DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION...(APCD) prior to asbestos-related and demolition activities. Mitigation Measure HM3: Lead Based Paint 1.The Contractor shall assume that those

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES

5555 OVERLAND AVE., STE. 2240, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123-1294

MISSION: To provide cost-effective, efficient, high quality and timely support servicesto County departments, groups and agencies

APRIL F. HEINZE, P.E.Director

(858) 694-2527FAX (858) 694-8929

FACILITIES OPERATIONS(858) 694-3610

FLEET MANAGEMENT(858) 694-2876

MAIL SERVICES(858) 694-3018

PROJECT MANAGEMENT(858) 694-2040

REAL ESTATE SERVICES(858) 694-2291

DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

April 20, 2009

Project Name: Mission Gorge Road Property Demolition

Project Number(s): N/A

Environmental Setting: Please refer to the Initial Study

Project Description: Please refer to the Initial Study

This Document is Considered Draft Until it is Adopted by the AppropriateCounty of San Diego Decision-Making Body.

This Mitigated Negative Declaration is comprised of this form along with theEnvironmental Initial Study that includes the following:

a. Initial Study/Environmental Checklist Formb. Historic Resources Assessment (ASM Affiliates, Inc., March 2009)c. Asbestos/Lead Prework Survey (County of San Diego, April 2009)

1. California Environmental Quality Act Mitigated Negative Declaration Findings:

Find, that this Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the decision-making body’sindependent judgment and analysis; and, that the decision-making body hasreviewed and considered the information contained in this Mitigated NegativeDeclaration and the comments received during the public review period; and thatrevisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the projectapplicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects of the project to a pointwhere clearly no significant effects would occur; and, on the basis of the wholerecord before the decision-making body (including this Mitigated NegativeDeclaration) that there is no substantial evidence that the project as revised willhave a significant effect on the environment.

-2-

2. Required Mitigation Measures:

Refer to the attached Environmental Initial Study for the rationale for requiring thefollowing measures:

Mitigation Measure HM1: General Measures

1. The County Department of General Services shall inform all contractorsand/or applicable County personnel of the asbestos and lead survey results.A copy of the Asbestos/Lead Prework Survey (Department of EnvironmentalHealth, April 3, 2009) shall be provided to the contractor so that they maytake the appropriate precautions (e.g., provide training, personal protectiveequipment, exposure monitoring, etc.) to protect their employees fromexposures. Cal/OSHA has specific regulations pertaining to these types ofhazards, and contractors have the responsibility of protecting their workers.Contractors should contact Department of Environmental Health with anyquestions about asbestos and lead-related work activities prior to submittingtheir bid proposals.

2. The Contractor shall comply with all California Division of Occupational Safetyand Health (Cal/OSHA) requirements (including the Asbestos and Lead inConstruction Standards) and California Environmental Protection Agency(Cal/EPA) requirements regarding waste disposal.

3. Disposal and recycling issues regarding identified ACCM and LBP buildingmaterials shall be identified based on the final destination of the material.The Occupational Health Program (OHP) and the contractor shall mutuallydetermine a disposal/recycling plan for the ACCMs, LBP buildingcomponents, and ceramic wall materials based on the best availableenvironmental and cost-effective disposal option.

4. The Asbestos/Lead Prework Survey addressed only those suspect buildingmaterials that were accessible. If suspect ACCM or LBP building materialsnot addressed in the survey report are identified during the course of thedemolition (e.g., underground piping, etc.), STOP WORK. The contractorshall contact OHP to identify potential ACCM and/or LBP materials prior toproceeding with any activities.

5. The Contractor shall take measures to prevent exposure to County property,County employees, and the public. The contractor in coordination withDepartment of General Service shall determine an appropriate mechanism tokeep the public and unauthorized County personnel out of the work zones(e.g., site security, barriers).

6. The County Department of General Services shall coordinate with OHP tohave an on-site asbestos/lead monitor observe demolition activities.

-3-

Mitigation Measure HM2: Asbestos

1. An asbestos abatement contractor who is registered with Cal/OSHA toperform asbestos-related work shall perform disturbance and/or removal ofACCM. Cal/OSHA requirements and other applicable regulations pertainingto ACCM shall be followed during demolition activities.

2. The Contractor shall submit an Asbestos Work Plan indicating the proposedabatement methods and control measures they will use to remove the ACCM.The County Department of General Services, prior to initiation of demolitionactivities associated with the Quonset Hut, garage, fire station, andcommunity building shall review and approve the Asbestos Work Plan. OHPshall provide on-site project surveillance of the abatement contractor.

3. Notification shall be made to Cal/OSHA and the Air Pollution Control District(APCD) prior to asbestos-related and demolition activities.

Mitigation Measure HM3: Lead Based Paint

1. The Contractor shall assume that those surfaces that did not contain “high”concentrations of lead do contain lead at lower levels. The Contractor shallprotect their employees accordingly. The Contractor should be aware thatdue to the unknown painting and remodeling history of the buildings, smallpatches of “high” concentration LBP may be present that were not previouslyidentified.

For paint disturbing activities on “low” concentration components, generalprecautions shall be taken to minimize the release of chips, dust and debris tothe ground surface, vegetation, and inside the buildings. Chips, dust anddebris shall be cleaned up according to standard practices or as directed bythe on-site asbestos/lead monitor.

2. If the project is expected to disturb greater than 100 ft2 of paint, notificationshall be made to Cal/OSHA prior to lead-related and demolition activities.

3. Critical Project Design Elements That Must Become Conditions of Approval:

No critical project design elements are required because the proposed project isthe demolition of five existing vacant structures and no development on theproject site is proposed at this time.

-4-

4. PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:Draft copies or notice of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were distributed to:

Federal, State, and Local AgenciesSan Diego Regional Water Quality Control BoardCounty of San Diego, Department of Public WorksCounty of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land UseCounty of San Diego, County ClerkCity of SanteeCalifornia Department of Fish & GameCalifornia State Clearinghouse

Adjacent Property Owners/OccupantsVestar Kimco Santee LP c/o Lee THanley

Petsmart Inc. c/o Lee T Hanley

Ryan Companies US Inc. Butterfield Claude W TrRichard F III and Darlene White Mary L TiffanyJohn P Wainio Carter Bernice TrustDavid T Schofield Manuel J and Cecilia Y YactoGorge Morgan Jr Robert and Lucia S LuellenEvelyn Lerner Hal R and John A RyanBoyer Family Irrevocable Trust Mission Gorge Road Property

Management CoHector and Francisco Diaz John and Harold R RyanThomas and Lucille A Dunn Edward H and Bettie M GegaxDavid and Teresa L McHenry Rammton Arms ApartmentsCarob Investments LLC c/o Robert SGriswold

Praver Bros Investments

Rasak Family LLC; Gloria TR Rasak Boys and Girls Club of East CountyInc.

CBS Partners LP Ayman Battikha and Rania AlbouriStewart Family Trust Santee California Congregation of

Jehovahs Witnesses Inc.Chandravadan K and Ranjana CBhakta

ESS Wcot Owner LLC

PB Bar and Grill Development Corp Robert E Turner JrRose W Muriuki Michael P TaylorTimothy and Edward Farrell Dimitar and Diana DamyanovaMark S and Susan M Fuller David J and Denise M Sannicolas

-5-

5. RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW:

( ) No comments were received during the public input period.

( ) Comments were received but did not address the Draft Mitigated NegativeDeclaration finding or the accuracy/completeness of the Initial Study. Noresponse is necessary. The letters are attached.

( ) Comments addressing the findings of the Draft Mitigated NegativeDeclaration and/or accuracy or completeness of the Initial Study werereceived during the public input period. The letters and responses follow.

Copies of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review at: County ofSan Diego, Department of General Services, Building 2, COC, 5555 Overland Avenue,Suite 2207, San Diego, CA 92123 (attention: Dahvia Lynch); and the San Diego CountyLibrary, Santee Branch, 9225 Carlton Hills Boulevard, #17, Santee, CA 92071.

ADOPTION STATEMENT: This Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted andabove California Environmental Quality Act findings made by the:

San Diego County Board of Supervisors (Decision-Making Body)

on (Date/Item #)

Ralph Thielicke, Deputy DirectorCounty of San Diego, Department of General Services

___April 20, 2009 _________________ _____Date of Draft Report Date of Final Report

April 20, 2009

CEQA Initial Study - Environmental Checklist Form(Based on the State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G Rev. 10/04)

1. Project Number(s)/Environmental Log Number/Title:

Mission Gorge Road Property Demolition

2. Lead agency name and address:

County of San Diego, Department of General Services5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 2207San Diego, California 92123-1294

3. a. Contact: Dahvia Lynch, AICP, Project Managerb. Phone number: (858) 694-2047c. E-mail: [email protected].

4. Project location:The approximately 1.0-acre project site is located at 10130 and 10140 MissionGorge Road in Santee, California. The project site is currently owned and under thejurisdiction of the County of San Diego. Figures 1 and 2 depict the regional andlocal vicinity of the project site, respectively.

Thomas Brothers Coordinates: Page 1231, D6

5. Project Applicant name and address:

County of San DiegoDepartment of General ServicesCounty Operations Center5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 2207Building 2, Room 220San Diego, California 92123-1294

6. General Plan Designation

Community Plan: Not Applicable, project site located within the City of Santee

Land Use Designation: City of Santee General Plan, Town CenterDensity: Not Applicable

7. Zoning

Use Regulation: City of Santee Zoning Ordinance, Town CenterDensity: Not ApplicableSpecial Area Regulation: Not Applicable

Initial Study - 2 - Date: April 20, 2009Mission Gorge Road Property Demolition

8. Description of project

BackgroundThe project site is currently owned by the County of San Diego. The fivestructures proposed for demolition have been vacant since approximately early2007. As discussed in the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment FinalMaster Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated January 2006, these vacantCounty structures have been planned for demolition by the County of San Diego.The EIR states that the vacant County structures would be temporarily occupiedby the Public Works Division of the City of Santee until the new maintenancefacility is constructed. However, the City’s Public Works Division has never usedthese structures and does not plan to use the structures in the future. As such,the County is moving forward with the demolition of the structures.

Characteristics of the Proposed ProjectThe proposed project is the demolition of five vacant structures that currentlyexists on the project site. The five structures include a Quonset Hut, former firestation, cinder block buildings, wood garage, and storage shed (Figure 3). Thedemolition of these structures amounts to approximately 4,559 square feet (seeestimated square footage in Table 1 below).

TABLE 1Estimated Building Size

Structure Estimated Square FootageFire Station 2,051Quonset Hut 1,328

Garage 480Storage Shed 200

Cinder Block Building Unknown – est. 500 sq. ft.TOTAL 4,559

Source: County of San Diego, 2009.

Following the demolition of these structures the County will remove all asphalt,pavement and fencing from the project site. All underground utility lines andother service lines will be capped in place. At this time there are no plans todevelop the project site. The project site will remain vacant until futuredevelopment guided by the Santee Town Center Master Plan is proposed.Future development of the project site would require a separate environmentalanalysis under CEQA.

During demolition activities, typical Best Management Practices (BMPs) will beinstalled to control stormwater runoff and at the completion activities, typical long-term BMPs would be installed on-site to control stormwater runoff.

Demolition of these structures is anticipated to begin in the summer of 2009 andis expected to be completed by the end of 2009.


9. Surrounding land uses and setting:Vacant and Undeveloped land to the north; Public Storage, Commercial andVacant and Undeveloped Land to the south; Commercial to the east; and, Officeto the west.

10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval,or participation agreement):

Permit Type/Action AgencyGeneral Construction Storm WaterPermit

Regional Water Quality ControlBoard

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factorschecked below would be potentially affected by this project and involve at least oneimpact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or a “Less Than Significant WithMitigation Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology & SoilsX Hazards & Haz. Materials Hydrology & Water Quality Land Use & Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population & Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities & Service Systems X Mandatory Findings of Significance

SAN DIEGO

POWAY

CHULA VISTA

CARLSBAD

OCEANSIDEVISTA

ESCONDIDO

SANTEE

ENCINITAS

SAN MARCOS

EL CAJON

CORONADO

LA MESA

IMPERIALBEACH

LEMONGROVE

SOLANA BEACHDEL MAR

SAN YSIDRO

15

805

5

78

56

163

52805

8

Project Location

FIGURE1Regional Location Map

Mission Gorge Road Property DemolitionSOURCE: SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2009 2/17/09

BRG CONSULTING, INC.F:\projects\952 Mission Gorge Prop Demo\1st Screencheck MND\Figure 1 Regional Location Map.mxd

MISSION GORGE RD

COTTO

NWOO

D AV

WILLOW

AVE

ALLEY

CIVIC C

ENTER

DR

PARK AV

LUNAR LNHAPPY LN

MISSIO

N GREE

NS RD

PRIVATE RD

BRIGHTWOOD LN

TAMBERLY CT

ALLEY

0 2 4 6 81 Miles

PacificOcean

MEXICO

MISSION GORGE RD

WILLOW

AVE

CIVIC C

ENTER

DRTAM

BERLY W

Y

FIGURE2Project Vicinity MapMission Gorge Road Property Demolition

SOURCE: AirPhoto USA, 2007; SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2009 2/17/09

BRG CONSULTING, INC.F:\projects\952 Mission Gorge Prop Demo\1st Screencheck MND\Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map.mxd

0 50 100 150 20025 Feet

LegendRoadsSite Boundary

OFFICE

OFFICE

54

32

1

MISSION GORGE RD

WILLOW

AVE

FIGURE3Existing Structures Proposed to be DemolishedMission Gorge Road Property Demolition

SOURCE: AirPhoto USA, 2007; SanGIS, 2009; BRG Consulting, Inc., 2009 2/18/09

BRG CONSULTING, INC.F:\projects\952 Mission Gorge Prop Demo\1st Screencheck MND\Figure 3 Existing Structures Proposed to be Demolished.mxd

0 25 50 75 10012.5 Feet

LegendRoadsSite Boundary

1 - Quonset Hut2 - Former Fire Station3 - Cinder Block Buildings4 - Wood Garage5 - Storage Shed

Key:


INSTRUCTIONS ON EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequatelysupported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that theimpact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a faultrupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specificfactors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operationalimpacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklistanswers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant withmitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there issubstantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially SignificantImpact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigationmeasures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than SignificantImpact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reducethe effect to a less than significant level.

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, aneffect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within

the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legalstandards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on theearlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with MitigationIncorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from theearlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources forpotential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared oroutside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where thestatement is substantiated.

7. The explanation of each issue should identify:a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; andb) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance


I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact

Potentially Significant Unless MitigationIncorporated X No Impact

Discussion/Explanation:

No Impact: Scenic vistas are singular vantage points that offer unobstructed views of valuedviewsheds, including areas designated as official scenic vistas along major highways or Countydesignated visual resources. The project site is located in a generally urban and developed areacharacterized by commercial and office uses; however, the area directly north of the project siteis vacant and disturbed. The proposed project is the demolition of five vacant structures andthree accessory structures within a developed area of the City of Santee. After the structures aredemolished the site would remain vacant until future development is proposed under the SanteeTown Center Master Plan. The proposed project is not located near or visible from a scenic vistaand would not change the composition of an existing scenic vista. Therefore, the proposedproject would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact is identified forthis issue area.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?




No Impact: State scenic highways refer to those highways that are officially designated. Ascenic highway is officially designated as a State scenic highway when the local jurisdictionadopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to the California Department ofTransportation for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that thehighway has been designated as an official Scenic Highway. The project site is located in agenerally urban and developed area characterized by commercial and office uses; however, thearea directly north of the project site is vacant and disturbed. The project site is located less thantwo miles east of the junction for SR-52 and SR-125; however, these highways are notdesignated as State scenic highways. Therefore, the proposed project would not have asubstantial adverse effect on a scenic resource within a State scenic highway. No impact isidentified for this issue area.


c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and itssurroundings?




No Impact: Visual quality is the viewer’s perception of the visual environment and varies basedon exposure, sensitivity and expectation of the viewers. The existing visual character and qualityof the project site and its surrounding can be characterized as a commercial area within theSantee Town Center Master Plan area. The project is the demolition of the existing structureson-site. Since the project will demolish existing, older structures and leave the site clear, theproject would not degrade the visual character and quality of the site but would maintain andpotentially improve the visual quality of the site by removing vacant and unused structures fromthe site. No impact is identified for this issue area.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area?




No Impact: The project site is located in a generally urban and developed area characterized bycommercial and office uses; however, the area directly north of the project site is vacant anddisturbed. The project is the demolition of existing structures and would not create any newsources of light pollution that could contribute to skyglow, light trespass or glare and adverselyaffect day or nighttime views in area. No impact is identified for this issue area.

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agriculturalresources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the CaliforniaAgricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture andfarmland. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ImportanceFarmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping andMonitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?





No Impact: The project site does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, UniqueFarmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to theFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. In addition,the project does not contain Farmland of Local Importance. The project is not currently inagricultural production and is developed. Therefore, no agricultural resources including PrimeFarmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide or Farmland of Local Importance would beconverted to a non-agricultural use. No impact is identified for this issue area.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?




No Impact: The project site is zoned Town Center and is currently developed with five vacantstructures and three minor accessory structures. No portion of the project site is under aWilliamson Act contract. The proposed project does not involve any aspect that would contributeto the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact is identified for this issue area.

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?




No Impact: The project site and surrounding area within a radius of at least three miles does notcontain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of StatewideImportance or Farmland of Local Importance as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to theFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, noPrime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide, or Farmland of Local Importancewill be converted to a non-agricultural use. No impact is identified for this issue area.


III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicableair quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the followingdeterminations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy(RAQS) or applicable portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)?




No Impact: Operation of the project will not result in emissions of significant quantities ofcriteria pollutants listed in the California Ambient Air Quality Standards or toxic aircontaminants as identified by the California Air Resources Board. The proposed project is thedemolition of existing structures on the project site. After the structures are demolished the sitewould remain vacant until future development is proposed under the Santee Town Center MasterPlan. Demolition of these structures would not result in the emission of significant quantities ofcriteria pollutants beyond current levels. No traffic is anticipated to result from the proposedproject. Therefore, there would be no substantial increase in vehicular emissions associated withthe project. As a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of theRAQS nor the SIP on a project or cumulative level. No impact is identified for this issue area.

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected airquality violation?

Potentially Significant Impact X Less than Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless MitigationIncorporated No Impact


Less Than Significant Impact: In general, air quality impacts from land use projects are theresult of emissions from motor vehicles, and from short-term construction activities associatedwith such projects. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) hasestablished screening-level criteria for all new source review (NSR) in APCD Rule 20.2. ForCEQA purposes, these screening-level criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstratethat a project’s total emissions (e.g. stationary and fugitive emissions, as well as emissions frommobile sources) would not result in a significant impact to air quality. Since APCD does nothave screening-level criteria for emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), the use ofscreening level criteria for reactive organic compounds (ROC) from the CEQA Air QualityHandbook for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which has stricter standards for emissions ofROCs/VOCs than San Diego County’s, is appropriate.


The project proposes to demolish approximately 4,559 square feet of existing structures on theproject site (e.g., fire station, Quonset hut, garage, storage shed, and Cinder Block building).Demolition activities have the potential to release hazardous or toxic air contaminants due to thepotential presence of lead based paint and asbestos-containing materials within the buildings.The Department of Environmental Health has determined that lead and asbestos are present incertain areas of the site (see discussion under VII Hazards and Hazardous Materials).

Upon completion of demolition activities, the site would remain vacant and the project does notpropose any operation or activity that has the potential to emit air pollution. No increase invehicular trips is anticipated as a result of the project. Further, there are no substantial gradingoperations associated with the construction of the project. As such, the project will not violateany air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air qualityviolation. A less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which theproject region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?




No Impact: San Diego County is presently in non-attainment for the 1-hour concentrationsunder the California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS) for Ozone (O3). San DiegoCounty is also presently in non-attainment for the annual geometric mean and for the 24-hourconcentrations of Particulate Matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) under the CAAQS.O3 is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react in thepresence of sunlight. VOC sources include any source that burns fuels (e.g., gasoline, naturalgas, wood, oil); solvents; petroleum processing and storage; and pesticides. Sources of PM10 inboth urban and rural areas include: motor vehicles, wood burning stoves and fireplaces, dustfrom construction, landfills, agriculture, wildfires, brush/waste burning, and industrial sources ofwindblown dust from open lands.

The proposed project does not propose any construction and/or operation that have the potentialto emit any criteria air pollutants. No increase in vehicular trips is anticipated as a result of theproject. Further, there are no substantial grading operations associated with the construction(e.g., demolition activities) of the project. As such, the project will not result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of PM10, or any O3 precursors. No impact is identified for this issuearea.


d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?




Air quality regulators typically define sensitive receptors as schools (Preschool-12th Grade),hospitals, resident care facilities, day-care centers, or other facilities that may house individualswith health conditions that would be adversely impacted by changes in air quality.

No Impact: Based on a site visit conducted by BRG Consulting, Inc., on February 17, 2009, nosensitive receptors have been identified within a quarter-mile (the radius determined by theSCAQMD in which the dilution of pollutants is typically significant) of the proposed project.Furthermore, no point-source emissions of air pollutants, including vehicle emissions areassociated with the proposed project. As such, the proposed project will not expose sensitivepopulations to excessive levels of air pollutants. No impact is identified for this issue area.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?




No Impact: No potential sources of objectionable odors have been identified in association withthe proposed project. No impact is identified for this issue area.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on anyspecies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?





No Impact: The project site is currently partially developed with a Quonset Hut, former firestation, cinder block buildings, wood garage, storage shed, asphalt and concrete. Based on a sitevisit conducted by BRG Consulting, Inc. on February 17, 2009, the site does not containsensitive biological resources. Based on the Revised Wetland Delineation by Recon dated March14, 2006 for the Santee Town Center Specific Plan Amendment, the vacant area north of theproject site is identified as disturbed land. Therefore, no species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur on-site.No impact is identified for this issue area.

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?




No Impact: Based on the site visit conducted by BRG Consulting, Inc. on February 17, 2009, theproject site is developed and does not contain any riparian habitats or other sensitive naturalcommunities as defined by the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program(MSCP), County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance, Fish and Game Code, andEndangered Species Act, or any other local or regional plans, policies or regulations. Based onthe Revised Wetland Delineation by Recon dated March 14, 2006 for the Santee Town CenterSpecific Plan Amendment, the vacant area north of the project site is identified as disturbed land.Therefore, no impacts are identified for the issue area.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?




No Impact: Based on the site visit conducted by BRG Consulting, Inc. On February 17, 2009,the project site is developed and does not contain any wetlands as defined by Section 404 of theClean Water Act, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, stream, lake, river or water ofthe U.S., that could potentially be impacted through direct removal, filling, hydrologicalinterruption, diversion or obstruction by the proposed development. Based on the Revised


Wetland Delineation by Recon dated March 14, 2006 for the Santee Town Center Specific PlanAmendment, no wetland or riparian areas are located adjacent to the project site within thevacant and disturbed area north of the site. No impacts are identified for the issue area.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?




No Impact: Based on the site visit conducted by BRG Consulting, Inc. on February 17, 2009,the project site is developed and does not contain natural areas. Therefore, impedance of themovement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or established nativeresident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedance of the use of native wildlife nursery siteswould not be expected as a result of the proposed project. No impact is identified for this issuearea.

e) Conflict with the provisions of any adopted Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP),other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan or any other localpolicies or ordinances that protect biological resources?




No Impact: The project site is not located within the boundaries of the MSCP or other approvedlocal, regional or state habitat conservation plan ordinances that protect biological resources. Theproject site is developed and does not contain natural or biologically sensitive areas. No impactis identified for this issue area.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as definedin 15064.5?





No Impact: A Historic Resources Assessment was prepared (ASM Affiliates, March 2009) forthe project and is provided in Appendix A of this Initial Study. Currently, the project sitecontains a Quonset Hut, fire station, cinder block building, garage, and storage shed. Archivalresearch was conducted at the County Assessor’s Office and the South Coast Information Centerat San Diego State University. County of San Diego records show that the structures wereerected sometime around 1962 (ASM, 2009). Historical maps and aerial photographs were alsoconsulted for information regarding the history of land use of these parcels and original buildingplans, where available. ASM conducted an assessment of the structures, which included a fieldinspection, detailed photo documentation to record architectural style features, and an assessmentof historical integrity.

a. Quonset Hut: The arched sheet metal building appears to have functioned as a garage.The corrugations of the sheet metal shell are much wider and deeper than on QuonsetHuts erected during World War II, indicating this building is from the post war era. Thebuilding sits on a concrete slab and has roll up metal garage doors on the east and westends. A small, square sheet metal shed is mounted on a concrete slab on the north side ofthe building. A date on the shed read “’89,” suggesting it was erected in 1989.

b. Fire Station: This single story rectangular fire station is a wood framed, stucco buildingset on a concrete slab. The roof is covered with asphalt shingles. Three garage bays withroll up doors are on the west side of the building.

c. Cinder Block Building: This single story building is constructed of concrete cinderblock, and rests on a concrete slab foundation. The shallow pitched roof has asphaltshingles. The windows have been boarded up.

d. Garage: The garage is a rectangular wood framed building built on a concrete slab.Asphalt shingles cover the roof. A wooden garage door in centered on the east façade.

e. Storage Shed: This prefabricated metal storage shed is approximately 20 feet long by 10feet wide and appears to be of recent construction. It is the type of prefabricated metalshed available from many department stores.

While meeting the 50-year age requirement for evaluation to the National Register of HistoricPlaces (NRHP) and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), none of the structures onthe project site meet any of the four criteria for listing on the NRHP or the CRHR (please seeAppendix A of this Initial Study for detailed information). Therefore, it was determined that theon the project site are not eligible for these Registers due to their lack of historical andarchitectural significance and their lack of architectural distinction. No significant impact tohistorical resources will result with the implementation of the proposed project.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resourcepursuant to 15064.5?





No Impact: The project site was previously graded to develop the existing land uses; therefore,no archaeological resources are anticipated to occur on the site. A records search was obtainedby ASM from South Coastal Information Center, SDSU, to identify any previously recordedcultural resources. No previously recorded cultural resources were identified and no substantialgrading or excavation will occur that could unearth archaeological resources. No impact isidentified for this issue area.

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologicfeature?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing vacant structures and removal offencing and asphalt. No substantial trenching or excavation would be required with the proposedproject and the project would not disturb geologic formations that may contain paleontologicalresources. Additionally, based on a site visit by BRG Consulting Inc. on February 17, 2009, noknown unique geologic features were identified on the property or in the immediate vicinity.Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?




No Impact: The project site was previously graded to develop the existing land uses. It isanticipated that any human remains would have been encountered during previous grading andsite development. No substantial trenching or excavation is proposed under the proposed projectthat would disturb any human remains. In addition, the project site has not been used as acemetery in the past. No impact is identified for this issue area.

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving:


i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-PrioloEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based onother substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and GeologySpecial Publication 42.




No Impact: The project site is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone identified by theAlquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Special Publication 42, Revised 1997,Fault-Rupture Hazards Zones in California, or located within any other area with substantialevidence of a known fault. Furthermore, the proposed project is the demolition of existingvacant structures. Therefore, there will be no impact from the exposure of people or structures toadverse effects from a known hazard zone as a result of this project.

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?




No Impact: The Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (CBC)classifies all San Diego County with the highest seismic zone criteria, Zone 4. However, theproject site is not located within five kilometers of the centerline of a known active-fault zone asdetermined by SANGIS information dated 2009. Furthermore, the proposed project is thedemolition of existing vacant structures. Therefore, no structures or people would be exposed toany strong seismic ground shaking that may occur on the project site. No impact is identified forthis issue area.

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?




No Impact: The project site is not within a “Potential Liquefaction Area” as identified in theCounty Guidelines for Determining Significance for Geologic Hazards. The soil on-site is listedas Grangeville Sandy Loam, zero to two percent slope. The landscape has been altered through


cut and fill operations and leveling for building sites, when the site was first developed. The fillmaterial consists of sandy loam (Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California, December 1973). Thisindicates that the geologic environment of the project site is not susceptible to ground failurefrom seismic activity. In addition, the site is not underlain by poor artificial fill or located withina floodplain. Furthermore, the proposed project is the demolition of existing vacant structures.No impacts are identified for this issue area.

iv. Landslides?




No Impact: The project site is not within a “Landslide Susceptibility Area" as identified in theCounty Guidelines for Determining Significance for Geologic Hazards. Landslide SusceptibilityAreas were developed based on landslide risk profiles included in the Multi-JurisdictionalHazard Mitigation Plan, San Diego, CA (URS, 2004). Landslide risk areas from this plan werebased on data including steep slopes (greater than 25%); soil series data (SANDAG based onUSGS 1970s series); soil-slip susceptibility from USGS; and Landslide Hazard Zone Maps(limited to western portion of the County) developed by the California Department ofConservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG). Also included within LandslideSusceptibility Areas are gabbroic soils on slopes steeper than 15% in grade because these soilsare slide prone. Because the project site is not located within an identified LandslideSusceptibility Area, the geologic environment has a low probability to become unstable. The siteis relatively flat and the project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse effectsfrom landslides, because the project is the demolition of existing structures on-site and the sitewould remain vacant until the site is developed in the future under the Santee Town CenterMaster Plan. No impact is identified for this issue area.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?



Less Than Significant Impact: According to the Soil Survey of San Diego County, the soils on-site are identified as Grangeville Sandy Loam, which has a soil erodibility rating of “severe” asindicated by the Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, prepared by the US Department ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation and Forest Service dated December 1973. However, the projectwill not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, because during and uponcompletion of demolition activities. Pre- and post-construction Best Management Practices


(BMPs) will be implemented in order to ensure sediment does not erode from the project site.Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified for this issue area.

c) Will the project produce unstable geological conditions that will result in adverse impactsresulting from landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?




No Impact: The project is not located on or near geological formations that are unstable orwould potentially become unstable as a result of the project. For further information, refer to“VI. Geology and Soils”, Question a., i-iv listed above. No impact is identified for this issuearea.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?




No Impact: The project site does not contain expansive soils as defined by Table 18-I-B of theUniform Building Code (1994). The soils on-site are Grangeville sandy loam. Based on areview of the Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, prepared by the US Department ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation and Forest Service dated December 1973, this soil has a shrink-swell behavior of low and represent no substantial risks to life or property. Therefore, no impactis identified for this issue area.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternativewastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal ofwastewater?




No Impact: No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. Theproposed project is the demolition of the existing structures and the site would remain vacant,which would not require any wastewater service. No impact is identified for this issue area.


VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wastes or through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materialsinto the environment?


X Potentially Significant Unless MitigationIncorporation No Impact


Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporation: An Asbestos/Lead Prework Survey(department of Environmental Health, April 3, 2009) was prepared fro the proposed project andcan be found in Appendix B of this Initial Study. The following is a summary of this survey.

To assess the potential for asbestos within the existing structures on the project site, sampleswere taken from the structures and analyzed. Survey results indicated the presence of asbestos inthe black mastic on the Quonset Hut, and roof mastic on the garage, fire station, and communityoffice buildings. Asbestos-cement (transite) pipes were observed on the roof of the fire station,and on the roof and in planters around the community building. In addition, the plaster on theQuonset Hut contains less than 1 percent (


Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure HM1: General Measures

1. The County Department of General Services shall inform all contractors and/or applicableCounty personnel of the asbestos and lead survey results. A copy of the Asbestos/LeadPrework Survey (Department of Environmental Health, April 3, 2009) shall be provided tothe contractor so that they may take the appropriate precautions (e.g., provide training,personal protective equipment, exposure monitoring, etc.) to protect their employees fromexposures. Cal/OSHA has specific regulations pertaining to these types of hazards, andcontractors have the responsibility of protecting their workers. Contractors should contactDepartment of Environmental Health with any questions about asbestos and lead-relatedwork activities prior to submitting their bid proposals.

2. The Contractor shall comply with all California Division of Occupational Safety and Health(Cal/OSHA) requirements (including the Asbestos and Lead in Construction Standards) andCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) requirements regarding wastedisposal.

3. Disposal and recycling issues regarding identified ACCM and LBP building materials shallbe identified based on the final destination of the material. The Occupational HealthProgram (OHP) and the contractor shall mutually determine a disposal/recycling plan for theACCMs, LBP building components, and ceramic wall materials based on the best availableenvironmental and cost-effective disposal option.

4. The Asbestos/Lead Prework Survey addressed only those suspect building materials thatwere accessible. If suspect ACCM or LBP building materials not addressed in the surveyreport are identified during the course of the demolition (e.g., underground piping, etc.),STOP WORK. The contractor shall contact OHP to identify potential ACCM and/or LBPmaterials prior to proceeding with any activities.

5. The Contractor shall take measures to prevent exposure to County property, Countyemployees, and the public. The contractor in coordination with Department of GeneralService shall determine an appropriate mechanism to keep the public and unauthorizedCounty personnel out of the work zones (e.g., site security, barriers).

6. The County Department of General Services shall coordinate with OHP to have an on-siteasbestos/lead monitor observe demolition activities.

Mitigation Measure HM2: Asbestos1. An asbestos abatement contractor who is registered with Cal/OSHA to perform asbestos-

related work shall perform disturbance and/or removal of ACCM. Cal/OSHA requirementsand other applicable regulations pertaining to ACCM shall be followed during demolitionactivities.


2. The Contractor shall submit an Asbestos Work Plan indicating the proposed abatementmethods and control measures they will use to remove the ACCM. The County Departmentof General Services, prior to initiation of demolition activities associated with the QuonsetHut, garage, fire station, and community building shall review and approve the AsbestosWork Plan. OHP shall provide on-site project surveillance of the abatement contractor.

3. Notification shall be made to Cal/OSHA and the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) priorto asbestos-related and demolition activities.

Mitigation Measure HM3: Lead Based Paint

1. The Contractor shall assume that those surfaces that did not contain “high” concentrations oflead do contain lead at lower levels. The Contractor shall protect their employeesaccordingly. The Contractor should be aware that due to the unknown painting andremodeling history of the buildings, small patches of “high” concentration LBP may bepresent that were not previously identified.

For paint disturbing activities on “low” concentration components, general precautions shallbe taken to minimize the release of chips, dust and debris to the ground surface, vegetation,and inside the buildings. Chips, dust and debris shall be cleaned up according to standardpractices or as directed by the on-site asbestos/lead monitor.

2. If the project is expected to disturb greater than 100 ft2 of paint, notification shall be made toCal/OSHA prior to lead-related and demolition activities.

b) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?




No Impact: See response listed under “Section VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials”,Question a. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HM1 through HM3 will reduce significantimpacts associated with ACCMs and LBPs to a level less than significant.

The project site is not located within on-quarter mile of an existing school. In addition, theproposed project does not require the handling, storage, or transport of hazardous materials.Therefore, the project will not have any effect on an existing or proposed school. No impact isidentified for this issue area.


c) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public or the environment?




No Impact: The project site is not located on a site listed in the State of California HazardousWaste and Substances sites list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Noimpact is identified for this issue area.

d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not beenadopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the projectresult in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?




No Impact: The proposed project is not located within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP), a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), within a Federal Aviation AdministrationHeight Notification Surface, or within two miles of a public airport. Also, the project does notpropose construction of any structure equal to or greater than 150 feet in height, constituting asafety hazard to aircraft and/or operations from an airport or heliport. Therefore, the project willnot constitute a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact isidentified for the issue area.

e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safetyhazard for people residing or working in the project area?




No Impact: The proposed project is not within one mile of a private airstrip. As a result, theproject will not constitute a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Noimpact is identified for this issue area.


f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency responseplan or emergency evacuation plan?




The following sections summarize the project’s consistency with applicable emergency responseplans or emergency evacuation plans.

i. OPERATIONAL AREA EMERGENCY PLAN:

No Impact: The Operational Area Emergency Plan is a framework document thatprovides direction to local jurisdictions to develop specific operational area of San DiegoCounty. It provides guidance for emergency planning and requires subsequent plans tobe established by each jurisdiction that has responsibilities in a disaster situation. Theproject will not interfere with this plan because it will not preclude implementation of anyexisting operational emergency plan or prohibit subsequent plans from being established.No impact is identified for this issue area.

ii. SAN DIEGO COUNTY NUCLEAR POWER STATION EMERGENCY RESPONSEPLAN

No Impact: The San Diego County Nuclear Power Station Emergency Response Planwill not be interfered with by the project due to the location of the project, the nuclearplant and the specific requirements of the plan. The emergency plan for the San OnofreNuclear Generating Station includes an emergency planning zone within a 10-mileradius. All land area within 10 miles of the plant is not within the jurisdiction of theunincorporated County and as such a project in the unincorporated area is not expected tointerfere with any response or evacuation. No impact is identified for this issue area.

iii. OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY ELEMENT

No Impact: The Oil Spill Contingency Element will not be interfered with because theproject is not located along the coastal zone or coastline. No impact is identified for thisissue area.

iv. EMERGENCY WATER CONTINGENCIES ANNEX AND ENERGY SHORTAGERESPONSE PLAN

No Impact: The Emergency Water Contingencies Annex and Energy ShortageResponse Plan will not be interfered with because the project does not propose alteringmajor water or energy supply infrastructure, such as the California Aqueduct. No impactis identified for this issue area.


v. DAM EVACUATION PLAN

No Impact: The Dam Evacuation Plan will not be interfered with because the project islocated outside a dam inundation zone. No impact is identified for this issue area.

g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involvingwildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or whereresidences are intermixed with wildlands?




No Impact: The project site is completely located in and is generally surrounded by anurbanized area; however, the area beyond the project site to the north is vacant and disturbed.No wildlands are located adjacent to the project site. No impact identified for this issue area.

h) Propose a use, or place residents adjacent to an existing or reasonably foreseeable usethat would substantially increase current or future resident’s exposure to vectors,including mosquitoes, rats or flies, which are capable of transmitting significant publichealth diseases or nuisances?




No Impact: The proposed project does not involve or support uses that allow water to stand fora period of 72 hours (three days) or more (e.g. artificial lakes, agricultural irrigation ponds).Also, the proposed project does not involve or support uses that will produce or collect animalwaste, such as equestrian facilities, agricultural operations (chicken coops, dairies etc.), solidwaste facility or other similar uses. Therefore, the project will not substantially increase theexposure of current adjacent residences to vectors, including mosquitoes, rats or flies. No impactis identified for this issue area.


VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

a) Violate any waste discharge requirements?



Less Than Significant Impact: The project does not propose waste discharges that requirewaste discharge requirement permits, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permits, or water quality certification from the San Diego Regional Water QualityControl Board (SDRWQCB). In addition, the project does not propose any known sources ofpolluted runoff or land use activities that would require special site design considerations, sourcecontrol Best Management Practices (BMPs) or treatment control BMPs, under the San DiegoMunicipal Storm Water Permit (SDRWQCB Order No. R9-2007-0001). The proposed projectwould include pre- and post-construction BMPs to reduce the potential for erosion. Therefore, aless than significant impact is identified for this issue area.

b) Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean WaterAct Section 303(d) list? If so, could the project result in an increase in any pollutant forwhich the water body is already impaired?




No Impact: The project lies in the Santee Hydrologic Subarea, within the San Diego Hydrologicunit. Storm drains from the project site release water into the San Diego River, which is atributary to Pacific Ocean. According to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list, June 28, 2007,the lower portions of the San Diego River are impaired with fecal coliform (lower six miles, lowdissolved oxygen, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids. In addition, the Pacific OceanShoreline is impaired with indicator bacteria. The project does not propose any known source ofpollutants or land use activities that might contribute pollutants to these impaired water bodies.No impact is identified for this issue area.

c) Could the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface orgroundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?





No Impact: The project does not propose any known sources of polluted runoff. In addition theproject does not propose new storm water drainage facilities. Pre- and post-construction BMPswill be implemented to reduce erosion from the project site. No impact is identified for this issuearea.

d) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of thelocal groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells woulddrop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for whichpermits have been granted)?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures on the project site.Therefore, the proposed project would not require a water supply to serve the project and wouldnot use groundwater. In addition, nor would the proposed project interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge because it does not involve regional diversion of water to anothergroundwater basin; or diversion or channelization of a stream course or waterway withimpervious layers, such as concrete lining or culverts, for substantial distances (e.g. 1/4 mile).These activities and operations can substantially affect rates of groundwater recharge. No impactis identified for the issue area.

e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantialerosion or siltation on- or off-site?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures. After the structuresare demolished the site would remain vacant. As such, the project does not involve constructionof new or expanded development that could alter the drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which wouldresult in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project site is completely developedand the proposed project will not alter the existing natural topography, vegetation, or drainagecourses on-site or off-site. Furthermore, pre- and post-construction BMPs will be implemented


to avoid any erosion impacts from the project site. Therefore, no impact is identified for thisissue area.

f) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ofsurface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures. After the structuresare demolished the site would remain vacant. The project does not involve construction of newor expanded development that could alter the drainage pattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate oramount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. The projectsite is completely developed and the proposed project will not alter the existing naturaltopography, vegetation, or drainage courses on-site or off-site. No impact is identified for thisissue area.

g) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or plannedstorm water drainage systems?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures. After the structuresare demolished the site would remain vacant. The proposed project will not substantiallyincrease the amount of stormwater runoff entering the existing stormwater drainage system. Theproposed project may decrease the amount of stormwater runoff entering the system because theamount of impervious surfaces on the site will be substantially reduced. For example, the projectsite would become a vacant lot, which would allow stormwater to percolate into the soil,reducing the amount of stormwater leaving the site. No impact is identified for this issue area.

h) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?





No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures. After the structuresare demolished the site would remain vacant. The proposed project will not create substantialadditional sources of polluted runoff. As discussed above, the proposed project would result inless impervious surfaces; thereby resulting in less runoff. In addition, the proposed projectwould involve the implementation of pre- and post-construction BMPs to avoid impacts toerosion/runoff impacts. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.

Refer to VIII Hydrology and Water Quality Questions a, b, c, for further information.

i) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood HazardBoundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, includingCounty Floodplain Maps?




No Impact: No FEMA mapped floodplains, County-mapped floodplains or drainages with awatershed greater than 25 acres were identified on the project site. Furthermore, the proposedproject is the demolition of existing structures and no housing is proposed to be developed aspart of the project. No impacts were identified for this issue area.

j) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirectflood flows?




No Impact: No 100-year flood hazard areas were identified on the portion of the project site.Furthermore, the proposed project is the demolition of existing structures and no housing orstructures are proposed to be developed as part of the project. No impacts were identified forthis issue area.

k) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involvingflooding?





No Impact: The project site lies outside any identified special flood hazard area. Therefore, theproject will not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding.Furthermore, the proposed project is the demolition of existing structures and no housing orstructures are proposed to be developed as part of the project. No impact is identified for thisissue area.

l) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involvingflooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?




No Impact: The project site lies outside any identified special flood hazard area including amapped dam inundation area for a major dam/reservoir within San Diego County. The projectsite is approximately one half mile south of the San Diego River. In addition, the project is notlocated immediately downstream of a minor dam that could potentially flood the property.Furthermore, the proposed project is the demolition of existing structures and no housing orstructures are proposed to be developed as part of the project. Therefore, the project will notexpose people to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. No impact isidentified for this issue area.

m) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?




i. SEICHE

No Impact: The project site is not located along the shoreline of a lake or reservoir;therefore, could not be inundated by a seiche. No impact is identified for this issue area.

ii. TSUNAMI

No Impact: The project site is located more than one mile from the coast; therefore, in theevent of a tsunami, would not be inundated. No impact is identified for this issue area.


iii. MUDFLOW

No Impact: Mudflow is a type of landslide. The site is not located within a landslidesusceptibility zone. In addition, though the project does propose land disturbance that willexpose unprotected soils, the project is not located downstream from unprotected, exposedsoils within a landslide susceptibility zone. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the projectwill expose people or property to inundation due to a mudflow. No impact is identified forthis issue area.

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?




No Impact: The project does not propose the introduction of new infrastructure such as majorroadways, water supply systems, or utilities to the area. The project is the demolition of theexisting structures. The site will remain vacant until future development is proposed under theSantee Town Center Master Plan. No impact is identified for this issue area.

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding ormitigating an environmental effect?




No Impact: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Town Center. Thesite is zoned Town Center. The proposed project is the demolition of the existing structures.Following the demolition of these structures and removal of all asphalt and fencing, the sitewould remain vacant until future development guided by the Santee Town Center Master Plan isproposed for the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicableland use plan, policy, or regulation. No impact is identified for this issue area.


X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value tothe region and the residents of the state?



Less than Significant Impact: The project site is within land classified by the CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation – Division of Mines and Geology (Update of Mineral LandClassification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego Production-Consumption Region,1997) as an area of “Identified Mineral Resource Significance” (MRZ-3). Lands with thisdesignation are areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits arepresent or where it is judged that there is a high likelihood for their presence. However, theproject site is not currently nor has it been utilized for the extraction of mineral resources, and itis not considered to be an Extractive Use Zone (S-82) nor does it have an Impact Sensitive LandUse Designation (24) with an Extractive Land Use Overlay (25) (County Land Use Element,2000). In addition, the project site is generally surrounded by densely developed land usesincluding commercial and office uses that are incompatible with future extraction of mineralresources on the project site. Therefore, implementation of the project will not result in the lossof availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value since the mineral resource hasalready been lost due to incompatible land uses. A less than significant impact is identified forthis issue area.

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?




No Impact: The project site is zoned Town Center, which is not considered to be an ExtractiveUse Zone (S-82) nor does it have an Impact Sensitive Land Use Designation (24) with anExtractive Land Use Overlay (25) (County Land Use Element, 2000). No impact is identifiedfor this issue area.


XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established inthe local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing on-site structures. After thestructures are demolished, the site will remain vacant until future development is proposed underthe Santee Town Center Master Plan. The proposed project will create minor noise impactsduring demolition; however, the project would not generate noise during demolition that mayexceed the standards of the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36-410). Demolitionoperations will occur only during permitted hours of operation pursuant to Section 36-410. Alsoit is not anticipated that the project will operate construction equipment in excess of 75 dB formore than 8 hours during a 24-hour period. Therefore, the proposed project will not exposepeople to or generate any noise levels that exceed the allowable limits of the County of SanDiego Noise Element of the General Plan, County of San Diego Noise Ordinance, and otherapplicable local, State, and Federal noise control regulations. No impact is identified for thisissue area.

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbornenoise levels?


Less than Significant Impact withMitigation Incorporated X No Impact


No Impact: The project does not propose any major, new or expanded infrastructure such asmass transit, highways or major roadways or intensive extractive industry that could generateexcessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels on-site or in the surrounding area.No impact is identified for this issue area.

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity abovelevels existing without the project?





No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures. After demolition ofthe structures, the project site would remain vacant. The proposed project does not support anynoise-generating equipment or uses. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantialpermanent increase in existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. No impact isidentified for this issue area.

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity above levels existing without the project?




No Impact: The proposed project is the demolition of existing structures. After demolition ofthe structures, the project site would remain vacant. The proposed project does not support anynoise-generating equipment. Also, the temporary increase over existing ambient levels forgeneral construction (e.g., demolition) is not expected to exceed the construction noise limits ofthe County of San Diego Noise Ordinance (Section 36-410), which are derived from Stateregulation to address human health and quality of life concerns. Demolition operations willoccur only during permitted hours of operation pursuant to Section 36-410. Also it is notanticipated that the proposed project will operation construction equipment in excess of 75 dBfor more than 8 hours during a 24-hour period. Therefore, the proposed project would not resultin a substantial temporary or periodic increase in existing ambient noise levels in the projectvicinity. No impact is identified for this issue area.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not beenadopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would t

Documents

DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION...(APCD) prior to asbestos-related and demolition activities. Mitigation Measure HM3: Lead Based Paint 1.The Contractor shall assume that those