FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION PDP-170 …

FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION

PDP-170-0002

Project Name Lemon Grove Village Retail and Self-Storage Project

Project Location 8016 Broadway, on the north side of Broadway, east of Grove Street and Kempf Street, in the City of Lemon Grove, CA. 91945

APN 475-480-09-00

Project Applicant Brian Voytovich VM Holdings Inc. 223 Compass Irvine, CA. 92618 949-293-9562 [email protected]

Lead Agency City of Lemon Grove Community Development Department, Planning Division 3232 Main Street Lemon Grove, California 91945-1705 Noah Alvey, Community Development Manager (619) 825-3800

Public Review Period October 24, 2019 to November 14, 2019

This Initial Study/Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the 2019 State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). It was circulated for a 20-day public review period as shown above in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a).

mailto:[email protected]

City of Lemon Grove

November 2019 Lemon Grove Village Self-Storage Project – Final IS/ND PDP-170-0002

This page left intentionally blank.

City of Lemon Grove


Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1

CEQA Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Authority ............................................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-1

Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description ................................................................................. 2-1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Existing Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 Surrounding Land Uses .................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Proposed Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................. 3-1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................................... 3-2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................................. 3-3

I. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................................... 3-5 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-7 III. Air Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 3-9 IV. Biological Resources ..............................................................................................................................3-13 V. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................3-15 VI. Energy......................................................................................................................................................3-17 VII. Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................................3-20 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................................3-24 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................3-27 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................................3-30 XI. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................ 3-5 XII. Mineral Resources................................................................................................................................... 3-7 XIII. Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-8 XIV. Population and Housing .......................................................................................................................3-13 XV. Public Services ......................................................................................................................................3-14 XVI. Recreation .............................................................................................................................................3-16 XVII. Transportation/Traffic .........................................................................................................................3-17 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................3-22 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................................................................3-24 XX. Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................................3-28 XXI. Mandatory Finding of Significance ......................................................................................................3-30

Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers ......................................................................................................... 4-1 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 4-1 Individuals and Organizations Consulted ........................................................................................................ 4-1 Preparers ........................................................................................................................................................... 4-1

Attachment A – Figures ................................................................................................................................................. 1

City of Lemon Grove



City of Lemon Grove Chapter 1 - Introduction

November 2019 Lemon Grove Village Self-Storage Project – Final IS/ND PDP-170-0002 1-1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

CEQA Overview The City of Lemon Grove (City) Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed Lemon Grove Village Self-Storage Project located at 8016 Broadway in the City of Lemon Grove. As part of the permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review pursuant to CEQA. One of the main objectives of CEQA is to disclose to the public and decision makers the potential environmental effects of proposed activities. CEQA requires that the lead agency prepare an Initial Study to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report, Negative Declaration, or a Mitigated Negative Declaration is needed. The City’s Community Development Department is the lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA.

Authority The preparation of this IS/ND is governed by two principal sets of documents: CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). Specifically, the preparation of an IS and an ND is guided by the State CEQA Guidelines; Section 15063 describes the requirements for an IS, and Sections 15070–15073 describes the process and requirements for the preparation of an MND. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference will be made either to the CEQA statute or State CEQA Guidelines. This IS/ND contains all of the contents required by CEQA, which includes a project description, a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, consistency with plans and policies, and names of preparers.

Scope This IS/ND evaluates the proposed project’s effects on the following resource topics:

• aesthetics • agriculture and forest resources • air quality • biological resources • cultural resources • energy • geology and soils • greenhouse gas emissions • hazards and hazardous materials • hydrology and water quality • land use planning

• mineral resources • noise • population and housing • public services • recreation • transportation • tribal cultural resources • utilities and service systems • wildfire • mandatory findings of significance

City of Lemon Grove Chapter 1 - Introduction



City of Lemon Grove Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description


Chapter 2 - Environmental Setting and Project Description

Project Overview The proposed Lemon Grove Self-Storage with Retail Project (proposed project) involves the approval of a General Plan Amendment, and Planned Development Permit (PDP) to demolish all existing structures onsite, regrade the site and construct a commercial mixed use development project involving a self-storage facility and commercial retail space on a 1.25 acre parcel. The subject property is located in the northeastern portion of the City of Lemon Grove (see Figures 1 and 2- Regional Location Map and Project Location Map in Attachment A).

The site of the proposed project is 1.25 gross acres in size and is comprised of one parcel (APN: 475-480-09-00) that currently contains a self-serve car wash. A portion of the lot is vacant, and the area has been previously graded and cleared. The existing car wash structures and all related above and below ground structures would be removed as part of the proposed project.

The property is currently designated as Retail Commercial in the City’s General Plan and is zoned as GC-General Commercial. All connections to necessary utilities such as sewer, water, electricity, etc. are available either on-site or within Broadway.

Specifically, the property is located at 8016 Broadway, on the north side of the street between Kempf Street on the west and Washington Street on the east in the City of Lemon Grove (see Figure 3 - Surrounding Land Uses in Attachment A). Adjacent uses include the Grove Motel to the west, the Village Walk Condominium complex to the north, the Lemon Grove Car Wash to the east, and other commercial uses across Broadway to the south.

Broadway, which is south of, and adjacent to, the subject property is classified as a 4-lane major arterial per the City of Lemon Grove General Plan Mobility Element. It has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour and bike lanes on both sides of the street. At the proposed driveway location there is a raised median, currently restricting left-turns into and out of the site.

Existing Environmental Setting CITY OF LEMON GROVE The City of Lemon Grove (City) is located in eastern San Diego County. It is bordered by the City of San Diego on the west and south, the City of La Mesa to the north, and the unincorporated community of Spring Valley to the east. The City of Lemon Grove was incorporated in 1977 and encompasses approximately four-square miles and a population of approximately 26,199 (SANDAG Estimate, 2015).

PROJECT SITE The site consists of one parcel which totals 1.25 acres in size. The project site is occupied by an existing car wash “Splash Car Wash”. Improvements onsite include a 4,809 square feet car wash building consisting of a central storage area and eight self-serve car-wash bays, asphalt paved parking areas, landscaped areas, and drive lanes on the western side of the site. The eastern portion of the site is vacant and disturbed.



The topography of the site is generally flat/level. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Report (Omega, 2019), surface drainage on the site is generally to the north. The majority of the site drains to the westerly boundary to a private storm drain inlet that connects to an existing public storm drain that runs along the northerly boundary of the site. The easterly portion of the site drains to the northeast corner.

On-site elevations range from approximately 450 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southwest corner of the site along Broadway, to approximately 444 feet near the rear, northeastern portion of the site according to the Conceptual Grading Plan prepared for the project site by Omega Engineering Consultants in 2019 (Omega, 2019).

The existing coverage of the structures and paved areas onsite represent approximately 54 percent of the total parcel acreage according to the proposed Site Plan (see Figure 4 – Site Plan). Forty six percent of the site (eastern portion) is currently undeveloped and pervious. Existing vehicular ingress and egress from Broadway is provided by two driveways/curb cuts as shown in Figure 3 in Attachment A.

Existing vegetation onsite is limited to ornamental trees and related landscaping along the perimeter of the site. The eastern half of the site is regularly mowed and relatively free of vegetation with patches of non-native weeds, bare earth and ornamental landscaping that fronts along Broadway. Based on a site visit in September 2019, there was no evidence of sensitive vegetation, or habitats (e.g., riparian, wetland, etc.), or indication of sensitive wildlife on the project site.

According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared for the project by Terracon in August 2019, (Terracon, 2019), based on a review of historical information, the site consisted of undeveloped and/or vacant land from 1904 to 1944. From 1949 to 1953 the site appeared to be occupied by residential dwellings. Circa 1964, the eastern portion of the site was utilized as a driveway for the northern adjoining drive-in movie theater and the western portion of the site was utilized as a car-sales lot (8010 and 8012 Broadway). By 1989 the entire site was vacant land. By 1994, the car-wash building was observed at the site and now resembles the present-day layout.

According to the Geotechnical Investigation, Applied Earth Technology (AET, 2017) prepared for the site, the project area is generally underlain by undocumented/artificial fill, topsoil, subsoil to a depth of approximately 12 feet below the surface. Beneath those layers are Middle to Early Pleistocene Very Old Paralic deposits. On the site, three Very Old Paralic deposits were encountered in the form of medium dense to dense. Light brown/brown silty sands and clayey sands. Undocumented fill spoils were encountered in the rear, northeast portion of the property. Some of the undocumented fills soils contained trash such as concrete and asphaltic concrete pieces and are considered unsuitable, in their present condition, for the support of settlement sensitive improvements. It is recommended that these materials be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Additional information on this topic can be found in Chapter 3 -VII. Geology and Soils.



Surrounding Land Uses Immediately surrounding land uses consist primarily of an apartment community to the north, commercial businesses on the east, a motel on the west and Broadway on the south (see Figure 3 - Surrounding Land Uses in Attachment A). The closest existing public school to the site is Mount Vernon Elementary School located approximately 1.1 miles away to the southeast at 8350 Mont Vernon Street. The closest fire station to the site would be Lemon Grove Fire Station No. 10 located at 7853 Central Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles away to the southwest. The closest police station would be the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office located at 3240 Main Street and approximately 0.6 miles to the southwest. The Lemon Grove Trolley Depot Station (MTS Orange Line) is located approximately 1,500 ft. or approximately .3 miles to the west of the site. The nearest airport is Gillespie Field is located approximately 8 miles to the northeast. The project site is located within the service areas of the Helix Water District (HWD) and the Lemon Grove Sanitation District (LGSD).

Proposed Project Description The applicant for the project proposes to amend the City’s General Plan land use classification from Retail Commercial to Mixed Use for the development of a new 108,898 square foot three-story commercial mixed-use building with a basement (see Figure 4 – Site Plan). The self-storage facility will occupy 103,375 square feet and the retail portion, which will front Broadway, will occupy 5,523 square feet. Associated improvements include a 4,625 sq. ft. enhanced outdoor space/public plaza, which will function as an informal dining and gathering area, adjacent to the retail spaces and public right-of-way improvements along the entire project frontage along Broadway. The proposed project would provide 23 parking spaces and 6 bicycle spaces.

Proposed building elevations, conceptual public plaza/informal dining and gathering area and landscaping along Broadway are shown in Figures 5 - 8 in Attachment A.

The required discretionary approvals are described below:

• General Plan Amendment: Per Chapter 18.40 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code, this application is required in order to change the existing GP land use designation from Retail Commercial to Mixed Use.

• Planned Development Permit: Per Chapter 17.28.030 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code, this application is required for principal uses on commercial, industrial, and/or mixed use sites of one acre or more;

• Conditional Use Permit: Per Chapter 17.28.050 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code, this permit is required to allow for the development of the self-storage component of the project in a general commercial zone.

OVERALL SITE PLAN The project would be developed to be compatible with the proposed land use designation of Mixed Use on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map and consistent with the existing underlying the GC zoning designation (General Commercial). See Chapter 3 -XI. Land Use and Planning for additional information. Development of this project would consist of the construction of a 108,898 SF, 3-story mixed use building with 103,375 SF of self-storage and 5,523 SF of ground floor retail fronting along Broadway. The building also includes a basement.



The proposed maximum height would be 31.4 feet. The maximum height in the GC zone is 30 feet.

The site currently generates 800 average vehicle trips (ADT) per day in its operations as a car wash (Kimley Horn, 2019). Implementation of the proposed project is estimated to generate 428 ADT resulting in a reduction of 372 ADT once the project is completed.

The proposed project includes the following requested deviations per LGMC 17.28.030 (D):

1. Required Parking: 90 Stalls per City ordinance for commercial and industrial development. The project proposes 23 stalls including one accessible space based on a traffic analysis for self-storage facilities and when the floor area of hallways and elevators is excluded.

2. Building Height. The proposed maximum height would be 31.4 feet. The maximum height in the GC zone is 30 feet.

3. Lot coverage: The project proposes a forty-nine percent coverage whereas the GC zone limits the coverage to thirty-five percent.

In accordance with Lemon Grove Municipal Code (LGMC) 17,28.030(D), deviations to development standards may be approved with a Planned Development Permit (PDP) if the deviation is offset by design elements or features including “(4) Outdoor Amenities, such as site furnishings or informal dining/gathering areas”. The project proposes and outdoor amenity that would consists of an enhanced open space area in the front yard setback, providing a 25-foot deep public open space area along Broadway. The open space area would have decorative paving; landscaping and outdoor seating that would be accessible from the public sidewalk. These project elements are intended to provide an enhanced pedestrian interface between the public right-of-way and the building storefronts. The outdoor amenities would be constructed and maintained by the project applicant/property owner for the benefit to the public.

The project would be developed in a single 15-month construction phase anticipated to begin in June 2020 and be completed in August 2021. The construction phase generally consists of demolition of all onsite structures, grading and excavating the site to allow construction of wet and dry utilities and the basement, developing the building pad, driveways and the right of way improvements, and installing project landscaping. Construction is proposed to occur Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM in accordance with the City’s noise ordinance (Chapter 9.24 of the LGMC).

SITE DEVELOPMENT Demolition & Grubbing

The initial stage of site development is anticipated to involve demolition and grubbing the property. This would involve the removal of existing driveway pavement, structures, debris, and trees and vegetation, etc. from all areas of the site that would be developed.

Grading

The second stage of development is expected to consist of surface grading, excavation and developing the building pad. Preliminary calculations of the overall mass grading of the site are estimated at 8,318 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 2,720 CY of fill, and export of 5,598 to allow construction of the basement. The maximum cut depth is proposed at 9 feet and the maximum fill depth is 4.5 feet. Approximately 94% of the site is anticipated to be graded for project construction. See Chapter 3 -VII. Geology and Soils and Chapter 3 -X. Hydrology and Water Quality for additional discussion of these issues.



Wet & Dry Utilities

Site development would include the installation of wet and dry utilities, construction of the new curb cut and parking lot, street improvements along Broadway, and landscaping. New sewer mains and laterals would be connected to the existing sewer main located in Broadway. A new water main, service lines and meters would be extended onto the site from the existing water main line in Broadway. One new fire hydrant would be installed near the southwest corner of the site along Broadway and a second fire hydrant would be located near the northwest corner of the site. The Lemon Grove Fire Department (Heartland Fire & Rescue) would verify the final locations of all hydrants during final review of the precise grading plan.

According to the SWQMP (Omega, 2019), the proposed drainage plan would not significantly alter the existing on-site flow patterns. The proposed impervious footprint will cover 86% of the site, a 39% increase over existing conditions. The project will include a private storm drain system and treatment control BMPs to treat storm water runoff. The site’s runoff shall be conveyed to an outlet control structure, and then the storm water will be released to an isolator row which is a proprietary release system that allows the storm water to enter an infiltration trench over its length. The isolator row has holes in it and is surrounded by a geotextile fabric which helps filter particulates, sediment, and trash. Storm water would then infiltrate into the native soil. The proposed storm drain system would be designed to maintain the pre-developed runoff characteristics. See Chapter 3 -X. Hydrology and Water Quality for additional discussion and information on drainage improvements and water quality treatment.

All electrical service to the redeveloped site would be brought underground into the site from the existing service line along the street, as would other dry utilities such as telephone, gas, etc. Improvements are required along the length of Broadway adjacent to the project site. They would generally consist of the installation of streetlights, curb and gutter and a sidewalk.

Landscaping

The overall landscape concept plan for the proposed project would consist of a variety of native and non-native trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers consistent with the City’s Approved Street Tree Master Plan. The landscaped areas would also be mulched for water efficiency. Landscaping would be provided along the perimeter of the site, including over the sewer easement located along the northern property line and along Broadway to provide soil stabilization, shade, color, and visual integration with the surrounding landscape (see Figure 8 - Landscape Concept Plan in Attachment A). Plant selection is based on the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 18.44. All of the proposed plant species would be drought tolerant and require low to moderate water use.

The Maximum Applied Water Allowance for the proposed project (MAWA) is estimated at 217,726 gallons per year (0.67 acre feet). The Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) is estimated at 150,475 gallons per year (0.46 acre feet) which is 67,251 gallons less than the MAWA (Nuvis, 2019). In addition to the noted compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, the proposed project could be subject to additional conservation and management measures by the City, water suppliers, and other regional and/or State entities, including emergency regulations due to drought. As part of the Conditions of Approval for this project, compliance with any applicable emergency drought regulations regarding new development would be conducted by appropriate staff during review of project plans and various inspections prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project.



ADDITIONAL APPROVALS Besides review under CEQA, the applicant and/or contractor of the proposed project would be required to obtain the following additional approvals and/or permits from the City: Right-of-Way Permit, Grading Permit, Landscape Construction Plan, and Building Permits. These approvals require meeting certain Conditions of Approval prior to obtaining the required permits. In addition, before the certificate of occupancy is issued, all Conditions of Approval must be satisfactorily completed. Other public agency approvals are cited on page 3-1.

City of Lemon Grove Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist


Chapter 3 - Initial Study Environmental Checklist

Project Information

Project Title Lemon Grove Village Self-Storage Project

Lead Agency Name and Address

City of Lemon Grove Community Development Department, Planning Division 3232 Main Street Lemon Grove, California 91945-1705

Contact Person Noah Alvey, Community Development Manager City of Lemon Grove (619) 825-3800

Project Location 8016 Broadway, on the north side of Broadway, east of Grove Street and Kempf Street, in the City of Lemon Grove, CA. 91945

Project Applicant Brian Voytovich VM Holdings Inc. 223 Compass Irvine, CA. 92618 949-293-9562 [email protected]

General Plan Designation Existing – Retail Commercial Proposed – Mixed Use

Zoning Designation GC (General Commercial)

Description of Project See Chapter 2, Proposed Project Description.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting See Chapter 2, Proposed Project Description.

Other Public Agency Approvals Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and preparation of a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SQWMP) in accordance with the requirements of the most recent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Permit.



Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Based upon the initial evaluation presented in the following IS, it is concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of the initial evaluation of the attached Initial Study:

I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Noah Alvey, Community Development Manager Date

The signature below signifies that the applicant has read and accepts the findings detailed in the final Negative Declaration.

Applicant or Owner Date



Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately

supported 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 the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would 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 onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

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

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect 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 Analyses 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 legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier 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 for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used, or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

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



IMPACT TERMINOLOGY The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts:

• A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way.

• An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation.

• An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would not cause substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments that have been agreed to by the applicant.

• An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment.



I. Aesthetics Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

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

DISCUSSION a - b. No Impact. Visual resources can be valued both objectively and subjectively based on their uniqueness, prominence, quality, relationship to community identity, and economic contributions, such as to land values and tourism. Visual resources are important from an aesthetic perspective when, based on the characteristics listed above, they are identified as containing significant scenic value. Within this understanding, a scenic vista can be defined as the public view of an area that is visually or aesthetically unique, such as a valley or a mountain range. A review of the Lemon Grove General Plan did not identify a scenic vista that could be viewed within the project area (i.e., adjacent to the project site). As a result, the construction of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on a scenic vista.

The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The existing 1.25-acre project site (see Figure 1 - Location Map in Attachment A) is located in the downtown urban core of the City of Lemon Grove immediately adjacent to Broadway, which is not identified as a state scenic highway. Consequently, project implementation would not substantially damage scenic resources, and significant impacts would not occur.

c. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or surroundings. The visual character of the existing site is defined by the existing structures onsite and the vegetated vacant field is located on the eastern portion of the site. The visual character of the immediately surrounding area is largely defined by commercial uses such as the motel, car wash, gas station, restaurants and brewery that surround the site along Broadway.



As noted in the Proposed Project Description section in Chapter 2 of this document, the project involves redeveloping an urban infill site into a three-story self-storage building with retail commercial land uses fronting along Broadway. As depicted in Figures 5 - 8 – which show the building elevations, conceptual street scene and landscaping in Attachment A, the overall landscape plan for the site would consist of a variety of native and non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcover that would be planted along the street, which would help provide visual integration with the surrounding streetscape/landscape.

Although the proposed project would change the existing visual character of the site through the creation of a new mixed use development, the change would be in keeping with the City’s goals to enhance the surrounding community character of the City’s downtown village core and in many ways could improve and upgrade the visual quality of the existing property by redeveloping an outdated and unsightly automobile-oriented use.. Accordingly, project implementation would result in less than significant impacts.

d. No Impact. Based on the photometric survey prepared for the project, the proposed project would not create a substantial source of light or glare. Conditions of Approval will require that the new light would be specified to match City standards for streetlights in the Municipal Code (LGMC Section 17.24.080 regarding approximate maximum heights, shielded and directed away from residential property boundaries, etc.). All lighted signs would be subject to the City’s regulations found at LGMC 18.12. Glare, bright or flashing lights are not allowed to be visible off the site and must be positioned and shielded to ensure all light is retained onsite. As a result, the installation of the new streetlight would not create a significant, substantial source of light or glare within the project area. Conformance with the Municipal Code, permit plan checks, and reviews by City Staff would ensure that substantial lighting and glare impacts from site development would not be created. Therefore, significant impacts would not occur with project implementation.



II. Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

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



DISCUSSION a - e. No Impact.

POTENTIAL AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCE IMPACTS Potential Farmland Conversion Impacts under CA Department of Conservation

Based on a review of the San Diego County Important Farmland Map (Sheet 1 of 2) prepared under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program by the California Department of Conservation (2016), the site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts in converting Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use.

Potential Impacts to Existing Zoning for Agricultural Use or Williamson Act Contracts

The project site is currently zoned GC – General Commercial and would remain unchanged by the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to agriculturally zoned property.

The site of the proposed project is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, construction of the project would not create conflicts with property under a Williamson Act Contract, resulting in no significant impacts.

Potential Conflicts with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land

The site of the proposed project is currently zoned GC – General Commercial and would remain unchanged by the proposed project. As can be seen in Figure 3 - Surrounding Land Uses in Attachment A, none of the surrounding land is zoned for “forest land” and there are no existing forest resources onsite that would be lost as a result of the project. As a result, construction of the project would not result in any significant conflicts with any land that is currently forested or zoned as forest land.

Potential Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use

The project site does not contain any land that could be considered or designated as “forest land”, and none of the surrounding land exists, or could be designated, as “forest land”. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in significant impacts to the loss or conversion of any forest land.

Other Changes Which Could Result in Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land to Any Other Use

As noted in the discussion above, construction of the proposed development would not involve or affect any other changes in the existing environment of the subject property or surrounding land that could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses because neither farmland nor forest land exists on the project site of the project area. As a result, significant impacts would not occur.



III. Air Quality Where applicable, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Additional air quality setting information and air quality calculation methodology and results are found in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information on file with the City of Lemon Grove.

DISCUSSION a. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), which is governed by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). A consistency determination is important in local agency project review by comparing local planning projects to the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) in several ways. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are addressed. Only new or amended General Plan elements, Specific Plans and significantly unique projects need to go under a consistency review due to the RAQS being based on projections from local General Plans. Therefore, projects that are consistent with the local General Plan and do not create significant air quality impacts are considered consistent with the air quality-related regional plan.

The proposed project would replace the existing self-service car wash at the project site with a new self-storage building with ground floor retail. As indicated in discussion b), the proposed project would result in a reduction in vehicle trips during operations compared to the existing self-service car wash on site, which would result in a decrease in long-term criteria air pollutant emissions (NOx and CO). The proposed project would be in compliance with applicable Rules and Regulations adopted by the SDAPCD and would therefore not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. Intermittent (short-term construction emissions that occur from activities, such as site-grading, paving, and building construction) and long-term air quality impacts related to the operation of the proposed project were evaluated.



CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EMISSIONS Demolition activities would remove the existing car wash and overhang structures from the project site, which was estimated to result in approximately 11 haul truck round trips. Grading would result in approximately 5,598 cubic yards of soil export, which was estimated to result in approximately 350 haul truck round trips. Construction activities would commence in June 2020 through August 2021 (approximately 15 months). The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.21 was used to quantify construction-related pollutant emissions. Maximum daily emissions that would be generated from construction activities are presented in Table AQ-1.

TABLE AQ-1 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Emission Source ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

lbs./day

Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 50.86 64.40 18.48 0.15 9.01 4.19

Significance Criteria 75 250 550 250 100 67

Significant? No No No No No No

Source: RCH Group, 2019. Note: The SDAPCD has not established screening-level criteria under Rule 20.2 for daily ROG emissions, thus the South Coast Air Quality

Management District’s significance threshold is used.

As presented in Table AQ-1, proposed project construction emissions would be below the applicable significance thresholds. Furthermore, construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with SDAPCD’s Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which requires that construction activities implement specific measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions. The proposed project would also be required to comply with SDAPCD’s Rule 50 (Visible Emissions), Rule 51 (Nuisance), Rule 52 (Particulate Matter), Rule 54 (Dust and Fumes) and Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings).

OPERATION-RELATED EMISSIONS Operational air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be mainly related to traffic. Minor impacts would be associated with energy use, landscaping and reapplication of architectural coatings. Since there is an existing self-service car wash at the project site, operational emissions were estimated by subtracting existing car wash operational emissions from future proposed project operational emissions.

To estimate emissions associated with traffic, trip generation rates were extracted from the Traffic Analysis Memo2 prepared for the proposed project and input into the CalEEMod. The existing self-service car wash was estimated to generate 800 daily trips, while the proposed project was estimated to generate 428 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce traffic by 372 trips per day.

Emissions associated with energy use and area sources (landscaping activities and reapplication of architectural coatings) were also estimated using the default assumptions in the CalEEMod. Net daily operational emissions are presented in Table AQ-2 and net annual operational emissions are presented in Table AQ-3.

1 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2, September 2016, www.caleemod.com. 2 Kimley Horn, Lemon Grove Village Storage Traffic Analysis Memo, July 24, 2019.



TABLE AQ-2 NET DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (PROJECT MINUS EXISTING)


lbs./day

Summer Daily Operational Emissions (Project) 3.67 2.58 6.86 0.02 2.02 0.56

Summer Daily Operational Emissions (Existing Car Wash) 1.34 4.04 9.26 0.02 1.72 0.48

Net Summer Daily Operational Emissions (Project minus Existing) 2.33 -1.46 -2.40 0.00 0.30 0.08



Winter Daily Operational Emissions (Project) 3.65 2.64 6.82 0.02 2.02 0.56

Winter Daily Operational Emissions (Existing Car Wash) 1.31 4.09 9.84 0.02 1.72 0.48

Net Winter Daily Operational Emissions (Project minus Existing) 2.34 -1.45 -3.02 0.00 0.30 0.08



Note: The SDAPCD has not established screening-level criteria under Rule 20.2 for daily ROG emissions, thus the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s significance threshold is used.

TABLE AQ-3 NET ANNUAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (PROJECT MINUS EXISTING)


tons/year

Annual Operational Emissions (Project) 0.66 0.48 1.22 <0.01 0.36 0.10

Annual Operational Emissions (Existing Car Wash) 0.23 0.75 1.74 <0.01 0.31 0.09

Net Annual Operational Emissions (Project minus Existing) 0.40 -0.27 -0.50 0.00 0.05 0.01



Note: The SDAPCD has not established screening-level criteria under Rule 20.2 for annual ROG emissions, thus the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s significance threshold is used.



As presented in Table AQ-2 and AQ-3, operational emissions would be below the applicable significance thresholds and the proposed project would result in a decrease of some pollutant emissions (NOx and CO) because the proposed project would reduce trips compared to the existing self-service car wash that is currently operating at the project site.

CONCLUSIONS As indicated in Tables AQ-1 through AQ-3, construction and operational emissions from the proposed project would be below the applicable significance thresholds. Because the proposed project’s emissions are less than significance thresholds, the emissions during construction and operations would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable impact to air quality. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are populations that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the population at large, such as the very young, the elderly, and those suffering from certain illnesses or disabilities. Construction activities would be adjacent to the Village Walk Condominiums (north of the project site). Construction activities would entail the use of diesel equipment that would generate emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM), which the CARB has categorized as a human carcinogen. Typically, health risks are estimated based on a chronic exposure period of 70 years. Because exhaust emissions associated with construction activities would be relatively low and short-term in nature, it is not anticipated that exposure to construction related DPM would result in an elevated health risk. Operation of the proposed project would reduce traffic at the project site, which would reduce DPM generated from motor vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. Diesel-fueled construction equipment exhaust could generate some temporary odors. However, these emissions typically dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. Operation of the proposed project would not be expected to generate objectionable odors. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.



IV. Biological Resources Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

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

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION a. No Impact. As stated in the Existing Environmental Setting section in Chapter 2 of this document, based on a review of historical information, the site consisted of undeveloped and/or vacant land from 1904 to 1944. From 1949 to 1953 the site appeared to be occupied by residential dwellings. In 1964, the eastern portion of the site was utilized as a driveway for the northern adjoining drive-in movie theater and the western portion of the site was utilized as a car-sales lot (8010 and 8012 Broadway). By 1989 the entire site was vacant land. By 1994, the car-wash building was observed at the site and now resembles the present-day layout.



There are some ornamental (planted) trees along the western and northern property lines. The eastern half of the site is regularly moved for fire control and consists of bare earth and non-native native weeds.

According to the City’s 2017 Lemon Grove Downtown Village Specific Plan Expansion Baseline (DVSPE) Report, the project site is located in an area that is already developed for urban uses and will have no substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, there will be no impact

b - f. No Impact. According to the 2018 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the DVSPE, the project site consists of urbanized, developed, and disturbed land due to human activity. Redevelopment of the site will have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

The project site does not support any riparian habitat or other natural communities, and does not support any wetlands identified by federal, state, regional, or local agencies, plans, policies, or regulations. The project site also is not located within any known or reported local or regional wildlife corridors, and it does not contain any biological resources that are protected by city or county policies, or approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans. As a result, significant impacts on these resources would not occur with development of the project.

The County of San Diego South County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, South County MSCP identifies the entire project area as “developed”. The MSCP has been adopted and as the project site is designated “developed”, the project site plays no role in conservation in the MSCP planning area. Therefore, no significant direct or indirect impacts to sensitive or special status, riparian or sensitive vegetation communities, species, wetlands, wildlife corridors or nursery sites, local policies, or ordinances, or be conflicts with the MSCP would occur. As a result, the proposed project would have no impact on biological resources.



V. Cultural Resources Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

The discussion below is based on the findings contained within the Cultural Resources Survey for the 8016 Broadway Self Storage Project (Cultural Report) (Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. [Helix], 2019) prepared for the proposed project. This report is on file and available for review with the City’s Planning Division.

Due to the approval of a General Plan Amendment sought by the applicant, the City also initiated an SB-18 consultation (Government Code § 65352.3) with the tribal governments per a requested list obtained from the California Native American Heritage Commission.

DISCUSSION a.- c. No Impact. According to the Cultural Report (Helix, 2019), which details the methods and results of the cultural resources study, a records search, Sacred Lands File search, a review of historic maps and aerial photographs, and a field survey were all conducted for the proposed project.

A records search at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) on October 2, 2019. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the project area and included archaeological and historical resources, locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies, as well as a review of the state OHP historic properties directory.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on September 26, 2019 to request a Sacred Lands File search and a list of Native American individuals and organizations that might have knowledge of, or concerns regarding, cultural resources within the project area. No additional tribal outreach was conducted as part of the current study; however the City has undertaken AB 52 consultation with Tribes who requested to initiate consultation.

Historic topographic maps and aerial photographs were reviewed to assess the potential for historic structural resources and historic archaeological resources within the project site. HELIX archaeologist Julie Roy and Kumeyaay Native American monitor Annette Osuna from Misschief Cultural Monitoring Inc. conducted a field survey of the project area on September 25, 2019.



The records search conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) indicated that 31 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project area, one of which included the area of the project site. The studies consisted of six survey reports relating to the construction of State Route (SR) 94, SR 125, and the Proposed MTDB (Metropolitan Transit Development Board) Urban Transit Corridor; 16 cultural resource assessments or monitoring reports for telecommunication facilities; four studies or monitoring for development projects within the cities of Lemon Grove or La Mesa; two inventories for the Sweetwater Valley and Spring Valley Creek floodplain; two testing/evaluation studies; and a study focused on the Bancroft Dam.

The records search results also indicated that a total of 20 cultural resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project area, none of which are mapped within the project site. In addition, 56 historic addresses have been documented within the one-mile search radius; 12 of these have been assigned a Primary number and are, therefore, included in the 20 recorded resources within the records search radius. The field investigations included intensive pedestrian survey of the project area by a HELIX archaeologist and a Native American monitor. The project site does not lie near any dedicated cemeteries.

The results of the current study indicated that no previously recorded cultural resources are present on the project property, and no new resources were identified on the property during the field survey. Thus, the project would have no impacts to historic properties under CEQA.

No impacts to cultural resources have been identified. No cultural resources have been identified within or in proximity to the project area, and the project site has been subject to a great deal of past disturbance from development of the existing carwash, in addition to earlier development on the property. Thus, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated from project development, and no mitigation measures are recommended.

As a condition of approval, in the event that human remains are discovered during construction activities, work shall immediately halt within 100 feet of the discovery, and the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.98 shall be followed.



VI. Energy Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

DISCUSSION a.& b. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction energy would result from electrical equipment and gasoline- or diesel-driven machinery, from which usage would be minimal electrical use relative to the project’s overall electrical consumption, and gasoline/diesel would be used only to the degree necessary to operate machinery. Energy would not be used in an inefficient way, as no superfluous trips, activities, or machinery operation would be associated with construction because unnecessary energy consumption would result in unnecessary expense. The two main energy types during project operation would be electricity and natural gas, which are described below; both would be provided by SDG&E.

Electricity

Implementation of the proposed project would slightly increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the project site relative to existing uses. Electricity would be used for multiple purposes, including building heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in electricity usage. Proposed electricity use is shown in Table E-1 below.

TABLE E-1 PROPOSED ELECTRICITY USE

Proposed Project Rate1 (kWh) Per Year Total (kWh) Per Year

Self-Storage Use Retail Commercial Use

377,319 69,369 446,688

1 Assumes compliance with 2016 Title 24 standards although 2019 Standards may apply. kWh = kilowatt hour

As seen in Table E-1, once construction is completed, the proposed project would result in total electricity consumption of 446,688 kWh assuming compliance with the 2016 Title 24 standards. Implementation of the proposed project would ultimately involve the construction of a new building that would be subject to 2019 Title 24 standards and required to be energy efficient.

Beginning in 2020, the new building built with the 2019 standards will use about 30 percent less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards



The proposed project may also exceed energy efficiency code requirements through project design. Therefore, the project’s electricity demand would be anticipated to be lower than the calculations presented above. In addition to the measures that are part of 2019 Title 24 standards, the proposed project may include the following sustainability measures, which include energy efficiency measures, in its design:

• Photovoltaic solar rooftop installation • Low-water-use appliances and irrigation • Low VOC (volatile organic compound) paints • On onsite recycling program • Energy Star appliances • Energy-efficient LED lighting; appliance; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) design • Building insulation elements installed under the Home Energy Rating System rating agency • Drought-tolerant landscaping

Although electricity consumption would increase due to the construction of the new building compared to existing conditions, the project’s energy efficiency would be increased through the updated Title 24 requirements compared to the existing development, including additional efficiencies that may be realized through implementation of the design measures outlined above.

Construction electricity usage related to the proposed project would be minimal relative to the project’s overall energy consumption. Therefore, the proposed project’s electricity consumption would not be considered wasteful, unnecessary or inefficient.

TABLE E-2 PROPOSED NATURAL GAS USE

Proposed Project Rate 2 (kBTU) Per Year Total (kBTU/yr.)

Self-Storage Use Retail Commercial Use

172,636 12,316 184,952

2 Anticipated rate due to compliance with 2016 Title 24 although 2019 Standards map apply. kBTU = Thousand British Thermal Units. A cubic foot of natural gas has 1,015 BTUs.

As seen in Table E-2 above, although the proposed project would result in a net increase in total natural gas consumption compared to the existing business on site, the amount of natural gas used per square foot would be anticipated to decrease upon project implementation due to compliance with newer (2016) Title 24 Standards.

Because the proposed project is anticipated to be constructed in 2020-2021, the proposed project would result in reduced energy consumption rate of up to 30% due to Title 24 (2019) and related sustainable design measures. As stated under electricity demand, because the proposed project would be subject to the more stringent 2019 Title 24 standards (implemented as of 1/1/20) and would also exceed energy efficiency code requirements through project design, the project’s natural gas demand could potentially be lower than the calculations presented above.

Furthermore, the project-specific sustainable design features listed above under electricity demand include energy-efficient heating and cooling equipment, which would minimize the project’s natural gas use. Natural gas use as a result of the proposed project would not be substantial compared to the existing use onsite. For the reasons stated above, electricity and natural gas consumption as a result of the proposed project would not be inefficient, unnecessary or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.



Electricity and natural gas are supplied to the project site by SDG&E. The sources of power for SDG&E include 33% renewable energy sources (solar, wind, and hydroelectric). Although the proposed project would result in a net increase in total square footage and in total electricity and natural gas consumption on the project site, implementation of the proposed project would provide for an upgraded mixed use development that includes sustainable design measures and incorporates best practices for water conservation, would likely include green construction methods, and energy efficiency. Furthermore, the project would not require new or expanded energy generation or infrastructure facilities. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency and impacts would be less than significant.



VII. Geology and Soils Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

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

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides?

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

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

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

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?



The majority of the discussion below is summarized and based on the findings contained within the Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Self Storage Project (Geotechnical Report) (Allied Earth Technology [AET], August 30, 2017) prepared for the proposed project. This report is on file and available for review with the City’s Planning Division.

DISCUSSION a1. No Impact. The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting by preventing the construction of buildings used for human occupancy over an area with known faults. Unlike damage from ground shaking, which can occur at great distances from the fault, impacts from fault rupture are limited to the immediate area of the fault zone where the fault breaks along the grounds surface. As discussed in the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017), the project site does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone Area. Therefore, impacts from fault rupture would not be expected to occur within the project area, and no impacts would arise from implementing the project.

a2 – a3. Less than Significant Impact. The project area, like most of southern California, is subject to strong ground shaking from seismic events. Consequently, when the project is occupied it could expose people and/or structures to potential impacts associated with seismic ground shaking. The ground motion characteristics of any future earthquakes in the region would depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, the distance to the epicenter, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the site-specific geologic conditions. Major faults in the region could be a source of a strong seismic-related movement at the project site. The closest active faults to the site are the Rose Canyon Fault Zone to the west and the Elsinore-Julian fault to the east, located approximately 8 miles (12.8 km) and 21 miles (33.6 km), respectively, from the site. The proposed mixed-use commercial building to be built on the site would be constructed in compliance with the seismic safety standards set forth in the California Building Code (CBC), as amended.3 Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of: 1) seismic safety features to minimize the potential for significant effects as a result of earthquakes; 2) proper building footings and foundations; and 3) construction of the building structure so that it would withstand the effects of strong ground shaking. In addition, the City’s Building Department would review the building plans through building plan checks, issuance of a building permit, and inspection of the residences during construction, which would ensure that all required CBC seismic safety measures are incorporated into the project. Compliance with the CBC and the Building Department’s review process, permit application, and inspection would result in less than significant impacts, and no mitigation measures are required.

The proposed project would not expose people and structures to potential seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which a saturated cohesionless soil causes a temporary transformation of the soil to a fluid mass, resulting in a loss of support. Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigations done for the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017) to a depth of 11 feet. Because of the dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near surface water, the potential for liquefaction or seismically induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. Compliance with the CBC would include the incorporation of seismic safety features to minimize any potential for significant effects as a result of seismic-related ground failure, resulting in less than significant impacts.

3 The CBC incorporates relevant sections of the Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials.



a4. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Report (AET, 017), the project site is located within an area of relatively level terrain and stable geologic conditions. A review of geologic maps did not release the presence of any ancient landslides on the subject or adjacent properties. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not be adversely affected by landslides originating onsite or offsite, resulting in less than significant impacts.

b - d. Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the southern coastal strip region of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Provide of California. This geomorphic province is characterized by mountainous terrain to the east composed mostly of Mesozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks and relatively low-lying coastal terraces to the west. These are underlain by late Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary sediments rocks. The entirely of Lemon Grove, including the project site, occurs within the westerly region, and is underlain by Quaternary sedimentary rocks (AET, 2017).

According to the Geotechnical Investigation (AET, 2017) prepared for the site, the project area is generally underlain by undocumented/artificial fill, topsoil, subsoil to a depth of approximately 12 feet below the surface. Beneath those layers are Middle to Early Pleistocene Very Old Paralic deposits. On the site, three Very Old Paralic deposits were encountered in the form of medium dense to dense. Light brown/brown silty sands and clayey sands. Undocumented fill spoils were encountered in the rear, northeast portion of the property. Some of the undocumented fills soils contained trash such as concrete and asphaltic concrete pieces and are considered unsuitable, in their present condition, for the support of settlement sensitive improvements. It is recommended that these materials be removed and replaced as compacted fill.

As required under the City’s Grading Ordinance, the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017) and any additional geotechnical studies must be followed during grading and site preparation activities. With implementation of these recommendations, as well as the required application of standard erosion control measures and storm water construction BMPs, less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding soil erosion or loss of topsoil during project construction.

As stated in the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017), the potential for on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or seismically induced dynamic settlement to occur is considered low, and therefore less than significant.

As noted above, some of the underlying soils possess medium potential for expansion (Site Index of 78). Given the remedial grading requirements and other recommendations in the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017) that the City requires in submittals for the Grading Permit, less than significant impacts would arise from the expansive soils.

e. No Impact. The existing development onsite utilizes the municipal sewer system. The proposed project would also tie into existing sewers, avoiding the need to use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

f. Less than Significant Impact. The probability of discovering paleontological resources depends on the geologic formation being excavated, and the depth and volume of the excavation. Paleontological resources are the fossil remains of past life forms, which includes vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species. The site is currently developed for urban uses; however, subsurface paleontological resources may be present.



According to the DVSPE Baseline Report, there are five geologic formations identified within Lemon Grove, two of which dominate the geologic landscape, the Lindavista formation and the Mission Valley formation. The remaining three formations are the San Diego formation, the stadium conglomerate, and the Santiago Peak volcanics. The majority of the DVSPE area is contained within the Lindavista formation, which contains very low potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources. A small part of the eastern portion of the DVSPE area is located within the Mission Valley formation, which does have a medium to high potential for paleontological resources. The San Diego formation, located on the western end of the DVSPE area, also has a high potential for paleontological resources. The remaining formations are not located within the DVSPE area.

The majority of the downtown area consists of the Linda Vista geologic formation, which has a very low potential for paleontological resources. Only a small area in the southern portion of the downtown village area includes the Mission Valley Formation which does have a medium to high potential for paleontological resources. Grading/excavation within the Mission Valley Formation could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource. The proposed project site is located in the extreme northeast of the downtown village area; therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in potentially significant impacts and no mitigation is required.



VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation


Impact No Impact

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions setting information and GHG emissions calculation methodology and results are found in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Information on file with the City of Lemon Grove.

DISCUSSION a. Less than Significant Impact.

GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated for six categories of emissions: (1) construction emissions; (2) area sources; (3) energy use, including electricity and natural gas usage; (4) water use, including consumption, use, and treatment; (5) solid waste management, and (6) motor vehicles. GHG emissions are reported in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).

EXISTING GHG EMISSIONS The project site is currently occupied by a self-service car wash with eight stalls. The project site is a source of GHG emissions, which were quantified using the CalEEMod.4 Existing operational GHG emissions are approximately 406 metric tons of CO2e per year.

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Demolition activities would remove the existing car wash and overhang structures from the project site, which was estimated to result in approximately 11 haul truck round trips. Grading would result in approximately 5,598 cubic yards of soil export, which was estimated to result in approximately 350 haul truck round trips. Construction activities would commence in June 2020 through August 2021 (approximately 15 months). The CalEEMod was used to quantify construction-related pollutant emissions. Emissions that would be generated from construction activities are presented in Table GHG-1.

Per guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), construction emissions are amortized over a 30-year period to account for the contribution of construction emissions over the lifetime of the proposed project. Amortizing the emissions from construction of the proposed project over a 30-year period would result in an annual contribution of approximately 7.5 metric tons of CO2e. These emissions are added to operational emissions to account for the contribution of construction to GHG emissions for the lifetime of the proposed project.

4 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CalEEMod User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2, September 2016, www.caleemod.com.



TABLE GHG-1 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS

Construction Phase Metric Tons of CO2e

Total Construction Emissions 226

OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Operational GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed project would be mainly related to traffic, energy and water use. Since there is an existing self-service car wash at the project site, operational emissions were estimated by subtracting existing operational emissions from future proposed project operational emissions.

To estimate emissions associated with traffic, trip generation rates were extracted from the Traffic Analysis Memo5 prepared for the proposed project and input into the CalEEMod. The existing self-service car wash was estimated to generate 800 daily trips, while the proposed project was estimated to generate 428 daily trips. Therefore, the proposed project would reduce traffic by 372 trips per day. Net annual operational GHG emissions are presented in Table GHG-2.

TABLE GHG-2 NET ANNUAL OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS

Emission Source Annual Emissions (Metric tons of CO2e /year)

Project Operational Emissions

Area Sources <0.01

Energy Use 157.5

Water Use 137.8

Solid Waste 51.8

Vehicle Emissions 377.2

Amortized Construction Emissions 7.5

Total Project Operational Emissions (Project) 731.8

Existing Operational Emissions (Car Wash) 405.9

Net Annual Operational Emissions (Project minus Existing) 325.9

Significance Threshold 900

Significant? No As shown in Table GHG-2, the net annual emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 326 metric tons of CO2e per year. The City of Lemon Grove has not adopted a significance threshold for GHG emissions, thus the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) recommended screening threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2e per year is used in this analysis to determine significance. The net emissions associated with the proposed project would therefore be below the CAPCOA’s recommended screening threshold of 900 metric tons of CO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

5 Kimley Horn, Lemon Grove Village Storage Traffic Analysis Memo, July 24, 2019.



b. Less than Significant Impact. The City of Lemon Grove has not adopted a Climate Action Plan. The principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the low carbon fuel standard are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at the project level is not addressed. In September of 2016, AB 32 was extended to achieve reductions in GHG of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The new plan, outlined in SB 32, involves increasing renewable energy use, putting more electric cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries.

The assumption is that AB 32 and other regulations will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020 and beyond. The State has taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals. The proposed project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and it has been determined that the proposed project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.



IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

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

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

The discussion below is summarized and based in part on the findings contained within the Preliminary Site Assessment, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 1806 Broadway Self Storage Project (Phase I Report) (Terracon Consulting, (Terracon) September 3, 2019). The report is on file and available for review in the City’s Planning Division office.



DISCUSSION a - d. Less than Significant Impact. The project site is 1.25 gross acres in size and is comprised of one parcel that contains an existing self-serve car wash with related facilities. All existing structures onsite are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed project. According to the Phase I ESA, (Terracon, 2019), based on the age of the building (early 1990s), it is unlikely that the identified materials onsite are asbestos containing materials (ACM).

According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) prepared for the project by Terracon in August 2019, (Terracon, 2019), based on a review of historical information, the site consisted of undeveloped and/or vacant land from 1904 to 1944. From 1949 to 1953 the site appeared to be occupied by residential dwellings. Circa 1964, the eastern portion of the site was utilized as a driveway for the northern adjoining drive-in movie theater and the western portion of the site was utilized as a car-sales lot (8010 and 8012 Broadway). By 1989 the entire site was vacant land. By 1994, the car-wash building was observed at the site and now resembles the present-day layout.

Selected federal and state environmental regulatory databases as well as responses from state and local regulatory agencies were reviewed. The site was not identified in the regulatory databases. Two off-site gasoline stations were identified to the adjoining south and west of the site. These facilities were reported with leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) that have been removed and have undergone remedial action responses. Based on the inferred topographic and hydrogeological gradient position relative to the site, regulatory closure issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB), and review of the most recent groundwater monitoring information, these two off-site facilities do not represent Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) to the site (Terracon, 2019). The remaining facilities listed in the database report do not appear to represent REC to the site at this time based upon regulatory status, apparent topographic gradient, and/or distance from the site.

During the site reconnaissance, a three-stage underground clarifier, eight individual car wash bays and associated drains (one in each bay), ten coin-operated vacuum cleaners, one solid waste dumpster, and a former groundwater monitoring well from a surrounding/adjacent LUST (closed in 2017) were observed. RECs associated with the current site observations were not identified (Terracon, 2019).

Typically, self-storage facilities and retail commercial land use do not generate, store, dispose of, or transport quantities of hazardous substances. Construction equipment that would be used to build the proposed project has the potential to release relatively small amounts of oils, greases, solvents, and other finishing materials through accidental spills. While the release of any of these materials could have the potential to impact surrounding land uses, a release of a significant amount of these hazardous substances is not likely due to the relatively small amount of material that would be stored or used on-site.



Nevertheless, federal, State, and local regulations would be in effect to reduce the effects of such potential hazardous materials spills. In addition, the LGFD enforces city, state, and federal hazardous materials regulations for the City through plan check reviews including Building Plans. The City’s Uniform Fire Code adopts the State of California’s Fire Code, which includes regulations concerning hazardous materials spill mitigation, and containment and securing of hazardous materials containers to prevent spills. In addition, the State Fire Marshal enforces oil and gas pipeline safety regulations, and the federal government enforces hazardous materials transport pursuant to its interstate commerce regulation authority. Compliance with all of these requirements is mandatory as standard permitting conditions during plan reviews and inspections of completed projects and would minimize the potential for the accidental release or upset of the noted hazardous materials, thus ensuring public safety.

The closest existing public school to the site is Mount Vernon Elementary School located approximately 1.1 miles away to the southeast at 8350 Mont Vernon Street. As stated above, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would result in a release of any significant amounts of hazardous substances that could cause a public health hazard to this school, which is located over one mile away.

In summary, compliance with the above referenced code requirements and regulations would result in less than significant impacts.

The Phase I ESA notes that records indicate the presence of several close-proximity (one-mile radius) businesses or operations that are identified as using, storing, generating, or discharging of hazardous materials. Based on the expected materials used at the site and close-proximity sites, current governmental regulations regarding the use of hazardous materials, the stratigraphic conditions, drainage gradients and elevations, the probability of significant on-site contamination from these off-site sources should be considered to be low (Terracon, 2019).

e – g. No Impact. As stated in the Surrounding Land Use section in Chapter 2 of this document, the project site is not located near an active airport. The nearest airports are Gillespie Air Field (8.8 miles northwest) and the San Diego International Airport (11.6 miles west). At these distances, the proposed project site is not located within a safety hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people visiting the project site.

The proposed project would not impair or physically impact any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project would not require the closure of any public or private streets or roadways and would not impede access of emergency vehicles to the project site or any surrounding areas.

The project has been reviewed by the LGFD, and it would provide all required emergency access in accordance with the requirements of the Department. A fire access hammerhead turn around has been built into the project design. Therefore, significant impacts to emergency response are not anticipated to occur.

The project site is not located within a Very High Fire Severity Zone, the proposed project would not be subject to defensible space requirements of the California Fire Code. Accordingly, no significant risk of loss, injury or death would arise to people or structures from wildland fires where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where structures are intermixed with wildlands.



X. Hydrology and Water Quality Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;

(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;

(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or

(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?

d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

The discussion below is summarized and based on the findings contained within the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) and Preliminary Hydrology Report (Drainage Report) and the both by Omega Engineering Consultants (Omega) June 26,2019a and June 26, 2019n, respectively that were all prepared for the proposed project. The reports are on file and available for review in the City’s Planning Division office.



DISCUSSION a - e. Less than Significant Impact.

POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN AND HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN According to the SWQMP (Omega, 2019a) the primary pollutants of concern that could be generated by the development of the proposed project consist of nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and grease, and bacteria and viruses. As stated in the SWQMP (Omega, 2019a) potential hydrologic conditions of concerns have to do with impacts to the hydrologic regime resulting from development. This typically includes increased runoff volume and velocity; reduced infiltration; increased flow frequency, duration, and peaks; faster time to reach peak flow; and water quality degradation. Specifically, a change to the hydrologic regime of a priority project site is considered a condition of concern if the change impacts downstream channels and habitat integrity. However, significant impacts on downstream channels and habitat integrity due to development of the project site are not anticipated.

POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY IMPACTS As previously noted, the applicant seeks approval of 1.25-acre mixed use commercial project. According to the SWQMP (Omega, 2019), the proposed drainage plan would not significantly alter the existing on-site flow patterns.

The project will include a private storm drain system and treatment control BMPs to treat storm water runoff. The site’s runoff shall be conveyed to an outlet control structure, and then the storm water will be released to an isolator row which is a proprietary release system that allows the storm water to enter an infiltration trench over its length. The isolator row has holes in it and is surrounded by a geotextile fabric which helps filter particulates, sediment, and trash. Storm water would then infiltrate into the native soil. The proposed storm drain system would be designed to maintain the pre-developed runoff characteristics.

According to the SWQMP (Omega, 2019a), BMPs would be implemented during construction and post-construction activities to address potential water quality impacts due to project development. Selected BMPs would be applied to reduce pollutants to maximum levels (see Table HWQ-1 for Post-Construction BMPs incorporated into the project’s design).

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Short-term erosion impacts during the construction phase of the project would be prevented through implementation of an erosion control plan. A grading and erosion control plan is required in accordance with the City’s Grading Ordinance and the current State General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activities and must be submitted for plan check and approval by the City Engineer, as well as the Planning Division, prior to final approval of the project. The erosion control plan would include construction BMPs such as:

• Silt Fence, Fiber Rolls, or Gravel Bag • Street Sweeping and Vacuuming • Storm Drain Inlet Protection • Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit • Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance,

Cleaning, and Fueling

• Hydroseeding • Material Delivery and Storage • Stockpile Management • Spill Prevention and Control • Solid Waste Management • Concrete Waste Management



In addition, in accordance with the requirements of the most recent NPDES General Construction Activities Permit, a Notice of Intent filed with the SWRCB and preparation of a SWPPP would also be required before project construction commences.

POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES In accordance with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (LGMC Chapter 8.48), and as detailed in the requirements of the Municipal Storm Water Permit (known as MS4) (San Diego RWQCB Order R9-2013-0001 as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9 2015-0010), all new and significant redevelopment projects that are categorized as “priority” development projects (PDP) are required to incorporate post-construction (or permanent) Low Impact development (LID) Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control (Structural) BMPs, and Hydromodification measures into the project’s design. The proposed project meets one of the “priority project” categories – create, add, or replace at least 5,000 sq. ft. or greater of impervious surface on an existing development; therefore, the proposed project is classified as a priority project.

The proposed impervious footprint will cover 86% of the site, a 39% increase over existing conditions. The area of existing impervious area at the project site is 25, 306 SF. The total proposed newly created or replaced impervious area is 43,728 SF. Under post-development conditions, the impervious surfaces increase from existing conditions due to the larger building footprint and parking areas.

TYPES OF POST-CONSTRUCTION BMPS LID Site Design BMPs are intended to minimize impervious surfaces and promote infiltration and evaporation of runoff before it can leave the location of origination by mimicking the natural hydrologic function of the site. Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) facilities are used in conjunction with LID BMPs as they provide small-scale treatment, retention, and/or detention that are integrated into site layout, landscaping and drainage design. Source Control BMPs are intended to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the introduction of pollutants and conditions of concern that may result in significant impacts generated from site runoff to off-site drain systems. Treatment Control BMPs are intended to treat storm water runoff before it discharges off-site. According to the City’s Stormwater Standards Manual, specific localized treatment control BMPs are more effective at reducing or minimizing pollutants of concern than other types of BMPs. Each type of BMP that would be implemented is shown in Table HWQ-1, below.

Prior to designing LID and/or Treatment Control BMPs into the proposed project, the Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) for the project site were defined. There are 2 DMA’s 1.1 and 2.1. The proposed drainage pattern will be similar to the existing drainage pattern with some modifications to incorporate the Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the project design to mimic the impacts on storm water runoff and quality.

According to the SWQMP (Omega, 2019a), the proposed project will incorporate multiple BMPs as shown in table HWQ-1 below.



TABLE HWQ-1 PROPOSED PROJECT BMPS

Type of BMP Description of BMP

LID Site Design

Minimize Impervious Areas: Streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles shall be constructed to the minimum width necessary. The impervious footprint, including roofed areas and paved areas shall be minimized to the extent practical and feasible.

Minimize Soil Compaction: Soil compaction will be minimized in landscaped areas. Disturbed slope soils will also be amended and aerated.

Landscaping with Native or Drought Tolerant Species: Landscaped areas shall be designed in accordance with Lemon Grove Municipal Code Chapter 18.44 (water efficient landscape regulations).

Source Control

Landscape/Outdoor Pesticide Use: The landscaping is designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution.

Prevent Illicit Discharges into the MS4: Provide educational materials to prevent illicit discharges as a component of the Operation and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan).

Control Trash and Debris: Dumpsters, other trash receptacles and waste cooking oil containers shall be stored inside buildings or four-sided enclosure with a structural overhead canopy designed to prevent precipitation from contacting materials in the enclosure.

Storm Drain Stenciling or Signage: Onsite storm drain inlets will be labeled with “No Dumping Drains to Waterways” or other equivalent language approved by the City.

Outdoor Storage: Outdoor material storage areas and outdoor work areas shall be protected from rainfall, run-on and wind dispersal.

Additional BMPs Based on Potential Sources of Runoff Pollutants: Irrigation systems will be designed for the specific water requirements of each landscape area. Landscaping will be designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, to promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. Flow reducers or shutoff valves triggered by a pressure drop to control water loss in the event of broken sprinkler heads or lines will be used.

Source: SWQMP (Omega, 2019a)

HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE IMPACTS Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigations undertaken for the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017) and is expected to be more than 20-25 feet below the ground surface. Consequently, significant impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated with development of the project.

There are no critical coarse sediment yield areas onsite (Omega, 2019a).

The existing site is a partially developed lot with a carwash facility along the westerly side of the site and dense vegetation on the easterly side. The existing surface cover consists of dirt, vegetation, asphalt paving and building rooftop. The majority of the site drains to the westerly boundary to a private storm drain inlet that connects to an existing public storm drain that runs along the northerly boundary of the site. The easterly portion of the site drains to the northeast corner of the site (Omega 2019b).



Under the proposed (or post-developed) conditions, the project would increase the impervious surfaces of the site due to the anticipated construction of the building footprint, parking area, drive aisle and sidewalk. A gravel filled infiltration trench installed below the parking lot in the northwesterly corner of the site will be used to mitigate the peak flow rate generated by the proposed site. The infiltration rate used in the calculations is based off the site testing done by Allied Earth Technology on August 30th, 2017, which indicate a measured infiltration rate of 2.5 inches per hour. A factor of safety of 2.0 was applied to adjust the rate down to 1.25 inches per hour. The infiltration trench will be built with an overflow that discharges directly to the existing public storm drain at the northerly boundary of the site. The proposed discharge point shall be the same as the existing discharge point.

The site has two DMA’s. DMA 1.1 is 3,717 SF and DMA 2.1 is 50,718 SF. DMA 1.1 is 85% impervious and will drain to a stormwater infiltration basin to be constructed onsite. DMA 2.1 will be self-mitigating and no post-construction BMPs are required per the SWQMP (Omega 2019a).

The 100-year storm water discharge rate under post-development conditions is estimated to result in a 4.66 cfs representing a 0.01 cfs reduction from existing conditions. According to the Drainage Report (Omega, 2019b), the drainage plan for the proposed development would not significantly alter the existing on-site flow patterns nor would it cause adverse effects to the downstream facilities or receiving waters.

The implementation of all proposed construction and post-construction BMPs would reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, all expected pollutants of concern and other anticipated pollutants. Therefore, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

FLOOD HAZARD, TSUNAMI AND SEICHE IMPACTS The project site is not identified in the County’s Zoning and Property Information Tool website, the Lemon Grove General Plan as an area within a 100- year flood plain. Development of the project site would not affect any area mapped as a flood hazard zone by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or within a flood control basin or a potential inundation area. In addition, the site does not have the potential to produce mudflows due to the relatively flat and moderately sloped topography of the site, and it is not in proximity to the ocean or other water bodies to be affected by a tsunami or seiche. Consequently, significant impacts would not occur.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN AND GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS As discussed above, an infiltration basin was selected as the treatment control BMP because of their effectiveness at treating sediment, trash and fine particles. The size of the basin was determined by various hydrologic model calculations that include detention volume for a 100-year storm event, drainage area contribution, and LID BMP requirements to address the increase in impervious area with project. Therefore, with the structural stormwater BMPs in place, the 100-year storm water discharge rate for the site would be 4.66 cfs representing a 0.01 cfs reduction from existing conditions. As a result, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, or in providing substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or degrading water quality.

Groundwater was not encountered during subsurface investigations undertaken for the Geotechnical Report (AET, 2017) and is expected to more than 20-25 feet below the ground surface. Consequently, significant impacts to groundwater resources are not anticipated with development of the project.



XI. Land Use and Planning Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Physically divide an established community?

b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

DISCUSSION a. No Impact. The project site is 1.25 acres in size and is comprised of one parcel that contains an existing car wash and related structures onsite. The project site is surrounded by existing development on four sides and the proposed project is essentially an urban infill redevelopment project.

Immediately surrounding land uses consist primarily of an apartment community to the north, commercial businesses on the east, a motel on the west and Broadway on the south (see Figure 3- Surrounding Land Uses in Attachment A).

The proposed project involves the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to demolish all existing structures onsite and to regrade the site and construct the self-storage and retail commercial building, parking lot, install wet and dry utilities, and install landscaping onsite.

The General Plan Amendment is required per Chapter 18.40 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code in order to change the existing GP land use designation from Retail Commercial to Mixed Use. The Planned Development Permit is required per Chapter 17.28.030 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code to allow redevelopment of the project site. The Conditional Use Permit is required per Chapter 17.28.050 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code to allow for the development of the self-storage component of the project in a general commercial zone.

With approval of the above-noted discretionary permits the proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community.

b. Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed project is an urban infill/redevelopment project located in the City’s downtown village core. According to the Lemon Grove General Plan, the “Mixed Use” land use classification is intended to support a mix of residential (condominiums and apartments), retail and office uses within the same building, lot or area, with the intent of creating lively pedestrian-oriented villages near the Trolley stations. Retail includes entertainment and neighborhood-serving businesses. Where mixes of uses occur within the same building, locate retail uses on the street level.



The proposed project would revitalize the project site contributing to the economic revitalization and pedestrian orientation envisioned by the City for its downtown village area. The proposed project would expand the sidewalk along the project frontage and the retail commercial uses would likely include restaurants with seating to activate the public realm with outdoor dining opportunities and landscape palettes provided for the community.

The project would include design elements and features including outdoor amenities, such as site furnishings or informal dining and gathering areas. The project proposes an outdoor amenity that would consist of an enhanced open space area in the front yard setback along Broadway, providing a 25-foot deep public open space area along the street. The open space area would have decorative paving; landscaping and outdoor seating that would be accessible from the public sidewalk. These project elements are intended to provide an enhanced pedestrian interface between the public right-of-way and the building storefronts. The outdoor amenities would be constructed and maintained by the project applicant/property owner for the benefit to the public.

As noted above, implementation of the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to support the proposed floor area of the self-storage facility onsite with retail commercial and public areas along Broadway. A comparison of the existing and proposed General Plan designation can be found below:

General Plan Land Use Category Description Maximum Development Per Net Acre

Expected Development Per Net Acre

Zoning

Existing Retail Commercial

Retail operations providing a broad range of goods and services, catering to both local and regional customer. Includes shopping center, grocery stores, professional services and other compatible retail businesses that are auto oriented

1.0: FAR 0.5:1 FAR General Commercial (No Change)

Proposed Mixed-Use Mix of residential (condominiums and apartments), retail, and office uses within the same building, lot or area, with the intent of creating lively pedestrian oriented villages near trolley stations. Retail includes entertainment and neighborhood serving businesses. Where mixes of uses occur within the same building, locate retail uses on the street level.

43 DUs/acre and 2.0:1 FAR

20 DUs/acre and 1.25:1 FAR

General Commercial (No Change)

The subject site is approximately 0.3 miles from the Lemon Grove Depot Trolley Station. The proposed Mixed-Use General Plan designation allows higher intensity development desired near the transit station. The proposed Mixed-Use General Plan designation is also consistent with the General Commercial zoning because the zoning district allows a mixture of retail, commercial, and residential uses. The proposed General Plan land use plan designation change would therefore not conflict with General Plan goals or land use policies.

As a result, with approval of the above-noted discretionary permits the proposed project would not result cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.



XII. Mineral Resources Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

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

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

DISCUSSION a - b. No Impact. The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Mines and Geology does not identify the project site as an area with high potential for aggregate or mineral resources. In addition, the City’s General Plan identifies the project site as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a regionally or locally known mineral resource; therefore, significant impacts would not occur.



XIII. Noise Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The discussion below is based on the findings contained within the Noise Report for the 8016 Broadway Self-Storage Project (Noise Report) (Recon, 2019) prepared for the proposed project. The document is on file and available for review in the City’s Planning Division office.

DISCUSSION a. Less Than Significant.

NOISE DESCRIPTORS All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. All references to decibels (dB) in this analysis will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol Leq, with a specified duration. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dB weighting, and noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dB weighting. This is similar to the Day Night sound level (Ldn), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dB weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours. These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances.



REGULATORY FRAMEWORK City of Lemon Grove Noise Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 9.24, Noise Control)

Sections 9.24.080 through 9.24.100 of the City of Lemon Grove Municipal Code pertain to City noise requirements and enforcement of violations. This chapter states:

A. It is unlawful for any person, including the city, to operate any single or combination of powered construction equipment at any construction site on Sundays on any day celebrating official state holidays. Notwithstanding the above, a person may operate powered construction equipment on the above-specified days between the hours of ten a.m. and five p.m. in compliance with subdivision 2 of this subsection at his residence or for the purpose of constructing a residence for him or herself, provided such operation of powered construction is not carried on for profit or livelihood. In addition, it is unlawful for any person to operate any single or combination of powered construction equipment at any construction site on Mondays through Saturdays except between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m.

B. No such equipment, or combination of equipment, regardless of age or date of acquisition, shall be operated so as to cause noise at a level in excess of seventy-five decibels for more than eight hours during any twenty-four hour period when measured at or within the property lines of any property which is developed and used either in part or in whole for residential purposes.

PROPERTY LINE NOISE LEVEL LIMITS Stationary noise sources are also regulated by the City’s Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance. Section 9.24.080 of the City’s Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance establishes noise level limits based on zoning.

BASELINE NOISE LEVELS A site visit for noise measurements was conducted on Thursday, June 14, 2018 using a Larson-Davis LxT Sound Expert Sound Level Meter. One 15-minute noise level measurement was taken on the project site between 1:38 p.m. and 1:53 p.m. The meter was calibrated before and after the measurement. The measurement was taken in the eastern, undeveloped portion of the project site. The main sources of noise at this location were vacuums and hoses associated with the Splash Car Wash on the project site. Traffic noise from Broadway represented a minimal contribution to the ambient noise environment. The average noise level for the noise measurement was 58.3 dB Leq. Further details can be found in the Noise Report (Recon, 2019).

SENSITIVE LAND USES Noise-sensitive land uses are land uses that may be subject to stress and/or interference from excessive noise, including residences, hospitals, churches, schools, hotels, resorts, libraries, sensitive wildlife habitat, or similar facilities where quiet is an important attribute of the environment. The nearest sensitive receptors are the Village Walk Condominium complex to the north of the project site, the grove motel to the west and Lemon Grove Car Wash to the east.



ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The Noise Report provides details on the analysis methodologies for construction noise, operational noise, loading operations and mechanical equipment (Recon, 2019). Estimates of construction noise are based on anticipated equipment and equipment noise levels at 50 feet with an attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. SoundPLAN (noise modeling software) data was used for on-site noise modeling. Operational noise predictions and contour mapping were developed using SoundPLAN. In all cases receivers were modeled at 5 feet above ground elevation, which represents the average height of the human ear. Operational noise was modeled worst-case scenario at the property lines between the project site and adjacent uses. The applicable daytime, evening, and nighttime noise level limits at the property line were applied for residential and commercial uses. Loading operation noise would include three loading areas on the west side of the building and would be occupied by passenger vehicles, vans, or pickup trucks. Loading operation noise was modeled with a sound power level of 80dB(A)Leq based on data for “truck: loading piece goods” from SoundPLAN. Mechanical equipment would include four HVAC units which would be surrounded by a five-foot masonry wall. Each HVAC unit has a sound power level of 72 dB(A) Leq (Recon, 2019).

NOISE IMPACTS Potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project are primarily related to the short-term operation of construction equipment and operation of the proposed project.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE Noise associated with the demolition, grading, building, and paving for the proposed project would potentially result in short-term impacts to surrounding properties. A variety of noise-generating equipment would be used during the construction phase of the proposed project such as scrapers, backhoes, front-end loaders, and concrete saws, along with others. The exact number and pieces of construction equipment required are not known at this time. In the absence of specifics, it was assumed that the loudest noise levels would occur during grading activities. Although maximum noise levels may be 80 to 90 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 50 feet during most construction activities, hourly average noise levels would be 82 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously.

Construction noise is considered a point source and would attenuate at approximately 6 dB for every doubling of distance. There are residential uses immediately north of the project site in the Village Walk Condominium complex. The property line of the Village Walk Condominium complex is approximately 107 feet from the center of the project site and 123 feet from the center of the proposed building.

During grading and site preparation, construction equipment would traverse the entire site and would not be situated at any one location for a long period of time. Assuming the acoustic center of the construction activity would be the center of the project site, hourly average construction noise levels at the northern property line would be 75 dB Leq. During building construction, construction equipment would be located at the proposed building for extended periods of time. Assuming the acoustic center of the construction activity would be the center of the proposed building, hourly average construction noise levels at the northern property line would be 74 dB Leq.



The City’s Noise Control and Abatement Ordinance restricts construction activities to Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and limits the construction noise levels to 75 dB Leq, with allowances for louder noise levels for shorter periods of time as shown in the Noise Report. Although the existing adjacent residences would be exposed to construction noise levels that could be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be short term. Project construction noise levels are anticipated to approach, but not exceed applicable construction noise level limits. Because construction activities associated with the proposed project would comply with the applicable regulation for construction hours, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS The proposed project includes occasional on-site trash collection. The trash enclosure would be located inside the building and collection would occur in the parking lot near the southern loading area and would be accessed from the side of the building away from the residential apartments located to the rear (north) of the site. The trash container is proposed for use only by the storage facility office and retail shops. Storage customers will not have access to it to the trash enclosure. That is intended to reduce the amount of trash thrown away by storage customers and to prevent noise associated with their use of the bin.

Section 9.24.110 of the Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance indicates that trash collection vehicles shall not generate a noise level greater than 80 dB Leq at 50 feet. Assuming trash collection only takes two minutes, the noise level from collection would be approximately 55 dB Leq at the residential properties. Existing trash collection activities occur much closer (northwestern corner of the project site) than where they would occur with the proposed project. Impacts from trash collection would be less than significant.

Outdoor noise sources associated with the proposed project would include proposed loading operations and HVAC equipment. The proposed project does not include any outdoor storage and no fleet or other vehicle storage would be allowed onsite. All loading will occur from the side of the building away from the residential apartments located to the rear (north) of the site.

Noise levels associated with proposed loading operations and HVAC equipment would be below all applicable noise level limits from the Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance Section 9.24 (Recon, 2019). Therefore, on-site generated noise levels would be less than significant.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. Construction operations have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. The proposed project would not involve the use of any equipment or process that would result in potentially significant levels (Pile Driving). Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes rapidly in magnitude with distance. A possible source of vibration during general project construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used within 20 feet of off-site adjacent residences and businesses. A vibratory roller would create approximately 0.210 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 25 feet.6 A 0.210 inch per second PPV vibration level would equal 0.268 inch per second PPV at a distance of 20 feet. For most structures, a PPV of 0.5 inches per second or less is sufficient to avoid structural damage. Off-site exposure to such groundborne vibration would be temporary and residences and business would not be affected by temporary vibration from construction. Therefore, temporary impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant.

6 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.



c. No Impact. The project site is not located near an active airport. The nearest airports are Gillespie Air Field (8.8 miles northwest) and the San Diego International Airport (11.6 miles west). At these distances, no effects related to airport noise would occur at the project site, and there would be no impacts.



XIV. Population and Housing Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

DISCUSSION a - b. No Impact. The project proposes to redevelop and existing developed site in the downtown village core of the City of Lemon Grove. The project site is surrounded by existing development on all sides and is considered an urban infill/redevelopment project. As stated in Chapter 2 of this document, all necessary utilities such as sewer, water, electricity, etc. are available either on-site or within the adjacent street of Broadway. The project site is currently occupied by a self-serve car wash. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any people or housing.

Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially growth-inducing effects by extending utilities into an undeveloped area or displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people. As a result, significant direct or indirect population growth or the need for replacement housing would not occur with project implementation.



XV. Public Services a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

1. Fire protection?

2. Police protection?

3. Schools?

4. Parks?

5. Other public facilities?

DISCUSSION a1 – a3. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to fire protective services. The project site is 1.25 acres in size and is comprised of one parcel that contains an existing self-serve car wash and auxiliary structures. The project consists of redeveloping the site to allow the development of a self-storage facility and retail commercial land uses along Broadway. The project is required to meet all of the applicable fire codes set forth by the State Fire Marshal, the LGFD, and the City’s building code. Implementation of the proposed project may result in a slight incremental increase in the demand for emergency services; however the size and location of the project would not place an undue hardship on the fire department since they are presently servicing the site as well as areas adjacent to, and across the street from, the site. Fire protection services would be available from Lemon Grove Fire Station No. 10 located at 7853 Central Avenue, approximately 0.9 miles away to the southwest. In addition, the LGFD reviewed the project submittal and provided recommendations to reduce potential impacts to fire protective services. These recommendations are included in the Conditions of Approval for the project. The Fire Department would also review the building and precise grading plans when they are submitted to the City and would also identify and provide additional recommendations to reduce any potential impacts. In addition, prior to final project approval, the Fire Marshal would verify that the project has been designed to conform to code. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of LGFD to serve the site with existing fire protection services and resources.

The proposed project would not result in significant impacts on police protective services. Increased demand for police protection is not expected since they are presently servicing the site as well as the areas adjacent to, and across the street from, the site. For that reason, the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the Sheriff’s Department to provide police protective services to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.



Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant direct increase in the population; however, the project would result in a small incremental increase in the City’s population if project employees come from outside the City of Lemon Grove. Therefore, the project could place cumulative demands on schools or school operations that would require additional school facilities. However, with payment of the School Fees as a condition of building permit approval, which is authorized by Section 17620 of the Education Code and assessed on a per square foot basis, no significant cumulative impacts to school facilities are anticipated to arise from project implementation.

a4 – a5. No Impact. The project site is located along Broadway, which is currently maintained by the City’s Department of Public Works. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated from project implementation.

Due to the relatively small size of the proposed project, no impacts on libraries, senior centers, or other public facilities are anticipated. Consequently, significant impacts would not occur.



XVI. Recreation Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

DISCUSSION a - b. No Impact. The project would not significantly affect any property currently zoned for recreational or open space use. The project consists of redeveloping an existing developed site with a self-storage facility with retail commercial uses located along the project’s frontage along Broadway. Due to the nature and size of the proposed project, no change to the demands on existing recreational resources is expected with the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no physical deterioration of recreational facilities due to the project. As a result, no impacts to recreational resources would occur with project implementation.

The project does not propose the development of any recreational facilities and would not require the expansion of existing recreational facilities or the construction of new recreational facilities that might adversely affect the environment. As a result, no impacts would occur with project implementation.



XVII. Transportation/Traffic Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? NOTE: While public agencies may immediately apply Section 15064.3 of the updated Guidelines, statewide application is not required until July 1, 2020. In addition, uniform statewide guidance for Caltrans projects is still under development. The PDT may determine the appropriate metric to use to analyze traffic impacts pursuant to section 15064.3(b). Projects for which an NOP will be issued any time after December 28th, 2018 should consider including an analysis of VMT/induced demand if the project has the potential to increase VMT (see page 20 of OPR’s updated SB 743 Technical Advisory), particularly if the project will be approved after July 2020.

c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

The discussion below is based on the findings contained within the Lemon Grove Village Storage Traffic Analysis Memo (Traffic Report) (Kimley Horn, 2019) prepared for the proposed project. The document is on file and available for review in the City’s Planning Division office.

DISCUSSION a - b. Less than Significant Impact. The applicant seeks approval of a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development Permit and a Conditional Use Permit to redevelop a 1.25-acre parcel in the City’s downtown village core with a self-storage facility with retail commercial uses along Broadway. There is an existing self-serve car wash onsite that would be demolished.



Traffic Impact Study Guidelines

The City of Lemon Grove follows the SANTEC / ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (TIS) In the San Diego Region (March 2,200). Based on the SANTEC / ITE Guidelines, the need for a traffic impact study is based on the estimated cumulative daily and peak hour trip generation. A TIS should be prepared for all projects which generate traffic greater than 1,000 total average daily trips (ADT) or 100 peak trips. Based on the trip generation analysis results for the proposed site, the existing land use to be demolished generates more trips than the proposed project is expected to. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would reduce trips to and from the site over existing conditions and would not exceed the thresholds established by the SANTEC / ITE Guidelines for the need of a TIS. However, a Traffic Memo was prepared (Kimley Horn, 2019) addressing a light of sight analysis, parking demands and trip generation analysis. The results of these analyses are provided below.

Sign Distance Analysis

The project proposes to have one 30-foot wide driveway off of Broadway towards the western end of the site. Broadway is classified as a 4-lane major per City of Lemon Grove’s General Plan Mobility Element. It has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour and bike lanes on both sides of the street. At the proposed driveway location there is a raised median, restricting left-turns into and out of the site.

A Line of Sight Analysis was performed for the proposed driveway location using clear sight triangles. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provides design guidelines for minimum sight distances. The dimensions of the legs of the sight triangles depend on the design speeds of the intersection roadways and the type of traffic control used at the intersection. The vertex of the sight triangle at the driveway approach represents the decision point for the driver pulling out of the site.

The proposed project driveway will be right-in/right-out only. The intersection sight distance for this movement is equal to the distance traveled at the design speed of Broadway (the major road) during a period of time equal to the time gap. The time gap is the amount of time in between vehicles on the major road that gives a vehicle at the driveway sufficient time to accelerate from a stop and complete a right turn without unduly interfering with the major road traffic operations. The time gap acceptance time does vary with the approach speed of the major road. Per Table 9-9 of AASHTO’s Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 7th Edition (2018), the minimum design intersection sight distance for a passenger car with a design speed of 40 mph is 385 feet.

A site visit was conducted on February 21, 2019. Based the existing conditions of the site, roadway classification, and prevailing speeds (posted speed) along Broadway, the sight distance available for vehicles turning right from the proposed driveway onto Broadway is greater than the minimum design intersection sight distance for passenger cars per AASHTO’s Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.

With the construction of the proposed project, the landscaping within the triangle should not exceed a height of 3’-6” to guarantee proper sight visibility.

Trip Generation

The (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (SANDAG, April 2002) was referenced to calculate the estimated trip generation for the proposed project. Considering the land use type, no pass-by trips, internal capture, nor transit, bicycle, or pedestrian credits were applied.



The proposed project would construct a 103,375 square foot self-storage facility and 5,523 square foot retail space. Using the driveway trip generation rate of 2 trips per KSF (thousand square feet) for Storage and 40 trips per KSF for Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial, the project is expected to generate a total of 428 daily trips with 19 morning peak-hour trips (10 in, 9 out) and 39 afternoon peak-hour trips (19 in, 20 out). The proposed project would demolish the existing 8-stall Express & Self-Service Car Wash. Using the driveway trip generation rate of 100 trips per stall for Self-Serve Car Wash, the existing land use to be demolished is estimated to generate a total of 800 daily trips with 32 morning peak-hour trips (16 in, 16 out) and 64 afternoon peak-hour trips (32 in, 32 out).

The existing land use to be demolished generates more trips than the proposed project is expected to. The resulting net trip generation on the network (proposed minus existing) would be equal to a total of -372 daily trips with -13 morning peak-hour trips (-6 in, -7 out) and -25 afternoon peak-hour trips (-13 in, -12 out). Table TT-1 summarizes the net trip generation for the site.

TABLE TT-1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Land Use Units1 Trip Rate2 Daily Trips

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

% of ADT In Out Total % of

ADT In Out Total

PROPOSED

Storage 103.375 KSF 2 / KSF 207 6% 6 6 12 9% 9 10 19

Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial 5.523 KSF 40 / KSF 221 3% 4 3 7 9% 10 10 20

Proposed Total 108.898 KSF 428 10 9 19 19 20 39

EXISTING

Car Wash Self-serve 8 stalls 100 / stall 800 4% 16 16 32 8% 32 32 64

NET TRIP GENERATION -372 -6 -7 -13 -13 -12 -25

Notes: 1. KSF = Thousand Square Feet. 2. Trip rates referenced from the (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generations Rates for the San Diego Region, SANDAG, April 2002.

Parking Analysis

The City of Lemon Grove Municipal Code provides a set of standards for off-street parking. The schedule in Section 17.24.010 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code shows the parking rates required for certain land uses. Based on the code, a rate of 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area is required for all Retail/Business and Professional/Research and Development in an Office Setting/Recreation (Fitness Clubs) land uses. The Lemon Grove Municipal Code also requires the same rate (1 space per 500 square feet of floor area) for all Manufacturing/Research and Development land uses.

Manufacturing/Research and Development land uses cover a wide variety of uses that vary greatly in size and generate vastly different parking needs. The rate for manufacturing is intended for developments in a warehouse setting and do not directly apply to a self-storage land use. Self-storage facilities generally require a much lower need for parking than other manufacturing and research uses. Per the Lemon Grove Municipal Code 17.24.010(7), “The City Council may modify parking space requirements for any project provided the application is consistent with Section 17.28.060”.



The Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition is a standard reference used by jurisdictions throughout the country for the estimation of parking demand potential of proposed developments. The ITE Parking Generation Manual has average peak period parking demand rates for mini-warehouse land uses for weekdays and Saturdays. Mini warehouses are typically referred to as “self-storage” facilities. They are buildings in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the storage of goods. The ITE Parking Generation Manual studied 14 mini warehouse sites and concluded that the average parking demand rate during a weekday (Monday – Friday) is 1 space per 10,000 square feet of general floor area and for a Saturday is 0.9 space per 10,000 square feet of general floor area.

As shown in Table TT-2, the required parking rates for storage facilities are consistently significantly lower than the 1 space per 500 square feet that the City of Lemon Grove requires for manufacturing land uses.

TABLE TT-2 PROPOSED PROJECT PARKING TOTALS

Land Use Units Parking Rate1 Number of Parking Spaces

Self-Storage 103,375 SF 1/10,000 SF 11

Retail 5,523 SF 1/500 SF 11

Parking Spaces Required 22

Mixed-Use Reduction2 0.75

Total Parking Spaces Required 17

Total Parking Spaces Provided 23

Notes: 1. Parking rate for Self-Storage from ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. Parking rate for Retail from Section 17.24.010, Lemon Grove Municipal Code. 2. Mixed-Use reduction per 17.24.010(5) of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code.

The parking demand for self-storage uses is anticipated to be much less than the City of Lemon Grove Municipal Code generalized requirements for Manufacturing/Research and Development. It is recommended to use the ITE Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition weekday rate for mini-warehouse land uses for the self-storage component of the proposed project, which is 1 space per 10,000 square feet.

The proposed project would construct a 103,375 square foot self-storage facility and 5,523 square foot retail space. Using the Retail/Business parking rate from the schedule in Section 17.24.010 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code for the retail space and the mini-warehouse rate from the ITE Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition, the proposed project would require 22 total parking spaces. The self-storage space and retail space will use the same parking lot. Per the Lemon Grove Municipal Code 17.24.010(5), “Where two or more commercial uses in a commercial development are combining parking facilities, the minimum space requirement may be reduced by up to one-quarter of the sum of the requirements of the various uses.” If a 25% reduction is applied to the above total parking spaces, the proposed project would require 17 total parking spaces.

The proposed project site plan includes 23 parking spaces. Using the suggested parking rates combining the Retail/Business parking rate from the schedule in Section 17.24.010 of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code for the retail space and the mini-warehouse rate from the ITE Parking Generation Manual 5th Edition, the proposed project would provide adequate parking supply. Table TT-2 summarizes the total required parking spaces for the proposed project compared to the number of spaces provided.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.



c – d. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access. As shown in Figure 4, Site Plan in Attachment A, the project’s driveway takes access from Broadway Avenue and has been designed to accommodate fire apparatus and the turning radii requirements of the Lemon Grove Fire Department vehicles and equipment.

As stated in the Surrounding Land Use section in Chapter 2 of this document, the project site is not located near an active airport. The nearest airports are Gillespie Air Field (8.8 miles northwest) and the San Diego International Airport (11.6 miles west). At these distances, the proposed project site is not located within a safety hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people visiting the project site. As a result, significant impacts would not occur with project implementation.

Implementation of the proposed project does not involve any potentially dangerous traffic or transportation hazards, nor does it propose any incompatible uses that could affect existing traffic or circulation in the project areas. The proposed driveway access would comply with all design requirements of the Lemon Grove Municipal Code and engineering standards. A sight distance analysis was conducted and confirmed that ingress and egress from the proposed driveway would not result in any hazards due to visibility of oncoming vehicles. As a result, significant impacts would not occur with project development.

The proposed project would not result in impacts to emergency access. The project has been designed to incorporate all required Lemon Grove Fire Department standards to ensure that its implementation would not result in hazardous design features, or inadequate emergency access to the site or areas surrounding the site. Consequently, significant impacts would not occur with project implementation.



XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

The discussion below is based on the findings contained within the Cultural Resources Survey for the Lemon Grove Village Storage Project (Cultural Report) (Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. [Helix], 2019) prepared for the proposed project. This report is on file and available for review with the City’s Planning Division.

a. No Impact. A cultural resources study including a records search, Sacred Lands File search, review of historic maps and aerial photographs, and an intensive survey by a HELIX archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native American monitor was conducted for the project area. The field investigations conducted for the proposed project included intensive pedestrian survey of the project area by a HELIX archaeologist and Kumeyaay Native American monitor from Misschief Cultural Monitoring Inc. on September 25, 2019. No archaeological resources were identified. Thus there are no significant resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or City guidelines.

b. No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project requires City approval of a General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the City initiated an SB-18 consultation (Government Code § 65352.3) with tribal governments per a requested list obtained from the California Native American Heritage Commission.

The records search conducted at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) indicated that 31 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project area, one of which included the area of the project site. The studies consisted of six survey reports relating to the construction of State Route (SR) 94, SR 125, and the Proposed MTDB (Metropolitan Transit Development Board) Urban Transit Corridor; 16 cultural resource assessments or monitoring reports for telecommunication facilities; four studies or monitoring for development projects within the cities of Lemon Grove or La Mesa; two inventories for the Sweetwater Valley and Spring Valley Creek floodplain; two testing/evaluation studies; and a study focused on the Bancroft Dam.



The records search results also indicated that a total of 20 cultural resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project area, none of which are mapped within the project site. In addition, 56 historic addresses have been documented within the one-mile search radius; 12 of these have been assigned a Primary number and are, therefore, included in the 20 recorded resources within the records search radius.

The field investigations included intensive pedestrian survey of the project area by a HELIX archaeologist and a Native American monitor. Results of the survey were negative for cultural resources. Based on the results of the current study, no cultural resources will be affected by the project, and no mitigation measures are recommended.



XIX. Utilities and Service Systems Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

DISCUSSION a. – c. Less Than Significant Impact.

RELOCATED, NEW OR EXPANDED UTILITY OR SERVICE SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE The proposed project would result in the construction of a new self-storage facility and retail commercial land uses on a 1.25-acre parcel in the City’s downtown village urban core. The project is an urban infill redevelopment project, with existing development on all four sides. All wet and dry public utilities, facilities and infrastructure are in place and available to serve the project site without the need for relocated, new or expanded facilities. While new public utility connections would be needed to the project site, and storm water BMPs would be constructed onsite, the new connections would not result in a need to modify the larger offsite infrastructure.

As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document, with BMPs, the total calculated post-development discharge rate for the site would be 4.66 CFS, which would not exceed the pre-developed discharge rate, or exceed the capacity of existing or planned downstream storm water drainage systems. Therefore, no significant impacts would result from project development.



Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas infrastructure

SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY Redevelopment of the project site, which currently contains a self-serve car wash would increase the demand for potable water that is needed to serve the new development built on-site. Water service for the project would be provided by the Helix Water District (District) from the main in Broadway. The District is a member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA).

The local water distribution system, provided by Helix Water District, is a well-gridded system that is in good condition and can meet future needs. The last segments of cast-iron pipelines in the City were scheduled for replacement in 2016 and a valve replacement program is currently in place. The Lemon Grove Sanitation District (District) is an independent entity that provides management, maintenance, and repair services for the wastewater system in the City of Lemon Grove. The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan completed in August 2017, by Dexter Wilson Engineering, indicates that the Lemon Grove Sanitation District has approximately 5,000 EDUs of capacity remaining in the existing system. Over time, as the District improves its “Condition-Based Assessment” and implements “Capacity-Based Improvements,” additional capacity may be created. There are two sewer meter basins (LG1 and LG2) that have been identified with capacity issues: Broadway (CIP18), Broadway South (CIP8), and Downtown Village Specific Plan (CIP21). Without CIP pipeline Replacements or repairs, these areas will be restricted in capacity; the Sewer Master Plan includes recommendations on prioritization for such in system improvements.

On the local level, additional water conservation for new developments in Lemon Grove are achieved through compliance with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance in the City’s Development Code. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance for the proposed project (MAWA) is estimated at 217,726 gallons per year (0.67 acre feet). The Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) is estimated at 150,475 gallons per year (0.46 acre feet) which is 67,251 gallons less than the MAWA (Nuvis, 2019).

Individual projects downtown area are to complete a utilities and service systems analysis on a project level as required by the Lemon Grove Sanitation District, SDG&E, Helix Water District initiated by will-serve letters. Individual projects are to coordinate with Helix Water District, Lemon Grove Sanitation District, and the City to: 1) determine the increase in water/wastewater demand, and 2) identify the necessary infrastructure improvements and/or new facilities required for the specific project. Since development would need to identify/fund the necessary infrastructure improvements/facilities required for the future projects and comply with the applicable General Plan Policies, impacts associated with the need for new water/wastewater facilities would be sufficiently minimized, resulting in a less than significant impact.

As part of the Conditions of Approval for this project, compliance with any applicable drought regulations regarding new development would be conducted by appropriate staff during review of project plans and various inspections prior to the approval of a Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore, as discussed in the above analysis the development of the project would not require new or expanded water entitlements from Helix or require new water resources be found.



SUFFICIENT WASTEWATER TREATMENT CAPACITY Existing sewer lines extend into the project site from Broadway and there is a sewer easement along the site’s northern property line. Wastewater treatment for the site will be provided by the Lemon Grove Sanitation District (District). The District is a member agency of the Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (JPA), a group of municipalities and special districts that share in the use of the City of San Diego’s regional wastewater facilities. All sewage from the City of Lemon Grove is directed to the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant (PLWTP), which is operated and maintained by the JPA. The District, and its facilities serving the site, meet the treatment requirements of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Individual projects are to complete a sanitary sewer and water service systems analysis on a project level if required by the Lemon Grove Sanitation District and Helix Water District, respectively. 1) If applicable, Individual projects are to determine the increase in demand for wastewater facilities and 2) If applicable, identify the necessary infrastructure improvements and/or new facilities required for the specific project. With the implementation of this requirement, impacts to associated wastewater capacity would be less than significant.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the wastewater treatment requirements of the Region 9 Water Quality Control Board, resulting in a less than significant impact (DVSPE MND, 2018).

d – e. Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to landfill capacity and attainment of statewide solid waste reduction goals and regulations.

Development of the project may result in a slight increase in domestic municipal solid waste generation because of the proposed land uses. The project would be conditioned to comply with AB 939, which requires cities to divert 50 percent of solid waste to recycling programs and away from landfills.

Waste will be generated from both construction and operational activities of the proposed project. The City’s solid waste is sent to EDCO Station & EDCO Recovery & Transfer, which can then transfer to any number of final disposal sites for Municipal Solid Waste, including: the Otay Landfill and the Sycamore Landfill.

EDCO diverts construction and demolition debris to its Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in Lemon Grove where it recycles 70% of the incoming tonnage. These EDCO facilities have the capacity to accept waste indefinitely into the future, subject to permit renewals. Therefore, solid waste originating from the project site will be transported facilities that have sufficient permitted capacity, resulting in a less than significant impact.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires every city and county in the state to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to its Solid Waste Management Plan, that identifies how each jurisdiction will meet the mandatory state waste diversion goal of 50 percent by and after the year 2000. The purpose of AB 939 is to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the state to the maximum extent feasible.” Local governments have an ongoing obligation to meet a 50 percent diversion goal, as mandated by AB 939.



Within the City of Lemon Grove, all solid waste disposals are subject to the requirements set forth in Title 13, Public Service, Chapter 13.24 Solid Waste, Recycling, and Green Waste Collection, as provided in the Lemon Grove Municipal Code. Chapter 13.24 provides integrated waste management guidelines for service, prohibitions, and provisions of service. While Lemon Grove’s recycling program is voluntary, residents and businesses are strongly encouraged to make full use of these services. Compliance with City and County waste reduction programs and policies would reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. Individual development projects within the City would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations, thus reducing the amount of landfill waste by at least 50 percent. Therefore, the proposed project would comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste; therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.



XX. Wildfire If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

a. – d. No Impact. The project site is not located within an area of State responsibility area or on lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity area.

The City of Lemon Grove participated in the development of the 2018 San Diego County Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan which is a countywide plan that identifies risks and ways to minimize damage by natural and manmade disasters. The plan is a comprehensive resource document that serves many purposes such as enhancing public awareness, creating a decision tool for management, promoting compliance with State and Federal program requirements, enhancing local policies for hazard mitigation capability, and providing inter-jurisdictional coordination.

The federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all local governments to create such a disaster plan in order to qualify for hazard mitigation funding. San Diego County was one of the first in the State to tackle this planning effort on a region wide basis, and the County's 2004 plan has received national recognition in the form of an achievement award from the National Association of Counties organization. This plan was last revised in 2018. The plan is currently being reviewed and revised to reflect changes to both the hazards threatening San Diego as well as the programs in place to minimize or eliminate those hazards.



Key goals for the Hazard Mitigation Plan include the following:

• Goal 1. Promote disaster-resistant future development. • Goal 2. Promote public understanding, support and demand for hazard mitigation. • Goal 3. Build and support local capacity and commitment to continuously become less vulnerable to

hazards. • Goal 4. Improve hazard mitigation coordination and communication with federal, state, and local

governments. Reduce the possibility of damage and losses to existing assets, particularly people, critical facilities / infrastructure, and City-owned facilities, due to:

• Goal 5. Reduce the Risks from floods and other forms of severe weather • Goal 6. Reduce risks from structural fire/wildfires • Goal 7. Reduce risks from geological hazards • Goal 8. Reduce risks from other manmade hazards

According to the Plan, a significant amount of the community is exposed to the potential for loss secondary to extreme fire conditions in undeveloped core and interface areas. However, the proposed project site is not located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Area according to the current CalFire maps and as such is not in a high risk for wildfire.

The project site is located in an urbanized area of the region and is surrounded by existing development on all sides. The site is relative flat to gently sloping from the southwest to northeast. There are no risks of flooding or landslides or significant drainage changes as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on wildfire risks, flooding or landslides.



DISCUSSION a. Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of any sensitive plant or animal species, or eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory.

As described in Section V. in this chapter, City staff reviewed letters from tribal governments during the SB-18 consultation process, historic and current aerial photographs of the project site, and other information about the subject property, including an on-site reconnaissance. Surficial or known cultural or tribal resources were not identified on the site and none are expected to be encountered during project construction. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not have an impact on these resources.

b. Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in either individually limited or cumulatively considerable, significant impacts. All resource topics associated with the project have been analyzed in accordance with 2019 State CEQA Guidelines and found to pose no impact or a less-than-significant impact. In addition, taken in sum with other projects in the area the scale of the proposed project is small and impacts to any environmental resource or issue areas would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

XXI. Mandatory Finding of Significance Potentially Significant

Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?



c. Less than Significant Impact. The project would not consist of any uses or activities that would negatively affect any persons directly or indirectly. In addition, all resource topics associated with the project have been analyzed in accordance with CEQA and the 2019 State CEQA Guidelines and found to pose no impact or a less-than-significant impact. Consequently, the project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly.

City of Lemon Grove Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers


Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers

References Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate by reference other documents that provide relevant data. The documents listed below are hereby incorporated by reference. The pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts of the proposed project. Referenced documents that are followed by a star (*) are on file and available for review at the City of Lemon Grove Planning Division office located at 3232 Main Street, Lemon Grove.

Applied Earth Technology. 2017. Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Self Storage Project. August 30.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1993. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the Western San Diego County Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 153.

California Department of Conservation. 2019. San Diego County Important Farmland Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ website accessed September 18, 2019.

County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance Paleontological Resources – www.sdcdplu.org/dplu/Resource/3~procguid/3~procguid.html.

County of San Diego. 2011. San Diego County General Plan Update, Final Program EIR.

County of San Diego. 1998. Final Multi Species Conservation Plan. August. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/mscp/docs/SCMSCP/FinalMSCPProgramPlan.pdf (website accessed September 26, 2019).

Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. 2019. Lemon Grove Self Storage Project, Cultural Resources Survey. October 4.

Kimley Horn. 2019. Lemon Grove Village Self Storage Project Traffic Analysis Memo. October 8.

Omega Engineering Consultants, 2019a. Stormwater Quality Management Plan for Lemon Grove Self Storage. June 25.

Omega Engineering Consultants, 2019b. Preliminary Hydrology Report for Lemon Grove Self Storage. June 26.

RECON. 2019. Focused Noise Analysis for the 8016 Broadway Self Storage Project. July 15.

Rick Engineering. 2017. Downtown Village Specific Plan Expansion Baseline Opportunities and Constraints Final Report. April.

Rick Engineering. 2018. Downtown Village Specific Plan Expansion Project Mitigated Negative Declaration. March.

San Diego County. 2018. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/HazMit/2018/2018%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf (website accessed September 26, 2019.)

SANDAG. 2002. (Not so) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. April.

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

City of Lemon Grove Chapter 4 - References and List of Preparers


Terracon. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Self-Storage Project at 8016 Broadway in Lemon Grove. September 3.

USDA. 2015. NRCS - http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed September 20, 2019.

Individuals and Organizations Consulted • Noah Alvey – Community Development Manager, City of Lemon Grove • Arturo Ortuna, Assistant Planner, City of Lemon Grove

Preparers • Leslea Meyerhoff, AICP, Summit Environmental Group • Dan Jones, Summit Environmental Group • Mary Robbins-Wade, Helix Environmental Planning • Steven Cook, Chen Ryan Associates

City of Lemon Grove

November 2019 Lemon Grove Village Self-Storage Project – Final IS/ND PDP-170-0002 1

Attachment A – Figures

FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION

City of Lemon Grove


FIGURE 2 PROJECT LOCATION ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

Project Site Boundary

City of Lemon Grove


FIGURE 3 SURROUNDING LAND USES

Project Site Boundary

City of Lemon Grove


FIGURE 4 SITE PLAN

City of Lemon Grove Attachment A – Figures


FIGURE 5 WEST AND EAST ELEVATIONS



FIGURE 6 NORTH AND SOUTH ELEVATIONS



FIGURE 7 PLAZA SPACE PERSPECTIVE

City of Lemon Grove

November 2019 Lemon Grove Village Self-Storage Project – Final IS/ND 8

FIGURE 8 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN

FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION PDP-170 …

Documents

Transcript of FINAL INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION PDP-170 …