrology
Santee 3 Project
SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2022, USFWS 2019, USGS 2019 0 650 1,300Feet Review Area
Hydrologic Unit - Area - Subarea
NHD Flowline
Stream/River
National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Riverine
Lake
FIGURE 3

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 22
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ODP-1
FWM
RIP-1
DEV
SCWRF
OW FWM
NWW-1
NWW-3
RIP-3
NWW-1
NWW-2
RIP-2
RIP-4
AWS
NNG
NNG
DEV
EUC
SCWRF
NNG
NNG
DH
EUC
DEV
NNGB
DH
DEV
DH
NNGB
DH
SCWRF
DH
ODP-2
Park Center Dr
Leila Ln
Claudia Ave
Chubb
Lane / Cottonwo od Ave
WSP-1
WSP-2
WSP-3a
WSP-3b
WSP-4b
WSP-4a

SOURCE: ESRI Im a gery 2023
Da te:1/8/2025-Lastsa ved b y:lterry -Path:Z:\Pro jec ts\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMEN T\ARDR\Figure5_ Po tentia lJurisdic tio na lAqua tic Reso urc esRW QCB+CDFW .m xd W etla nd Sa m pling Po int
Review Area

USACE/RWQCB/CDFW

Vegetation Communities and
Land Cover Types
Arro wweed Sc rub - AW S
Co a sta l a nd V a lley Freshwa ter
Ma rsh - FW M
Disturb ed Ha b ita t - DH
Euc a lyptus W o o dla nd - EUC
N o n-N a tive Gra ssla nd - N N G
N o n-N a tive Gra ssla nd: Bro a dlea fDo m ina ted - N N GB Open W a ter - OW
Orna m enta l Pla ntings - ORN
So uthern Co tto nwo o d-W illo w
Ripa ria n Fo rest - SCW RF
Urb a n/Develo ped - DEV
0 125 250
Feet
San Diego River
ODP-2
ODP-1
NWW-1 WSP-3a
RIP-1
SCWRF
NNG
FWM
San Diego River

Open W a ter,OW (N W W -2)
Co a sta la nd V a lleyFreshwa ter
Ma rsh,FW M(NWW-1, NWW-3)
CDFW Riparian Habitat
Arro wweed Sc rub ,AW S(RIP-2)
So uthern Co tto nwo o d-W illo w
Ripa ria n Fo rest,SCW RF(RIP-1,
RIP-3, RIP-4)
FIGURE 4
Po tentia lJurisdic tio na lAqua tic Reso urc es
Santee 3Pro jec t

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 24
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PP-14
PP-13
PP-9
PP-8
PP-7
PP-2
PP-1
PP-11 PP-12
PP-3
PP-4
PP-6
PP-5
PP-10
Eve Way
Leila Ln
Claudia Ave
Park Center Dr
Cottonwood Ave
Chu bb Lane / Cottonwood Ave

SOURCE: ESRI Imagery 2022
Date: 1/8/2025 - Last saved by: lterry - Path: Z:\Projects\j1526902\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ARDR\Figure6_PhotoPoints.mxd Review Area
Photo Point
0 125 250
Feet
San Diego River
FIGURE 5
Photo Point Locations
Santee 3 Project

COTTONWOOD AND PARK PROJECT / AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT 15269.02 26
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A
Antecedent Precipitation Tool Output

Dec
2022
Jan
2023
Feb
2023
Mar
2023
Apr
2023
May
2023
Jun
2023
Jul
2023
Aug
2023
Sep
2023
Oct
2023
Nov
2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
Rainfall (Inches)
2023-06-07 2023-07-07
2023-05-08
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in) 70th %ile (in) Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2023-07-07 0.0 0.0 0.090551 Wet 3 3 9
2023-06-07 0.0 0.222441 0.082677 Normal 2 2 4
2023-05-08 0.189764 0.828346 0.240157 Normal 2 1 2
Result Wetter than Normal - 15
Coordinates 32.848483, -116.975704
Observation Date 2023-07-07
Elevation (ft) 344.268
Drought Index (PDSI) Severe wetness (2023-06)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent EL CAJON 32.8006, -116.9281 495.079 4.311 150.811 2.59 10288 85 EL CAJON 2.3ENE 32.8112, -116.9254 609.908 0.749 114.829 0.423 42 2 EL CAJON 2.3 S 32.7698, -116.9593 737.861 2.795 242.782 1.936 0 3 LAKESIDE 2 E 32.8536, -116.8947 689.961 4.144 194.882 2.672 926 0 LA MESA 32.7675, -117.0233 529.856 5.984 34.777 2.901 66 0 SAN DIEGO MONTGOMERY FLD 32.8144, -117.1375 417.979 12.198 77.1 6.43 31 0

Jan
2023
Feb
2023
Mar
2023
Apr
2023
May
2023
Jun
2023
Jul
2023
Aug
2023
Sep
2023
Oct
2023
Nov
2023
Dec
2023
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Rainfall (Inches)
2023-06-20
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in) 70th %ile (in) Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2023-08-19 0.0 0.003543 0.0 Normal 2 3 6
2023-07-20 0.0 0.032677 0.0 Normal 2 2 4
2023-06-20 0.0 0.082283 0.035433 Normal 2 1 2
Result Normal Conditions - 12
Coordinates 32.848483, -116.975704
Observation Date 2023-08-19
Elevation (ft) 344.268
Drought Index (PDSI) Severe wetness (2023-07)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Dry Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent SAN DIEGO MONTGOMERY FLD 32.8144, -117.1375 417.979 9.684 73.711 5.072 8936 90 SAN DIEGO 1.5 WNW - KFMB 32.8266, -117.1569 425.853 1.407 7.874 0.644 1 0 SAN DIEGO 1.9 W 32.8139, -117.1693 366.142 1.847 51.837 0.927 4 0 SAN DIEGO 3.2 WNW 32.8353, -117.1859 374.016 3.159 43.963 1.56 4 0 SAN DIEGO MIRAMAR NAS 32.8667, -117.1333 477.034 3.622 59.055 1.844 2404 0 SAN DIEGO 7.9NE 32.8057, -117.0732 242.126 3.782 175.853 2.367 1 0 LA MESA 32.7675, -117.0233 529.856 7.382 111.877 4.148 3 0

Appendix B
Data Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Santee 3 City/County: Santee Sampling Date: 07/11/2023 Applicant/Owner: State: CA Sampling Point: WSP-1
Investigator(s): DA Section, Township, Range: 0, 15S, 1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Top of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 32.84754772 Long: -116.97711993 Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) NWI classification: PSSCx Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 50 x 2 = 100
FAC species 5 x 3 = 15
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 90 x 5 = 450
Column Totals: 145 (A) 565 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.9
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

X Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index ≤3.0¹
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 40 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 40 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 10 Yes FACW

2. Nicotiana glauca / Tree tobacco 5 Yes FAC

3. 4.

5. 15 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Avena barbata / Slim oat, Slender wild oat 90 Yes NI

2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 90 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
Remarks:

Point collected at top of slope, leading down to riparian/wetland area, collected beneath canopy on slope City Ventures
SOIL Sampling Point: WSP-1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/4 100 Fine Sndy Lm Very loose sand
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Santee 3 City/County: Santee Sampling Date: 07/11/2023 Applicant/Owner: State: CA Sampling Point: WSP-2
Investigator(s): DA Section, Township, Range: 0, 15S, 1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Low area with facw veg Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): C Lat: 32.84856362 Long: -116.97673039 Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks:

Point collected in area with thick cover of facw vegetation, no noticeable change in elevation from upland area VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 100 x 2 = 200
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
Column Totals: 100 (A) 200 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

X Dominance Test is >50%
X Prevalence Index ≤3.0¹
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. Pluchea sericea / Arrow weed, Arrow-weed 100 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 5.
100 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
0 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 100 % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
City Ventures
SOIL Sampling Point: WSP-2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-14 10YR 3/3 100 Fine Sndy Lm
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
Sample was poorly consolidated fine sand that fell apart easily; no stratification seen in sample or on pit walls.

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Santee 3 City/County: Santee Sampling Date: 08/22/2023 Applicant/Owner: State: CA Sampling Point: WSP-3a
Investigator(s): DA Section, Township, Range: 0, 15S, 1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Edge of river Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: 32.84755483333333 Long: -116.975398 Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks: Sample collected at edge of river with obligate vegetation present; standing water visible.

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 50 Yes FACW

2. Tamarix parviflora / Tamarisk, Smallflower tamarisk 10 No FAC

3. 4.
60 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 15 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 5.
15 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Anemopsis californica / Yerba mansa 35 Yes OBL

2. Typha domingensis / Cattail, Southern cattail 35 Yes OBL

3. Avena barbata / Slim oat, Slender wild oat 30 Yes NI

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 100 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 70 x 1 = 70
FACW species 65 x 2 = 130
FAC species 10 x 3 = 30
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 30 x 5 = 150
Column Totals: 175 (A) 380 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.17
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
City Ventures
SOIL Sampling Point: WSP-3a
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 Sandy Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Sample taken in standing water; hydric soils assumed based on predominance of mature, hydrophytic, vegetation, and clear indicators of wetland hydrology.

Pit collected below OHWM of river; dark organic soils not consolidated, difficult to collect intact sample. Some sulfide odor detected but not consistent enough to use A4

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) X Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) X Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) X High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) X Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) X Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) X Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) X FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 5
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Santee 3 City/County: Santee Sampling Date: 08/22/2023 Applicant/Owner: State: CA Sampling Point: WAP-3b
Investigator(s): DA Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Top of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: 32.84766833 Long: -116.97538783 Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) NWI classification: Forested Wetland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 70 x 2 = 140
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
UPL species 95 x 5 = 475
Column Totals: 165 (A) 615 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.73
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 60 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 60 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 10 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 5.
10 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Avena barbata / Slim oat, Slender wild oat 85 Yes NI

2. Cucurbita palmata / Coyote melon 10 No NI

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
95 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
0, 15S, 1W
C
City Ventures
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-13 10YR 3/4 100 Sandy Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WSP-3b
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Santee 3 City/County: Santee Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: CA Sampling Point: WSP-4a
Investigator(s): DA Section, Township, Range: 0, 15S, 1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Edge of river Local relief (concave, convex, none): concave Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: 32.847611 Long: -116.978491 Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks: Point collected within freshwater marsh vegetation at edge of river VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 10 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 10 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. Salix gooddingii / Gooding's willow, Goodding's black willow 20 Yes FACW

2. 3.

4. 5.
20 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Typha domingensis / Cattail, Southern cattail 40 Yes OBL

2. Avena barbata / Slim oat, Slender wild oat 25 Yes NI

3. Erigeron bonariensis / Flax-leaved horseweed 10 No FACU

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 75 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 25 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 40 x 1 = 40
FACW species 30 x 2 = 60
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 25 x 5 = 125
Column Totals: 105 (A) 265 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.52
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes X No
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
06/07/2024
Forested Wetland
C
City Ventures
SOIL Sampling Point: WSP-4a
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-8 2.5YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam
8-14 2.5YR 3/1 60 Sandy Loam
8-14 10YR 2/1 40
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) Reduced Vertic (F18) X Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks: Reduced conditions initially indicated by dark/black material oozing from just beneath brownish top layer of soil when taking steps around area. Hydrogen sulfide present in area before and after digging, lingered in pit.

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2
Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 2
Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Santee 3 City/County: Santee Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: CA Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): DA Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Top of slope Local relief (concave, convex, none): convex Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: 32.84769915521013 Long: -116.9784665159663 Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) NWI classification: Forested Wetland Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation No , Soil No , or Hydrology No naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No X
Remarks: Point collected in upland area adjacent to river, near walking path VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15-ft )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 0 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5-ft )

1. Avena barbata / Slim oat, Slender wild oat 65 Yes NI

2. Erigeron bonariensis / Flax-leaved horseweed 10 No FACU

3. Hirschfeldia incana / Mustard 1 No NI

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 76 = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30-ft )

1. 2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 5 % Cover of Biotic Crust Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40
UPL species 66 x 5 = 330
Column Totals: 76 (A) 370 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.87
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index ≤3.0¹
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WSP-4b
06/07/2024
0, 15S, 1W
C
City Ventures
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type¹ Loc² Texture Remarks 0-15 10YR 3/4 100 Sandy Loam
¹Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches):

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
WSP-4b

Appendix C
Review Area Photos

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-1
JANUARY 2025
Photo 1. View of WSP-1 shown, facing north. Sample point collected beneath southern willow scrub canopy at southern edge of the Review Area. Willow canopy shown intermixed with non-native grasses growing along the sloped lands leading down to the San Diego River.

Photo 2. View of WSP-2 shown, facing west. Point taken in arrowweed scrub vegetation community near western edge of Review Area. This area is dominated by arrowweed and exhibited loose, sandy soils, and no herbaceous cover.

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-2
JANUARY 2025
Photo 3. View of WSP-3a shown, facing southeast, looking downslope. Sample point collected beneath riparian canopy at shift between upland slope and NWW-1 feature. Willow, yerba mansa, and cattail pictured at or below OHWM. Flowing water observed just below OHWM, obscured by vegetation in this image.

Photo 4. View of WSP-3b shown, facing northwest, looking upslope. Point taken beneath riparian canopy which extends upslope from river channel at southern edge of Review Area. Understory is mix of non-native grasses and other herbaceous species.

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-3
JANUARY 2025
Photo 5. View of ODP-1 collected at a non-jurisdictional swale, facing south. Swale occurs on southern edge of Review Area and directs water towards the river channel. This feature did not exhibit an OHWM and is not depicted on any report figures.

Photo 6. View of ODP-2 collected at NWW-1, facing south-southwest. Photo collected from top of slope leading down towards NWW-1; shift between vegetation communities depicted [upland grasses on slope; riparian tree/shrub community near NWW-1 OHWM; cattails below NWW-1 OHWM in background; riparian tree/shrub community beyond cattails on opposite bank of river (outside Review Area)]

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-4
JANUARY 2025
Photo 7. View collected from within community park, facing south. Border between ornamental park lands and arrowweed community shown.

Photo 8. Additional view of arrowweed scrub community, facing southwest. Photo collected from walking path near public parking lot. Difference in elevation shown between arrowweed community and parking area to the north (right hand side of photo). Disturbed habitat shown on lefthand side; evidence of offroad vehicle use observed.

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-5
JANUARY 2025
Photo 9. View of upland portion of Review Area, facing west. Photo collected from eastern portion of Review Area along informal walking path. Non-native grassland pictured.

Photo 10. Additional view of upland portions of Review Area, facing west. Photo collected from the southeast corner of Review Area. Riparian vegetation associated with San Diego River shown adjacent to Review Area boundary on lefthand side of image.

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-6
JANUARY 2025
Photo 11. Additional view of riparian vegetation occurring near southern edge of Review Area. Flat Review Area lands shown on righthand side; sloped lands leading down to San Diego River shown on lefthand side of image.

Photo 12. Additional view of riparian vegetation occurring near southern edge of Review Area. Small section of southern willow scrub vegetation shown growing within limits of Review Area, adjacent to walking path.

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-7
JANUARY 2025
Photo 13. View of WSP-4a facing southeast. Sample point collected within freshwater marsh at southwestern corner of the Review Area. Freshwater marsh occurs within the open water portion of the San Diego River.

Photo 14. View of WSP-4b facing south. Sample point collected above freshwater marsh (WSP-4a) within nonnative grassland mapped in the southwestern corner of the Review Area.

APPENDIX C / REVIEW AREA PHOTOS
15269.02 C-8
JANUARY 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix C
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 381-
051-18-00
Santee, California 92071
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
November 29, 2023
Prepared for:

City Ventures
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, California 92612
Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
735 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 280
San Bernardino, California 92408
Project No.: 185806312
Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals Project No.: 185806312
This document entitled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Report) was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of City Ventures (the “Client”). The conclusions in the Report are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared.

The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk.

Stantec can neither warrant nor guarantee that information received from the “Client” and third parties in the preparation of the Report is correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein.

This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client (the Master Services Agreement, or “MSA”). While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the Client is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and conditions of the MSA, the MSA shall control.

I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312, (40 CFR 312). I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the property. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Author:

Jennifer Alvarado
Associate Scientist
Quality Reviewer:

Alicia Jansen
Senior Scientist
Independent Reviewer:

Kyle D. Emerson, C.E.G.

Managing Principal

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806312 i
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................III

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1.1

2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................2.1

2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.........................................................................2.2

2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS.......................2.2

2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ...............................................................2.3

2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS..................................................................................2.3

3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION...............................................................................3.1

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ......................................................................................................4.1

4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING.....................................................................................................4.1

4.1.1 Subject Property Topography and Surface Water Flow ...............................4.2

4.1.2 Regional and Subject Property Geology ......................................................4.2

4.1.3 Regional and Subject Property Hydrogeology..............................................4.2

4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS................................4.2

4.2.1 Listings for Subject Property.........................................................................4.3

4.2.2 Listings for Adjoining and Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Subject Property ...........................................................................................4.3

4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS.....................................................4.4

4.3.1 Environmental Health Department ...............................................................4.4

4.3.2 Fire Department............................................................................................4.4

4.3.3 City and County Department Records..........................................................4.5

4.3.4 State Department Records ...........................................................................4.5

4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW................................................................................4.6

4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds ............................................................................4.6

4.4.2 Aerial Photographs .......................................................................................4.6

4.4.3 City Directories .............................................................................................4.7

4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps .....................................................................4.7

4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps ........................................................................4.8

4.4.6 Other Historical Sources...............................................................................4.8

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................................5.1

5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY ...............................................................5.1

5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................5.1

5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ..................................5.2

5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS.........................................................................................5.2

5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................5.2

5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES .................................................5.3

5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS ...........................................................................5.3

5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES ...........................................................................................5.3

5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ...........................................................5.3

5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties............................5.4

5.8.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties .........................................5.4

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806312 ii

5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................5.4

6.0 INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................6.1

7.0 EVALUATION................................................................................................................7.1

7.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS...........................................................................................7.1

7.2 DATA GAPS...................................................................................................................7.2

7.3 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................7.3

8.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................8.1

8.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT.....................................................................................................8.1

8.2 ASBESTOS ....................................................................................................................8.1

8.3 RADON ..........................................................................................................................8.2

8.4 FLOOD ZONES .............................................................................................................8.2

9.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................9.1

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Subject Property and Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2 Subject Property Map

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VICINITY..................................... A APPENDIX B STANTEC RESUMES .......................................................................................... B APPENDIX C USER PROVIDED RECORDS ............................................................................. C APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT ......................... E APPENDIX E HISTORICAL RECORDS ...................................................................................... F

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806312 iii
Abbreviations
AAI All Appropriate Inquiries
AP Alquist-Priolo
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM ASTM International
AUL Activity Use Limitation
BER Business Environmental Risk
Bgs Below Ground Surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
EP Environmental Professional
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
ft amsl Feet above mean sea level
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VES Vapor Encroachment Screen
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ExecutIve Summary
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 1.1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report of the property located adjacent to the intersection of Cottonwood Avenue and Park Center Drive, in the city of Santee, San Diego County, California (the “Subject Property”), on behalf of City Ventures (the “Client”). The work was performed according to the MSA. City Ventures (the “User”) has been designated as the User of this report. The intended use of this Phase I ESA is for due diligence in support of potential redevelopment.

The Phase I ESA was conducted in conformance with the requirements of ASTM International (ASTM) Designation E1527-21, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312 (40 CFR 312), except as may have been modified by the scope of work, and terms and conditions, requested by the Client. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, the ASTM or AAI practice are described in Section 2.3.

The Subject Property consists of approximately 20.96 acres of vacant land and is associated with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 381-051-18-00. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby area, are commercial, residential, and open space. A Subject Property Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A Subject Property Vicinity Map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property and vicinity is provided as Figure 2. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.

Historical records indicate the Subject Property was primarily vacant land between the early 1900s to early 2000s, partially developed in the southeast corner with a potential storage yard in the early to mid2000s, and vacant land again by the late 2000s to present day. The eastern portion of the Subject Property appears to have been cleared and possibly utilized for agricultural purposes in the 1949 photograph. This possible historical agricultural use was identified as a recognized environmental condition (REC) to the Subject Property in a Phase I ESA completed by Stantec in November of 2017.

To assess this REC as identified in the 2017 Phase I ESA, Stantec completed a Phase II ESA on November 16, 2017 for the Subject Property. That Phase II ESA included shallow soil sampling to evaluate the potential presence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and the metals lead and arsenic, often associated with herbicide application, in relation to the potential historical agricultural use. A total of twenty-one (21) soil samples were collected from one-foot below ground surface (bgs) across the Subject Property. Each soil sample was analyzed for OCPs, lead, and arsenic. There were no detections of OCPs above reporting levels in any of the soil samples analyzed (i.e., the results were “non-detect”). Arsenic was only reported at one location, HA-4, at 5.6 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is well within the expected naturallyoccurring background concentrations and below anticipated regulatory cleanup levels for arsenic. Lead was detected 19 of 21 soil samples at concentrations ranging between 1.1 and 34 mg/kg. All detections of lead were well below the residential U.S. EPA regional screening level (RSL) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) HERO Note 3 residential screening level of 80 mg/kg, and within expected naturally-occurring background concentrations. Based on these results, the historical agricultural use of

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ExecutIve Summary
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 1.2
the Subject Property was determined not to be a recognized environmental condition, and no further assessment was warranted in the 2017 Phase II ESA. Stantec continues to support that conclusion.

We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the Subject Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), Historical RECs (HRECs) and/or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property.

This assessment has revealed the following items of note in connection with the Subject Property:
• Historical records indicate the Subject Property was partially developed in the southeast corner with a storage yard comprised of multiple potential containers and/or vehicles in the early to mid2000s. No records of spills or releases are listed, and no evidence of spills and/or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance; therefore, Stantec concludes that this historical use does not represent a REC.
• According the EDR report, the southwestern portion of the Subject Property lies within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone. Additionally, the southern border of the Subject Property falls within the National Wetland Inventory, and adjoins the San Diego River to the south. It is recommended that a wetland delineation be conducted on the Subject Property prior to redevelopment, in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. If wetlands are identified, development of the Subject Property should proceed in accordance with the wetlandsrelated requirements of the state and local authorities.

The preceding summary is intended for informational purposes only. Reading of the full body of this report is recommended.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 2.1

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this Phase I ESA was to perform AAI into the past ownership and uses of the Subject Property consistent with good commercial or customary practice as outlined by ASTM International (ASTM) in “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” Designation E1527-21. “All Appropriate Inquiries” is the process for evaluating a property’s environmental condition for the purpose of qualifying for landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) following final rule of Part 312 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 312). The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, adverse environmental conditions, including recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”), in connection with the Subject Property.

The ASTM E1527-21 standard indicates that the goal of the Phase I ESA is to identify RECs, as well as historical recognized environmental conditions (“HRECs”) and controlled recognized environmental conditions (“CRECs”), that may exist at a property. The term “recognized environmental conditions” is defined as:
1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release to the environment;
2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

ASTM defines a “HREC” as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority and meets current unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (e.g., activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). A HREC is not considered a REC.

ASTM defines a “CREC” as a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), but with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).

As defined by ASTM, RECs can include hazardous substances or petroleum products present under conditions in compliance with laws if that presence represents a material threat of future release. The release of hazardous substances or petroleum products is, however, not a REC if that presence is a de minimis condition. De minimis conditions are minor releases that generally do not present a material risk

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 2.2
to human health and would not likely be subject to enforcement action if brought to the attention of governmental agencies. ASTM also considers the potential for a business environmental risk (BER), defined as a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the Subject Property, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated by the ASTM standard. Consideration of BERs may involve addressing one or more ASTM non-scope considerations.

This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with the MSA, based on the scope of work set forth in the proposal provided to Client. The scope of work conducted during this Phase I ESA consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the Subject Property, interviews with key individuals, and review of reasonably ascertainable documents. The scope of work did not include an assessment for environmental regulatory compliance of any facility ever operated at the Subject Property (past or present), or sampling and analyzing of environmental media. Stantec was not contracted to perform an independent evaluation of the purchase or lease price of the Subject Property and its relationship to current fair market value. The conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA report are professional opinions based on data described herein. The opinions are subject to the limitations described in Section 2.3.

ASTM E1527-21 notes that the availability of record information varies from source to source. The User or Environmental Professional (EP) is not obligated to identify, obtain, or review every possible source that might exist with respect to a property. Instead, ASTM identifies record information that is reasonably ascertainable from standard sources. “Reasonably ascertainable” means:

1. Information that is publicly available;

2. Information that is obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost constraints; and

3. Information that is practicably reviewable.

2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property consists of approximately 20.96 acres of land, and is associated with Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 381-051-18-00. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby area, are commercial, residential, and open space. A Subject Property Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A Subject Property Vicinity Map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property and vicinity is provided as Figure 2.

Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.

2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL

ASSUMPTIONS
There were no special terms, conditions, or additional assumptions associated with this Phase I ESA.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 2.3

2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report documents work that was performed in accordance with the MSA. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report.

This report provides an evaluation of specified environmental conditions associated with the identified property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. 40 CFR 312.20(f)(2) requires that the Environmental Professional evaluate the thoroughness and reliability of provided information. Stantec can neither warrant nor guarantee such thoroughness or reliability, however.

Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the preparation of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property’s environmental condition.

Project Specific limiting conditions are provided in Section 2.2.

The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time of the work.

Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. The identification of non-environmental risks to structures or people on the Property is beyond the scope of this assessment.

Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report if new or different information later becomes available or if the conditions or activities on the property subsequently change.

2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
This Phase I ESA was conducted by, or under the supervision of, an individual that meets the ASTM definition of an EP. The credentials of the EP and other key Stantec personnel involved in conducting this Phase I ESA are provided in Appendix B.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
User-Provided Information
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 3.1

3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-21 describe responsibilities of the User to complete certain tasks in connection with the performance of “All Appropriate Inquiries” into the Subject Property. The ASTM standard requires that the EP request information from the User on the results of those tasks because that information can assist in the identification of RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions in connection with the Subject Property. Towards that end, Stantec requested that the User provide the following documents and information:

Description of Information
Provided
(Yes / No) Description and/or Key Findings
User Questionnaire and/or Interview Yes The User is not aware of any environmental cleanup liens and/or activity and land use
limitations associated with the Subject
Property. The User is not aware of any past
use or chemical/petroleum storage on the
Subject Property.

Environmental Liens or Activity and Use
Limitations (AUL)
N/A No environmental liens and/or activity and
use limitations were identified in the
Amended Preliminary Title Report prepared
by Fidelity National Title dated November 10,
2023. Stantec also notes that no
environmental liens or activity and use
limitations were identified in Stantec’s review
of the governmental databases.

Previous Environmental Permits or
Reports Provided by User
Yes Stantec completed a Phase I and II
Environmental Site Assessment, dated
November 16, 2017, for the Subject Property.

The findings of this report are summarized in
Section 4.4.6.

Purpose of the Phase I ESA Yes The intended use of the Phase I ESA is for contemplated redevelopment of the Subject
Property.

User-provided documents are provided in Appendix C.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.1

4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
The objective of consulting historical sources of information is to develop the history of the Subject Property and surrounding area and evaluate if past uses may have resulted in RECs. Physical setting records are evaluated to determine if the physical setting may have contributed to adverse environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. During the review of historical records, Stantec attempted to identify uses of the Subject Property from the present to the first developed use of the Subject Property. Stantec’s research included the reasonably ascertainable and useful records described in this section.

4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
A summary of the physical setting of the Subject Property is provided in the table below with additional details in the following subsections:

Topography: According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) El Cajon topographic map provided in the Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) Physical Setting Source Addendum
(Appendix D), the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the Subject Property is to the south southwest and the Subject Property is located at approximately 343 feet above mean sea level (ft. amsl).

Soil/Bedrock Data: The United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), Web Soil
Survey identifies the soils beneath the Subject Property as somewhat excessively drained Tujunga sand. A typical soil profile is comprised of sand (0-14 inches), loamy sand (14- 33 inches), and stratified gravelly sand to gravelly loamy sand (33-59 inches).

Estimated Depth to Groundwater/
Estimated Direction of Gradient:

Site specific groundwater investigations were not conducted during this ESA; however, according to a 2013 groundwater monitoring report for a nearby site located approximately 500 feet to the east of the Subject Property, groundwater in the vicinity is approximately 14.16-14.90 feet below top of well casing (btoc) with an estimated flow direction generally to the west southwest at a gradient of 0.001 feet/foot.

NOTE:

Site-specific groundwater flow direction and depth can only be determined by conducting site-specific testing, which Stantec has not conducted.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.2

4.1.1 Subject Property Topography and Surface Water Flow The Subject Property is located at an elevation of approximately 343 ft amsl. Based on the topography and existing surface conditions, general surface water flow is to the southwest.

4.1.2 Regional and Subject Property Geology
The Subject Property is located within the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin (9-015). The basin comprised of alluvium deposited by San Diego River and associated tributaries. The basin is surrounded by Eocene Poway Group semi-permeable rock, impermeable Cretaceous crystalline rock, and impermeable Jurassic and Cretaceous Santiago Peak volcanic rock. (DWR, 2003).

According to California DOC Earthquake Zone Map (Department of Conservation Map Server (ca.gov)), the Subject Property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. The closest fault zone is located approximately 12 miles to the west of the Subject Property.

4.1.3 Regional and Subject Property Hydrogeology
The Subject Property is located with the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin (9-015). The main water-bearing formations are Quaternary alluvial deposits, which are comprised of well-sorted sands buried in river channels, with a coarse layer of gravel towards the aquifer base. Towards the city of Santee, the alluvium becomes more silty and clayey. Alluvium reaches thicknesses between 70 and 200 feet within the basin. Bedrock restricts groundwater flow at the San Diego River discharge at Mission Gorge. Current recharge includes dam releases, underflow past dams, flow from Forester Creek and other creeks, precipitation, and municipal discharge from wastewater treatment plants (DWR, 2003).

According the EDR report, the southwestern portion of the Subject Property lies within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone. Additionally, the southern border of the Subject Property falls within the National Wetland Inventory.

4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
A regulatory agency database search report was obtained from EDR, a third-party environmental database search firm. A complete copy of the database search report, including the date the report was prepared, the date the information was last updated, and the definition of databases searched, is provided in Appendix D.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.3
Stantec evaluated the information listed within the database relative to potential impact to the Subject Property, assessing the potential for impacts based in part on the physical setting. As part of this process, inferences have been made regarding the likely groundwater flow direction at or near the Subject Property. As described in 4.1.3, the inferred shallow groundwater flow direction is likely to be in the west southwest. Observations about the Subject Property and adjoining properties made during the Subject Property reconnaissance are provided in more detail in Section 5.

4.2.1 Listings for Subject Property
The Subject Property was not identified in the environmental database report.

4.2.2 Listings for Adjoining and Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Subject Property
Stantec assessed data presented in the environmental agency database search report to evaluate the potential for conditions on adjoining and nearby sites to pose a REC, CREC, or HREC for the Subject Property. The evaluation included an opinion of the potential for contamination by hazardous substances or petroleum products to migrate to the Subject Property from an adjoining or nearby site, including by vapor migration or encroachment (i.e., potential for a vapor encroachment condition [VEC]. ASTM E2600- 22 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (ASTM, 2022) was used as the basis for a Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) for the Subject Property. This included evaluation of release sites within 1/10 mile for Petroleum Hydrocarbon releases, and 1/3 mile for volatile and semi-volatile organic compound (VOC, SVOC), plus other potential vapor phase contaminants (such as mercury).

Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing Distance/Direction from Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
RCP Block and Brick/RCP
Company Inc.
0 Cottonwood Ave/9631
Magnolia Ave.

Santee, CA

CPS-SLIC, CERS, LUST,

CHMIRS, EMI, SAN
DIEGO CO. SAM, SAN
DIEGO CO. HMMD HIST

UST, CORTESE, HWTS,

NPDES, SAN DIEGO CO

LOP, CIWQS

0.096-0.255 mile/506-
1,349 feet adjoining
east/northeast at
higher elevation
No
The former brick manufacturing site is listed in the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database as a release case with closure received 11/29/2016. Hydraulic oil impacts to soil are reported at the site associated with former brick press, brick press sump, and site building. Approximately 286 tons of impacted soil were excavated from the site in 2016. Groundwater sampling indicated that constituents in soil did not reach groundwater. The case received closure in 2016.

The site is listed again the GeoTracker database as a release case with closure received 8/19/2015. In 2004, three USTs containing gasoline and diesel, ranging from 8,000-12,000 gallons, were removed from the site. 50 cubic yards were also excavated from the site at this time. Given limited subsurface impacts reported and lack of impact to groundwater, it was concluded that natural attenuation would achieve remediation goals. The case received closure in 2015.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.4
Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing Distance/Direction from Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
Based on soil excavation and LUST removal activities, and no impacts to groundwater reported, the site is not considered a REC for the Subject Property.

RCP Pit and Mill
Santee, CA
MINES MRDS 0.118 mile/621 feet
east southeast at
higher elevation
No
The site is listed as a former sand and gravel mining operation. No additional details are provided.

Based on review of historical aerial photographs, the mine appears to have been in operation between the 1960s and early 2000s. The former mining area to the east has been subsequently developed. The former mining area to the south appears to be ponded water within San Diego River. Given there are no reported violations or releases, and the site has been redeveloped, this does not represent a REC for the Subject Property.

The remaining listings in the database search report, including listings of Orphan Sites provided in Appendix D do not constitute a potential REC for the Subject Property.

4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Stantec checked the following sources to obtain information pertaining to Subject Property use and/or indications of RECs in connection with the Subject Property:

4.3.1 Environmental Health Department
Agency Name
Contact Information Finding
Custodian of Records
San Diego County Environmental
Health and Quality
Via email:
[email protected]
Submitted on November 17, 2023
On November 17, 2023, the agency responded with no
records for the Subject Property.

4.3.2 Fire Department
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
San Diego County Fire Authority/Fire
Protection District
Via email:

[email protected]
On November 20, 2023, the agency responded with no
records for the Subject Property.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.5
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
Date Submitted: November 17, 2023

4.3.3 City and County Department Records
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
County of San Diego Planning and
Development Services
Via online:

PDS Public Records Request
(sandiegocounty.gov)
Date Submitted: November 17, 2023
As of the writing of this report, a complete response has not been received from the agency. Should any pertinent
information become available and addendum to the report will be issued. However, given there is no history of development on the Subject Property the lack of a response is not
considered a significant data gap and is unlikely to impact the findings of this report.

4.3.4 State Department Records
Agency Name
Contact Information Finding
Custodian of Records
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB)
Online database: GeoTracker (ca.gov)
Via email: [email protected]
Submitted and accessed on November 17, 2023
Stantec researched Geotracker, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board public
database, to evaluate if there are any reported
releases at the Subject Property or on adjoining
properties. There were no release sites listed for
the Subject Property. Releases for adjoining
properties are described in detail in Section 4.2.2.

Additionally, the SDRWQCB responded on
November 17, 2023, that they do not have current
or historical records for the Subject Property.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
Envirostor database
San Diego Regional Office
Online database:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Via email:

[email protected]
Stantec researched Envirostor, the DTSC public
database, to evaluate if there are any reported
releases at the Subject Property or on adjoining
properties. There were no release sites listed for
the Subject Property or the adjoining properties
within a 1/8-mile radius.

Additionally, the DTSC responded on November
17, 2023, that they do not have current or historical
records for the Subject Property.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.6
Submitted and accessed on November 17, 2023
California Geologic Energy Management
(CalGEM)
Online database:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder
Accessed: November 17, 2023
The California Department of Conservation
Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM)
database was searched to identify the potential
existence of oil and gas production wells within the
vicinity of the Subject Property. No oil or gas wells
were located within the Subject Property
boundaries or vicinity. The closest well is located
approximately four miles northeast and is listed as
idle (API 0407300007). No releases are reported
for this well. Therefore, this well is not considered
a REC for the Subject Property.

4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW

4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds
No environmental liens and/or activity and use limitations were identified in the Amended Preliminary Title Report prepared by Fidelity National Title dated November 10, 2023. No other land title records, deeds, environmental liens, and activity and use limitation documentation were provided by the User, and public records were not searched by Stantec.

4.4.2 Aerial Photographs
Stantec reviewed historical aerial photographs provided by EDR. The general type of activity on a property and land use changes can often be discerned from the type and layout of structures visible in the photographs. However, specific elements of a facility's operation usually cannot be discerned from aerial photographs alone. The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations of the reviewed historical aerial photographs. Copies of the historical aerial photographs are provided in Appendix E.

Year Scale Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby Properties 1949 1”=500’ The Subject Property appears primarily vacant land and bound to the east by a road and to the south by a stream. The eastern portion of the Subject Property appears to possibly be utilized for agricultural purposes. An unimproved path is depicted in the center of the Subject Property. Adjoining to the west, east, and south appear vacant. Adjoining to the north appears vacant and agriculturally developed.
1953
1964
1966
1970
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears vacant and bound to the east by a road and to the south by a stream. An unimproved path is depicted in the center of the Subject Property. Adjoining to the west, and east appear vacant. Adjoining to the north appears vacant and agriculturally developed. Adjoining to the south within the stream appears several ponded areas with land that appears to have been worked and/or excavated. By 1964, adjoining east appears

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.7
Year Scale Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby Properties partially industrially developed and the excavated land to the south appears to have increased. By 1970, the pit is shown to be largely ponded. 1979
1985
1989
1994
1996
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears vacant with multiple unimproved paths and is bound to the east by a road and to the south by a large, excavated pit partially filled with water (potential mining operation). The pit appears to lie within the route of the stream. Adjoining sites to the north and west appear vacant. Adjoining east are residences, industrial development, and additional open pits, many which appear to be filled with water.
2002
2005
2009
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears to be partially developed with a storage area and is depicted with multiple containers and/or vehicles. Adjoining properties appear similar to the 1996 photo. Several baseball fields are shown adjacent to the northwest. Dense urban development is depicted ¼ mile out within the vicinity. By 2009, commercial development and graded land are depicted adjoining north.
2012
2016
2020
1”=500’ The storage area on the Subject Property appears largely vacant with the exception of several vehicles. Adjoining north is vacant and commercially developed land. Adjoining south is a large pond and vacant land. Adjoining west are vacant and sports fields. Adjoining east are residences, and industrial development with open pits. By 2016, the Subject Property appears vacant, and the industrial adjoining land appears partly demolished. By 2020, the east adjoining land appears fully demolished and graded. An area of potential fill/reworked soil is observed on the Subject Property in the northwest portion.

Aerial photographs source: The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package

4.4.3 City Directories
Stantec retained a third party to research available city directories for the Subject Property and adjoining and nearby properties, in approximately five-year intervals. Copies of the city directory listings are provided in Appendix E.

Stantec retained a third party to research available city directories for the Subject Property and adjoining and nearby properties, in approximately five-year intervals. The Subject Property is not listed in the city directory. Adjoining properties are generally commercial and residential listings.

4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Fire insurance maps were developed for use by insurance companies to depict facilities, properties, and their uses for many locations throughout the United States. These maps provide information on the history of prior land use and are useful in assessing whether there may be potential environmental contamination on or near the Subject Property. These maps, which have been periodically updated since the late 19th century, often provide valuable insight into historical Subject Property and adjoining and nearby property uses.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.8
Stantec requested fire insurance maps from EDR; no coverage exists for the Subject Property. The Sanborn® Map Search Report indicating “No Coverage” is presented in Appendix E.

4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps
Stantec reviewed historical USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Maps of the El Cajon and La Mesa, California Quadrangles (scale 1:24,000), and the historical USGS 15-minute Topographic Maps of the El Cajon and La Jolla, California Quadrangles (scale 1:50,000 and 1:62,500) to help identify past Subject Property and adjoining and nearby property usage and areas of potential environmental concern. Copies of the historical maps are provided in Appendix E.

The following table summarizes the maps reviewed and our observations.

Year Scale
Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby
Properties
1893
1901
1903
1:62,500
1:62,500
1:62,500
The Subject Property and adjoining properties are depicted as vacant.

The vicinity shows a stream ¼ mile to the south.
1939
1942
1947
1948
1955
1967
1975
1996
1:62,500
1:62,500
1:62,500
1:50,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
The Subject Property is depicted as vacant and bound to the east by a road and to the south by a streambed. Adjoining properties appear vacant. The vicinity is partially developed ½ mile south in Santee. By 1967, a sandpit operation is depicted adjoining to the south and east. 2012
2015
2018
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
Structures are not depicted on the map.

Historical topographic maps source: The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report Features identified in the historical topographic maps do not represent a REC to the Subject Property.

4.4.6 Other Historical Sources
Stantec completed a Phase I and II ESA with the report dated November 16, 2017 for the Subject Property.

The Phase II ESA included shallow soil sampling to evaluate for potential presence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and the metals lead and arsenic associated with herbicides from potential historical agricultural use on the Subject Property. The Phase II ESA included the collection of twenty-one (21) soil samples from one-foot below ground surface (bgs) across the Subject Property. Each of these soil samples were analyzed for OCPs, lead, and arsenic. There were no detections of OCPs above reporting levels (i.e. non-detect) in all of the soil samples analyzed. Arsenic was only reported above reporting levels at one

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 4.9
location, HA-4 at 5.6 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) which is within the expected background concentrations and below the anticipated regulatory cleanup levels for arsenic of 12 mg/kg. Lead was detected 19 of 21 soil samples at concentrations ranging between 1.1 and 34 mg/kg. All detections of lead were below the residential U.S. EPA regional screening level (RSL) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) HERO note 3 residential screening level of 80 mg/kg for residential use and within expected background concentrations. Based on these results, historical agricultural use was determined not to be a recognized environmental condition and no further assessment was warranted in the 2017 Phase II ESA. Stantec continues to support that conclusion.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 5.1

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A visit to the Subject Property and its vicinity was conducted by Alex Sobolew, Geologic Staff with Stantec, on November 13, 2023. Stantec was unaccompanied during the Subject Property visit. Figure 2 provides information about the Subject Property and adjoining sites and the location of potential areas of environmental concern. Detailed Subject Property features are shown on Figure 2. Photographs collected during the site reconnaissance are included in Appendix A.

5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY
The site reconnaissance focused on observation of current conditions and observable indications of past uses and conditions of the Subject Property that may indicate the presence of RECs. The reconnaissance of the Property was conducted on foot and Stantec utilized the following methodology to observe the Property:
• Traverse the outer Subject Property boundary
• Traverse transects across the Subject Property
Weather conditions during the visit to the Subject Property were clear and sunny. There were no weatherrelated Subject Property access restrictions encountered during the reconnaissance visit.

5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Subject Property and Area
Description:

The Subject Property is vacant and located east of Cottonwood Avenue, in the City of Santee, San Diego County, California. The surrounding area is a mix of residential properties, vacant land, and a park.

Subject Property
Operations:

The Subject Property is currently vacant.

Structures, Roads, Other
Improvements:

The Subject Property features unpaved dirt roads.

Subject Property Size
(acres):

20.96 acres
Estimated % of Subject
Property Covered by
Buildings and/or Pavement:
0%
Observed Current Subject
Property Use/Operations:

None observed.

Observed Evidence of Past
Subject Property Use(s):

None observed.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 5.2
Sewage Disposal Method
(and age):

Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

Potable Water Source: Padre Dam Municipal Water District.

Electric and Natural Gas
Utilities:

Santee Electric Cooperative.

5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations during the Subject Property reconnaissance.

Observations Description/Location
Hazardous Substances and
Petroleum Products as Defined by
CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) with
identified uses:

None observed.

Drums/Totes/Intermediate Bulk
Containers (≥ 5 gallons):

None observed.

Strong, Pungent, or Noxious
Odors:

None observed.

Pools of Liquid: None observed.

Unidentified Substance Containers: None observed.

Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-
Containing Equipment:

None observed.

Other Observed Evidence of
Hazardous Substances or
Petroleum Products:

None observed.

5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Given there were no structures on the Subject Property, this section of the report is not applicable.

5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Stantec made the following observations during the site reconnaissance of exterior areas of the Subject Property and/or identified the following information during the interview or records review portions of the assessment:

Observations Description
On-site Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons: None observed.

Stained Soil or Pavement: None observed.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 5.3
Observations Description
Stressed Vegetation: None observed.

Waste Streams and Waste
Collection Areas:

None observed.

Solid Waste Disposal: None observed.

Potential Areas of Fill Placement: No mounds, piles, or depressions suggesting the placement of fill material were observed on the Subject Property.

Wastewater: No exterior wastewater discharge was observed.

Stormwater: Stormwater is expected to infiltrate the soil.

Wells: No wells were observed.

Septic Systems: No visible evidence of the existence of a septic system was observed.

Other Exterior Observations: Solar panel equipment was observed in the eastern portion of the Subject Property.

5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES
Existing
USTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), which would indicate the presence of USTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.

Former
USTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of USTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.

Other
Underground
Structures:

None observed

5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Existing
ASTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), which would indicate the presence of ASTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.

Former
ASTs:

No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of ASTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.

5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES

5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Subject Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about use and activities on adjoining sites:

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 5.4
NORTH Community Park and undeveloped land.

EAST Residential properties.

SOUTH Undeveloped land/creek.

WEST Undeveloped land.

Refer to Figure 2.

5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties Observations of adjoining sites providing indications of past use and activities, if any, are described below.

NORTH None observed.

EAST None observed.

SOUTH None observed.

WEST None observed.

5.8.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Subject Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about the presence of pits, ponds, and lagoons on adjoining sites:

NORTH None observed.

EAST None observed.

SOUTH A creek and ponded area were observed.

WEST None observed.

5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING
Topography of the
Subject Property and
Surrounding Area:

The Subject Property is located at an approximate elevation of 343 feet amsl, is relatively flat, with a general topographic gradient is to the southwest.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Interviews
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 6.1

6.0 INTERVIEWS
No interviews were performed as part of this assessment.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 7.1

7.0 EVALUATION
This section provides a summary overview of or Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions.

7.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Information gathered from interviews, reviews of existing data, and an inspection was evaluated to determine if RECs are present in connection with the Subject Property. Based on this information, Stantec made the following findings and developed the following opinions. • Historical records indicate the Subject Property was primarily vacant land between the early 1900s to early 2000s, partially developed in the southeast corner with a potential storage yard in the early to mid-2000s, and vacant land again by the late 2000s to present day. The eastern portion of the Subject Property appears to have been cleared and possibly utilized for agricultural purposes in the 1949 photograph. This possible historical agricultural use was identified as a recognized environmental condition (REC) to the Subject Property in a Phase I ESA completed by Stantec in November of 2017.

To assess this REC as identified in the 2017 Phase I ESA, Stantec completed a Phase II ESA on November 16, 2017 for the Subject Property. That Phase II ESA included shallow soil sampling to evaluate the potential presence of organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and the metals lead and arsenic, often associated with herbicide application, in relation to the potential historical agricultural use. A total of twenty-one (21) soil samples were collected from one-foot below ground surface (bgs) across the Subject Property. Each soil sample was analyzed for OCPs, lead, and arsenic. There were no detections of OCPs above reporting levels in any of the soil samples analyzed (i.e., the results were “non-detect”). Arsenic was only reported at one location, HA-4, at 5.6 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is well within the expected naturally-occurring background concentrations and below anticipated regulatory cleanup levels for arsenic. Lead was detected 19 of 21 soil samples at concentrations ranging between 1.1 and 34 mg/kg. All detections of lead were well below the residential U.S. EPA regional screening level (RSL) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) HERO Note 3 residential screening level of 80 mg/kg, and within expected naturally-occurring background concentrations.

Based on these results, the historical agricultural use of the Subject Property was determined not to be a recognized environmental condition, and no further assessment was warranted in the 2017 Phase II ESA. Stantec continues to support that conclusion.
• According the EDR report, the southwestern portion of the Subject Property lies within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone. Additionally, the southern border of the Subject Property falls within the National Wetland Inventory, and adjoins the San Diego River to the south.

It is recommended that a wetland delineation be conducted on the Subject Property prior to redevelopment in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. If wetlands are identified,

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 7.2
development of the Subject Property should proceed in accordance with the wetlands-related requirements of the state and local authorities.
• Historical records indicate the Subject Property was partially developed in the southeast corner with a storage yard comprised of multiple potential containers and/or vehicles in the early to mid-2000s.

No records of spills or releases are listed, and no evidence of spills and/or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance; therefore, this is not considered a REC but is an item of note. • An environmental records search was performed and identified sites within their respective ASTM E1527-21 search radii of the Subject Property that may represent RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions.

Based on one or more of the following reasons: distance from the Subject Property, position of sites with respect to assumed groundwater flow direction, the type of native soils, and regulatory status, none of the sites identified in the environmental records search report are expected to impact soil or groundwater quality at the Subject Property. The environmental records search identified no RECs, CRECs, HRECs or de minimis conditions at or near the Subject Property.

7.2 DATA GAPS
The federal AAI final rule [40 CFR 312.10(a)] and ASTM E1527-21 identify a “data gap” as the lack or inability to obtain information required by the standards and practices of the rule despite good faith efforts by the EP or the User.

Any data gaps resulting from the Phase I ESA described in this report are listed and discussed below.

Gap Discussion
Deletions or Exceptions from
Scope of Work Referenced in
Section 1.4:

None.

Weather-Related Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:

None.

Facility Access Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:

None.

Other Site Reconnaissance
Restrictions:

None.

Data Gaps from Environmental
Records Review:

None.

Data Gaps from Historical
Records Review:

Historical records for the Subject Property were not available in five-year increments. These are considered to be data gaps; however, based on available historical records and consistent land use, they do not appear to change the conclusions of this report.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 7.3
Gap Discussion
Data Gaps from Interviews: The Subject Property consists of vacant land; therefore, no onsite interview was conducted. Given there is no history of development, the lack of an on-site interview is not considered a significant data gap and is unlikely to impact the findings of this report.

Other Data Gaps: None.

7.3 CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the Subject Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Historical REC (HREC), Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property.

This assessment has revealed the following items of note in connection with the Subject Property:
• Historical records indicate the Subject Property was partially developed in the southeast corner with a storage yard comprised of multiple potential containers and/or vehicles in the early to mid2000s. No records of spills or releases are listed, and no evidence of spills and/or releases were observed during the site reconnaissance; therefore, this is not considered a REC. • According the EDR report, the southwestern portion of the Subject Property lies within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone. Additionally, the southern border of the Subject Property falls within the National Wetland Inventory, and adjoins the San Diego River to the south. It is recommended that a wetland delineation be conducted on the Subject Property prior to redevelopment in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. If wetlands are identified, development of the Subject Property should proceed in accordance with the wetlandsrelated requirements of the state and local authorities.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Non-Scope Considerations
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 8.1

8.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
The following ASTM E1527-21 Non-Scope Considerations were performed as part of this Phase I ESA:

8.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT
Concern for lead-based paint (LBP) is primarily related to residential structures. The EPA’s Final Rule on Disclosure of Lead-Based Paint in Housing (40 CFR Part 745) defines LBP as paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.

The risk of lead toxicity in LBP varies based upon the condition of the paint and the year of its application.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified the following risk factors:

The age of the dwelling as follows: maximum risk is from paint applied before 1950.

There is severe risk from paint applied before 1960.

There is moderate risk from deteriorated paint applied before 1970.

There is slight risk from the paint that is intact but applied before 1977.

The condition of the painted surfaces.

The presence of children and certain types of households in the building.

Previously reported cases of lead poisoning in the building or area.

Given there are no structures on the Subject Property, LBP are not considered an environmental concern.

8.2 ASBESTOS
Asbestos can be found in many applications, including sprayed-on or blanket-type insulation, pipe wraps, mastics, floor and ceiling tiles, wallboard, mortar, roofing materials, and a variety of other materials commonly used in construction. The greatest asbestos-related human health risks are associated with friable asbestos, which is ACM that can be reduced to powder by hand pressure. Friable asbestos can become airborne and inhaled, which has been associated with specific types of respiratory disease. The manufacturing and use of asbestos in most building products was curtailed during the late 1970s.

Stantec makes no warranty as to the possible existence or absence of inaccessible materials or to their evaluation with respect to asbestos content. Samples of suspect ACM should be collected for laboratory analysis of asbestos prior to any renovation or building demolition to be compliant with, EPA National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations.

Given there are no structures on the Subject Property, ACMs are not considered an environmental concern.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Non-Scope Considerations
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 8.2

8.3 RADON
Radon is a colorless, tasteless radioactive gas with an EPA-specified action level of 4.0 PicoCuries per liter of air (pCi/L) for residential properties. Radon gas has a very short half-life of 3.8 days. The health risk potential of radon is primarily associated with its rate of accumulation within confined areas near or in the ground, such as basements, where vapors can readily transfer to indoor air from the ground through foundation cracks or other pathways. Large, adequately ventilated rooms generally present limited risk for radon exposure. The radon concentrations in buildings and homes depend on many factors, including soil types, temperature, barometric pressure, and building construction (EPA, 1993).

Stantec reviewed regional data published by the EPA on average indoor radon concentrations in the vicinity of the Subject Property (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html).

EPA Radon Zones (w/Average Measured Indoor Radon concentrations) Zone 1 – High
(>4.0 pCi/L)
Zone 2 – Moderate
(2 to 4 pCi/L)
Zone 3 – Low
(<2 pCi/L)
X
Normally-occupied sub grade areas present? (i.e., basement apartments, offices, stores, etc.) None
The Subject Property is located in Zone 3 and is considered to have low potential for radon. To determine Subject Property-specific radon levels, a radon survey would have to be conducted. However, because there are no occupied subgrade areas, and it’s Stantec’s understanding that the contemplated residential redevelopment will include no subgrade areas, further investigation of indoor radon issues does not appear to be warranted.

8.4 FLOOD ZONES
According the EDR report, the southwestern portion of the Subject Property lies within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone. Additionally, the southern border of the Subject Property falls within the National Wetland Inventory, and adjoins the San Diego River to the south. It is recommended that a wetland delineation be conducted on the Subject Property prior to redevelopment in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. If wetlands are identified, development of the Subject Property should proceed in accordance with the wetlands-related requirements of the state and local authorities.

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
References
November 27, 2023
Project No.: 185806312 9.1

9.0 REFERENCES
ASTM International, 2021, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation: E 1527-21.

ASTM International, 2022, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Subject Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, Designation E 2600-22.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2023, EnviroStor.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118: San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin.

California State Department of Water Resources Control Board, 2023, GeoTracker.

California State Department of Water Resources SGMA Portal (SGMA), 2023, GeoTracker.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2023. EDR Radius Map with Geocheck, Inquiry Number 7493604.2s, dated November 9, 2023.
_____, Certified Sanborn Map Report, Inquiry Number 7493604.3, dated November 9, 2023. _____, Historical Topographic Map Report, Inquiry Number 7493604.4, dated November 9, 2023. _____, Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry Number 7493604.8, dated November 9, 2023. _____, City Directory Abstract, Inquiry Number 7493604.5 dated November 9, 2023.

FIGURES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE

PROPERTY AND VICINITY
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: CV-WFB-Santee 3, Santee, CA
Photographer: Alex Sobolew
Date: November 13, 2023

Page 1 of 8 ends

Santee City CouncilSeptember 24, 2025

Santee City Council
September 24, 2025