ML20236N855
| ML20236N855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000734 |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1998 |
| From: | Monserrate L CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807150290 | |
| Download: ML20236N855 (21) | |
Text
CIW OF SAN DIEGO h
Development Services j
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 9()//t3 )-
L 1222 First Avenue, Mail Station 501 San Diogo, CA 92101 l
l.
(619) 236-6460 l
PUBLIC NOTICE OF 1
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of San Diego Land Development Review Division for the project listed below:
LDR No. 98-0333 i
l
SUBJECT:
General Atomms Demohten. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, HILLSIDE l
REVIEW PERMIT AND GRADING REVIEW PERMIT No. 98-0333 for the demolition of Buildings 23,27-1,31-1,31-3, and a portion of Buildings 21 and 30, and replacement with asphalt concrete and landscaping. The 59.8-acre property is located at 3350 General Atomics Court, between Tower Road and Science Center Drive, in the University community planning area (Lots 31,33, and 34 of Torrey Pines Science Center Unit No 2, Map 12845). Applicant:
Hopkins Properties, Inc.
l This recommended finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the l
environment is based on an Environmental Initial Study conducted by the City. The draft and supporting documents may be reviewed, or l
Negative Declaration, initial Study, ion, at the office of the Land Development Review l
>urchased for the cost of reproduct l
Jivision,1222 First Avenue, Fifth Floor, San Diego, CA 92101.
I To request the Negative Declaration, Initial Study and/or supporting documents in alternative format, call Development Services at 236-6460 immediately to ensure availability. This information is ALSO available in alternative formats for persons with disabilities. To request this notice in attemative format, call (800) 735-2929 (TEXT TELEPHONE).
)
For environmental review information, contact Eileen Lower at (629) 236-6302. For information regarding public meetings / hearings on this project, contact Leisa Lukes at (619) l 533-6192.
.I Written comments regarding the adequacy of this Draft Negative Declaration must be sent to Eileen Lower, Environmental Planner, at the above address, and must be received by JUL 2 0 m A final environmental report incorporating public input will then be prepared for consideration by decision-making authorities.
Lawrence C. Monserrate, Environmental Review Manager -
Development Services This notice was published in the SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT and distributed on jy[ g 1. g I
l i
i K
.', A 0
990715029d'}9007017 l
PDR ADOCK 0700o734
~
C PDR y-l l
L_____.____..._
_j
' Dey:l:prn:nt Servic 3 Department Negative Declaration Land c.. _ o,-,t Review DMalon LDR No. 98-0333 (619) 236-6460
SUBJECT:
General Atomics Demolition. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT AND GRADING REVIEW PERMIT No. 98-0333 for the demolition of Buildings 23,27-1,31-1,31-3, and a portion of Buildings 21 and 30, and replacement with asphalt concrete and landscaping. The 59.8-acre property is located at 3350 General Atomics Court, between Tower Road and Science Center Drive, in the University community planning area (Lots 31,33, and 34 of Torrey Pines Science Center Unit No. 2, Map 12845). Applicant: Hopkins Properties, Inc.
I.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached Initial Study.
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See attached initial Study.
Ill.
DETERMINATION:
The City of San Diego has conducted an Initial Study and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect and the preparation of an Environmental impact Report will not be required.
IV.
DOCUMENTATION:
The attached initial Study dbcuments the reasons to support the above Determination V.
MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: None required.
VI.
PUBLIC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION:
Draft copies or notice of this Negative Declaration were distributed to:
City of San Diggo Councilmember Mathis, District 1 Development Services Community and Economic Development Other Nuclear Regulatory Commission California State Department of Health Services MCAS Miramar MCAS ElToro University of California at San Diego University Community Planning Group Hopkins Properties, Inc., (applicant)
Page 2 Vll.
RESULTS OF PUBLIC REVIEW:
No comments were received during the public input period.
()
Comtnents were received but did not address the draft Negative Declaration
()
finding or the accuracy / completeness of the initial Study. No response is necessary. The letters are attached.
Comments addressing the findings of the draft Negative Declaration and/or
()
accuracy or completeness of the initial Study were received during the public input period. The letters and responses follow.
Copies of the draft Negative Declaration and any Initial Study material are available in the office of the Land Development Review Division for review, or for purchase at the cost of reproduction.
[=
July 1, 1998
=
Date of Draft Report D. Sedrr Cdrdenas, Senior Planner Development Services Date of Final Report Analyst: Lower
~
i l
1
City of San Diego Development Services LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 1222 First Avenue, Mail Station 501 -
San D' o, CA 92101 (619) 2 60 INITIAL STUDY LDR No. 98-0333
SUBJECT:
General Atomics Demolition. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, HILLSIDE REVIEW PERMIT AND GRADING REVIEW PERMIT No. 98-0333 for the demolition of Buildings 23,27-1,31-1,31-3, and a portion of Buildings 21 and 30, and replacement with asphalt concrete and landscaping. The 59.8-acre property is located at 3350 General Atomics Court, between Tower Road and Science Center Drive, in the University community plannin3 area (Lots 31,33, and 34 of Torrey Pines Science Center Unit No. 2, Wlap 12845). Applicant: Hopkins Properties, Inc.
l.
PURPOSE AND MAIN FEATURES:
1 The proposed Coastal Development Permit, Hillside Review Permit and Grading Review Permit, to be considered by the Hearing Officer (Process 3), would authorize the controlled dismantling of several obsolete structures located within the Torrey Pines Science. Center P anned Industrial Development (PlD No. 88-0884) as follows: Buildings 31-1 and 31-3, sited on 58.98-acre Lot 31; Building 27-1 on 0.65 acre Lot 33; and Building 23 on 0.19-acre Lot 34, would be completely demolished. A portion of Buildings 21 and 30 on Lot 33 would also be removed. The buildings are approximately 35 years old, and were used for nuclear research. Beca0se nuclear research involves the use of radioactive subt.tances, the dismantling, transportation and disposal of the building materials is subject to licensing by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the California State Department of Health Services. The applicant has obtained federal and state-approved plans for the handling of the materials.
The project would involve 1,100 cubic yards of grading (1,100 cubic yards each of cut and fill) on a total of 0.56 acres. The Buildings 30,31-3, and 21 sites and a poition of the Buildings 31-1 and 27-1 sites would be capped with asphalt f
cement or concrete pavin3. The Building 23 site and portions of the Buildings 27-1 and 31-3 sites wouk be landscaped with native and naturalized species in conformsnce with the City's Landscape Ordinance and consistent with the PID permit requirements. No native vegetation would be disturbed. Because no new structures or additional parking areas are proposed, no brush management is required for this project.
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
TN pro ect site is located on Lots 31, 33 and 34 within the Torrey Pines Science Ce. iter PID see Figures 1 and 2), in an area designated for industrial uses by the "Univers(ity Community Plan". The buildings to be demolished are sited al the central portion of the northwestern border of the PID (see Figure 3). Tower Road is to the north and west of the site, Science Center Drive is to the east, and Genesee Avenue is to the south. The facilities to be removed are immediately
Page 2 surrounded by other scientific research facilities and/or paved areas and ruderal and non-native species, such as fennel, ice plant, and eucalyptus. No sensitive species occur on the site. The property is zoned SR (scientific research), as is all of the surrounding proserty. Buildings 31-1,31-3, and a portion of 27-1 are located in the Hillside Review Overlay Zone, and are adjacent to a disturbed natural open space ravine. The project area is not adjacent to any City of San Diego Multiple Habitat Planning Area.
Ill.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: See attached initial Study checklist.
IV. - DISCUSSION:
Geoloav/ Soils The project site is located in a seismically active region of California, and.
therefore, the potential exists for geologic hazards, such as earthc uakes and.
ground failure. The City of San Diego's Seismic Safety Study"(lWap No. 34) assa'gns Geologic Hazard Categones 25 (neutral or favorable geologic structure) and 52 (favorable geologic structure, low risk) to the site. A small east-west trending fault lies a > proximately 300-400 feet to the north of Building 23; however, no faults wve been mapped on site. Because the site is currently developed and seismic considerations were required in the existing building
- design, the impacts to the existing structures would likely be minimal. No new structures are proposed, and the potential for geologic impacts from regional hazards would be insignificant.
V. - RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
The proposed project would not have a significant effect on the X
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures describedin Sechon IV above have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared.
The proposed pro'ect MAY have a s'ignificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON WENTAL IMPACT REPORT should be required.
~ PROJECT ANALYST: Lower Figure 1 (Regional Map) )
Attachments:
Figure 2 (Proflect Location F ure 3 (Building Locations) 9 Initial Study Checklist
Orange Ceemusy I)
Rlumide Comer reeween a
p b
\\
.. i l
ue ing j
v.a., c Vista
$1 Oceanside g,,
g Marcos 1
Escondido Carlseed.
y y
haiens Q ~=. p F.
\\
l Del Mar
' Poway PROJECT q
I.
d SITE
- .e-l
'l Sante
_ g sp),
a_
, ~en s
u u..a San Diego.L
/s '
Lemo Yy.*
Gr e l
~
L I
t,,,
eronado t'
e
_.e imp.,ias seach
.. T,,.
{
' **Wu,,,eo r p' r-
. L l
)
REGIONALMAP l
l Figure l
Environmental Analysis Section q
l CITY OF SAN DIEGO e DEVELOPMENT SERVICES l
u_---____________________.
i
f:q%&~=i -
qz.s r
. f t.
\\
r:
4)i Qgy$f 9$hmfEf k\\.
l:. W si '
\\\\.)
'.. i.
~~
L k
h i
h" MY N f' c-
[Mb E'$N)
'E
- n \\b' \\,\\
,,, b 86~
. p. g=, ;
^ ~. - -.. '
y t,.r r
p PROJECT LOCATION g < g~'.
i,-
. a. - --
-e. %..z i
. \\,.
"y,,,u,,,
'- '1 '..
i
... ~
w\\.
y
-) ' 'Nh f
/y S.~ -OS I 2
! q b 'f
\\f\\
k y-
- )
T..,'
/l,
- l)i
, i
((i..
e
,I I
c'
[,' g,'.
%s
% ).:
y
., G m,t i
.t '
- ' ~.
\\.:>'
- ',,.,.)
, M'
,,,5[r^ -
~'
~'
~
'A
- $.,-4j.. 'j:
,d\\
[ ' \\ lu
. [?
k
, ),
g C'
\\
s.
i m'::<ag pp ! y' l}&y=ma;)mim q'~
uh>
/
. b.1
-*j' h?YhhlOK{~'d?hN'i$.y}h'.?'\\'PVht'I m
4 h,$
~
hl~...)
YP @ \\\\
W8 cum j.
/
I,,
- {-... ~ - -. !,- llf_}i sf' '/
~
jy -
I gl,
f,
^ -4 9
- r-
)
Jg'
,,)
. W ;)
- g. - j&en,,. /
l f h' I l
Il i
- g \\\\
- y.}~l I
,.=:
g#J ui ?
dis p.~J AS*Ty%gl$p (
$Y' hd
,J, Q
'N
'h
=-
Mshdd. li; M!4gt 3Pb
~
i'-;, M 5?-T 'th)) }l'
\\\\ \\M)
/
\\ \\N3Nyp5/gi.,r )/ 11 \\ w sm \\ mr
'1 rN;
- l. %#fRV IY "LgWG9Mf" Qif h,h.7 d
4 - ",,.j
f ?
8 +i i
u,
. =:: :---+ydt; w l
- j. y o,7 e
o c
- j i I OM I O j
! 00 N A'N'.'5<Y 'A CMSW
'~~ ~O 15.
hj, s
's t
,J-i PROJECT LOCATION Figure Environmental Analysis Section 2
CITY OF SAN DIEGO + DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
- p. t i iyy//
[, w wy' //. /
---~.'
.r. ~\\ s
. -d>,- ',\\ N s
,./ -
A
-....e,/. a/,..,/,,
/
,.l9
.b..
. i ("
,.k.
a, l
i g
W '.g. A _I.
A,g,Q" -(.
p u d. s $s~ s g~ j p 3 f' 's y&; %:
- y., t.\\
E v q f2&gg /g&e,.s s.
N.
- q&,q&
- j/
l%.
.ER';;...
. L g.:'...
\\
r
/
-c.;.c., -
y
- idALki{t=)50
.i
&('9,/ /,H0%i', " ' ~% />p;.,'\\
~~
- ~'
/
<5i
,Q. $
\\4\\
.Af-H.
I ' < r,y
/
.,- /
/ bYl, j,W'
/
c,I iN U
%.\\
'c.\\ ?_
/... & l % $
- /.A
/./,-~.~ \\, \\ \\,. { ;
j' -
!/>
~
.;./. /
,1!
. /.
c*r
.wfain\\i t
\\,.-
~-
i'.
- b u\\,..p l ( t !,'/..
l
,/
, '&Y
,1.W, D$;:.
i i
'/./,e
~. * -;
Buildin9 23
/ / e-~- Building.27-1 i..:f+f i:g.-
'L^ _-~M&R'- ~c r'
~
-a M
/,/,,./'/ ~
c*, f',
's.. !.i i;.
i.,x 9 g i
sv i-t
'/,.,- __ ~.~;. s. t
- c. x.....,,.
y 3../.- a 9-o..a(
/
a.. :
e u
? :,..:. :;-
./,/
.--.~ ~~~.,~~~.!..!
!..,k.. H. 4.-
Building 21
/ -~~-
2,v i
i f: ;
==:g,\\.....
s..
I ',T :
'%. 7 -..
l i/
- 1 t
s..
. ' /. -
~ %
,i-w v.
..8 r..
n..
.s i
- c. v '.
- rj.,.,
i j l*s ;!.
p 3
a s
~..%~.
)
-s i
a.
c
.~c.g;'._.,m.. -~ -:
,%s., s -
y-
/
P
.,'...g.
..,,' V s p. ~ %@s ~....., ~~
as **f../ /'4 5 i,..i -
- f P.:7
'.,;** fif,y,S,ha..&sq.'
~
\\
.',.:[,
ji l
i
=,
4. / y.,
(,ll,./j. !.
.: g w a ;;~,.g.m
,i -
--Building 31 g%M ~~
- 34,_\\
, g.
,,;_;_.,(_
/-
/
3 M h.d.'
l
{ / l /./n /e's.c:.'.R.~ ~.i iN$$Qfs%'%..'w&.,mh $.s f @-Building 31-1 n,w NR'~~T..'.s.
.[w%.\\~..j
~..%m: i,;,r.
s s
.s s.
- .ms y
.;~
- i.c#-
T.
m*
". g+.
/%..+ fava *
~,
s J
/.
.,/
N:-
'.' [
./,/ - Q., '-
g.. ira,.. ug. %:
e,.
t'.
.f Ij.n i.
.\\. g
\\
,/
. s 3.Y:%N Building 30 l
Idri/i! /
2
/,<
.~ m.,.
r
- 1.,
+.
v t-r-
,. gjs.,y' a
6 i %3./ T. a v x' %.uf 2 I!!
1 i
.a-
/
ii
- ":. Jg.Cf,/'O,/ f
%.~.g V>
y:.7,.q; {.rc=-y%. n,:
%b/.n - - - !o /i { j li
.8-r...-
\\
~
~^
.a
/
-s,-
u..', = -.
- ; ;-l
. =::. s-
.,.~
~.
's.
- *,. l. 9.y..-.q.W ~~~
b,. 'i
%:;I
,s,/3.d ih'Md *,\\,
s N
'\\-- G /
- [~ #
~
A a
.g
.f
, e. w..t.Q ~*.%
~
(
,/;
)
h
,s\\. #
'\\\\, -2.jh-f9.e- '.'%a. '.5 Y+N '.A.::;:. io'#h / //
')
f
/W--;
m ---
i ::
Q, i
~
j
./
.I
'-'~f~ ]%. '
n.,; s L. --..- m.----
,: h.,.?j:,' i
.ll l
..V.
\\.
c
(
s.
r s
s:v.:. -
t.
1 t, 7:.~ / f./
s 1
r.
h [s..
/
......uZ s
c,(f-
/ s%:
%...~. 4 c
.v BUILDING LOCATIONS E
. Environmental Analysis Section Figure 3
CITY OF SAN DIEGO e DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1
)
a
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST -
Date: May 5.1998 LDR No. __98-0333
.Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
This initial Study checklist is designed to identify the potential for significant environmen could be associated with a project. All answers of "yes" and "maybe" indicate that there significant environmental impacts and these determinsbons are explained in Section IV.
Y.ga Maybe Hg A.
Geolopv/ Sods Will the proposal result in:
1.
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
_E._
ground failure, or simdar hazards?
GEOLOGIC HAZARD RATING 25/52: LOW RISK. RFF INITIAL STUDY DISCUSSION.
2.
Any increasein wind orwater erosion X
of soils, either on or off the site?
PRO. LECT WOULD DISTURB 0.56 ACRES.
SEE I.S. PURPOSE AND MAIN FEATURES.
B.
Ait. Willthe proposal resultin:
Air emissions which would substantially X
1, detenorate amtnent air quality? -
PROJECT IS THE PFMOVAL OF.
ORRoi ETE RESEARCH BUILDINGS AND REPLAr.FupNTWITH ASPHALT CONCRETE AND LANDSCAPING.
2.
The exposure of sensitive receptors to-
_X.,
substantial pollutant concentrations?
PROIFCT WOULD NOT GENERATE SURATANTIAL POLLUTANT CONr.FNTRATIONS.
_X_
3.
The creabon of objectionable odors? -
PRn.lFCT WOULD NOT GENEB&IE ORIECTIONARI F ODORS.
X_
4.
The creebon of dust?
TFMPORARY DURING CONSTRUCTION ONLY.
5.
Any altersbon of air movementin
_X_
the area of the project'?
SEE B B.
A substantial alteration in moisture, l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
L' Y_ag Maybe N2 f
or temperature, or any change in
. climate, either locally or regionally?
_)L SEE B-1.
C.
Hydrologv/ Water Quality Will the proposal result in:-
Changes in currents, or the course or 1.
directon of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
.)L SITE WOULD DRAIN INTO EXISTING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
2.
Changes in absorpbon rates, drainage pattoms, or the rate and amount of X
surface runoff?
PROJECT WOULD INCREMENTALLY DECREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.
- 3.
Altersbons to the course or flow of flood waters?
2L' RFF C-1. PROJECT IS NOT IN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
4.
Discharge into surface or ground waters, or in any alteration of surface or ground water quality, including, but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or X
turbWity?
SEE B1.
' 5.
Discharge into surface or ground waters,
- significant amounts of pesticides,
~
hertucedes, fertilizers, gas, oil, or other X
noxious chemicals?
SEE B1.
6.
Change in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean X
or any boy, inlet orlake?
SEE B1 AND C1.
7.
- Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?
._2L
' SEE C-3 i
L 8.
Change in the amount of surface water E
f in any water body?
SEE C-1.
l l
D.
Bology ~ Will the proposal result in:
2-
y_en Mavbe No
)
{
1.
A reduction in the number of any unique, rare, endangered, sensitive, or fully X'
protected species of plants or animais?
NO SENSITIVE RESOURCES EXIST ON-SITE. SEE I.S. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
2.
A substantial change in the diversity X
of any species of animals or plants?
SEE D-1.
3.
Introduction of invasive species of X
plants into the area?
PROJECT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.
4.
Interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife X
species?
SEE D-1. NO SUCH MIGRATORY CORRIDORS EXIST ON-SITE.
5.
An impact on a sensitive habitat, including, but not limited to streamside vegetation, oak wnodland, vamal pools, coastal salt marsh, lagoon, wetland, or
_X_
coastal sage scrub or chaparral?
SEE D-1.
6.
Deterioration of existing fish or X
wildlife habitat?
SEE D-1.
E.
Notac Willthe proposalresultin:
1.
A significantincrease in the X
existing ambient noise levels?
EEE B1.
2.
Exposure of people to noise levels which exceed the City's adopted noise X
ordinance?
SEEB1.
3.
Exposure of people to current or future transportation noise levels which exceed standards established in the Transportation X
Element of the General Plan?
PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE TRAFFIC.
F.
Licht. Glare and Shadina. Will the proposal result in:
3-
Yan Maybe No l
X 1.
_ Substantiallight or glare?
PROJECT WOULD REMOVE OBSOLETE BulLDINGS AND REPLACE THEM WITH ASPHALT AND LANDSCAPING.
X 2.
Substantial shading of other properties?
1 SEE F1.
l G.
und Use Will the proposal resultin:
1.
A land use which is inconsistent with the adopted community plan land use designabon for the site?..
K_
PROJECT CONFORMS TO ALL ADOPTED PLANS. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS. AND ZONING.
- 2. '
A conflict with the goals, objectives and recommendatens of the community X
plan in which itis located?
SEE G-1.
I 3.
A conflict with adopted environmental j
X plans for the area?
SEE G-1.
4.
Land uses which are not compatible with aircraft accident potential as defined by X
l a SANDAG Airport Land,Use Plan (ALUC)? -
SEE G-1.
H.
Natural Resources Will the proposal result in:
1.
The preventen of future extraction of l
X sand and gravel resources?
NO SUCH NATURAL RESOURCES EXIST ON-SITE OR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY.
2.
The conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use or hipairment of the ogncultural productivity of agricultural K_
land?
SEE H-1.
l.
Recrombonal Resources Willthe proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreshonal X
opportunities?
NO SUCH RESOURCES EXIST ON-SITE OR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY.
J.
Populatior) Willthe proposal alter the planned location, distribution, density, or __ _ _ __ _ _____ __
_a
101
_Maybe No
_X_
growth rate of the population of an area?
SITE IS WITHIN AN EXISTING APPROVED PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.
_ ousina. Will the proposal affect existing H
K.
housing in the community, or create a demand
_X_
l for additional housing?
SEE J-1.
Tranannrwinn/ Circulation. Will the proposal L.
result in:
1.
Traffic generation in excess of specific /
_.X.
community plan a! location?
PROJECT WOULD NOT GENERATE TRAFFIC.
2.
An increase in projected traffic which is substantial in relation to the capacity of X
the street system?
Itig. STREET SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY PROJECT.'
X 3.
An increased demand for off-site parking?
ADEQUATE PARKING EXISTS ON-SITE.
X 4;
Effects on existing parking?
SEE L-3 5.
Substantial impact upon' existing or
_X_
planned transportation systems?
SEE L-1.
6.
Alterations to present circulation movements including effects on existing public access to beaches, parks, or
_X_
other open space areas?
PROJECT WOULD NOT AFFECT CIRCULAT!ON OR ACCESS.
7.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor X
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
CEE L-1.
- M.
Puh Sennees Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental sennees in any of the following areas:
X 1.
Fire protection?
Ulb.
X 2.
Police protection?
\\
ygg Mavbe No h
X 3.-
Schools?
m 4.
Parks or other recreational facilities? -
_X_
NLL l
5.
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
_X-Blk X
6.-
Other governmental services?
Nik N.
Utilrhes Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or require substantial alterations to existing utilities, including:
X-1.
Power?
Blk X
2.
Natural gas?
Blk X
3.
Communications systems?
N/A X
. 4.
Water?
hlL X-5.
Sewer'?
ULL X
6.
Storm water drainage?
Blk X-7.
Solid waste disposal?
Nll O.
Energy Will the proposal result in the use X
i of excessive amounts of fuel or energy?
f PROJECT WOULD NOT USE ENERGY.
P.
Water Conservabon Will the proposal result in:
X 1.
Use of excessive amounts of water?
LANDSCAPING WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S LANDSCAPE TECHNICAL MANUAL.
2.
Landscaping which is predominantly ;
l l
]
Yes Maybe No
_X_
non-drought resistant vegetation?.
~ SEE P-1.
Q.
"" ht - i Chaw /.^.__T=E'<. Willthe proposalresultin:
1.
The obstruction of any vista or scenic X
view from a public viewing area?
EROECT WOULD NOT AFFECT ANY E@LIC VIEWS.
2.
The creabon of a negative aesthebc X_
site or project?
THE PROJECT WOULD BE IN CHARACTER WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
3.
. Project bulk, scale, materials, or style which will be incompatible with surrou ding
_K_
development?
SEE Q-2.
4.
Substantial alteration to the existing X_
character of the area?
SEE Q-2.
~ 5.
The loss of any distinctive or landmark X
tree (s), or a stand of mature trees?
NO SUCH LOSS - REM, OVAL OF BUILDINGS ONLY.
6.
Substantial change in topography or ground X
surface relief features?'
SITE PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED.
7.
The loss, covering or modificabon of any unique geologic or physical features such as a natural canyon, sandstone bluff, rock outcrop, or hillside with a slope in excess of 25 percent?
_X_
NO SUCH LOSS OR MODIFICATION R.
Cuitural Resources Will the proposal result in:-
1.
Alteration of or the destruebon of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
_X_
SITE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY -
DEVELOPED. NO SUCH RESOURCES EXIST ON-SITE.
~ Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a 2
i-
?
Yes Mavbe hlg l-prehistoric or historic building, structure, object, or site? :
X NO SUCH RESOURCES ON-SITE.
3.
Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to an architecturally significant building, structure, or object?
X SEE R-2.
4.
Any impact to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?
X SEE R-1.
S.
Paleontoiopical Resources. Will the proposal result in the loss of paleontological X
resources?
SITE IS ON ARTIFICIAL FILL - NO RESOURCE POTENTIAL.
T.
Human Health /Public Safety. Will the proposal result in:
1.
Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding X
mental health)?
DEMOLITION. TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL OF BUILDING MATERIALS WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LICENSES. SEE INITIAL STUDY DISCUSSIOfl.
2.
Exposure of people to potential X
health hazards?
l SEE T1.
3.
A future risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but notlimited to gas, oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, X
or explosives)?
SEE T-1.
U.
Mardawv Findinas of SicnW,c&nce.
1.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or )
Yes Mavbe No
' endangered plant or animal, or eliminate irip%it examples of the major periods X.-
of Califomia history or prehistory?-
SITE HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED.
2.
Does the project have the potenbal to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage oflong-term,env!ror,menta! goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive penod of time while long-term impacts will endure wellinto the X
future.)
NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
3.
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is X
significant.)
NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
4.
Does the project have environrnental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
~
directly or indirectly?
NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
.g.
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST REFERENCES A.
Geology /Solle
_X _ l
~ City of C m Dogo Sommic Safety Study, Updated 1995.
USGS San Dogo County Solis Interpretabon Study - Shrink-Swell Behavior,1989.
GeHogy of the San Dogo Metropolitan Area, Califomia.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey - San Dego Area, Califomia, Part I and 11, December 1973.
l Site Speedic report S.
Air N/A -
Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS)- APCD.
State implementation Plan.
. Site Specific Report:
C.
Hydrology / Water Qrelity
X__
Flood insurance Rate Map (FIRM), September 29,1989.
X._,
Federal Emergerr,y Management Agency (F EMA), National Flood insurance Program - Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, September 29,1989.
Site SpecWic Report:
D.
Biology.
Community Plan - Resource Element.
City of San Dego Vemal Pool Maps.
' Califomia Department of Fish and Game Endangered Plant Prograra - Vegetation of San Diego, March 1985.
Sunset Magazino, New Westem Garden Book - Rev. ed. Menlo Park, CA - Sunset Magazine.
. Robinson, Dowd L, San Dogo's Endangered Snacms.1988.
Califomia Departmac of Fish and Game," San Dogo Vegetabon", March 1985.
Califomia Department of Fish and Game," Bird Species of Special Concem in Califomia", June
-1978.
State of Califomia Department of Fish and Game, " Mammalian Species of Special Coricem in Califomia",1986.' _
State of Celifornia Department of Fish and Game, "Califomia's State Listed Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals", January 1,1989.
Code of Federal Regulaticas, Title 50, Part 10, " List of Migratory Birds."
Code of Feoeral Regulations, Title 50, Part 17. " Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants", January 1,1989.
{
X Site Specific Report (s): CITY OF SAN DIEGO MSCP MAPS.
E.
Noise N/A Community Plan.
San Diego Intem,ational Airport Lindbergh Field CNEL Maps, January 1993 - December 1993.
Brown Field Airport Master Plan CNE'. Maps.
Montgomery Field CNEL Maps.
MCAS Miramar CNEL Maps,1994,1995b.
San Diego Association of Govemments - San Diego Regional Average Weekday Traffic
)
Volumes 1989-94.
San Diego Association of Govemmerts - Average Daily Traffic Map,1997.
San Diego Metropolitan Aree. Average Weekcay Traffic Volume Maps, SANDAG,1994.
Lindbergh Field Airport influence Area, SANDAG Airport Land Use Commission.
City of San Diego Progress' Guide and General Plan.
Site Specific Report:
F.
Light, Glare and Shading N/A Site Specific Report:
G.
Land Use City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan.
X Community Plan.
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
l._
City of Srn Diego Zoning Maps.
FAA De.ermination.
H.
Natural Resources City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan. _ - _ - _ _ -
\\
.)L_-
. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey - Sin Diego Area, Ctlifornit, PIrt i end 11, Decemtw 1973.-
Califomia Department of Conservation - Division of Mines and Geoivgy, Mineral Land Classificabon Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 153 - Significant Resources Maps.
l.
Recreational Resources City of San Dego Progrese, Guide and General Plan.
V Community Plan.
Department of Park and Recreaton.
City of San Dego - A Plan f6r Equestrian Traiis and Facilities, February 6,1975.
City of San Diego - San Diego Regional Bicycling Map.
City of San Diego - Open Space and Sensitive Area Preservation Study, July 1984.
Additional Resources:
J.
Population N/A City of San Dego Progress Guide and General Plan.
Community Plan.
Senes Vil Population Forecasts, SANDAG.
K.
Housing N/A L
Transportation / Circulation N/A City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan.
Community Plan.
San Diego Metropolitan Area Average Weekday Traffic Volume Maps, SANDAG,1997.
San Dego Region Weekday Traffic Volumes 1989-94, SANDAG.
Site Specific Report:
M.
Public Services N/A City of San Dego Progress Guide and General Plan.
Community Plan.
1 i
N.
Utilities N/A O.
Energy N/A !
P.
Cater Conservation N/A Q.
Neighborhood Character / Aesthetics City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan..
X Community Plan.
Local Coastal Plan.
R.
Cultural Resources X
City of San Diego Archaeology Library.
Historical Site Board List.
Community Historical Survey:
Site Specific Report:
S.
Paleontological Resources
_2L.
Kennedy, Michael P., and Gary L. Peterson, " Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, Califomia. Del Mar, La Jolla, Point Loma, La Mesa, Poway, and SW 1/4 Escondido 71/2 Minute Quadrangles," Calrfornia Division of Miras and Geoloav Bulletin 200, Sacramento, 1975.
Kenn4 Michael P., and Slang S. Tan, " Geology of National City, Imperial Beach and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, Southem San Diego Metropolun Area, Califamia," Map Sheet 29,1977.
Site Specific Report:
T.
Human Health /Public Safety
__E_
San Diego County Hazardous Materials Management Division.
FAA Determination.
State Assessment and Mitigation, Unauthorized Release Listing, Public Use Authorized March 28,1995.
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Airport Land Usa Planning Handbook.
,)L PERSONAL CO*4MUNICATION. GEORGE BRAMBLETT. GENERAL ATOMICS. JUNE 19.
.1916 ;