Status: INACTIVE - NEEDS EVALUATION
Status Date: 7/1/2005
Cal Enviroscreen Score: 50-55%
Sites Details
Status: Inactive - Needs Evaluation Assembly: 76
Status Date: 2005-07-01 00:00:00 Division Branch: Cleanup Cypress Site Code: Funding: DERA
Site Type: Military Evaluation Lead Agency: SMBRP
Site Type Detailed: FUDS Project Manager:
Special Program: Supervisor: Eileen Mananian
City: Escondido Restricted Use: NO
County: SAN DIEGO Senate: 40
Congres Dis: 50 Site Mgmt Req: NONE SPECIFIED
State : CA Acres: 0
Latitude: 33.1002777777778 Zip:
Longitude: -117.083611111111
Address:
National Priorities List: NO
APN: NONE SPECIFIED
Confirmed Coc: NONE SPECIFIED
Past Uses: NONE SPECIFIED
Potential Coc: 30011
Potential Media Affected: NONE SPECIFIED
Project Name: CAMP ESCONDIDO
Regulatory Agencies Involved: SMBRP
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1237
Item8.
166 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Unplottable Summary
Total: 2 Unplottable sites
DB Company Name/Site
Name
Address City Zip ERIS ID
uu-CALSITES-891192570-aa BERNARDO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
(PROPOSED)
W. OF BERNARDO AVE., N. OF
RISING HILL
ESCONDIDO CA 92029 891192570
uu-RCRA NON GEN-879456010-aa DAN TRIEGER FELICITA ROAD ESCONDIDO CA 92029 879456010 EPA Handler ID | Recycler Activity?: CAC003040318 | NO
CALSITES
RCRA NON GEN
Unplottable Summary
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1238
Item8.
167 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Unplottable Report
Site: BERNARDO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PROPOSED)
W. OF BERNARDO AVE., N. OF RISING HILL ESCONDIDO CA 92029 uu-CALSITES-891192570-bb ID No: 37010001 Assembly:
Status Date: 01/10/2000 Senate:
NPL: N Region: 4
Tier: Region Name: LONG BEACH
Fund: County Co: 37
Access : Facility County: SAN DIEGO
Access Code: NOT REPORTED Lat Deg: 0
Cortese: Lat Min: 0
Hrscore: Lat Sec: 0
Hrsdate: Lat Dir:
Groundwater Contam: Long Deg: 0
GW Code: NOT REPORTED Long Min: 0
No Sources: 0 Long Sec: 0
RWQCB Name: Long Dir:
Branch Name: SOUTHERN CA. - A Llmethod:
Staff: JABRAHAM Lldesc:
Senior: HSALLOUM
Status Name: VOLUNTARY CLEANUP PROGRAM
Type Name: PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE PROPERTY
Lead Name: DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
SIC Name: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION - CROPS
Filename: BERNARDO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PROPOSED)
Comments:
DTSC entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with Escondido Union School District to provide oversight for a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment for the proposed Bernardo Elementary School site.
Background:
Site: DAN TRIEGER
FELICITA ROAD ESCONDIDO CA 92029 uu-RCRA NON GEN-879456010-bb EPA Handler ID: CAC003040318
Gen Status Universe: No Report
Contact Name: DAN TRIEGER
Contact Address: FELICITA ROAD , , ESCONDIDO , CA, 92029 , Contact Phone No and Ext: 619-850-9190
Contact Email: [email protected]
Contact Country:
County Name: SAN DIEGO
EPA Region: 09
Land Type:
Receive Date: 20191024
Location Latitude:
Location Longitude:
Recycler Activity?: NO
Recycler Activity Note: This facility has no indication of Recycling Activity.
Violation/Evaluation Summary
Note: NO RECORDS: As of Oct 2024, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID).
Handler Summary
CALSITES
RCRA NON GEN
Unplottable Report
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1239
Item8.
168 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Importer Activity: No
Mixed Waste Generator: No
Transporter Activity: No
Transfer Facility: No
Onsite Burner Exemption: No
Furnace Exemption: No
Underground Injection Activity: No
Commercial TSD: No
Used Oil Transporter: No
Used Oil Transfer Facility: No
Used Oil Processor: No
Used Oil Refiner: No
Used Oil Burner: No
Used Oil Market Burner: No
Used Oil Spec Marketer: No
Recycler Activity: No
Recycler Activity Without
Storage:
No
Hazardous Waste Handler Details
Sequence No: 1
Receive Date: 20191024
Handler Name: DAN TRIEGER
Source Type: Implementer
Federal Waste Generator Code: N
Generator Code Description: Not a Generator, Verified
Owner/Operator Details
Owner/Operator Ind: Current Owner Street No:
Type: Other Street 1: FELICITA ROAD
Name: DAN TRIEGER Street 2:
Date Became Current: City: ESCONDIDO
Date Ended Current: State: CA
Phone: 619-850-9190 Country:
Source Type: Implementer Zip Code: 92029
Owner/Operator Ind: Current Operator Street No:
Type: Other Street 1: FELICITA ROAD
Name: DAN TRIEGER Street 2:
Date Became Current: City: ESCONDIDO
Date Ended Current: State: CA
Phone: 619-850-9190 Country:
Source Type: Implementer Zip Code: 92029
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1240
Item8.
169 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Appendix: Database Descriptions
Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) can search the following databases. The extent of historical information varies with each database and current information is determined by what is publicly available to ERIS at the time of update. ERIS updates databases as set out in ASTM Standard E1527-13 and E1527-21, Section 8.1.8 Sources of Standard Source Information:
"Government information from nongovernmental sources may be considered current if the source updates the information at least every 90 days, or, for information that is updated less frequently than quarterly by the government agency, within 90 days of the date the government agency makes the information available to the public." Standard Environmental Record Sources
Federal
National Priority List: rr-NPL-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List (NPL) includes the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program, based primarily on the score a site receives from EPA's Hazard Ranking System. A site must be on the NPL to receive money from the Superfund Trust Fund for remedial action. This data includes NPL sites represented as polygons, where available, that can be sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). These site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all the Operable Units (OUs) and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. As site investigation and remediation progress, OUs may be added, modified or refined. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA.
This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
National Priority List - Proposed: rr-PROPOSED NPL-bb
Sites proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state agency, or concerned citizens for addition to the National Priorities List (NPL) due to contamination by hazardous waste and identified by the EPA as a candidate for cleanup because it poses a risk to human health and/or the environment. Sites represented as polygons, where available, can be sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). These site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all the Operable Units (OUs) and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary.
Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Deleted NPL: rr-DELETED NPL-bb
Sites deleted from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Priorities List (NPL). The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Sites represented as polygons, where available, can be sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). These site boundaries represent the footprint of a whole site, the sum of all the Operable Units (OUs) and the current understanding of the full extent of contamination; for Federal Facility sites, the total site polygon may be the Facility boundary. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes. Where there is no polygon boundary data available for a given site, the site is represented as a point.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
NPL
PROPOSED NPL
DELETED NPL
Appendix: Database Descriptions
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1241
Item8.
170 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 SEMS List 8R Active Site Inventory: rr-SEMS-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Program has deployed the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), which integrates multiple legacy systems into a comprehensive tracking and reporting tool. This inventory contains active sites evaluated by the Superfund program that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The Active Site Inventory Report displays site and location information at active SEMS sites. An active site is one at which site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, cost recovery, or oversight activities are being planned or conducted. This data includes SEMS sites from the List 8R Active file as well as applicable sites from the EPA's Facility Registry Service map tool.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
SEMS List 8R Archive Sites: rr-SEMS ARCHIVE-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Archived Site Inventory displays site and location information at sites archived from SEMS. An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. This data includes sites from the List 8R Archived site file.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
Inventory of Open Dumps, June 1985: rr-ODI-bb
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides for publication of an inventory of open dumps. The Act defines "open dumps" as facilities which do not comply with EPA's "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR 257).
Government Publication Date: Jun 1985
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System - CERCLIS:
rr-CERCLIS-bb
Superfund is a program administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to locate, investigate, and clean up the worst hazardous waste sites throughout the United States. CERCLIS is a database of potential and confirmed hazardous waste sites at which the EPA Superfund program has some involvement. It contains sites that are either proposed to be or are on the National Priorities List (NPL) as well as sites that are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The EPA administers the Superfund program in cooperation with individual states and tribal governments; this database is made available by the EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
EPA Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands: rr-IODI-bb Public Law 103-399, The Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act of 1994, enacted October 22, 1994, identified congressional concerns that solid waste open dump sites located on American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) lands threaten the health and safety of residents of those lands and contiguous areas. The purpose of the Act is to identify the location of open dumps on Indian lands, assess the relative health and environment hazards posed by those sites, and provide financial and technical assistance to Indian tribal governments to close such dumps in compliance with Federal standards and regulations or standards promulgated by Indian Tribal governments or Alaska Native entities.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1998
CERCLIS - No Further Remedial Action Planned: rr-CERCLIS NFRAP-bb An archived site is one at which EPA has determined that assessment has been completed and no further remedial action is planned under the Superfund program at this time. The Archive designation means that, to the best of EPA's knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site.
Government Publication Date: Oct 25, 2013
CERCLIS Liens: rr-CERCLIS LIENS-bb
A Federal Superfund lien exists at any property where EPA has incurred Superfund costs to address contamination ("Superfund site") and has provided notice of liability to the property owner. A Federal CERCLA ("Superfund") lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent Superfund monies. This database is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This database was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Refer to SEMS LIEN as the current data source for Superfund Liens.
Government Publication Date: Jan 30, 2014
RCRA CORRACTS-Corrective Action: rr-RCRA CORRACTS-bb
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. At these sites, the Corrective Action Program ensures that cleanups occur. EPA and state regulators work with facilities and communities to design remedies based on the contamination, geology, and anticipated use unique to each site.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
SEMS
SEMS ARCHIVE
ODI
CERCLIS
IODI
CERCLIS NFRAP
CERCLIS LIENS
RCRA CORRACTS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1242
Item8.
171 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD Facilities: rr-RCRA TSD-bb
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. This database includes NonCorrective Action sites that have indicated engagement in the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste which requires a RCRA hazardous waste permit.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Generator List: rr-RCRA LQG-bb
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) generate 1,000 kilograms per month or more of hazardous waste or more than one kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Small Quantity Generators List: rr-RCRA SQG-bb
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Small Quantity Generators (SQGs) generate more than 100 kilograms, but less than 1,000 kilograms, of hazardous waste per month.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Very Small Quantity Generators List: rr-RCRA VSQG-bb RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Very Small Quantity Generators (VSQG) generate 100 kilograms or less per month of hazardous waste, or one kilogram or less per month of acutely hazardous waste. Additionally, VSQG may not accumulate more than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Non-Generators: rr-RCRA NON GEN-bb
RCRA Info is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. RCRA Info replaces the data recording and reporting abilities of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting System (BRS). A hazardous waste generator is any person or site whose processes and actions create hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 260.10). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
RCRA Sites with Controls: rr-RCRA CONTROLS-bb
List of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facilities with institutional controls in place. RCRA gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
Federal Engineering Controls-ECs: rr-FED ENG-bb
List of Engineering controls (ECs) made availabe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ECs encompass a variety of engineered and constructed physical barriers (e.g., soil capping, sub-surface venting systems, mitigation barriers, fences) to contain and/or prevent exposure to contamination on a property. The EC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Agreement in place. The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA Agreement in place.
Government Publication Date: Jan 29, 2025
RCRA TSD
RCRA LQG
RCRA SQG
RCRA VSQG
RCRA NON GEN
RCRA CONTROLS
FED ENG
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1243
Item8.
172 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Federal Institutional Controls- ICs: rr-FED INST-bb
List of Institutional controls (ICs) made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ICs are non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Although it is EPA's expectation that treatment or engineering controls will be used to address principal threat wastes and that groundwater will be returned to its beneficial use whenever practicable, ICs play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use and guide human behavior at a site. The IC listing includes remedy component data from Superfund decision documents for applicable sites on the final or deleted on the National Priorities List (NPL); and sites with a Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA) Agreement in place. The only sites included that are not on the NPL; proposed for NPL; or removed from proposed NPL, are those with an SAA Agreement in place.
Government Publication Date: Jan 29, 2025
Land Use Control Information System: rr-LUCIS-bb
The LUCIS database is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Navy and contains information for former Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) properties across the United States.
Government Publication Date: Sep 1, 2006
Institutional Control Boundaries at NPL sites: rr-NPL IC-bb These boundaries of Institutional Control areas at sites on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL), or as Proposed or Deleted, are sourced from the EPA NPL Superfund Site Boundaries dataset, refreshed by the Shared Enterprise Geodata and Services (SEGS). The EPA's NPL includes the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial action under the Superfund program. Institutional controls are non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal controls that help minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy. Data provided by external parties is not independently verified by EPA. This boundary data is made available to the public strictly for informational purposes.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Emergency Response Notification System: rr-ERNS 1982 TO 1986-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1982-1986
Emergency Response Notification System: rr-ERNS 1987 TO 1989-bb Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports controlled by the National Response Center. The primary function of the National Response Center is to serve as the sole national point of contact for reporting oil, chemical, radiological, biological, and etiological discharges into the environment anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Government Publication Date: 1987-1989
Emergency Response Notification System: rr-ERNS-bb
Database of oil and hazardous substances spill reports made available by the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC). The NRC fields initial reports for pollution and railroad incidents and forwards that information to appropriate federal/state agencies for response. These data contain initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2024
The Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) Brownfield Database: rr-FED BROWNFIELDS-bb Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties protects the environment, reduces blight, and takes development pressures off greenspaces and working lands. This data is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and includes Brownfield sites from the Cleanups in My Community (CIMC) web application.
Government Publication Date: Feb 7, 2024
FEMA Underground Storage Tank Listing: rr-FEMA UST-bb
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the Department of Homeland Security maintains a list of FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
FED INST
LUCIS
NPL IC
ERNS 1982 TO 1986
ERNS 1987 TO 1989
ERNS
FED BROWNFIELDS
FEMA UST
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1244
Item8.
173 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Facility Response Plan: rr-FRP-bb
This listing contains facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and submit FRPs. Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments. This listing includes FRP facilities from an applicable EPA FOIA file and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) data file.
Government Publication Date: Jan 9, 2024
Delisted Facility Response Plans: rr-DELISTED FRP-bb
Facilities that once appeared in - and have since been removed from - the list of facilities that have submitted Facility Response Plans (FRP) to EPA.
Facilities that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial harm" to the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters are required to prepare and submit Facility Response Plans (FRPs). Harm is determined based on total oil storage capacity, secondary containment and age of tanks, oil transfer activities, history of discharges, proximity to a public drinking water intake or sensitive environments.
Government Publication Date: Jan 9, 2024
Historical Gas Stations: rr-HIST GAS STATIONS-bb
This historic directory of service stations is provided by the Cities Service Company. The directory includes Cities Service filling stations that were located throughout the United States in 1930.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1930
Petroleum Refineries: rr-REFN-bb
This list of petroleum refineries is sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Refinery Capacity Report. The listing includes operating and idle petroleum refineries (including new refineries under construction) and refineries shut down during the previous year. The geographic area the report covers is the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and other U.S. possessions. Per the EIA, the facility location data represents the approximate location based on research of publicly available information from sources such as Federal agencies, company websites, and satellite images on public websites.
Government Publication Date: Oct 31, 2024
Petroleum Product and Crude Oil Rail Terminals: rr-BULK TERMINAL-bb A list of petroleum product and crude oil rail terminals from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as well as petroleum terminals sourced from Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosted by the Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Database. Data includes operable bulk petroleum product terminals with a total bulk shell storage capacity of 50,000 barrels or more, and/or the ability to receive volumes from tanker, barge, or pipeline; also rail terminals handling the loading and unloading of crude oil with activity between 2017 and 2018. EIA petroleum product terminal data comes from the EIA815 Bulk Terminal and Blender Report, which includes working, shell in operation, and shell idle for several major product groupings.
Government Publication Date: Oct 31, 2024
LIEN on Property: rr-SEMS LIEN-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) provides Lien details on applicable properties, such as the Superfund lien on property activity, the lien property information, and the parties associated with the lien.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
Superfund Decision Documents: rr-SUPERFUND ROD-bb
This database contains a list of decision documents for Superfund sites. Decision documents serve to provide the reasoning for the choice of (or) changes to a Superfund Site cleanup plan. The decision documents include completed Records of Decision (ROD), ROD Amendments, Explanations of Significant Differences (ESD) for active and archived sites stored in the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), along with other associated memos and files. This information is maintained and made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
State
State Response Sites: rr-RESPONSE-bb
A list of identified confirmed release sites where the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is involved in remediation, either in a lead or oversight capacity. These confirmed release sites are generally high-priority and high potential risk. This database serves a purpose similar to that of the federal NPL, functioning as a state-level counterpart for prioritizing cleanup efforts at hazardous substance release sites.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
FRP
DELISTED FRP
HIST GAS STATIONS
REFN
BULK TERMINAL
SEMS LIEN
SUPERFUND ROD
RESPONSE
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1245
Item8.
174 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 EnviroStor Database: rr-ENVIROSTOR-bb
The EnviroStor Data Management System is made available by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Includes Corrective Action sites, Tiered Permit sites, Historical Sites and Evaluation/Investigation sites. This database serves a purpose similar to that of the federal Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), functioning as a state-level counterpart for tracking potential hazardous substance release sites.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
Delisted State Response Sites: rr-DELISTED ENVS-bb
Sites removed from the list of State Response Sites made available by the EnviroStor Data Management System, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2025
Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): rr-SWF/LF-bb
The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database made available by the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) contains information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout the State of California. The types of facilities found in this database include landfills, transfer stations, material recovery facilities, composting sites, transformation facilities, waste tire sites, and closed disposal sites.
Government Publication Date: Oct 26, 2024
Solid Waste Disposal Sites with Waste Constituents Above Hazardous Waste Levels: rr-SWRCB SWF-bb This is a list of solid waste disposal sites identified by California State Water Resources Control Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2006
Waste Management Unit Database: rr-WMUD-bb
The Waste Management Unit Database System tracks and inventories waste management units. CCR Title 27 contains criteria stating that Waste Management Units are classified according to their ability to contain wastes. Containment shall be determined by geology, hydrology, topography, climatology, and other factors relating to the ability of the Unit to protect water quality. Water Code Section 13273.1 requires that operators submit a water quality solid waste assessment test (SWAT) report to address leak status. The WMUDS was last updated by the State Water Resources control board in 2000.
Government Publication Date: Jan 1, 2000
EnviroStor Hazardous Waste Facilities: rr-HWP-bb
A list of hazardous waste facilities including permitted, post-closure and historical facilities found in the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
Sites Listed in the Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Program Report: rr-SWAT-bb In a 1993 Memorandum of Understanding, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) agreed to submit a comprehensive report on the Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT) Program to the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). This report summarizes the work completed to date on the SWAT Program, and addresses both the impacts that leakage from solid waste disposal sites (SWDS) may have upon waters of the State and the actions taken to address such leakage.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1995
Construction and Demolition Debris Recyclers: rr-C&D DEBRIS RECY-bb This listing of Construction and Demolition Debris Recyclers is maintained by the California Intergrated Waste Management Board-common C&D materials include lumber, drywall, metals, masonry (brick, concrete, etc.), carpet, plastic, pipe, rocks, dirt, paper, cardboard, or green waste related to land development.
Government Publication Date: Jun 20, 2018
Recycling Centers: rr-RECYCLING-bb
This list of Certified Recycling Centers that are operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
Listing of Certified Processors: rr-PROCESSORS-bb
This list of Certified Processors that are operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
ENVIROSTOR
DELISTED ENVS
SWF/LF
SWRCB SWF
WMUD
HWP
SWAT
C&D DEBRIS RECY
RECYCLING
PROCESSORS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1246
Item8.
175 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Listing of Certified Dropoff, Collection, and Community Service Programs: rr-CONTAINER RECY-bb This list of Certified Dropoff, Collection, and Community Service Programs (non-buyback) operating under the state of California's Beverage Container Recycling Program is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
Land Disposal Sites: rr-LDS-bb
Land Disposal Sites in GeoTracker, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)'s data management system. The Land Disposal program regulates of waste discharge to land for treatment, storage and disposal in waste management units. Waste management units include waste piles, surface impoundments, and landfills.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Reports: rr-LUST-bb
List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks within the Cleanup Sites data in GeoTracker database. GeoTracker is the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) data management system for managing sites that impact groundwater, especially those that require groundwater cleanup (Underground Storage Tanks, Department of Defense and Site Cleanup Program) as well as permitted facilities such as operating Underground Storage Tanks. The Leak Prevention Program that overlooks LUST sites is the SWRCB in California's Environmental Protection Agency.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Delisted Leaking Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED LST-bb
List of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup sites removed from GeoTracker, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)'s database system, as well as sites removed from the SWRCB's list of UST Case closures.
Government Publication Date: Jan 21, 2025
Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) in GeoTracker: rr-UST-bb List of Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites made available by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in California's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Nov 17, 2024
Proposed Closure of Underground Storage Tank Cases: rr-UST CLOSURE-bb This listing includes Proposed Closure of Underground Storage Tank (UST) Cases which are being considered for closure by either the State Water Resources Control Board at a Future Board Meeting or the Executive Director that have been posted for a 60-day public comment period, and Closure of UST Cases with Closure Denials and Approved Orders. The lists are provided by the California Water Boards.
Government Publication Date: Jan 21, 2025
Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Information Database: rr-HHSS-bb The Historical Hazardous Substance Storage database contains information collected in the 1980s from facilities that stored hazardous substances. The information was originally collected on paper forms, was later transferred to microfiche, and recently indexed as a searchable database. When using this database, please be aware that it is based upon self-reported information submitted by facilities which has not been independently verified. It is unlikely that every facility responded to the survey and the database should not be expected to be a complete inventory of all facilities that were operating at that time. This database is maintained by the California State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Geotracker.
Government Publication Date: Aug 27, 2015
Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System: rr-UST SWEEPS-bb The Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) is a historical listing of active and inactive underground storage tanks made available by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
Government Publication Date: Oct 1, 1994
Aboveground Storage Tanks: rr-AST-bb
A statewide list from 2009 of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) made available by the Cal FIRE Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM). This list is no longer maintained or updated by the Cal FIRE OSFM.
Government Publication Date: Aug 31, 2009
SWRCB Historical Aboveground Storage Tanks: rr-AST SWRCB-bb A list of aboveground storage tanks made available by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Effective January 1, 2008, the Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) are vested with the responsibility and authority to implement the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA).
Government Publication Date: Dec 1, 2007
CONTAINER RECY
LDS
LUST
DELISTED LST
UST
UST CLOSURE
HHSS
UST SWEEPS
AST
AST SWRCB
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1247
Item8.
176 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Oil and Gas Facility Tanks: rr-TANK OIL GAS-bb
Locations of oil and gas tanks that fall under the jurisdiction of the Geologic Energy Management Division of the California Department of Conservation (CalGEM) (CCR 1760). CalGEM was formerly the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR).
Government Publication Date: Jan 22, 2025
Delisted Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED TNK-bb
This database contains a list of storage tank sites that were removed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in California's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Cal FIRE Office of State Fire Marshal (OSFM).
Government Publication Date: Jan 22, 2025
California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Tanks: rr-CERS TANK-bb List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal which fall under the Aboveground Petroleum Storage and Underground Storage Tank regulatory programs. The CalEPA oversees the statewide implementation of the Unified Program which applies regulatory standards to protect Californians from hazardous waste and materials.
Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Delisted California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Tanks: rr-DELISTED CTNK-bb This database contains a list of Aboveground Petroleum Storage and Underground Storage Tank sites that were removed from in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal.
Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Historical Hazardous Substance Storage Container Information - Facility Summary: rr-HIST TANK-bb The State Water Resources Control Board maintained the Hazardous Substance Storage Containers listing and inventory in th 1980s. This facility summary lists historic tank sites where the following container types were present: farm motor vehicle fuel tanks; waste tanks; sumps; pits, ponds, lagoons, and others; and all other product tanks. This set, published in May 1988, lists facility and owner information, as well as the number of containers. This data is historic and will not be updated.
Government Publication Date: May 27, 1988
Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program Facility Sites with Land Use Restrictions: rr-LUR-bb The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) list includes sites cleaned up under the program's oversight and generally does not include current or former hazardous waste facilities that required a hazardous waste facility permit. The list represents land use restrictions that are active. Some sites have multiple land use restrictions.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
CALSITES Database: rr-CALSITES-bb
This historical database was maintained by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) for more than a decade. CALSITES contains information on Brownfield properties with confirmed or potential hazardous contamination. In 2006, DTSC introduced EnviroStor as the latest Brownfields site database.
Government Publication Date: May 1, 2004
Hazardous Waste Management Program Facility Sites with Deed / Land Use Restrictions: rr-HLUR-bb The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste Management Program (HWMP) has developed a list of current or former hazardous waste facilities that have a recorded land use restriction at the local county recorder's office. The land use restrictions on this list were required by the DTSC HWMP as a result of the presence of hazardous substances that remain on site after the facility (or part of the facility) has been closed or cleaned up. The types of land use restriction include deed notice, deed restriction, or a land use restriction that binds current and future owners.
Government Publication Date: Feb 18, 2021
Deed Restrictions and Land Use Restrictions: rr-DEED-bb List of Deed Restrictions, Land Use Restrictions and Covenants in GeoTracker made available by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in California's Environmental Protection Agency. A deed restriction (land use covenant) may be required to facilitate the remediation of past environmental contamination and to protect human health and the environment by reducing the risk of exposure to residual hazardous materials.
Government Publication Date: Jan 15, 2025
Voluntary Cleanup Program: rr-VCP-bb
List of sites in the Voluntary Cleanup Program made available by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC). The Voluntary Cleanup Program was designed to respond to lower priority sites. Under the Voluntary Cleanup Program, DTSC enters site-specific agreements with project proponents for DTSC oversight of site assessment, investigation, and/or removal or remediation activities, and the project proponents agree to pay DTSC's reasonable costs for those services.
TANK OIL GAS
DELISTED TNK
CERS TANK
DELISTED CTNK
HIST TANK
LUR
CALSITES
HLUR
DEED
VCP
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1248
Item8.
177 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
GeoTracker Cleanup Program Sites: rr-CLEANUP SITES-bb
A list of Cleanup Program sites in the state of California made available by The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). SWRCB tracks leaking underground storage tank cleanups as well as other water board cleanups.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Delisted Cleanup Program Sites: rr-DELISTED CLEANUP-bb
A list of Cleanup Program sites which were once included - and have since been removed from - the list of Cleanup Program Sites in GeoTracker.
GeoTracker is the State Water Resource Control Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater.
Government Publication Date: Jan 15, 2025
Delisted County Records: rr-DELISTED COUNTY-bb
Records removed from county or CUPA databases. Records may be removed from the county lists made available by the respective county departments because they are inactive, or because they have been deemed to be below reportable thresholds.
Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Tribal
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: rr-INDIAN LUST-bb This list of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 9, which includes California, is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
Underground Storage Tanks on Tribal/Indian Lands: rr-INDIAN UST-bb This list of underground storage tanks (USTs) on Tribal/Indian Lands in Region 9, which includes California, is made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
Delisted Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED INDIAN LST-bb Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) facilities which once appeared on - and have since been removed from - the Regional Tribal/Indian LUST lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
Delisted Tribal Underground Storage Tanks: rr-DELISTED INDIAN UST-bb Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities which once appeared on - and have since been removed from - the Regional Tribal/Indian UST lists made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2024
County
San Diego County - Solid Waste Facility List: rr-SWF SANDIEGO-bb This list of open and closed Solid Waste Facilities is made available by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and Quality's (DEHQ) agency files and map service. The County of San Diego DEHQ Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) is certified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to enforce state solid waste laws and regulations in San Diego County, excluding the City of San Diego.
Government Publication Date: Sep 24, 2024
San Diego County - Local Oversight Program List: rr-LOP SANDIEGO-bb A list of Underground Storage Tank (UST) release sites in the County of San Diego. This list is made available by San Diego County Department of Environmental Health.
Government Publication Date: Jun 15, 2020
CLEANUP SITES
DELISTED CLEANUP
DELISTED COUNTY
INDIAN LUST
INDIAN UST
DELISTED INDIAN LST
DELISTED INDIAN UST
SWF SANDIEGO
LOP SANDIEGO
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1249
Item8.
178 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 San Diego County - Hazardous Materials Management Division Database: rr-HAZ SANDIEGO-bb A list of facilities with Unified Program Facility Permit in San Diego County. This list has been made available by County of San Diego Environmental Health.
Government Publication Date: Jul 19, 2024
San Diego County - UST List: rr-UST SANDIEGO-bb
A list of registered Underground Storage Tanks in the County of San Diego. The list is made available by the San Diego County Hazardous Materials Division.
Government Publication Date: Sep 13, 2024
San Diego County - Site Assessment and Mitigation Investigation Sites: rr-SAM SANDIEGO-bb List of sites which have undergone a Site Assessment and Mitigation investigation. This list is made available by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health.
Government Publication Date: Apr 26, 2024
Additional Environmental Record Sources
Federal
PFAS Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data: rr-PFAS GHG-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) collects Greenhouse Gas (GHG) data from large emitting facilities (25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year), and suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial gases that results in GHG emissions when used. Includes GHG emissions data for facilities that emit or have emitted since 2010 chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures by DSSTox. PFAS emissions data has been identified for facilities engaged in the following industrial processes: Aluminum Production (GHGRP Subpart F), HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction (Subpart O), Electronics Manufacturing (Subpart I), Fluorinated Gas Production (Subpart L), Magnesium Production (Subpart T), Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use (Subpart DD), and Manufacture of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment (Subpart SS). Over time, other industrial processes with required GHGRP reporting may include PFAS emissions data and the list of reportable gases may change over time.
Government Publication Date: Aug 5, 2024
On-Scene Coordinator Response Sites: rr-OSC RESPONSE-bb This list of On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) Response Sites is provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). OSCs are the federal officials responsible for monitoring or directing responses to all oil spills and hazardous substance releases reported to the federal government. OSCs coordinate all federal efforts with, and provide support and information to local, state, and regional response communities. An OSC is an agent of either EPA or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), depending on where the incident occurs. EPA's OSCs have primary responsibility for spills and releases to inland areas and waters. USCG OSCs have responsibility for coastal waters and the Great Lakes. In general, an OSC has the following key responsibilities during and after a response: Assessment, Monitoring, Response Assistance, and Evaluation.
Government Publication Date: Apr 4, 2024
Facility Registry Service/Facility Index: rr-FINDS/FRS-bb The Facility Registry Service (FRS) is a centrally managed database that identifies facilities, sites, or places subject to environmental regulations or of environmental interest. FRS creates high-quality, accurate, and authoritative facility identification records through rigorous verification and management procedures that incorporate information from program national systems, state master facility records, and data collected from EPA's Central Data Exchange registrations and data management personnel. This list is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Aug 1, 2024
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program: rr-TRIS-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a database containing data on disposal or other releases of toxic chemicals from U.S. facilities and information about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. There are currently 770 individually listed chemicals and 33 chemical categories covered by the TRI Program. Facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use these chemicals in amounts above established levels must submit annual reporting forms for each chemical. Note that the TRI chemical list does not include all toxic chemicals used in the U.S. One of TRI's primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical releases to the environment. This database includes TRI Reporting Data for calendar years 1987 through 2021 and Preliminary Data for 2022.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
HAZ SANDIEGO
UST SANDIEGO
SAM SANDIEGO
PFAS GHG
OSC RESPONSE
FINDS/FRS
TRIS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1250
Item8.
179 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 PFOA/PFOS Contaminated Sites: rr-PFAS NPL-bb
This list of Superfund Sites with Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) detections is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their PFAS Analytic Tools data, previously the list was obtained by EPA FOIA requests. EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and EPA Regional Offices maintain what is known about site investigations, contamination, and remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) where PFAS is present in the environment. Limitations: Detections of PFAS at National Priorities List (NPL) sites do not mean that people are at risk from PFAS, are exposed to PFAS, or that the site is the source of the PFAS. The information in the Superfund NPL and Superfund Alternative Agreement (SAA) PFAS detection site list is years old and may not be accurate today. Site information such as site name, site ID, and location has been confirmed for accuracy; however, PFAS-related information such as media sampled, drinking water being above the health advisory, or mitigation efforts has not been verified. For Federal Facilities data, the other Federal agencies (OFA) are the lead agency for their data and provided them to EPA.
Government Publication Date: Dec 17, 2024
Federal Agency Locations with Known or Suspected PFAS Detections: rr-PFAS FED SITES-bb This list of federal agency locations with known or suspected detections of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) is made available by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools data. The EPA outlines that these data are gathered from several federal entities, such as the federal Superfund program, Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Department of Energy (DOE). The dates this data was extracted for the PFAS Analytic Tools range from 2022 to 2024. Sites on this list do not necessarily reflect the source/s of PFAS contamination and detections do not indicate level of risk or human exposure at the site.
Agricultural notifications in this data are limited to DOD sites only. At this time, the EPA is aware that this list is not comprehensive of all Federal agencies.
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2024
SSEHRI PFAS Contamination Sites: rr-PFAS SSEHRI-bb
This PFAS Contamination Site Tracker database is compiled by the PFAS Project Lab, part of the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute (SSEHRI) at Northeastern University. According to the SSEHRI, the database records qualitative and quantitative data from each known site of PFAS contamination, including timeline of discovery, sources, levels, health impacts, community response, and government response. The goal of this database is to compile information and support public understanding of the rapidly unfolding issue of PFAS contamination. All data presented was extracted from government websites, news articles, or publicly available documents. Locations for the Known PFAS Contamination Sites are sourced from the PFAS Sites and Community Resources Map by the PFAS-REACH team, credited to PFAS Project Lab, Silent Spring Institute, and PFAS Exchange. Disclaimer: The source conveys the data undergoes regular updates as new information becomes available, some sites may be missing and/or contain information that is incorrect or outdated, as well as their information represents all contamination sites SSEHRI is aware of, not all possible contamination sites. This data is not intended to be used for legal purposes. Access the following source link for the most current information:
https://pfasproject.com/pfas-sites-and-community-resources/ Government Publication Date: Jun 27, 2024
National Response Center PFAS Spills: rr-PFAS ERNS-bb
This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Spills dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. The National Response Center (NRC), operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, is the designated federal point of contact for reporting all oil, chemical, and other discharges into the environment, for the United States and its territories. This dataset contains NRC spill information from 1990 to the present that is restricted to records associated with PFAS and PFAS-containing materials. Incidents are filtered to include only records with a "Material Involved" or "Incident Description" related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). The keywords used to filter the data included "AFFF," "Fire Fighting Foam," "Aqueous Film Forming Foam," "Fire Suppressant Foam, "PFAS," "PERFL," "PFOA," "PFOS," and "Genx." Limitations: The data from the NRC website contains initial incident data that has not been validated or investigated by a federal/state response agency. Keyword searches may misidentify some incident reports that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS spills/release incidents.
Government Publication Date: Dec 9, 2024
PFAS NPDES Discharge Monitoring: rr-PFAS NPDES-bb
This list of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities with required monitoring for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) Substances is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s PFAS Analytic Tools. Any point-source wastewater discharger to waters of the United States must have a NPDES permit, which defines a set of parameters for pollutants and monitoring to ensure that the discharge does not degrade water quality or impair human health. This list includes NPDES permitted facilities associated with permits that monitor for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), limited to the years 2007 - present. EPA further advises the following regarding these data: currently, fewer than half of states have required PFAS monitoring for at least one of their permittees, and fewer states have established PFAS effluent limits for permittees. For states that may have required monitoring, some reporting and data transfer issues may exist on a state-by-state basis.
Government Publication Date: Dec 16, 2024
Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances (PFAS) from Toxic Release Inventory: rr-PFAS TRI-bb
PFAS NPL
PFAS FED SITES
PFAS SSEHRI
PFAS ERNS
PFAS NPDES
PFAS TRI
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1251
Item8.
180 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 List of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) facilities at which the reported chemical is a per- or polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substance included in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) consolidated PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances. Encompasses Toxics Release Inventory records included in the EPA PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA's TRI database currently tracks information on disposal or releases of 770 individually listed toxic chemicals and 33 chemical categories from thousands of U.S. facilities and details about how facilities manage those chemicals through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. This listing includes TRI Reporting Data for calendar years 1987 through 2021 and Preliminary Data for 2022.
Government Publication Date: Sep 20, 2023
PFAS Water Quality Portal Sampling Data: rr-PFAS WATER-bb This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Environmental Media Sampling Data is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. The Water Quality Portal (WQP), as a cooperative service sponsored by the United States Geological Survey, the EPA, and the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, is part of a modernized repository storing ambient sampling data for all environmental media and tissue samples. A wide range of federal, state, tribal and local governments, academic and non-governmental organizations, and individuals submit project details and sampling results to this public repository. Limitations: EPA did not carry out the sampling or testing of a majority of the data in the WQP PFAS dataset. EPA can only speak to the accuracy and completeness of the data from projects like the National Aquatic Resource Surveys for which EPA is the data owner/organization. Data may exist within the file on Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) and the approving agency of the QAPP, if a QAPP is entered.
Government Publication Date: Jul 22, 2024
PFAS TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities: rr-PFAS TSCA-bb The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and requires chemical manufacturers and facilities that manufacture or import chemical substances to report data to EPA. This list is specific only to TSCA Manufacture and Import Facilities with reported per- and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances. Data file is sourced from EPA's PFAS Analytic Tools TSCA dataset which includes CDR/Inventory Update Reporting data from 1998 up to 2020. Disclaimer: This data file includes production and importation data for chemicals identified in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard list of PFAS without explicit structures and list of PFAS structures in DSSTox. Note that some regulations have specific chemical structure requirements that define PFAS differently than the lists in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. Reporting information on manufactured or imported chemical substance amounts should not be compared between facilities, as some companies claim Chemical Data Reporting Rule data fields for PFAS information as Confidential Business Information.
Government Publication Date: Jan 5, 2023
PFAS Waste Transfers from RCRA e-Manifest : rr-PFAS E-MANIFEST-bb This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Waste Transfers dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. Every shipment of hazardous waste in the U.S. must be accompanied by a shipment manifest, which is a critical component of the cradle-to-grave tracking of wastes mandated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). According to the EPA, currently no Federal Waste Code exists for any PFAS compounds. To work around the lack of PFAS waste codes in the RCRA database, EPA developed the PFAS Transfers dataset by mining e-Manifest records containing at least one of these common PFAS keywords: PFAS PFOA PFOS PERFL AFFF GENX GEN-X (plus the Vermont state-specific waste codes). Limitations: Amount or concentration of PFAS being transferred cannot be determined from the manifest information. Keyword searches may misidentify some manifest records that do not contain PFAS. This dataset should also not be considered to be exhaustive of all PFAS waste transfers.
Government Publication Date: Dec 15, 2024
PFAS Industry Sectors: rr-PFAS IND-bb
This Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Industry Sectors dataset is made available via the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) PFAS Analytic Tools. The EPA developed the dataset from various sources that show which industries may be handling PFAS including: EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) records restricted to potential PFAS-handling industry sectors; ECHO records for Fire Training Sites identified where fire-fighting foam may have been used in training exercises; and 14 CFR Part 139 Airports compiled from historic and current records from the FAA Airport Data and Information Portal. Since July 2006, all certificated Part 139 Airports are required to have fire-fighting foam onsite that meet certain military specifications, which to date have been fluorinated (Aqueous Film Forming Foam). Limitations: Inclusion in this dataset does not indicate that PFAS are being manufactured, processed, used, or released by the facility. Listed facilities potentially handle PFAS based on their industrial profile, but are unconfirmed by the EPA. Keyword searches in ECHO for Fire Training sites may misidentify some facilities and should not be considered to be an exhaustive list of fire training facilities in the U.S.
Government Publication Date: Dec 16, 2024
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System: rr-HMIRS-bb The Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting System (HMIRS) database contains unintentional hazardous materials release information reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Government Publication Date: May 29, 2024
National Clandestine Drug Labs: rr-NCDL-bb
PFAS WATER
PFAS TSCA
PFAS E-MANIFEST
PFAS IND
HMIRS
NCDL
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1252
Item8.
181 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department"), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), provides this data as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy.
Government Publication Date: Nov 30, 2023
Toxic Substances Control Act: rr-TSCA-bb
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The CDR enables EPA to collect and publish information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of commercial chemical substances and mixtures (referred to hereafter as chemical substances) on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). This includes current information on chemical substance production volumes, manufacturing sites, and how the chemical substances are used. This information helps the Agency determine whether people or the environment are potentially exposed to reported chemical substances. EPA publishes submitted CDR data that is not Confidential Business Information (CBI). EPA CDR collections occur approximately every four years and reporting requirements change per collection.
Government Publication Date: May 12, 2022
Hist TSCA: rr-HIST TSCA-bb
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule and changing its name to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.
The 2006 IUR data summary report includes information about chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of 25,000 pounds or more at a single site during calendar year 2005. In addition to the basic manufacturing information collected in previous reporting cycles, the 2006 cycle is the first time EPA collected information to characterize exposure during manufacturing, processing and use of organic chemicals. The 2006 cycle also is the first time manufacturers of inorganic chemicals were required to report basic manufacturing information.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2006
FTTS Administrative Case Listing: rr-FTTS ADMIN-bb
An administrative case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
FTTS Inspection Case Listing: rr-FTTS INSP-bb
An inspection case listing from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), together known as FTTS. This database was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Compliance Database (NCDB). The FTTS and NCDB was shut down in 2006.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2007
Potentially Responsible Parties List: rr-PRP-bb
Early in the site cleanup process, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts a search to find the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). The EPA looks for evidence to determine liability by matching wastes found at the site with parties that may have contributed wastes to the site.
This listing contains PRPs, Noticed Parties, at sites in the EPA's Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS).
Government Publication Date: Nov 20, 2024
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing: rr-SCRD DRYCLEANER-bb The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Coalition members are states with mandated programs and funding for drycleaner site remediation. Current members are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Since 2017, the SCRD no longer maintains this data, refer to applicable state source data where available.
Government Publication Date: Nov 08, 2017
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS): rr-ICIS-bb The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database contains integrated enforcement and compliance information across most of U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) programs. The vision for ICIS is to replace EPA's independent databases that contain enforcement data with a single repository for that information. Currently, ICIS contains all Federal Administrative and Judicial enforcement actions and a subset of the Permit Compliance System (PCS), which supports the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This information is maintained by the EPA Headquarters and at the Regional offices. A future release of ICIS will completely replace PCS and will integrate that information with Federal actions already in the system. ICIS also has the capability to track other activities that support compliance and enforcement programs, including incident tracking, compliance assistance, and compliance monitoring.
Government Publication Date: Apr 13, 2024
TSCA
HIST TSCA
FTTS ADMIN
FTTS INSP
PRP
SCRD DRYCLEANER
ICIS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1253
Item8.
182 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Drycleaner Facilities: rr-FED DRYCLEANERS-bb
A list of drycleaner facilities from Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) data as made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sourced from the ECHO Exporter file. The EPA tracks facilities that possess NAIC and SIC codes that classify businesses as drycleaner establishments.
Government Publication Date: May 5, 2024
Delisted Drycleaner Facilities: rr-DELISTED FED DRY-bb
List of sites removed from the list of Drycleaner Facilities (sites in the EPA's Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) with NAIC or SIC codes identifying the business as a drycleaner establishment).
Government Publication Date: May 5, 2024
Formerly Used Defense Sites: rr-FUDS-bb
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) are properties that were formerly owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense prior to October 1986, where the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for an environmental restoration. The FUDS Annual Report to Congress (ARC) is published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial FUDS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data (HIFLD) FUDS dataset which applies to the Fiscal Year 2021 FUDS Inventory.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
FUDS Munitions Response Sites: rr-FUDS MRS-bb
Boundaries of Munitions Response Sites (MRS), published with the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Annual Report to Congress (ARC) by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). An MRS is a discrete location within a Munitions response area (MRA) that is known to require a munitions response. An MRA means any area on a defense site that is known or suspected to contain unexploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions (DMM), or munitions constituents (MC). This data is compiled from the USACE's Geospatial MRS data layers and Homeland Infrastructure FoundationLevel Data (HIFLD) MRS dataset.
Government Publication Date: May 15, 2023
Former Military Nike Missile Sites: rr-FORMER NIKE-bb
This information was taken from report DRXTH-AS-IA-83A016 (Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System, 12/1984) which was performed by Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. for the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency Assessment Division. The Nike system was deployed between 1954 and the mid-1970's. Among the substances used or stored on Nike sites were liquid missile fuel (JP-4); starter fluids (UDKH, aniline, and furfuryl alcohol); oxidizer (IRFNA); hydrocarbons (motor oil, hydraulic fluid, diesel fuel, gasoline, heating oil); solvents (carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, stoddard solvent); and battery electrolyte. The quantities of material a disposed of and procedures for disposal are not documented in published reports. Virtually all information concerning the potential for contamination at Nike sites is confined to personnel who were assigned to Nike sites. During deactivation most hardware was shipped to depot-level supply points. There were reportedly instances where excess materials were disposed of on or near the site itself at closure. There was reportedly no routine site decontamination.
Government Publication Date: Dec 2, 1984
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Flagged Incidents: rr-PIPELINE INCIDENT-bb This list of flagged pipeline incidents is made available by the U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulations require incident and accident reports for five different pipeline system types. Accidents reported on hazardous liquid gravity lines (§195.13) and reporting-regulated-only hazardous liquid gathering lines (§195.15) and incidents reported on Type R gas gathering (§192.8(c)) are not included in the flagged incident file data.
Government Publication Date: May 6, 2024
Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS): rr-MLTS-bb
A list of sites that store radioactive material subject to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements. This list is maintained by the NRC. As of September 2016, the NRC no longer releases location information for sites. Site locations were last received in July 2016.
Government Publication Date: May 11, 2021
Historic Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS) sites: rr-HIST MLTS-bb A historic list of sites that have inactive licenses and/or removed from the Material Licensing Tracking System (MLTS). In some cases, a site is removed from the MLTS when the state becomes an "Agreement State". An Agreement State is a State that has signed an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) authorizing the State to regulate certain uses of radioactive materials within the State.
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2010
Mines Master Index File: rr-MINES-bb
FED DRYCLEANERS
DELISTED FED DRY
FUDS
FUDS MRS
FORMER NIKE
PIPELINE INCIDENT
MLTS
HIST MLTS
MINES
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1254
Item8.
183 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 The Master Index File (MIF) is provided by the United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). This file, which was originally created in the 1970's, contained many Mine-IDs that were invalid. MSHA removes invalid IDs from the MIF upon discovery. MSHA applicable data includes the following: all Coal and Metal/Non-Metal mines under MSHA's jurisdiction since 1/1/1970; mine addresses for all mines in the database except for Abandoned mines prior to 1998 from MSHA's legacy system (addresses may or may not correspond with the physical location of the mine itself); violations that have been assessed penalties as a result of MSHA inspections beginning on 1/1/2000; and violations issued as a result of MSHA inspections conducted beginning on 1/1/2000.
Government Publication Date: Feb 5, 2024
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sites: rr-SMCRA-bb This inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily legacy coal mining operations) is maintained by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), as it provides information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This inventory contains information on the type and extent of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Problems, as well as information on the cost associated with the reclamation of those problems. The data is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed. Disclaimer: Per the OSMRE, States and tribes who enter their data into e-AMLIS (AML Inventory System) may truncate their latitude and longitude so the precise location of usually dangerous AMLs is not revealed in an effort to protect the public from searching for these AMLs, most of which are on private property. If more precise location information is needed, please contact the applicable state/tribe of interest.
Government Publication Date: May 20, 2024
Mineral Resource Data System: rr-MRDS-bb
The Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) is a collection of reports describing metallic and nonmetallic mineral resources throughout the world.
Included are deposit name, location, commodity, deposit description, geologic characteristics, production, reserves, resources, and references. This database contains the records previously provided in the Mineral Resource Data System (MRDS) of USGS and the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Locator System (MAS/MILS) originated in the U.S. Bureau of Mines, which is now part of USGS. The USGS has ceased systematic updates of the MRDS database with their focus more recently on deposits of critical minerals while providing a well-documented baseline of historical mine locations from USGS topographic maps.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2016
DOE Legacy Management Sites: rr-LM SITES-bb
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) currently manages radioactive and chemical waste, environmental contamination, and hazardous material at over 100 sites across the U.S. The LM manages sites with diverse regulatory drivers (statutes or programs that direct cleanup and management requirements at DOE sites) or as part of internal DOE or congressionally-recognized programs, such as but not limited to: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA Title I, Tile II), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D), Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). This site listing includes data exported from the DOE Office of LM' s Geospatial Environmental Mapping System (GEMS). GEMS Data disclaimer: The DOE Office of LM makes no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the use, accuracy, availability, or completeness of the data presented herein.
Government Publication Date: Dec 12, 2023
Alternative Fueling Stations: rr-ALT FUELS-bb
This list of alternative fueling stations is sourced from the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC). The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy launched the AFDC in 1991 as a repository for alternative fuel vehicle performance data, which provides a wealth of information and data on alternative and renewable fuels, advanced vehicles, fuel-saving strategies, and emerging transportation technologies. The data includes Biodiesel (B20 and above), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Electric, Ethanol (E85), Hydrogen, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Propane (LPG), and Renewable Diesel (R20 and above) fuel type locations.
Government Publication Date: Aug 29, 2024
Superfunds Consent Decrees: rr-CONSENT DECREES-bb
This list of Superfund consent decrees is provided by the Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division (ENRD) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) applicable file. This listing includes Cases filed since 2010 limited to the following: Consent Decrees for CERCLA or Superfund Sites filed and/or as proposed within the ENRD's Case Management System (CMS); and applicable ENRD's Environmental Defense Section (EDS) CERCLA Cases with "Consent" in History Note. CMS may not reflect the latest developments in a case, nor can the agency guarantee the accuracy of the data. ENRD Disclaimer: Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA; response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA; however, this should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
Government Publication Date: Jun 26, 2024
Air Facility System: rr-AFS-bb
SMCRA
MRDS
LM SITES
ALT FUELS
CONSENT DECREES
AFS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1255
Item8.
184 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 This EPA retired Air Facility System (AFS) dataset contains emissions, compliance, and enforcement data on stationary sources of air pollution.
Regulated sources cover a wide spectrum; from large industrial facilities to relatively small operations such as dry cleaners. AFS does not contain data on facilities that are solely asbestos demolition and/or renovation contractors, or landfills. ECHO Clean Air Act data from AFS are frozen and reflect data as of October 17, 2014; the EPA retired this system for Clean Air Act stationary sources and transitioned to ICIS-Air.
Government Publication Date: Oct 17, 2014
Registered Pesticide Establishments: rr-SSTS-bb
This national list of active EPA-registered foreign and domestic pesticide and/or device-producing establishments is based on data from the Section Seven Tracking System (SSTS). The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 7 requires that each producing establishment must place its EPA establishment number on the label or immediate container of each pesticide, active ingredient or device produced. An EPA establishment number on a pesticide product label identifies the EPA registered location where the product was produced. The list of establishments is made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Government Publication Date: Feb 29, 2024
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Transformers: rr-PCBT-bb Locations of Transformers Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. PCB transformer owners must register their transformer(s) with EPA. Although not required, PCB transformer owners who have removed and properly disposed of a registered PCB transformer may notify EPA to have their PCB transformer de-registered. Data made available by EPA.
Government Publication Date: Oct 15, 2019
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Notifiers: rr-PCB-bb
Facilities included in the national list of facilities that have notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) activities. Any company or person storing, transporting or disposing of PCBs or conducting PCB research and development must notify the EPA and receive an identification number.
Government Publication Date: May 23, 2024
Power Plants: rr-POWER PLANTS-bb
This list of power plants is provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The listing includes operable electric generating plants in the United States by energy source, originating from the EIA-860, Annual Electric Generator Report; EIA-860M, Monthly Update to the Annual Electric Generator Report; and EIA-923, Power Plant Operations Report. It includes all operable plants by energy source with a combined nameplate capacity of 1 megawatt or more that are operating, are on standby, or out of service for short- or long-term.
Government Publication Date: Apr 15, 2024
State
PFAS Sampling Locations: rr-PFAS SAMPLING-bb
This data is sourced from the State Water Board's GeoTracker Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Map tool which contains individual sampling points (i.e., soil boring, groundwater monitoring well, drinking water well for municipal drinking water systems, etc.) or a site location with PFAS analytical data. Includes analytical results that are finalized and submitted electronically by the Responsible Parties via GeoTracker's Electronic Submittal of Information Portal, and after it's accepted by a Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Government Publication Date: Dec 6, 2024
Dry Cleaning Facilities: rr-DRYCLEANERS-bb
A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial, linen supply, commercial laundry, dry cleaning and pressing machines - Coin Operated Laundry and Dry Cleaning. This is provided by the Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Government Publication Date: Dec 20, 2021
Delisted Drycleaners: rr-DELISTED DRYCLEANERS-bb
Sites removed from the list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers, made available by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2022
Non-Toxic Dry Cleaning Incentive Program: rr-DRYC GRANT-bb A list of grant recipients of the Non-Toxic Dry Cleaning Incentive Program made available by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The program provides grants to eligible dry cleaning businesses to assist them in transitioning away from PERC machines to alternative non-toxic and non-smog forming technologies.
Government Publication Date: Jan 31, 2022
SSTS
PCBT
PCB
POWER PLANTS
PFAS SAMPLING
DRYCLEANERS
DELISTED DRYCLEANERS
DRYC GRANT
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1256
Item8.
185 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 PFAS GeoTracker Cleanup Sites: rr-PFAS GT CLEANUPS-bb
A list of applicable cleanup sites from the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) GeoTracker data management system where one or more of the potential contaminants of concern are identified in the PFAS Structure List and/or PFAS Chemicals Without Explicit Structure List made available by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
Government Publication Date: Jan 15, 2025
PFOA/PFOS Groundwater: rr-PFAS GW-bb
A list of water wells from the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA) Groundwater Information System with the groundwater chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) (NL = 0.014 UG/L) or perfluorooctanoic sulfonate (PFOS) (NL = 0.013 UG/L). The GAMA Groundwater Information System search is made available by California Water Boards.
Government Publication Date: Dec 1, 2024
PFAS Investigations: rr-PFAS INVEST-bb
This list of potential Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS) sites is compiled from the California State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) PFAS Investigations Map tool. The SWRCB issued investigative orders, per California Water Code (CWC) Section 13267 and/or 13383, to these sites.
Orders were also issued to the public water systems to sample wells in the vicinity of these locations. Military facilities have been identified by the Department of Defense (DOD) as part of their efforts to investigate PFAS per the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The data includes locations for Airports, Chrome Plating Facilities, Landfills, Publicly Owned Treatment Works, Refineries and Bulk Terminals, DOD Facilities, and Monitored Drinking Water Wells being investigated for potential PFAS.
Government Publication Date: Jan 23, 2024
Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup: rr-HWSS CLEANUP-bb The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. This list is published by California Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Government Publication Date: Mar 15, 2023
Toxic Pit Cleanup Act Sites: rr-TOXIC PITS-bb
The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (TPCA) list identifies sites suspected of containing hazardous substances where cleanup has not yet been completed. This list was maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), is not longer maintained, and updates are not planned.
Government Publication Date: Jul 1, 1995
List of Hazardous Waste Facilities Subject to Corrective Action: rr-DTSC HWF-bb This is a list of hazardous waste facilities identified in Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 25187.5. These facilities are those where Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action in an order issued under HSC § 25187, or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment.
Government Publication Date: Jul 18, 2016
EnviroStor Inspection, Compliance, and Enforcement: rr-INSP COMP ENF-bb A list of permitted facilities with inspections and enforcements tracked by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control's (DTSC) EnviroStor data management system.
Government Publication Date: Nov 23, 2023
School Property Evaluation Program Sites: rr-SCH-bb
A list of sites registered with The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) School Property Evaluation and Cleanup (SPEC) Division. SPEC is responsible for assessing, investigating and cleaning up proposed school sites. The Division ensures that selected properties are free of contamination or, if the properties were previously contaminated, that they have been cleaned up to a level that protects the students and staff who will occupy the new school.
Government Publication Date: Dec 10, 2025
California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS): rr-CHMIRS-bb A list of reported hazardous material incidents, spills, and releases from the California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS). This listing has been made available by the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES).
Government Publication Date: Oct 21, 2024
PFAS GT CLEANUPS
PFAS GW
PFAS INVEST
HWSS CLEANUP
TOXIC PITS
DTSC HWF
INSP COMP ENF
SCH
CHMIRS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1257
Item8.
186 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Historical California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS): rr-HIST CHMIRS-bb A list of reported hazardous material incidents, spills, and releases from the California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) prior to 1993. This list has been made available by the California Office of Emergency Services (OES).
Government Publication Date: Jan 1, 1993
Handlers from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HAZNET-bb A list of handlers not otherwise classified as Treatment, Storage, Disposal facilities (TSDF) or generators from the facilities and manifests data made available by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS).
Government Publication Date: Oct 24, 2016
Generators from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HAZ GEN-bb List of handlers listed as having generated waste from the facilities and manifests data made available by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS).
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
TSDF from Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HAZ TSD-bb
List of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) from the facilities and manifests data made available by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) in their Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS).
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2017
Historical Hazardous Waste Manifest Data: rr-HIST MANIFEST-bb A list of historic hazardous waste manifests received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) from year the 1980 to 1992. The volume of manifests is typically 900,000 - 1,000,000 annually, representing approximately 450,000 - 500,000 shipments.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 1992
DTSC Registered Hazardous Waste Transporters: rr-HW TRANSPORT-bb The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains this list of Registered Hazardous Waste Transporters.
Government Publication Date: Jan 2, 2025
Registered Waste Tire Haulers: rr-WASTE TIRE-bb
This list of registered waste tire haulers is maintained by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
Government Publication Date: Feb 13, 2025
California Medical Waste Management Program Facility List: rr-MEDICAL WASTE-bb This list of Medical Waste Management Program Facilities is maintained by the California Department of Public Health. The Medical Waste Management Program (MWMP) regulates the generation, handling, storage, treatment, and disposal of medical waste by providing oversight for the implementation of the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA). The MWMP permits and inspects all medical waste off-site treatment facilities, medical waste transporters, and medical waste transfer stations. This list contains transporters, treatment, and transfer facilities.
Government Publication Date: Sep 5, 2024
Historical Cortese List: rr-HIST CORTESE-bb
List of sites which were once included on the Cortese list. The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous sites.
Government Publication Date: Nov 13, 2008
Cease and Desist Orders and Cleanup and Abatement Orders: rr-CDO/CAO-bb The California Environment Protection Agency "Cortese List" of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO). This list contains many CDOs and CAOs that do NOT concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials. Many of the listed orders concern, as examples, discharges of domestic sewage, food processing wastes, or sediment that do not contain hazardous materials, but the Water Boards' database does not distinguish between these types of orders.
Government Publication Date: Dec 6, 2021
California Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites: rr-CERS HAZ-bb List of sites in the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Regulated Site Portal which fall under the following regulatory programs:
Hazardous Chemical Management, Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment, Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hazardous Waste Generator, RCRA LQ HW Generator. The CalEPA oversees the statewide implementation of the Unified Program which applies regulatory standards to protect Californians from hazardous waste and materials.
HIST CHMIRS
HAZNET
HAZ GEN
HAZ TSD
HIST MANIFEST
HW TRANSPORT
WASTE TIRE
MEDICAL WASTE
HIST CORTESE
CDO/CAO
CERS HAZ
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1258
Item8.
187 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 Government Publication Date: Oct 28, 2024
Delisted Environmental Reporting System (CERS) Hazardous Waste Sites: rr-DELISTED HAZ-bb This database contains a list of sites that were removed from the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in the following regulatory programs: Hazardous Chemical Management, Hazardous Waste Onsite Treatment, Household Hazardous Waste Collection, Hazardous Waste Generator, RCRA LQ HW Generator.
Government Publication Date: Nov 29, 2018
Sites in GeoTracker: rr-GEOTRACKER-bb
GeoTracker is the State Water Resource Control Boards' data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. This is a list of sites in GeoTracker that aren't otherwise categorized as LUST, Land Disposal Sites (LDS), Cleanup Sites, or sites having Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR). This listing includes program types such as Underground Injection Control (UIC), Confined Animal Facilities (CAF), Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, plans, and non-case information.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Mines Listing: rr-MINE-bb
This list includes mine site locations extracted from the Mines Online database, maintained by the California Department of Conservation. Mines Online (MOL) is an interactive web map designed with GIS features that provide information such as the mine name, mine status, commodity sold, location, and other mine specific data. Please note: Mine location information is provided to assist experts in determining the location of mine operators in accordance with California Civil Code section 1103.4 and reflects information reported by mine operators in annual reports provided under Public Resources Code section 2207. While the Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR) attempts to populate MOL with accurate location information, the DMR cannot guarantee the accuracy of operator reported location information.
Government Publication Date: Oct 3, 2024
Recorded Environmental Cleanup Liens: rr-LIEN-bb
The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) maintains this list of liens placed upon real properties. A lien is utilized by the DTSC to obtain reimbursement from responsible parties for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated properties.
Government Publication Date: Dec 18, 2023
Waste Discharge Requirements: rr-WASTE DISCHG-bb
List of sites in California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Program in California, made available by the SWRCB via GeoTracker. The WDR program regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27.
Government Publication Date: Sep 25, 2024
Toxic Pollutant Emissions Facilities: rr-EMISSIONS-bb
A list of criteria and toxic pollutant emissions data for facilities in California made available by the California Environmental Protection Agency - Air Resources Board (ARB). Risk data may be based on previous inventory submittals. The toxics data are submitted to the ARB by the local air districts as requirement of the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program.
Government Publication Date: Dec 31, 2021
Clandestine Drug Lab Sites: rr-CDL-bb
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a listing of drug lab sites. DTSC is responsible for removal and disposal of hazardous substances discovered by law enforcement officials while investigating illegal/clandestine drug laboratories.
Government Publication Date: Jan 19, 2021
Tribal
No Tribal additional environmental record sources available for this State.
County
DELISTED HAZ
GEOTRACKER
MINE
LIEN
WASTE DISCHG
EMISSIONS
CDL
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1259
Item8.
188 erisinfo.com | Environmental Risk Information Services Order No: 25030401545 h-Definitions
Database Descriptions: This section provides a detailed explanation for each database including: source, information available, time coverage, and acronyms used. They are listed in alphabetic order.
Detail Report: This is the section of the report which provides the most detail for each individual record. Records are summarized by location, starting with the project property followed by records in closest proximity.
Distance: The distance value is the distance between plotted points, not necessarily the distance between the sites' boundaries. All values are an approximation.
Direction: The direction value is the compass direction of the site in respect to the project property and/or center point of the report.
Elevation: The elevation value is taken from the location at which the records for the site address have been plotted. All values are an approximation.
Source: Google Elevation API.
Executive Summary: This portion of the report is divided into 3 sections:
'Report Summary'- Displays a chart indicating how many records fall on the project property and, within the report search radii. 'Site Report Summary'-Project Property'- This section lists all the records which fall on the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section.
'Site Report Summary-Surrounding Properties'- This section summarizes all records on adjacent properties, listing them in order of proximity from the project property. For more details, see the 'Detail Report' section.
Map Key: The map key number is assigned according to closest proximity from the project property. Map Key numbers always start at #1. The project property will always have a map key of '1' if records are available. If there is a number in brackets beside the main number, this will indicate the number of records on that specific property. If there is no number in brackets, there is only one record for that property.
The symbol and colour used indicates 'elevation': the red inverted triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Lower Elevation', the yellow triangle will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Higher Elevation' and the orange square will dictate 'ERIS Sites with Same Elevation.' Unplottables: These are records that could not be mapped due to various reasons, including limited geographic information. These records may or may not be in your study area, and are included as reference.
Definitions
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1260
Item8.
APPENDIX C
REGULATORY AGENCY RECORDS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1261
Item8.
Request
Hello. We are seeking hazardous waste, hazardous materials, underground storage tank records and site assessment/mitigation files pertaining to the properties located at 1100 Hamilton Lane in Escondido, California.
Thanks.
Dan
TimelineDocuments
Anyone with access to this request
Request published
March 16, 2025, 9:35pm
Anyone with access to this request
Request closed
Hello,
This is in response to your California Public Records Act request, which the County of San Diego received on 03/11/2025 and which states:
We are seeking hazardous waste, hazardous materials, underground storage tank records and site assessment/mitigation files pertaining to the properties located at 1100 Hamilton Lane in Escondido, California.
The County does not have any records responsive to your request. Please note that 72 hours after you receive this message your request will become publicly available.
Thank you,
DEHQ- Hazardous Materials Division
County of San Diego
March 13, 2025, 12:02pm by StaƯ
Anyone with access to this request
Department assignment
Environmental Health and Quality - Hazardous Material Division (HMD) March 11, 2025, 2:31pm by the requester
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1262
Item8.
Anyone with access to this request
Request opened
Request received via web
March 11, 2025, 2:31pm by the requester
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1263
Item8.
APPENDIX D
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1264
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1265
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1266
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1267
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1268
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1269
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1270
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1271
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1272
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1273
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1274
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1275
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1276
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1277
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1278
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1279
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1280
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1281
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1282
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1283
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1284
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1285
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1286
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1287
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1288
Item8.
Project Property:
Project No:
Requested By:
Order No:
Date Completed:
1100 Hamilton Lane
1100 Hamilton Lane
Escondido CA 92029
None
Weis Environmental, LLC
25030401545
March 05, 2025
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1289
Item8.
Topographic Map Symbology for the maps may be available in the following documents:
Pre-1947
1947-2009
2009-present
Topographic Maps included in this report are produced by the USGS and are to be used for research purposes including a phase I report.
Maps are not to be resold as commercial property.
No warranty of Accuracy or Liability for ERIS: The information contained in this report has been produced by ERIS Information Inc.(in the US) and ERIS Information Limited Partnership (in Canada), both doing business as 'ERIS', using Topographic Maps produced by the USGS.
This maps contained herein does not purport to be and does not constitute a guarantee of the accuracy of the information contained herein.
Although ERIS has endeavored to present you with information that is accurate, ERIS disclaims, any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in such information and data, whether attributable to inadvertence, negligence or otherwise, and for any consequences arising therefrom. Liability on the part of ERIS is limited to the monetary value paid for this report.
Topographic Map Symbols
US Topo Map Symbols
We have searched USGS collections of current topographic maps and historical topographic maps for the project property. Below is a list of maps found for the project property and adjacent area. Maps are from 7.5 and 15 minute topographic map series, if available.
Year Map Series
2022 7.5
2018 7.5
2015 7.5
1996 7.5
1975 7.5
1968 7.5
1949 7.5
1948 7.5
1942 15
1901 15
1893 15
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1290
Item8.
2022
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1291
Item8.
2018
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1292
Item8.
2015
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1293
Item8.
(1-1996) 1996 Aerial Photo Year: 1996
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA(1-1996)
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1294
Item8.
(1-1975)
Aerial Photo Year: 1967
Photo Revision Year: 1975 1975
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA(1-1975)
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1295
Item8.
(1-1968) 1968 Aerial Photo Year: 1967
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA(1-1968)
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1296
Item8.
(1-1949) 1949 Aerial Photo Year: 1947
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA(1-1949)
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1297
Item8.
(1-1948) 1948 Aerial Photo Year: 1947
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA(1-1948)
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1298
Item8.
(1-1942) 1942 Aerial Photo Year: 1939
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA(1-1942)
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1299
Item8.
1901
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1300
Item8.
1893
Source: USGS 15 Minute Topographic Map
Order No. 25030401545
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Escondido, CA
¯
Available Quadrangle(s):
Escondido
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1301
Item8.
APPENDIX E
PHOTOGRAPHS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1302
Item8.
Photograph Log 1100 Hamilton Lane Escondido, California
1. View from the northwest corner of the Site
facing south.
2. View from the northwest corner of the Site
facing east.
3. View from the southwest corner of the Site
facing northeast.
4. View from the southeast corner of the Site
facing northwest.
5. View from the southwest corner of the Site
facing north.
6. View from the northeast corner of the Site
facing southwest.
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
1303
Item8.
Photograph Log 1100 Hamilton Lane Escondido, California
7. View from the center of the Site facing north. 8. View from the center of the Site facing east. 9. View from the center of the Site facing south.
10. View from the center of the Site facing west. 11. View of rock outcrops and vegetation piles in the center of the Site.
12. View of scrap metal debris in the center of the
Site.
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
1304
Item8.
Photograph Log 1100 Hamilton Lane Escondido, California
13. View of pole-mounted transformer along the
east side of the Site.
14. View of the east adjoining residential
property.
15. View of the south adjoining residential
property.
16. View of Bernardo Avenue, then the west
adjoining residential property.
17. View of Hamilton Lane, then the north
adjoining residential property.
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
1305
Item8.
APPENDIX F
INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1306
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1307
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1308
Item8.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1309
Item8.
APPENDIX G
QUALIFICATIONS
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1310
Item8.
Resume of Dan Weis, R.E.H.S.
Professional Summary
Environmental Manager and California Registered Environmental Health Specialist with extensive expertise in environmental science and assessment, environmental and public health, risk assessment, health and safety, remedial design and implementation, strategic planning and project/program design and implementation. Over 20 years of professional experience and achievement.
Successful completion of projects for a wide range of clientele including, but not limited to, local government entities, developers (affordable housing and market rate), educational institutions, Federal government entities, law firms, architectural and engineering firms, lending institutions, life insurance companies, conservancies, commercial/industrial real estate owners/managers, insurance companies, wireless telecommunication carriers and real estate developers. Extensive experienced in the completion of assessment, construction and remediation quality assurance during the completion of urban redevelopment/brownfields projects and public works projects, many of which have been located in downtown areas of San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and other urban communities throughout the State of California. Proven ability to train and mentor professional, technical and support staff. Manages a comprehensive health and safety program. Holds a Master of Science in Public Health with an emphasis in environmental health science, risk assessment, health and safety, toxicology and environmental policy. Registered Environmental Health Specialist #8172 in the State of California.
Education and Professional Certification
භ University of Delaware, Bachelor of Arts, 1995
භ San Diego State University, Master of Science, Public/Environmental Health, 2001 භ State of California Registered Environmental Health Specialist #8172 භ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services - Environmental Health Training in Emergency Response භ Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 40 Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) Training and Annual 8 Hour HAZWOPER Refresher Training භ OSHA 8 Hour HAZWOPER Supervisor Training
Relevant Skills and Qualifications
භ Proven ability to manage staff and programs/projects in challenging and diverse environments and regulatory settings.
Consistently meets project schedules, goals, deadlines and budgetary restrictions. භ Completed or managed over 3,000 due diligence related environmental assessments and completed or managed over 500 subsurface environmental investigations of soil gas, soil, groundwater and other media. Investigations have included human health and ecological risk assessments, evaluations of indoor air conditions based on interpretations of subsurface conditions, underground storage tank (UST) evaluation/closure and hazardous waste characterization/management.
Subsurface activities performed include the completion of soil borings using various drilling technologies, soil and groundwater sampling, installation and sampling of groundwater monitoring wells, free product evaluations, exploratory trenching and real-time delineation using mobile analytical laboratories and other soil screening technology. භ Managed over 100 remediation or construction management related projects primarily related to source removal of subsurface contaminants, including but not limited to, petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides and other agricultural related chemicals, dioxins and furans and polychlorinated biphenyls. Has also assisted in cost recovery efforts from private parties and State/Federal funding programs for environmental assessment and remediation work and has served as an expert witness during legal proceedings pertaining to environmental related claims.
භ Strong collaboration and negotiation skills with environmental regulatory agencies regarding project planning, initiation, status, approvals and implementation. Direct experience in interfacing with members of regulatory agencies including but not limited to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Dan Weis, R.E.H.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
1938 Kellogg Avenue, Suite 116, Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 585-7070 // (760) 672-6338 //
[email protected] // à www.weisenviro.com
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1311
Item8.
Resume of Dan Weis, R.E.H.S.
Control and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, County of San Diego Departments of Environmental Health (DEH), Public Works and Planning and Land Use, San Diego Air Pollution Control District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Riverside County DEH, San Francisco City and County Department of Public Health (DPH), Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, County of Los Angeles County DPH and other local Certified Unified Program Agencies. Develop, manage and implement compliance and best practices efforts with Federal and State laws and regulations.
භ Conducted and/or managed hundreds of public/environmental health related assessments including electromagnetic field surveys, radionuclide surveys, indoor air quality investigations, radon surveys, drinking water assessments, asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint surveys and mold/microbial evaluations. භ Recovered over $10,000,000 of assessment and cleanup costs for clientele from various sources including State of California Cleanup Funds, United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfield grants and private parties including major oil companies.
භ Responsible for facilitating a safe and healthy work environment in concert with the mission of the company while ensuring compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. භ Published technical papers pertaining to geogenic concentrations of metals in San Diego County, radioactive dating and pollutant chronologies in estuarine sediments and various urban runoff related implications. භ Delivered presentations pertaining to various environmental topics including human health risk assessment to membership at local and national trade conferences
Project Experience
භ 14th and Island, San Diego, California – Development of Site Mitigation Plan, contaminated soil management and disposal concurrent with site construction activities at the superblock construction site in downtown San Diego and achievement of regulatory closure with the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. භ 2198 Market Street, San Francisco, California – Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, supplemental subsurface investigation, Site Mitigation Plan development, contaminated soil management and disposal concurrent with site construction activities and negotiation/achievement of regulatory closure with the City of San Francisco Department of Public Health.
භ Former EZ Serve, 9305 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, California – Closure report preparation and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board interface and negotiation/achievement of regulatory closure under State of California lowthreat policy. භ French Field – Former Vista Burn Dump, Oceanside, California – Oversight of the capping of a former burn dump/landfill facility and restoration for public use as a sports facility. Negotiation and achievement of regulatory closure with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control with concurrence from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of San Diego Local Enforcement Agency. භ Indoor Skydiving Facility, 1401 Imperial Avenue, San Diego, California – Development of Soil Management Plan and contaminated soil management and disposal concurrent with site construction activities in downtown San Diego. භ Lemon Grove Avenue Realignment Project, Lemon Grove, California – Development of Impacted Soil Management Plan, Community Health and Safety Plan and Worker Health and Safety Plan and oversight of the implementation of such plans during construction activities.
භ North Side Interior Road and Utilities Project at San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California - Subsurface assessment, development of Soil Management Plan and Work Health and Safety Plan and implementation and monitoring of soil management strategies.
භ Olympic and Hill, Los Angeles, California – Removal of multiple underground storage tanks and underlying contaminated soil and achievement of regulatory closure with the City of Los Angeles Fire Department. භ San Ysidro - U.S. Land Port of Entry, San Diego, California – Subsurface assessment and development and implementation of soil management strategies.
භ VA Medical Center Long Beach, 5901 East 7th Street, Long Beach, California - VA Long Beach: Seismic Corrections – Mental Health, Community Living Center and Chiller Replacements Project – Asbestos containing materials and leadbased paint surveys and preparation of abatement contractor bid specifications.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1312
Item8.
Appendix G – Scoping Agreement for
Transportation Studies
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1313
Item8.
APPENDIX A A
Scoping Agreement for Transportation Studies
PART 1
General Project Information and Description
Project Information
Project Name: Hamilton Ln 5-Lot TSM
Project Location: SE Corner of Bernardo Ave & Hamilton Ln Project Description
Land Uses and Intensities: 5 SFR with 5 ADU on 5-lots
Gross and Developable Acreage: 6.2 ac / 5 ac
Building Square Footage or Number of Dwelling Units:
Vehicle Parking Spaces: 15
Bicycle Parking Spaces: 0
Motorcycle Spaces: 0
Electric Vehicle Spaces:0
Project Applicant:
Name: Hamilton Bernardo, LLC
Address: PO Box 1795, La Jolla, CA 92038
Telephone and Email: 858-699-9311 / [email protected] Consultant
Firm: Mizuta Traffic Consulting
Project Manager: Marc Mizuta, PE, TE, PTOE
Address: 5694 Mission Center Rd #602-121, San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone and Email: 858-752-8212 / [email protected] Project Trip Generation
Source: SANDAG Pass-by Trips: n/a
Total Daily Trips*: 80 Diverted Trips: n/a
Internal Capture Rate: 0 Trip Credit: 0
Alternative Modes: n/a Net New Daily Trips: 80
*If truck traffic accounts for 25% or more of project trips, then a Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) factor of 2.5 should be applied to all truck trips.
General Plan Consistency
Is this project consistent with the General Plan? 5Yes 侊 No Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1314
Item8.
Site Plan
Attach 11x17 copies of the project location/vicinity map and site plan containing the following:
x Driveway locations and access type
x Pedestrian access, bicycle access, and on-site pedestrian circulation x Location and distance to nearest existing transit stop (measure as walking distance to project entrance or middle of parcel)
x Location of planned or proposed pedestrian or bicycle improvements within ¼ mile of the project identified in the General Plan Mobility and Infrastructure Element or the Bicycle Master Plan CEQA Transportation Analysis Screening
Project Type Screening Criteria for CEQA Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Analysis 1) Select the Land Uses that apply to your project
2) Answer the questions for each Land Use that applies to yourproject (if “Yes” in any land use category below then that land use (or a portion of the land use) is screened from CEQA VMT Analysis; If a project is screened out, a technical memorandum is still required to document the screening process) Screened
Out
Not
Screened
Out
Yes No
5 1. Small Residential and Employment Projects:
a. Does the project result in 200 daily trips or less? 5 ܆ ܆ 2. Project is Located in a Transit-Accessible Area:
a. Is the project located within a half-mile walking distance of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor? ܆ ܆
b. Additional project features:
i. Does the SURMHFWKDYHD)ORRU$UHD5DWLR 0.75? ܆ ܆ ii. Does project include the least amount of parkingrequired for residents, customers, or employees (i.e. not more than required)? ܆ ܆
iii. Is the project consistent with SANDAG’s most recent Sustainable Communities Strategy or the City of Escondido GeneralPlan? ܆ ܆
iv. Does the project replace affordable residential units with a greater number of moderate- or high-income residentialunits?
܆ ܆
v. Does the project have basic walking and biking accessto transit (e.g., sidewalks connecting to transit stops)?
܆ ܆
܆ 3. Project is in a VMT-Efficient Area:
a. Is the project in a VMT/Capita or VMT/Employee Efficient Area per SANDAG screening maps?
܆܆
܆ 4. Locally-Serving Retail Project:
a. Is the project less than 50,000 square feet and expected to draw at least 75% of customers from the local area?
܆ ܆
܆ 5. Locally Serving Public Facility:
a. Is the project a locally serving public facility? ܆܆ ܆ 6. Redevelopment Project:
a. Does the project result in a net decrease in total Project VMT than the existing use? ܆ ܆
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1315
Item8.
Non-CEQA Local Mobility Analysis
Local Mobility Analysis (LMA) Requirement
1) Select the Street Classifications for each street in the studyarea 2) Answer the questions for each Street Classification that applies to your project Yes No ܆ 1. Prime Arterial:
a. Does the project add 900 ADT or more to any segment classified as 8-lane Prime Arterial?
܆܆
b. Does the project add 800 ADT or more to any segment classified as 6-lane Prime Arterial?
܆܆
܆ 2. Major Road:
a. Does the project add 700 ADT or more to any segment classified as 6-lane Major Road?
܆ ܆
b. Does the project add 500 ADT or more to any segment classified as 4-lane Major Road?
܆ ܆
܆ 3. Collector:
a. Does the project add 500 ADT or more to any segment classified as 4-lane Collector without parking?
܆܆
b. Does the project add 250 ADT or more to any segment classified as 4-lane Collector with parking?
܆܆
5 4. Local Collector and other:
a. Does the project add 200 ADT or more to any segment classified as 2-lane Local Collector or any other classifications?
5 ܆
Certain types of projects which generate less than 500 ADT may be considered by the City staff for an LMA waiver only where the affected segments and intersections operate at LOS C or better.
Please briefly explain why your project might be eligible for an LMA waiver.
PART 2 (n/a)
Trip Distribution and Trip Assignment
ڧSelect Zone (Model Series ) Projects that generate greater than 2,400 daily trips ڧManual Estimation Projects that generate less than 2,400 daily trips Provide an exhibit detailing the project’s trip distribution and trip assignment.
Provide a table with the project’s daily trip assignment for each street segment in the study area.
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1316
Item8.
Study Intersections and Roadway Segments (NOTE: Subject to change based of staff review)
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
Attach a separate page if the number of study locations exceeds 10.
Other Jurisdictions
Is this project located within one mile of another Local Jurisdiction? ܆ Yes 5No If yes, name of Jurisdiction:
Specific Issues to be addressed within the Study
(in addition to requirements described in the Guidelines – to be filled out by City Staff)
1. 2.
3. 4.
5. Recommended by:
Consultant’s Representative Date
Scoping Agreement Submitted on
Date
Scoping Agreement Re-submitted on
Date
Approved Scoping Agreement:
City of Escondido Date
Transportation Specialist
C lt t’
ecommended by:
R tt
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1317
Item8.
PREPARED BY:
M A S S O N
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:OWNER/APPLICANT:
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
1318
Item8.
% ADT % ADT
Single Family Detached 10 trips / du 8% 0.30 : 0.70 10% 0.70 : 0.30 Apartment 6 trips / du 8% 0.20 : 0.80 9% 0.70 : 0.30
In Out In Out
Single Family Detached 5 50 2 2 4 1
ADU 5 30 1 2 3 0
80 3 4 7 1
Notes:
TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use Amount ADT
AM PEAK PM PEAK
Total Total
TRIP GENERATION RATES1
Land Use Weekday Daily
AM PEAK PM PEAK
In:Out Ratio In:Out Ratio
1. The trip rates are based on SANDAG's Brief Guide of Vehicular Trip Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002. du: dwelling unit
TOTAL 78
du 3 3
Proposed Use
du 4 5
Attachment
Exhibit C
"5"
1319
Item8.
Bicycle Network
LEGEND
Project Site 0.25-mile radius
Source: City of Escondido Bicycle Master Plan, Figure ES 1 Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
1320
Item8.
Circulation Element
LEGEND
Project Site
Exhibit C
Attachment "5"
1321
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1322
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1323
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1324
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1325
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1326
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1327
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1328
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1329
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1330
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1331
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1332
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1333
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1334
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1335
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1336
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1337
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1338
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1339
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1340
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1341
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1342
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1343
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1344
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1345
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1346
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1347
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1348
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1349
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1350
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1351
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1352
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1353
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1354
Item8.
Attachment "6"
1355
Item8.
WHEREAS, Robert D’Amaro (“Applicant”), filed a land use development application, Planning Case No. PL24-0067 (“Application”) constituting a request for a Tentative Subdivision Map for the subdivision of one existing lot into five (5) lots (“Project”) on a 6.02 gross acre site located at 0 Hamilton Lane (APN 238-360-68-00), with the Estate (E1) General Plan Land Use Designation, in the Residential Estate – 40,000 (RE-40) Zone; and
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City of Escondido Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted on a motion to approve the resolution to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Appellant, Heidi Whitman, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision in accordance with the Escondido Zoning Code (“Appeal”); and WHEREAS, the subject property is all that real property described in Exhibit "A”, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein (“Property”); and WHEREAS, the Application and Appeal were submitted to, and processed by, Planning Services of the Development Services Department in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Escondido Zoning Code and the applicable procedures and time limits specified by the Permit Streamlining Act RESOLUTION NO. 2026-90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ESCONDIDO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ADOPTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT AND REVISED MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED FOR THE
PROJECT, AND APPROVING A FIVE (5) LOT TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP IN THE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE – 40,000 (RE-40) ZONE
1356
Item8.
(Government Code section 65920 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, Tentative Subdivisions are permitted subject to review and approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map, subject to the rules and regulations of the California Subdivision and in accordance with Chapter 32 (Subdivisions) of the Escondido Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a Tentative Subdivision Map is required for the subdivision of one existing parcel into five (5) lots within the RE-40 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City is the Lead Agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2007, the City Council adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration “(IS/MND”) for the originally proposed 5-Lot Subdivision Project on the site (City Log No. ER 2005-33); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, when taking subsequent discretionary actions in furtherance of a project for which an MND has been adopted, the lead agency is required to review any changed circumstances to whether any of the circumstances under Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 require additional environmental review; and WHEREAS, City staff evaluated the environmental impact of the proposed modification to the Project in light of the standards for subsequent environmental outlined in Public Resources Code Section 2166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162; and
1357
Item8.
WHEREAS, based on this evaluation, staff concluded that the MND had fully analyzed and mitigated, in compliance with CEQA, all potentially significant environmental impacts, if any, that would result from the Project modifications, that the impacts to the environment as a result of the modifications are consistent with and would not create substantial new or increased impacts beyond those that were evaluated in the MND, and that, therefore, no subsequent EIR or mitigated negative declaration is now required; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the proposed modifications to the Project, and to document staff’s evaluation of the environmental impact of said modifications, Applicant prepared Addendum #1 to the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum need not be circulated for public review; and
WHEREAS, Planning Services studied the Application and Appeal, performed necessary investigations, prepared a written report, and hereby recommends denial of the appeal of the decision of Planning Commission on April 28, 2026 to approve the Project, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, City staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City Council received and considered the reports and recommendation of Planning Services and gave all persons full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence and testimony 1358
Item8.
regarding the Project. Evidence was submitted to and considered by the City Council, including, without limitation:
a. Written information including plans, studies, written and graphical information, and other material, submitted by the Applicant;
b. Oral testimony from City staff, interested parties, and the public; c. The staff report, dated April 28, 2026, with its attachments as well as City staff’s recommendation on the Project, which is incorporated herein as though fully set forth herein; and d. Additional information submitted during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the public hearing before the City Council was conducted in all respects as required by the Escondido Municipal Code and the rules of the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Escondido, California, as follows:
1. The above recitations are true and correct.
2. The City Council, in its independent judgement, has determined the Project to have no new significant environmental impacts and no increase in severity of impacts previously identified in the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and therefore an Addendum to the MND is sufficient in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and in accordance generally with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.). The City Council has reviewed and considered the adopted MND and First Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, including the revised Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit “D”, prepared for the Project and finds that those documents taken together contain a complete and accurate reporting of all 1359
Item8.
the environmental impacts associated with the revised Project. The City Council further finds that the Addendum and administrative record have been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the findings related to the MND and First Addendum, taken together reflect the City Council’s independent judgement.
3. Based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included in the First Addendum, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred, specifically:
a. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. b. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental document was adopted, that shows any of the following:
1360
Item8.
i. The project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous environmental document;
ii. Significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the previous environmental document; iii. Mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous environmental document would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
3. After consideration of all evidence presented, and studies and investigations made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council makes the following substantive findings and determinations and affirms the decision of the Planning Commission, attached hereto as Exhibit “E,” relating to the information that has been considered. In accordance with the Findings of Fact and the foregoing, the City Council reached a recommendation on the matter as hereinafter set forth.
4. The Application to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Project, subject to each and all of the conditions hereinafter set forth in Exhibit “F”, is hereby denied and the Project remains approved as conditioned. The City Council expressly declares that it would not have 1361
Item8.
approved this Application except upon and subject to each and all of said conditions, each and all of which shall run with the land and be binding upon the Applicant, the owner, and all subsequent owners of the Property, and all persons who use the Property for the use permitted hereby.
6. The development plansfor the Project are on file in Planning Services of the Development Services Department and are available for inspection by anyone interested herein, and the development plans are incorporated herein by this reference as if they were fully set forth herein. The Project is conditionally approved as set forth on the Application and Project drawings, all designated as approved by City Council, and which shall not be altered without the express authorization by Planning Services.
Any deviations from the approved development plans shall be reviewed by the City for substantial compliance and may require amendment by the appropriate hearing body.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to Government Code section 66020(d)(1):
1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Project is subject to dedications, reservations, and exactions, as specified in the Conditions of Approval. The Project is subject to certain fees described in the City of Escondido’s Development Fee Inventory on file in both the Development Services and Public Works Departments. The Applicant shall be required to pay all development fees of the City then in effect at the time and in such amounts as may prevail when building permits are issued. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The Applicant is advised to review the Planned Fee Updates portion of the web page, www.escondido.gov, and regularly monitor and/or review fee-related information to plan for the costs associated with undertaking the Project.
1362
Item8.
2. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the 90-day period during which to protest the imposition of any fee, dedication, reservation, or other exaction described in this Resolution begins on the effective date of this Resolution, and any such protest must be in a manner that complies with Government Code section 66020.
1363
Item8.
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13268, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, MAY 10, 1984.
APN: 238-360-68-00
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "A"
1364
Item8.
M A S S O N
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PREPARED BY:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ROBERT D'AMARO
LEE DURAN DATE
11/6/2025
11/6/2025
DATE
Exhibit B
Exhibit "B"
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "B"
5 1365
Item8.
’
M A S S O N
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PREPARED BY:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "B"
5 1366
Item8.
P. 760.741.3570
F. 760.741.1786
www.masson-assoc.com
Planning Engineering Surveying Telecom
1120 Sycamore Ave Suite 2D
Vista, CA 92081
M A S S O N
& A S S O C I A T E S , I N C .
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PREPARED BY:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "B"
1367
Item8.
M A S S O N
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PREPARED BY:
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO:LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit B
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "B"
5 1368
Item8.
HV 5
HV 1
V 2
HV 3
642.97
650.38
.32
650.72
/
/
//
/
/
635
635
640
640
640
640
640
645
650
645
645
645
650
645
650
645
650
645
650
650
645
650
645
650
650
645
655
655
660
655
660
660
655
655
655
660
655
660
660
665
655
650
655
645
650
660
660
655
655
655
660
655
645
650
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
EX. 12" CML&C WATER
3" HP GAS
2" HP GAS
EX. 16" CML&C WATER
D-2
CURB LINE
TYPE B
CURB LINE
D-2
TYPE B
D-2
CURB LINE
TYPE B
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
C.O.S.D.
C.O.E.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
O
AN DIE
ESCONDID ESCON
AN DIE
E O
AN DIE
ES O ID
OAK
20"
OAK
18"
OAK
16"
OAK
18"
OLIVE
18"
OLIVE
16"
COUN
CITY
UN
OAK Y
OAK
8"
OAK
6"
OAK
6"
OAK
12"
OAK
20"
6 / W
URB C LINE
TY
6 655
660
645
650
50 ON
DO NDI O OF E
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 4
LOT 5
BOTTOM AREA = 6,753 SF
654.50
PAD
642.00
PAD
636.00
BASIN
654.00
PAD
655.00
PAD
658.00
PAD
648.99TC
PROGRESS PRINT DATE
CHANGES
DESIGNDRAWNCHECKEDSCALE
PROJECT
SHEET
OF 1 SHEET
L-1
PROJECT CLIENT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE990 SEACOAST DRIVE, STE. 20IMPERIAL BEACH, CA 91932(619) 882-2499E-mail:georgemercerassociates@gmail .com GEORGE MERCER ASSOCIATES INC.
GMGM
IF PLAN IS LESS THAN 24" X 36"
IT IS A REDUCED PRINT.
REDUCE SCALE ACCORDINGLY.
HAMILTON BERNARDO LLC
NORTH
TENTATIVE MAP
SE CORNER LOT
BERNARDO AVE & HAMILTON LANE
ESCONDIDO, CA 92029
24-009
1"= 40'
5/23/24 PROGRESS
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
STATE OF CALIFORN IA
George E.L. Mercer No. 4055
Signature
Renewal Date: 4-30-27
Date:
11/6/25
6/15/24 PROGRESS9/16/25 PROGRESS11/6/25 PROGRESS
MULCHED
MULCHED
MULCHED
MULCHED
UNDISTURBED
UNDISTURBED
UNDISTURBED
UNDISTURBED
RELOCATE BOULDERS TO CREATE ENTRY
FEATURES OF BOULDERS AND OAKS
CITY REQUIRED STREET TREES.
INFORMAL NATURAL GROUPINGSRATHER THAN EVERY 30'
ADJUST GRADING TO PRESERVE THISGROUP OF BOULDERS.ADD THREE NEW OAK TREES TO ACCENTUATE THIS SCENIC KNOLL.INCLUDE A PATH AND SEATING
AREA AMONG THE BOULDERS
PRESERVE THIS ATTRACTIVE
AREA OF OAKS AND BOULDERSINCLUDE A PATH AND SEATING
AREA AMONG THE BOULDERS
LOT 5:PRESERVE THIS ATTRACTIVE
OAK AND BOULDER GROUPINGS.
LESS IMPORTANT, BUT COULD
ATTEMPT TO KEEP TWO OLIVES TOO.
GRADE DRIVEWAY AT 10%
BIOBASIN:PLANT WITH NATIVE FLOWERINGWETLAND SPECIES TO
CREATE ATTRACTIVE"RAIN GARDEN"
PATH TO SEATING OVERLOOK
"RAIN GARDEN"
EXISTING BOULDERS TOBE RELOCATED SHOWN DASHED
LEGEND
40 0 40 80 120
GRAPHIC SCALE
1" = 40'
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
CITY APPROVED STREET TREE SUCH AS: AGONIS FLEXUOSA - PEPPERMINT TREE
CERCIS 'FOREST PANSY' - REDBUD
RHUS LANCEA - AFRICAN SUMAC UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICA - CALIFORNIA LAUREL NATIVE OAKS SUCH AS: QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA - COAST LIVE OAK QUERCUS LOBATA - VALLEY OAK
QUERCUS DOUGLASII - BLUE OAK
SLOPE TREES SUCH AS:
RHUS LANCEA - AFRICAN SUMAC SCHINUS MOLLE - CALIFORNIA PEPPER TREES AT BIOBASIN SUCH AS: CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS - REDBUD JUGLANS MEXICAN - MEXICAN ELDER PLATANUS RACEMOSA - CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE SALIX LASIOLEPIS - ARROYO WILLOW SAMBUCUS MEXICANA - BLUE ELDERBERRY SLOPE PLANTING: ARCTOSTAPHYLOS 'HOWARD MCMINN' - MANZANITA CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA - BUSH ANEMONE FREMONTEDENDRON CALIFORNICUM - FLANNEL BUSH
HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA - TOYON MYRICA CALIFORNICA - PACIFIC WAX MYRTLE BACCHARIS 'PIGEON POINT' - PROSTRATE COYOTE BUSH
CEANOTHUS 'YANKEE POINT' - CARMEL CREEPER DIPLACUS LONGIFLORUS - MONKEY FLOWER EPILOBIUM CALIFORNICA - CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA ERIOGONUM GRANDE SSP. RUBESCENS - RED BUCKWHEATBIOBASIN/RAIN GARDENPLANTING:
CAREX SPECIES - SEDGES
HEUCHERA HYBRIDS - CORAL BELLS/ALUM ROOT IRIS DOUGLAISIANA - PACIFIC COAST IRIS IVA HAYESIANA - POVERTY WEED DIPLACUS LONGIFLORUS - MONKEY FLOWERPAD AREA AND OTHER FLAT AREAS: 3" ORGANIC MULCH FOR EROSION CONTROL NATIVE/NATURALIZED GRASSLANDS TO REMAIN. PROVIDE IRRIGATION AND BRUSH MANAGEMENTWHERE REQUIRED BY FIRE MARSHALL.
HYDROSEED WITH NATIVE SEED MIX AT ANY AREA
DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN WITH SPECIES NOTED PROTECT IN PLACE*EXISTING BOULDERS TO REMAININ CURRENT LOCATIONEXISTING LOCATION OF BOUDERS TO BE RELOCATEDNEW LOCATION OF BOULDERS TOBE RELOCATED* ALL EXISTING OAK TREEES ARE TO BE RETAINED, PROTECTED IN PLACE.
IF ANY EXISTING OAK TREES ARE TO BE MOVED DURING CONSTRUCTION, AN ADDITIONAL 24" BOX OAK TREE SHALL ALSO BE PLANTED AS MITIGATION.
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS:ALL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF ESCONDIDO LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND ALL OTHER LANDSCAPE RELATED CITY AND REGIONAL STANDARDSMINIMUM TREE SEPARATION DISTANCETRAFFIC SIGNALS / STOP SIGNS - 20 FEET UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES - 5 FEET (10' FOR SEWER)
ABOVE GROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES - 10 FEETDRIVEWAY (ENTRIES) - 10 FEETINTERSECTIONS (INTERSECTING CURB LINES OF TWO STREETS) - 25 FEET IRRIGATIONAN AUTOMATIC, ELECTRICALLY CONTROLLED IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE
PROVIDED AS REQUIRED FOR PROPER IRRIGATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE VEGETATION IN A HEALTHY, DISEASE-RESISTANT CONDITION. THE DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE VEGETATION SELECTED.
MAINTENANCEALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTYOWNER(S). LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION AREAS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF DEBRIS AND LITTER, AND ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A HEALTHY GROWING CONDITION. DISEASED OR DEAD PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SATISFACTORILYTREATED OR REPLACED.
H A M I L T O N L A N E
B E R N A R D O A V E
D.G. WALKWAY MEANDERS THROUGH
STREET TREES ARRANGED IN INFORMALGROUPINGS
MIN.SIZE15 GAL.15 GAL.15 GAL15 GAL.5 GAL.1 GAL.
QUANTITY/
SPACING
41 9
16 8
8' O.C.
MIN.
18" O.C.
NOTES1.2.3.4.5.
Exhibit BExhibit B
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "B"
1369
Item8.
INITIAL STUDY ADDENDUM
City of Escondido, California
1. PROJECT TITLE: Hamilton Bernardo Tentative Tract Map Project
2. LEAD AGENCY & ADDRESS: City of Escondido; 201 North Broadway; Escondido, CA 92025
3. CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located southeast of the Hamilton Lane/Bernardo Avenue intersection and comprises 6.02 gross acres in the City of Escondido (Assessor Parcel Number 238-360- 68-00).
5. PROJECT SPONSOR & ADDRESS: Hamilton Bernardo LLC
PO Box 1795
La Jolla, CA 92038
Lee Duran
858-699-9311
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Estate 1
7. ZONING DESIGNATION: Residential Estate (RE)-40
8. SURROUNDING LAND USES & PROJECT SETTING:
The project site is vacant. An existing single-family residence is located adjacent to and south of Lot 2 and east of the proposed stormwater biofiltration basin in unincorporated San Diego County. Adjacent land to the west is zoned RE-40. Unincorporated San Diego County is located to the north, east and south. Surrounding land use is single-family residential development.
9. SUMMARY OF ORIGINAL PROJECT:
The original project was a Subdivision Map consisting of 5 single-family residential lots on minimum 40,000 square foot lots and associated public infrastructure improvements such as circulation, storm drains, and water and sewer lines. The project would include grading to create the proposed private street and home building sites. No grading exemptions are required. The approximately 6.28-acre site is comprised of one Assessor Parcel Number (238-360-6800) connecting to and fronting on both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane. The proposed project is located in an area composed of a mix of established residential development, newer housing tracts and some remaining vacant parcels.
The City of Escondido prepared and adopted an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number ER 2005-33, TR 931, 2005-46-PZ, 2005-06 AN. The Initial Study was circulated for public review from March 22, 2007 to April 11, 2007. The Initial Study determined that no significant impacts to the environment would occur with implementation of the proposed annexation and subdivision map. The following mitigation measures were identified and incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Air Quality
Impact. The project will potentially impact air quality in the area surrounding the project during construction.
Mitigation. Prior to construction and issuance of grading and building permits, a site-specific analysis shall be prepared to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties.
Exhibit C
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1370
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -2- City of Escondido, California Biological Resources
Impact. The project will have a direct impact on 3.06 acres of non-native grasslands.
Mitigation. The proposed mitigation ratio is 0.25:1 for direct impacts through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank (BIO-1).
Impact. Project will have a direct impact on .02 acres of Coast Sage Scrub. U.S. Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game approval required.
Mitigation. The proposed mitigation ratio is 1:1 for direct impacts through the purchase of habitat credits from an approved mitigation bank (BIO-2).
Impact. The project will require the removal of four individual oak trees to develop the residential lots within the subdivision.
Mitigation. Impacts to native Live Oak trees will be mitigated by relocating the four Live Oaks on-site and planting four new Live Oak trees on-site (BIO-3).
Impact. The project will remove four individual oak trees to develop the residential lots within the subdivision.
Mitigation. A qualified biologist must inspect trees for nests prior to any brushing, grading, tree relocation or construction within close proximity to, or within the existing Oaks discussed in the Biological Report's addendum of 2/14/07. If any active nests of sensitive species are found, no impacts will be allowed until all young have fledged (BIO-4).
Impact. Oak trees planted as part of the replacement program must be monitored to ensure viability.
Mitigation. The applicant shall provide funding to the satisfaction of the City for the five-year monitoring of the oak trees with sufficient reserve for the replacement of any dead/dying stock (BIO-5).
Hazardous Materials
Impact. Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well to that is to remain.
Mitigation. Monitoring well MW57 is to remain onsite and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternately, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards.
This well was decommissioned as documented in a letter provided by Chatham Site PRP Group dated May 21, 2009. This mitigation measure has been satisfied.
Hydrology/Water Quality
Impact. Project is near the Chatham Barrel Yard (a Superfund Cleanup Site). The project site has one County Monitoring well that is to remain.
Mitigation. No drinking water wells are to be drilled on-site and no excavations shall be allowed on-site without proper permits (HYD-1).
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1371
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -3- City of Escondido, California Proposed Project
The project applicant is seeking entitlement approval from the City of Escondido for a Tentative Tract Map subdividing an existing 6.02 gross/5.95 net acre parcel into five single-family residential estate lots and one stormwater detention basin lot. The applicant is requesting the following entitlement approvals:
- PL24-0067
Hamilton Bernardo, LLC, (applicant) submitted a proposal to the City of Escondido for approval of a subdivision to create five single-family estate lots and one lot for the construction of a stormwater biofiltration basin. The proposed single-family residential lots would be a minimum of 40,000 square feet and accommodate one single-family residence with related improvements. Primary access would be from Hamilton Lane with secondary emergency vehicle access (EVA) from Bernardo Avenue. Potable water would be provided by the City of Escondido Water Department. Sewer conveyance and treatment and public services (i.e., fire, police and stormwater) would be provided by the City of Escondido.
School services would be provided by the Escondido Union School District. Grading would require cut/fill of 8,700 cubic yards. Grading spoils would be balanced on-site. Construction would begin in mid2026 and be completed in 2027.
10. OTHER REQUIRED AGENCY APPROVALS:
None required.
11. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY & CULTURALLY AFFILIATED
WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1? IF SO, IS THERE A PLAN FOR CONSULTATION THAT INCLUDES, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, PROCEDURE REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY, ETC.?
The proposed project will disturb native soils during site preparation and grading. Approval of the project would incorporate conditions of approval to address potential adverse effects to Cultural Resources and/or Tribal Cultural Resources during construction. The 2007 Initial Study was prepared prior to adoption of AB 52; thus, while tribal cultural resources are addressed herein, no consultation with Native American Tribes per AB52 is required.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM:
As stated, the City previously prepared and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Case Number ER 2005-33, TR 931, 2005-46-PZ, 2005-06, dated March 21, 2007.. Based on all available information and in light of the entire record, the analysis in this Addendum, and pursuant to Sections 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined the following
1. There are no substantial changes proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1372
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -4- City of Escondido, California document was certified as complete or was adopted, shows any of the following:
A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Per Section 15164 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency has prepared an addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration because, while some changes or additions to the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration were necessary, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Based upon review of the current project, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 and 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines apply. No changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has manifested, which would result in new significant or substantially increased adverse impacts as a result of the project. As stated, pursuant to Section 15164, , this Addendum has been prepared to document minor technical changes or additions to the Project.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The project would not affect any environmental factors resulting in a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. A summary of the environmental factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, include:
Aesthetics Agriculture & Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Finding of Significance Greenhouse Gas Emissions Wildfire Energy
DETERMINATION. (To be completed by lead agency) Based on this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been included in this project. 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.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1373
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -5- City of Escondido, California 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. An Addendum is being prepared to address minor changes to the project. Nothing further is required.
Melissa DiMarzo, Assistant Planner II
5. 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 will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as 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 (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
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 Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable 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.
Melissa DiMarzo
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1374
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -6- City of Escondido, California
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.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1375
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -7- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant No Impact
14.1 AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
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 building within a state scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized 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?
2007 Initial Study
The proposed map is not located on a Ridgeline identified in the Community Open Space/Conservation Element of the General Plan. No Grading exemptions are being requested in conjunction with this tentative map. The highest fill proposed on the site is approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. It is located along one pad area in the far northeastern corner of the project. The deepest proposed cut areas are up to 6 feet deep, with a maximum of 20 feet being allowed in the Grading Ordinance. The largest cuts are located within the north-central portion of the site.
These proposed cuts and fills are at a 2:1 ratio, also consistent with the Grading Ordinance. These proposed slopes are considered minor in nature by the Code and will not block significant views.
Residential projects typically do not directly illuminate or reflect glare upon adjacent properties, therefore no significant light or glare impact would result from the proposed project. Development of the proposed future development will not obstruct scenic views or vistas open to the public since neither the City nor the State designates Hamilton Lane or Bernardo Avenue as a scenic resources.
Proposed Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The project would approve five new single-family estate lots and one lot to accommodate a stormwater bioretention basin. The site is currently vacant and comprised of rolling terrain with several granite boulder clusters. As stated, the site is zoned RE-40 and surrounded by existing singlefamily residential development. New residential lots would be planned and residences constructed consistent with City of Escondido Zoning Code (Chapter 33) Article 6 (Residential Zones), and Article 64 (Design Review).
The General Plan Conservation Element notes that hillsides and ridgelines provide a visual resource and aesthetic value to Escondido that contributes to the community’s sense of identity. These areas are located to the west and east of the site (see Conservation Element, Figure VII-5). The project site does not have any designated scenic features and while the project would change existing views into the site; the site is not a scenic vista. The proposed project would not further obstruct existing public views of hillsides and ridgelines; Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1376
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -8- City of Escondido, California thus, the approved project would not result in adverse effects to scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. No officially designated state scenic highways exist within City limits. Additionally, the City’s General Plan Resource Conservation Element does not identify any local scenic roadways (City of Escondido 2012). Grading would likely remove or relocate existing vegetation and boulders; however, no impact within a state scenic highway corridor would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) In nonurbanized 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?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. Scenic quality is governed by the City’s Zoning Code and General Plan. As discussed under response (a), the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect to a scenic vista as defined in the City’s General Plan. As indicated above, the project site does not have any designated scenic features and while the project would change existing views into the site; the site is not a scenic vista. The proposed project would not further obstruct existing public views of hillsides and ridgelines; thus, the approved project would not result in adverse effects to scenic resources identified in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. The project is within an urbanized area and it would not conflict with applicable RE-40 zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-Than-Significant Impact. There are two primary artificial sources of light that generally affect an urban environment: light emanating from building interiors that passes through windows to the outside and light from exterior sources (e.g., street lighting, parking lot lighting, building illumination, security lighting, and landscape lighting) that affect the natural ambient light level. The introduction of light can affect adjacent areas and diminish night sky views depending on the location of the light sources and proximity to nearby light-sensitive areas.
Glare can be caused by unshielded or misdirected lighting sources. Reflective surfaces such as chrome or polished metal can also be a source of glare. Glare results from development and associated parking areas that contain reflective materials such as hi-efficiency window glass, highly polished surfaces and expanses of pavement. The Project site is in a developed area with predominantly single-family uses. The existing lighting in the project area includes streetlights and vehicle lights within the adjacent roadway corridors and interior and exterior building lighting from developed parcels proximal to the site.
Proposed lighting is anticipated to include a combination of street and security lighting. City of Escondido Zoning Code Article 35 addresses the use of light fixtures on residential properties to minimize the amount of light cast on adjoining properties and public right-of-way. During construction, lights may be used within the construction areas, notably the construction staging areas, to provide security for construction equipment and construction materials. Further, in the event that construction-related activities occur during nighttime hours, temporary, overhead artificial lighting would be provided to illuminate the work area. Compliance with applicable lighting regulations and standards would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1377
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -9- City of Escondido, California Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.2 AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY 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 forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as depicted on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency?
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 nonforest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 2007 Initial Study
The project site is not in agricultural production and is not listed as Prime Agricultural Land as identified in the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, which was prepared for the City's most recent General Plan revisions in 2012.
The California Department of Conservation, which publishes farmland conservation reports, classifies the site as "Urban and Built-up Land" which is defined as:
" ... land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel, including residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1378
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -10- City of Escondido, California The development of residential lots and natural vegetated lands to remain; would therefore, not result in significant individual or cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.
Proposed Project
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?
No Impact. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Construction of the proposed project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area zoned to accommodate the existing use. Agricultural designations do not occur within the project area and no Williamson Act contracts apply. Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in any conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
No Impact. The project site is neither zoned for agricultural use, nor subject to a Williamson Act contract.
Approval of the proposed project would have no impact on existing agricultural zoning or to land under a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
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))? No Impact. The project site is not zoned as forest land or timberland or for Timberland Production nor do these uses occur on the site. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site does not contain forested areas or designated forest land. The proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. 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? No Impact. The project site is not located on a site dedicated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in changes in the environment that would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.
Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. .
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1379
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -11- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.3 AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determination. Would the project:
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?
2007 Initial Study
The project area is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Air quality at a particular location is a function of the kinds and amounts of pollutants being emitted into the air locally, and throughout the basin, and the dispersal rates of pollutants within the region. The major factors affecting pollutant dispersion are wind, speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollutants (which is affected by inversions) and the local topography.
The air basin currently is designated a state and federal non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter.
However, in the SDAB, part of the ozone contamination is derived from the Los Angeles area South Coast Air Basin during periods of westerly winds (Santa Ana condition) when air pollutants are windborne over the ocean, drift to the south and eventually are blown easterly into the SDAB. Local agencies can control neither the source nor transportation of pollutants from outside the basin. The Air Pollution Control District (APCD) policy; therefore, has been to control local sources effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination.
For long-term emissions, the direct impacts of a project can be measured by the project's consistency with regional plans to improve and maintain air quality. Local air-quality impacts are directly related to the number of vehicle trips and operation levels on adjacent streets and intersections. For planning purposes, the APCD assumed the City's General Plan designation of Estate I in calculating air quality impacts. According to CEQA Guidelines, a project normally is considered to have a significant air quality impact if it violates any ambient air quality standard, contributes substantially to an existing or projected air-quality violation, or exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations.
Emissions resulting from developing the site would be directly related to the amount of vehicular traffic generated by the project. The increase of 5 units would have an incremental impact to basin-wide air quality.
Considering the cumulative impacts of thousands of sources, the impact attributed to the project is immeasurably small on a regional scale and will not cause ambient air-quality standards to be exceeded.
Since development would not materially degrade the levels of service on adjacent streets and intersections, and would not violate daily emissions thresholds, the project will not have a significant impact on air quality and no mitigation measures are required.
Construction-Related Emissions
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions. Sources of constructionrelated air emission include:
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1380
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -12- City of Escondido, California • Fugitive dust from grading activities;
• Construction equipment exhaust;
• Construction-related trips by worker, delivery trucks and material-hauling trucks; and • Construction-related power consumption.
Maximum daily emissions of NOx during construction periods are not projected to exceed City thresholds or APCD standards based on similar studies performed for similar size grading operations. Since construction is a one-time temporary activity, and because average daily construction emissions are projected to be below thresholds of significance, operation of equipment during project construction is not anticipated to result in substantial air quality impacts. Dust from grading and other site preparation would generate particulate matter emission; however, with appropriate use of grading and operation procedures as described in the attached mitigation measures (in conformance with APCD Best Management Practice for dust control), the project would not generate significant particulate matter or dust.
The City of Escondido Grading Ordinance and erosion control requirements include provisions for dust control to reduce impacts to air quality during grading and construction activities. At a minimum, these ordinances and provisions require projects to perform regular watering and timely re-vegetation of disturbed areas to minimize the dust and airborne nuisance impacts to off-site receptors. Emissions from construction equipment, worker and delivery and material-hauling trucks, and construction-related power consumption would be temporary and would result in an extremely small contribution to the SDAB; and therefore, would not result in a significant impact.
As stated above, mitigation for air quality required preparation of a site-specific analysis and report to determine equipment and methods necessary to protect adjacent properties from adverse air quality impacts which may result from construction. A site-specific analysis was prepared and is summarized below; thus, satisfying this mitigation measure.
Proposed Project
Information within this section was obtained in part from the California Emission Estimator Model version 2022.1. The output file is provided as Appendix A.
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is zoned RE-40 which supports low density single-family residential development.
SANDAG’s Regional Plan population, employee population and housing estimates for the years 2020 and 2035 was compared to the estimated increase in population, employees, and housing generated by the proposed project. The number of housing units in the City was projected to be 54,910 in 2025 and 58,990 in 2035, or an increase in 4,080 housing units. Furthermore, the City’s population was projected to be 165,127 residents in 2025 and 169,122 residents in 2035, or an increase of 3,995 residents over the period. The average household size is 2.8 people per dwelling unit, which translates into approximately 14 residents for the proposed project. Therefore, the project would be within SANDAG’s population growth forecast and, as addressed below, the proposed project emissions would not conflict with the State Implementation Plan (SIP), AQMP and RAQS. Therefore, as the Final IS/MND disclosed regarding the approved project, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. 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? Less than Significant Impact. The thresholds listed in Table 1 are screening-level thresholds used to evaluate whether proposed-project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality.
Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. The emissions-based thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) are intended to serve as the threshold for ozone. This Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1381
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -13- City of Escondido, California approach is used because ozone is not emitted directly; thus, ozone concentrations associated with individual projects precursors (VOC and NOx) emissions cannot be determined through air quality models or other quantitative methods. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 1, the project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants; and thus, could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Table 1
SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds
Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions (pounds per day)
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 75
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 250
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Operational Emissions
Total Emissions
Pounds per Hour Pounds per Day Tons per Year
Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) -- 75 13.7
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25 250 40
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) -- 100 15
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) -- 55 10
Lead and Lead Compounds -- 3.2 0.6
The estimated maximum daily construction and operating emissions are summarized in Table 2 below. As shown, the Project construction-source emissions and operating emissions would not exceed San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) regional thresholds for daily emission. Thus, a less than significant impact will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. Sensitive receivers include the single-family residences located adjacent to and proximal to the site. In evaluating impacts to sensitive receptors, the two primary emissions of concern are diesel particulate matter and CO. The proposed project would generate approximately 50 daily trips (i.e., 10 trips per unit) and five trips during the peak hour. Per the City of Escondido Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (April 2021), projects that generate less than 200 daily trips may be presumed to have a less-than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The project is not expected to cause a traffic impact or otherwise impede circulation within the project area and at proximal intersections.
Consequently, sensitive receptors would not be significantly affected by CO emissions generated by Projectrelated traffic.
Toxic Air Contaminants. The proposed project would be constructed within an RE-40 zone and require a common mix of equipment. As shown, construction emissions would not violate SDAPCD daily construction emission standards. With respect to operation, the proposed project would not include uses that cause or contribute to TAC emissions. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1382
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -14- City of Escondido, California Table 2
Maximum Daily Construction and Operational Emissions
Project Emissions
Maximum Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction – 2026 6.2 12.9 15.0 0.02 3.4 1.8
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Operating Emission –
Proposed Project 0.04 0.12 1.8 0.003 0.3 0.08
SDAPCD Screening
Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded No No No No No No
Source: Birdseye Planning Group, LLC., (March 2025) (Appendix A). expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction; and thus, is considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. The 2007 Initial Study does not specifically address odors; however, as described herein, impacts would be less than significant.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1383
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -15- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant 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 Game or the USFWS?
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 Game (DFG) 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/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?
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared by Tierra Data, Inc., July, 2024.(Appendix B). 2007 Initial Study
A series of biological reports dated 6/19/06, 11/20/06, and 2/14/07 were prepared by the Chambers Group to augment the Biological Resource Assessment conducted in 1991 for the subject property. Taken in combination, the reports conclude that the 6.28-acre parcel is composed mostly of non-native grassland with a few oaks in the southeastern portion of the site and a small isolated patch of coastal sage scrub along a fence line adjacent to Hamilton Lane. Based on information detailed in Appendix B, there are currently no sensitive wildlife species present on the site. The biological resource reports concluded that development of the site under the 2007 proposal would necessitate the removal of 3.06 acres of non-native grassland, four oak trees and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Proposed mitigation would bring the impacts to biological resources to less than significant.
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 Game or the USFWS? Less than Significant. The parcel is primarily Disturbed Habitat (DH) composed of annual non-native grasses and non-native vegetation, reflecting the history of agricultural use and repeated mowing for weed abatement.
Due to the significant disturbance and a shift from the original vegetation composition, resilient and fastgrowing non-native species and grasses now outcompete the native flora including several brome grasses (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens, B. hordeaceus and B. diandrus) and slender wild oat (Avena barbata), as well as non-native forbs, such as mustards (Hirshfeldia incana and Brassica nigra), and filarees (Erodium brachycarpum, E. cicutarium, and E. moschatum).
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1384
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -16- City of Escondido, California Despite the dominance of non-native species, the parcel supports some native species, predominantly annual forbs such as Menzies' Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), Narrow Leaf Bedstraw (Galium angustifolium) and a few diminutive perennial species including Coast Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and Broom Baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides) which have clearly been mowed annually. Additionally, several large piles of mulch have been placed on the property, with some already spread. These piles consist primarily of Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) material, laden with seeds that are now sprouting abundantly.
Animals observed included species of native and non-native Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), Great Basin fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) on the rocks, a dead gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), evidence of Coyote (Canis latrans), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), and a woodrat nest (Neotoma sp.), and common birds including mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house finch (house finch), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Larger birds were using the offsite trees in the vicinity, including California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). A red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicansis) was seen flying overhead in the area.
No special status plants or animals were observed at the time of the survey nor is the on-site habitat expected to support sensitive species.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would require mitigation for direct impacts to 3.06 acres of nonnative grassland and .02 acres of coastal sage scrub. Neither of these habitat types remain on the project site under current conditions. The property was cleared as requested in weed abatement orders issued by the City of Escondido on May 26, 2021, and August 12, 2025 (see Appendix C). Thus, impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant and less than what was identified in the 2007 Initial Study. However, mitigation measures addressing impacts to these habitat types in the 2007 Initial Study and listed above in Section 9, Summary of Original Project, remain applicable and would require implementation with approval of the proposed Project.
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 Game (DFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The site is vacant and does not contain any federal or State jurisdictional areas. The proposed project would have no substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wild Service. The project site is void of riparian corridors and sensitive habitat. Thus, no impacts to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
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? No Impact. No wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, exist on-site or immediately adjoining the site. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to wetlands. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
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?
No Impact. The project site is disturbed and located within an urban area. Project implementation would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as none exist within the immediate project area. No impacts to migratory corridors or native wildlife nursery sites would occur.
Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1385
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -17- City of Escondido, California policy/ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Escondido Municipal Code regulates removal of trees identified as Mature or Heritage (i.e., Protected), trees (Sec 33-1069). Mature and Protected trees are defined in the Escondido Municipal Code Sec 33-1052 as:
Mature tree is any self-supporting woody perennial plant, native or ornamental, with a single welldefined stem or multiple stems supporting a crown of branches. The single stem, or one of the multiple stems of any mature oak tree (genus Quercus), shall have a diameter 4 inches or greater when measured at 4½ feet diameter at breast height (DBH) above the tree’s natural grade. All other mature trees shall have a diameter of 8 inches DBH, or greater, for a single stem or one of the multiple stems.
Protected tree is any oak (genus Quercus) which has a 10-inch or greater DBH, or any other species or individual specimen listed on the local historic register, or determined to substantially contribute to the historic character of a property or structure listed on the local historic register, pursuant to Article 40 of the Escondido Zoning Code.
A total of 17 mature and protected trees are located on-site. Most of the trees on site are in the southern portion of the site. Two trees are in the west and center of the site, one a small black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and the other, a Heritage coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The southern portion of the site contains six Heritage coast live oak trees, three mature coast live oak trees and three mature non-native trees. The remaining four trees do not meet the Protected tree criteria.
Several Mature and Heritage Trees are located on Lots 2, 4, and 5. The proposed project could potentially remove two Heritage coast live oak trees located within the pad of Lot 4 while avoiding all other oak trees. A coast live oak tree on the boundary of Lots 4 and 5 would be avoided. Two additional Mature olive trees would also be removed by grading Lot 5. Lastly, a black locust tree meets neither Heritage nor Mature tree criterion, would be removed to create the retention basin. All the impacted Heritage or Mature trees are far from the three roads that border the parcel and the loss of four trees would not significantly change views for area residents or the aesthetics of the area. It is expected that future homeowners will plant trees around their homes that will offset any aesthetic impacts from removal of the four trees. While multiple trees would be removed, the Project would be in compliance with City’s current Municipal Code requirements for trees.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project would require removal of four Live Oak trees; thus, requiring on-site relocation or replacement of the four existing Live Oak trees and planting of four additional Live Oak trees. The current project as proposed would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code requirements for removal of heritage and mature trees. However, removal of any Live Oak tree would require replacement of that tree plus planting of one additional live oak tree as stated in the 2007 Initial Study mitigation measures for biological resources. Impacts would be similar to what was identified for the project as proposed in 2007.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. 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? No Impact. The City is no longer participating in the local regional Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) effort and the site was not in a Focused Planning Area of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP). Thus, the proposed Project would neither impact regional conservation planning efforts under the NCCP or MHCP, and because of its location and features, development would not impact any future regional conservation planning efforts. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1386
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -18- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA? c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
2007 Initial Study
The undeveloped site currently has only some minor indications that farming and citrus grove activity took place on the property in the past. The hilltop and surrounded land is now vacant. The property does not appear on the list of Archaeological Resources Sites; therefore, it is assumed the proposed development would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
Proposed Project
Information provided in this section was in part, obtained from the Phase I Cultural Resources Report prepared by South Environmental, LLC, May 2025 (Appendix D). a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA?
No Impact. On March 27, 2025, South Environmental performed an in-person cultural resources records search of the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), which houses cultural resources records for San Diego County. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Resource Directory and Historic Built Environment Resource Directory lists. The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. None identified any historic resources on-site that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. Further, no historic resources were identified. No impact to historic resources would occur. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5 of CEQA?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. As stated above, The SCIC records search identified three cultural resources studies (SD-8588, -8596, and -10211) that were conducted within the project site and an additional 42 studies within a 0.5-mile radius. These are summarized as follows:
SD-08588. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for Expansion of Wastewater Treatment Facility was completed by the City of Escondido in 1980. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) included a cultural resources inventory that identified an archaeological site within the treatment plant site to be avoided by its Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1387
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -19- City of Escondido, California expansion. The study included a records search but no pedestrian survey. Adherence to State and Regional Historic Preservation regulations was recommended to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. However, the identified archaeological site is nowhere near the current project site, located west of Interstate 15 and south of State Route 78. The EIR’s broad study area included the current project site but did not include archaeological surveys within or near the project site.
SD-08596. The Results of a Cultural Resource Survey of the Escondido Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project: Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared by Brian F. Smith and Associates in 1992. This study inventoried cultural resources within and adjacent to the 24.2-mile project alignment. A record search found 115 prehistoric sites and two historic sites near the project alignment, but no cultural resources were discovered within the study’s project boundaries. The entire project alignment was surveyed. Where terrain permitted, the project alignment was intensively surveyed with 20-foot linear transects, and areas with steep grades, heavy foliage, structures, or pavement that inhibited access or ground visibility were surveyed at a reconnaissance level. This approach resulted in approximately 25 percent of the project alignment being intensively surveyed. The eastern half of the current project site falls with the 100-foot buffer zone of the Smith 1992 project alignment; however, no details are provided that indicate the current project site was intensively surveyed. Archaeological monitoring was recommended for certain areas deemed sensitive but not the entirety of the project alignment. Standard mitigation measures were also recommended.
SD-010211. The Results of Archaeological Testing at CA-SDI-12525 Report was prepared by Susan Underbrink of Chambers Group, Inc. in 2006. This multicomponent resource was originally recorded by Del James, Steven Briggs, and Scott Campbell of ERC Environmental and Energy Services in 1991. The prehistoric component was initially described as possessing “numerous slicks on 17 different granite bedrock outcrops,” more than 20 chipped stone flakes, two manos, one metate fragment, and more than 50 marine shell fragments. An L-shaped concrete foundation and a subterranean concrete foundation was also referenced. It was stated that the area around the bedrock outcrops had been subject to disking but also estimated that the subsurface appeared to retain good integrity.
Susan Underbrink (2006) of Chambers Group, Inc. conducted resurvey and archaeological testing of P-37- 012535 for CRHR eligibility evaluation in May 2006. Underbrink recorded 20 bedrock milling features (labeled as Features A-T) with 27 milling surfaces, all flush or shallow slicks. Underbrink noted that many of the milling surfaces were heavily eroded and that some of the features identified in 1991 could not be relocated.
Underbrink excavated 16 shovel test pits and two 1-meter by 1-meter test units to a maximum depth of 70 centimeters. From the excavations she collected nine metavolcanic chipped stone flakes or shatter, one quartz flake, three small marine shell fragments of unidentified genus or species, one burnt large mammal bone, and one metal plate that states, “American Automobile Owners Association.” Test Unit 1 produced 10 of the 15 artifacts and ecofacts between 0-30 centimeters of depth. No artifacts from the surface were recorded or collected. Underbrink described the site as a food processing site with a paucity of subsurface cultural material lacking diagnostic artifacts or evidence of habitation. The report (Underbrink 2006) stated that the research potential of P-37-012535 has been exhausted and the site was recommended not eligible for the CRHR” and no further work is necessary beyond archaeological monitoring.
Native American Scoping
A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was requested by South Environmental on March 21, 2025. The NAHC responded to the request on April 4, 2025, and reported positive result and recommended contacting the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. The NAHC also recommended contacting 31 Native American tribal representatives for additional information or knowledge they may have regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project.
South Environmental sent letters to each contact provided by the NAHC on April 7, 2025, and sent follow-up emails on April 17, 2025, to non-responsive contacts.
Four tribal contacts have responded to the outreach letters to date. The Pala Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians stated that the area is archaeologically sensitive with known sites recorded Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1388
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -20- City of Escondido, California within the vicinity. These tribes, along with the San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians expressed concern about potential impacts the project may have on local tangible cultural heritage and declared interest in entering formal government-to-government consultation.
Field Survey Results
On April 22, 2025, South Environmental conducted an intensive-level survey of the project site. The site was surveyed using transects spaced approximately ten meters apart throughout the site. Areas with exposed ground surface were examined for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorations that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, depressions, and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations).
The previously recorded multicomponent archaeological site P-37-012525 (CA-SDI-12525/H) referenced above was relocated and one medium-grained metavolcanic flake was observed within the archaeological site. Some of the previously recorded bedrock milling slicks were relocated; however, others appeared to have eroded through weathering since the 2006 recordation and testing. No artifacts or other evidence was identified to change the previous characterization of site P-37-012525. No additional archaeological or historic built environment resources were observed during the survey beyond the previously recorded and tested P37-012525. Based on these findings, no further archaeological testing of P-37-012525 is recommended.
Further, the current findings are consistent with the previous recommendation that the site lacks significant data potential and is not eligible for CRHR listing.
No Cultural Resources were identified within the project site through Native American scoping; however, the Native American scoping identified the project vicinity as highly sensitive for prehistoric/Native American resources as referenced above. This sensitivity is supported by the five previously recorded resources with prehistoric components within 0.5-mile of the project site, including the CRHR/NRHP-listed multicomponent site P-37-000570 within Felicita Park, which contains a large prehistoric habitation component.
Given the presence of a previously recorded archaeological site within the project site and evidence of archaeological sensitivity indicated by the records search results and responses from tribal contacts, archaeological and Native American monitoring of all project-related earth disturbing activities is recommended as a condition of approval for addressing any discoveries of cultural resources. With implementation of Condition of Approval (COA) CUL-1, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
CUL-1. Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. Based on the sensitivity of the project site and the presence of P-37-012525, archaeological and Native American monitoring should be considered at the City’s discretion and conducted during all project-related ground disturbance, including but not limited to, grading and excavation for and installation of foundations and utilities.
Within 30 days of the conclusion of all monitoring activities, an archaeological monitoring report shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and submitted to the appropriate parties detailing the results of all monitoring activities and any cultural resources identified. Any discoveries of cultural resources or human remains shall be addressed in accordance with the unanticipated discovery measures outlined below.
As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the proposed project was not expected to have any adverse impact to cultural or historic resources. Based on the current Phase I Cultural Resources Report, there is evidence that resources may occur on-site; and per existing protocol, monitoring during construction is recommended at the City’s discretion as a Condition of Approval. Implementation of this Condition of Approval does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous environmental document due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects that would necessitate revisions to the 2007 Initial Study.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1389
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -21- City of Escondido, California c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant. There are no known grave sites within the project limits. Therefore, the disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. However, in the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of any human remains find immediately. If the remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery, and shall complete the inspection within 24 of notification by the NAHC. The MLD will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the NAHC on the disposition of the remains. With implementation of existing regulations, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. This issue was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, compliance with State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, does not represent a substantial change proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.6 Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of energy impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during the project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, the Project would temporarily consume energy for the operation of construction equipment and vehicles. Standard methods of earth moving, excavations, building construction, and paving are planned. The proposed construction activities do not include methods of construction which would result in inefficient or unnecessary use of energy resources. For operational energy use, the project would be required to meet CCR Title 24 building energy and California Green Building (CALGreen) Code standards. Energy-efficient buildings require less electricity, natural gas, and other fuels.
Electricity production from fossil fuels and on-site fuel combustion (typically for space or water heating) results in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Title 24 standards are updated approximately every three years to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The 2022 Title 24 standards went into effect on January 1, 2023. The standards are divided into three basic sets. First, there is a basic set of mandatory requirements that apply to all buildings. Second, there is a set of Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1390
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -22- City of Escondido, California performance standards—the energy budgets—that vary by climate zone (of which there are 16 in California) and building type; thus, the standards are tailored to local conditions. Finally, the third set constitutes an alternative to the performance standards, which is a set of prescriptive packages that are basically a recipe or a checklist compliance approach.
CALGreen (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is a code with mandatory requirements for all residential and nonresidential buildings (including industrial and commercial buildings) for which no other state agency has authority to adopt green building standards. The current 2022 Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings went into effect on January 1, 2023. CALGreen is intended to (1) reduce GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, the code is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impact during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for storm water control during construction; construction waste reduction; indoor water use reduction; material selection; natural resource conservation; site irrigation conservation; and more.
All fuel calculations are based on the total Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) value calculated for each construction phase and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1. Data are reported in annual metric tons of CO2e for the duration of each construction phase. Metric tons are converted to kilogram CO2e and then divided by a conversion factor used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to estimate gallons of gasoline consumed based on carbon emissions. For the purpose of determining fuel demand, it was assumed that all worker vehicles would be use gasoline and all construction equipment would diesel-fueled. Deisel demand would be approximately 22,659 gallons. Demand for gasoline would be approximately 504 gallons. During operation, the project would generate demand for approximately 30,706 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity and 142,585 British Thermal Units (BTU) of natural gas annually. The annual gasoline demand generated by passenger vehicles visiting the site would be approximately 6,584 gallons.
Compliance with state Title 24 and CALGreen standards would ensure that the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. No further Project-specific mitigation measures would be required. Implementation of the Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Impacts would be less than significant; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. Several levels of government have implemented regulatory programs in response to reducing GHG emissions, which consequently serve to increase energy efficiency statewide. Multiple state agencies, including CARB, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, CalRecycle, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and the Department of Water Resources have developed regulatory and incentive programs that promote energy efficiency. Many of the measures are generally beyond the ability of any future development to implement and are implemented by utility providers or manufacturers.
The project does not conflict with any state or local plans for renewable energy efficiency. The project would employ standard methods of construction and does not propose to create a project condition post-construction whereby a greater energy, relative to projects of a similar scope would occur. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant energy Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1391
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -23- City of Escondido, California impact.
Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
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 DM&G Pub. 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 onsite 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 1994 UBC, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
2007 Initial Study
The highest fill areas proposed are approximately 10 feet in height, consistent with the maximum height allowed in the City's Grading Ordinance. The deepest cut areas are approximately 6 feet deep and located within the northern portion of the site. It is reasonably anticipated that conventional grading practices can be utilized to develop the site without the need for blasting. If blasting is required it would likely be limited to the central portion of the site and the contractor will be required to obtain the necessary permits and follow all City of Escondido procedures.
The site is not located on any active or potentially active fault trace as defined by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The nearest active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault, located approximately 11 miles to the west. Other nearby faults include the Elsinore-Julian Fault and the Newport-Inglewood Fault. The site is not considered to possess a significantly greater seismic risk than that of the surrounding area based on accounts from other geotechnical investigations for projects developed in the area; therefore a significant geology and soils impact would not occur.
Proposed Project
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1392
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -24- City of Escondido, California 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.
Less Than Significant Impact. In 1972, the state passed the Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Zoning Act to help identify areas subject to severe ground shaking. Earthquake faults are categorized as active, potentially active, and inactive. A fault is classified as active if it is included as an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone (EFHZ), which indicated movement within the past 11,000 years. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the placement of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults; thereby mitigating the hazard of fault ruptures. EFHZs identify the probability of ground rupture for future earthquakes. Where such zones are designated, no buildings or structures may be constructed on the trace of the fault. No EFHZs exist within the City of Escondido as reported in the City of Escondido General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Section 4.6, Geology/Soils. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Southern California is a seismically active region likely to experience, on average, one earthquake of Magnitude 7.0, and ten (10) earthquakes of Magnitude 6.0 over a period of 10 years. Active faults are those faults that are considered likely to undergo renewed movement within a period of concern to humans. These include faults that are currently slipping, those that display earthquake activity, and those that have historical surface rupture. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines active faults as those which have had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). Such displacement can be recognized by the existence of sharp cliffs in young alluvium, un-weathered terraces, and offset modern stream courses. Potentially active faults are those believed to have generated earthquakes during the Quaternary period, but prior to Holocene times.
The San Jacinto Fault, Elsinore Fault and Rose Canyon Fault have the potential to result in seismic ground shaking within the proposed project area. Conformance with standard engineering practices and design criteria would reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking to less than significant. Impacts related to geology/soils would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the loss of strength of cohesionless soils when the pore water pressure in the soil becomes equal to the confining pressure. Liquefaction generally occurs as a “quicksand” type of ground failure caused by strong ground shaking. The primary factors influencing liquefaction potential include groundwater, soil type, relative density of the sandy soils, confining pressure, and the intensity and duration of ground shaking. According to Figure 4.6-3 in the General Plan EIR, the project area is not susceptible to liquefaction hazards. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or transitional movement of soil or rock. However, according to the According to Figure 4.6-4 in the General Plan EIR, the project is not located within a landslide hazard area. No impact would occur. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1393
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -25- City of Escondido, California Less Than Significant Impact. Grading and trenching during the construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. The contractor will be required to comply with standard engineering practices for erosion control and implement applicable elements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during ground disturbing activities. Impacts would be less than significant. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence, which can be caused by groundwater depletion, seismic activity, and other factors, refers to elevation changes of the land whether slow or sudden. The underlying geologic formations in the proposed project area are mostly granitic and have a very low potential of subsidence. No water extractions or similar practices are anticipated to be necessary that are typically associated with project-related subsidence effects. In addition, surface material that would be disrupted or displaced would be balanced and re-compacted on-site or removed. Adherence to standard engineering practices would result in less than significant impacts related to subsidence of the land. The site is generally flat. There are no steep slopes that could cause a landslide. As stated, there is no liquefaction potential in the project area. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
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? No Impact. As stated in the General Plan EIR, Section 4.6, Geology/Soils, certain types of clay soils expand when they are saturated and shrink when dried. These are called expansive soils and can pose a threat to the integrity of structures built on them without proper engineering. Expansive soils are derived primarily from weathering of feldspar minerals and volcanic ash. The expansion and contraction of the soil varies with the soil moisture content (wet or dry), and can be aggravated by the way a property is maintained or irrigated.
Human activities can increase the moisture content of the soils, and the threat of expansive soil damage.
According to Figure 4.6-5 in the General Plan EIR, there is no known potential for expansive soils occurring in the project area. No impact would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. 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? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the implementation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to the existing sewer system located along Bernardo Avenue or Hamilton Lane. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? No Impact. According to the City of Escondido General Plan EIR Figure 4.5-2, the geologic formation on the project site is comprised of granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages, mid-Cretaceous. Geologic formations that are composed entirely of volcanic or plutonic igneous rock, such as basalt or granite, do not have any potential for producing fossil remains. No impacts to paleontological resources would occur. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1394
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -26- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
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?
2007 Initial Study
An evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts was not required under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines when the 2007 Initial Study was prepared.
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence to climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). For future projects, the significance of GHG emissions are evaluated based on locally adopted quantitative thresholds, or consistency with a regional GHG reduction plan (such as a Climate Action Plan).
The City of Escondido approved a Climate Action Plan in March 2021. This CAP meets the criteria identified in Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and, therefore, is considered a “qualified” CAP and may be used for the specific purpose of streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions for subsequent projects.
Furthermore, a project’s incremental contribution to cumulative GHG emissions may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable. The City has established a GHG screening threshold (set at 500 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent [“MTCO2e”] per year) for new development projects to determine if a project would need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the Checklist. New development projects that are consistent with the General Plan and are expected to generate fewer than 500 MTCO2e annually would not have a cumulative impact and would not be required to provide additional analysis.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily associated with the operation of construction equipment, worker trips and truck trips required for hauling excavation spoils, materials and equipment. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest emission quantities because the use of heavy equipment is greatest during this phase of construction. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on-site at one time. Air districts such as the SDAPCD have recommended amortizing constructionrelated emissions over a 30-year period to calculate annual emissions.
Operational Emissions
Default values used in CalEEMod version 2022.1 are based on the CEC sponsored California Commercial End Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1395
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -27- City of Escondido, California Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4. This methodology has been subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders, and in particular by the CEC; and therefore, is considered reasonable and reliable for use in GHG impact analysis pursuant to CEQA. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January 2008).
Emissions associated with area sources (i.e., consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating) were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide, 2022). Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CalEEMod User Guide, April 2022). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California. The proposed Project would generate 84 MT of CO2e emissions annually including the amortized construction emissions. This would be less than the 500 MT CO2e screening threshold referenced above. A less than significant impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study. b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Specific goals and actions included in the City of Escondido CAP and Title 24 that pertain to the proposed project include those addressing energy and water use reduction, promotion of green building measures, waste reduction, and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. The proposed project would also be required to implement all mandatory green building measures for new residential and commercial development under the CALGreen Code. This would require the project be designed to reduce water consumption, increase building system efficiencies, divert construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant emitting finish materials. Implementation of these building and appliance standards would result in water, energy, and construction waste reductions for the proposed project. These requirements are included in the CAP Checklist prepared by the applicant to demonstrate project consistency with applicable elements of the CAP.
Consistency with EO S-3-05 and SB 32
EO S-3-05. This EO establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
SB 32. This bill establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030.
The City prepared a GHG emissions inventory included in the above-referenced CAP. The City’s Final CAP was adopted on May 8, 2021. The CAP demonstrates that, with implementation of applicable General Plan objectives and policies, coupled with state and federal actions and execution of CAP measures and actions, the City will reduce GHG emissions consistent with state goals established by Senate Bill 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 state target identified in Executive Order S-3-05. As stated, GHG emissions would not exceed the screening threshold of 500 MT CO2e annually; and thus, would not conflict with applicable State goals and policies regarding GHG reductions, include SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05.
CARB has indicated that statewide, California is on track to achieving both the 2030 and 2050 goals. This is confirmed in the 2017 Scoping Plan and 2022 Update, which states that the Scoping Plan builds upon the Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1396
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -28- City of Escondido, California successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets.
As stated, the project would not generate enough GHG emissions to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Measures implemented by the project to reduce overall GHG emissions would also contribute to GHG statewide reduction goals. Thus, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No impact would result from the project under this threshold; and thus, would not be a significant effect not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study.
As stated, this topical issue was not addressed in the 2007 Initial Study. However, based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would result in any significant greenhouse gas impacts.
Potentially
Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.9 HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
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 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? 2007 Initial Study
Research for the area was conducted by the County Department of Environmental Health and the site was not identified on the County's list of hazardous waste sites. The County Department of Environmental Health regulates the storage and on-site use of any potential hazardous materials such as fuel oil, motor oil, paints and hazardous cleaning materials to prevent the accidental release of, proper prevention of pollution of the environment. While the site is in the vicinity of the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, the proposed project site was not known to store hazardous chemicals. Of the three wells previously installed to monitor groundwater quality beneath the site, two wells (MW27 and MW28) were approved by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) for closure on October 24, 2006. These have subsequently been removed and filled in. The Regional Board also determined the remaining well (MW57), which is located in the northwestern portion of the 6.28-acre site, should remain or that a replacement well, at a location 235 feet to the northwest, and within the proposed private street would be approved if it provides equivalent deep aquifer information.
The property is not adjacent or within two miles of an airport. Any proposed development would not impair the Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1397
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -29- City of Escondido, California City's emergency response plan according to discussions with the City Fire Department. The areas will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildfires since the site is in a suburban setting and once developed much of the property surrounding structures will be irrigated. Any impacts from the proposed annexation and subdivision map creation will be less than significant. Any further development projects will be subject to CEQA review.
A mitigation measure related to monitoring well MW57 stated that the well is to remain on the project site and be accessible to the Chatham Brothers RP Group for monitoring purposes until officially released. Upon release, it is to be removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. Alternatively, if a new replacement well is installed nearby and approved by the Regional Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), existing well MW57 can also then be released and removed per Regional Board and City of Escondido standards. A letter prepared by the Chatham Site PRP Group (May 21, 2009), provided documentation to the California Department of Toxic and Substance Control, that well(s) MW56 (which is unrelated to the project site) and MW57 were decommissioned. The documentation has been provided as Appendix E.
Proposed Project
Information in this section is in part, based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1100 Hamilton Lane, prepared by Weis Environmental, April 2025 (Appendix F) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No Impact. The proposed project would be comprised of single-family residential development. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. However, during the short-term period of project construction, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The contractor will be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures which would avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The closest school to the site is Bernardo Elementary School located at 1222 Mountain Heights Drive approximately 0.23 south of the site. While located within ¼ mile of the site, the project would be a single-family residential development. Other than common cleaning supplies, no hazardous materials would be used or generated on-site or proximal to Bernardo Elementary School. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. 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 Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1398
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -30- City of Escondido, California the environment?
No Impact. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Weis Environmental, Inc., April 2025), the proposed project site is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. As discussed in the 2007 Initial Study and summarized above, the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard, a State Superfund Site, is located proximal to the site.
The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project states the site is located approximately 700 feet northwest of the site. Further, a water supply well is present on the southern adjoining property of the site and to date, no ground water impacts have been reported in this well. Consistent with the above-referenced mitigation measure, a potentially responsible party is required to complete continued monitoring of groundwater in the area and any future mitigation that may be required should a change in conditions occur. As stated, the onsite MW57 was decommissioned as documented (see Appendix F). Thus, the former Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard is not a recognized environmental condition in connection with the site. This determination would not represent information related to a new or previously undisclosed significant environmental impact. The project would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 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? No Impact. The proposed project is located approximately 10.7 miles southeast of McClellen-Palomar Airport.
Per Exhibit III-5 of the McClellen-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the project site is located outside the safety compatibility area. Thus, airport operations would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The proposed project would develop five new single-family residential lots on a 6.02 gross acre site. Both Bernardo Avenue and Hamilton Lane would likely be used by residents for evacuation. The proposed project would have no impact on emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. No revisions to adopted emergency plans would be required as a result of the proposed project. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is located within a developed area and a Local Responsibility Area for fire services. The project site would be served by the Escondido Fire Department. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires because the project site does not adjoin undeveloped wildland areas. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1399
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -31- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that 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. Otherwise 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?
2007 Initial Study
The existing parcel includes gentle to moderate slopes (generally between 0 to 15% slope.) and primarily drains east to west, although the eastern edge does drain eastward. The amount of run-off from the site would be expected to incrementally increase upon development of the proposed lots due to impervious surfaces associated with the development of the residential structures and paving. The project would be required to comply with latest National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. The City of Escondido's Engineering Department has determined that because the project is required to have all postconstruction storm water treatment measures in place applicable prior to final occupancy and meet all City of Escondido Stormwater Management Standards thereafter, the runoff from the project would not be considered significant and the project would not materially degrade the existing drainage facilities. The City would provide sewer and water service from mains within the adjacent street or easements; consequently, no significant impact is expected to occur to the groundwater table. The project is outside the 100-year flood plain area as identified on current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Therefore, the project site is not subject to potential flooding, landslides or mudflows. Part of the project site is over a once contaminated groundwater, therefore, mitigation will be part of the approval as follows: 1) no drinking water wells shall be drilled on the site; 2) the existing monitoring well on site shall remain until released by DEH; and 3) no excavations shall be allowed on site without proper permits.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No Impact. The project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater retention basin. The basin would be constructed with an impervious liner over gravel and an underdrain system. The filtration media would be comprised of sand, sandy loam and compost to support native plant material.
Stormwater would drain through the media and convey into the underdrain and outlet pipe which would connect to the existing municipal stormwater system located along Hamilton Lane. A riser pipe would be constructed in the pond to directly convey overflow into the outflow pipe. Stormwater would not violate water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. No impact would occur.
Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1400
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -32- City of Escondido, California b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? No Impact. The project would increase the amount of impervious area on the site. However, it would not pump groundwater nor is the site over an aquifer recharge area such that the project would substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in a manner that the project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Further, storm flows not conveyed into the on-site basin would percolate into the ground; thus, providing some recharge post-construction. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
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 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Less Than Significant Impact. The drainage pattern would be altered relative to existing conditions.
Stormwater would be conveyed into a new bioretention basin rather than sheet flow through the site.
However, no stream or river would be altered. Any temporary erosion control measures required per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan during construction and post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite; Less Than Significant Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
No Impact. As stated, implementation of standard erosion control measures would minimize erosion and transport of sediments off-site. No off-site flooding would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study.
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 No Impact. Under the project design, all runoff would convey into the on-site stormwater bioretention basin.
The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would exceed the existing capacity of the off-site stormwater system. Further, a riser pipe would be constructed to convey any overflow directly into the municipal stormwater system. No impact would occur.
Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. iv. Otherwise impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. As stated, the downstream point of stormwater discharge from the site will not be altered from the Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1401
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -33- City of Escondido, California predevelopment condition. However, all runoff would be conveyed into a new on-site stormwater bioretention basin. The project will not result in cross-lot drainage or an increase in the rate of off-site run-off in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. The project is required by law to implement stormwater Best Management Practices during construction to minimize erosion and pollutant discharge associated with stormwater runoff to the downstream drainage system. No impact would occur. Impacts related to this threshold would be consistent with those identified in the 2007 Initial Study. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area nor are there large open water bodies proximal to the site that would pose a potential seiche impact. The project site is not located within the San Diego County Tsunami Hazard Area as depicted in the California Department of Conservation tsunami map. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-diego. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. Per the City of Escondido 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, minimal groundwater sources are found throughout the City’s service area. Groundwater wells are privately owned and maintained. The City does not participate in any groundwater withdrawal, storage, or replenishment programs. No groundwater would be pumped on-site nor would it be used as part of potable water supplies provided to the project by the City of Escondido. Thus, the project would not result in any significant impacts relating to water quality. No impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
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?
2007 Initial Study
The City of Escondido General Plan designates the area as Estate I, allowing single-family residential development. The objective of the Estate I category is to promote single-family development with a maximum density of 1 unit per acre on relatively large lots with minimum 40,000 sq. ft. lot sizes. This designation is often applied in transitional areas between more intensive Suburban and less intensive Rural II development. Public wastewater collection and treatment are required in these areas only if the property cannot accommodate a functional septic system.
The extent of dwelling units permitted on the proposed development by Estate I is dependent on the topography of the site. The General Plan indicates that the maximum development yield of Estate I lands shall be sensitive to topography and be calculated according to the following slope categories:
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1402
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -34- City of Escondido, California 0-15%: 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre;
15-25%: 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres;
25-35%: 1 dwelling unit per 4 acres; and
35+ 1: dwelling unit per 20 acres.
The minimum lot size shall be 40,000 square feet, unless the development is clustered. Based on the variable slope provisions contained in the City's General Plan, 6.02 dwelling units would be allowed for a subdivision map, which is consistent with the proposed 5-lot map submitted. The existing zoning of the entire site is proposed to be pre-zoned to RE-40, which is consistent with the General Plan. From a "plan to ground" analysis, the proposal would add five units to the 6.02-acre site. This is not considered significant since the proposed project would be consistent with existing adopted City of Escondido land use policies. No significant land use impact would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Proposed Project
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one new stormwater basin on a vacant 6.02-acre site zoned RE-40. The RE-40 designation requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The residential lots would be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard. An existing single-family lot is bordered to the north, south and east by the proposed project. This lot would retain its existing access to Bernardo Avenue. The project will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established community. Therefore, no impact would occur. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would occur under this threshold. 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 impact? No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element’s designation for the project site and with the Official Zoning Map designation of the property. As stated in the General Plan Land Use Element, the Residential Estate designation accommodates detached single-family homes on large lots.
This designation applies to areas that are on the edge of urban development pattern or in areas that are already characterized by an estate development. Clustering is permitted pursuant to General Plan Residential Clustering Policies.
Land Use and Community Form - GOAL 1: A community composed of distinct residential neighborhoods, business districts, and employment centers, whose urban form reflects the natural environmental setting.
Community Character Policy 1.1 New development should serve to reinforce the city’s present development pattern of higher-intensity development within the downtown area and lower-intensity development in outlying areas. As a guide toward accomplishing this objective, new development projects shall be at an appropriate density or clustered intensity based upon their compatibility with the majority of the existing surrounding land uses. This policy shall limit density transfers from constrained portions of a property as defined in the land use and open space goals.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning.
Community Character Policy 1.2 The boundaries of the Land Use categories depicted on the General Plan are not precise. However, the categories are generally intended to avoid intensification of existing land use or zoning designations where land use compatibility and the objectives of the General Plan are at issue.
Consistent. The proposed project would construct five new single-family residences and one stormwater Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1403
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -35- City of Escondido, California basin with related infrastructure improvements. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning and the surrounding properties. The project would develop a vacant site; however, it would not intensify the intensity of existing development.
Community Character Policy 1.3 Focus development into areas where land use changes achieve the community’s long-term goals. Facilitate development that is consistent with the build out vision for each area through incentive programs and efficient administrative and discretionary approval processes for plot plans, Planned Developments, Area Plans, Specific Plans, and Zoning Overlays.
Consistent. The proposed density would be consistent with the current RE-40 zoning. The project would facilitate development that is consistent with the zoning designation which would support the City’s long-term goals. This specific threshold was not discussed in the 2007 Initial Study; however, no impact would exceed this threshold.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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?
2007 Initial Study
No significant mineral resources have been identified on the subject site. The limited size of the project would not substantially increase the use of, or result in the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources.
Proposed Project
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?
No Impact. The City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance would not permit any mineral extraction on or within the vicinity of the project site. Further, the site is not designated as area with known mineral resources.
No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study. 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?
No Impact. Refer to Response 14.12a, above. No impact would occur. This would be consistent with the 2007 Initial Study.
Based on the foregoing analysis and information, there is no evidence that the project would require a major change to the 2007 Initial Study. The project would not result in any new significant impact, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of impacts from that described in the 2007 Initial Study result.
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1404
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -36- City of Escondido, California Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mit. Less than Significant Impact No Impact
14.13 NOISE. Would the project:
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?
2007 Initial Study
The Noise Element in the City's General Plan contains noise policies which outline acceptable noise levels associated with each type of land use. A 60 dBA CNEL exposure is considered normally acceptable for exterior residential land uses and 45 dBA CNEL for interior levels based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.
The City requires that noise levels be presented in terms of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL is a weighted sound level during a 24-hour period, after the addition of 5 decibels (dB) to average sound levels at evening hours (7 PM to 10 PM) and 10 dB to the average night hours (10 PM to 7 AM). The addition of 5 and 10 dB is applied to account for noise sensitivity during evening and nighttime hours.
To assess future noise generation associated with the improvement of the City's circulation system, a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared in August 2000 for the Escondido General Plan Update illustrating existing and future noise contours. Noise levels depicted for the site show the exposure levels for the entire subject site at below the 60 CNEL standard contained in the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines of the General Plan. Therefore, the exposure to exterior noise levels is within acceptable levels and with proper design of the future residential units, it is anticipated that the exposure to interior noise will also be within acceptable levels. Therefore, no significant long-term noise impacts associated with the development are anticipated.
Future grading and construction on the site would create temporary noise impacts. Modem construction equipment, properly used and maintained, would meet the noise limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance. All noise generated by the project would be required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance.
Upon completion of the project, all construction noise from the project will cease. Because construction operations would be required to conform to the City's Noise Ordinance and because construction noise is temporary, no significant impact from construction noise is anticipated.
Proposed Project
Regulatory Standards.
State Standards. The State of California has adopted noise compatibility guidelines for general land use planning. Land uses addressed by the State standards and the acceptable noise categories for each land use Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1405
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -37- City of Escondido, California are included in the State of California General Plan Guidelines, which is published and updated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The level of acceptability of the noise environment is dependent upon the activity associated with the particular land use. According to the State, an exterior noise environment up to 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is “normally acceptable” for single and multi-family residential uses, up to 75 CNEL is “conditionally acceptable” with special noise insulation requirements, while 75 CNEL and above is identified as "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for residential uses. The maximum allowable interior noise level for residential structures is 45 CNEL.
California Green Building Code. Section 5.507.4.2 of the 2019 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) stipulates that for buildings exposed to a noise level of 65 dB or more when measured as a 1-hour Equivalent Sound Level (Leq), the building façade, including walls, windows, and roofs, shall provide enough sound insulation so that the interior sound level from exterior sources does not exceed 50 dBA during any hour of operation. This applies to non-residential occupancies only. For renovation projects, the requirement only applies to the portion of the project within the scope of the renovation.
California Building Code. Section 1206.4 Allowable Interior Noise Levels of California Building Code 2022, the interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric shall be either the day-night average sound level (Ldn) or the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) consistent with noise element of the local general plan.
City of Escondido Municipal Code. The City’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 17, Article 12. Noise Abatement and Control of the Escondido Municipal Code prohibits the making of disturbing, excessive, offensive or unusually loud noises within the City limits. Excessive noise is considered as a detriment to public health, comfort, convenience, safety, welfare, and prosperity of City residents. Table 3-5 provides Section 17.229(a) sound limit levels for stationary sources at any point on or beyond the boundaries of the property from where the sound is originated according to land use type and a permitted time of day.
According to Section 17.234(a-e), construction activities may not exceed more than one hour of 75 dB sound levels and are limited to Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, as stated in Section 17.242 (a), the City Manager may waive any or all of the provisions of this subsection in cases where a variance was obtained, and vehicles or equipment used are reduced to the lowest sounds levels while conducting effective operations Table 3 shows the sound level limits based on the district zones. The above regulatory standards for the project are summarized in Table 3:
Table 3
Sound Level Limits Based on District Zones
Base District Zone Time Applicable Limit – One
Hour Average Sound Level
(decibels)
Residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 45
Multi-residential Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 50
Commercial Zones 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 55
Light Industrial/Industrial
Park
Anytime 70*
General Industrial Zones Anytime 75*
+ - Subject to provisions of Section 17-229 (c)(5).
City of Escondido General Plan Community Protection Element. As shown on Page VI-22 of the General Plan Community Protection Element, 24-hour average (Ldn or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) noise levels ranging between 50 and 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) are normally acceptable for residential uses. Noise levels ranging between 60 and 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable assuming the 45 dBA interior standard can be met. As shown in Figure VI-14, a project-related increase in ambient noise levels, when ambient conditions reach 65 dBA CNEL, is significant if it is 3 dBA or higher.
Vibration Standard and Guidelines. Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"
1406
Item8.
Initial Study Addendum -38- City of Escondido, California buildings, structures and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of PPV which describes particle movement over time (in terms of physical displacement of mass). Vibration can impact people, structures, and sensitive equipment groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and other high impact demolition and excavation-related activities. Grading also has the potential to cause short-term vibration impacts if large bulldozers, loaded trucks, or other heavy equipment operate within proximity to sensitive land uses. Use of the PPV descriptor is common when addressing potential impacts to structures. Per Caltrans standards, excessive ground-borne vibration would occur if construction-related ground-borne vibration exceeds the “severe” vibration annoyance potential criteria for human receptors of 0.4 inch per second PPV or the damage potential criteria to older residential structures of 0.3 inch per second PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent construction sources.
a) Would the project cause 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?
Temporary Construction Noise
Less than Significant Impact. During construction, equipment will be audible at off-site receivers. The closest is located near the center of the development area approximately 35 feet from the property boundary and 150 feet from the center of site. Noise levels associated with the use of common construction equipment are shown in Table 4. As shown, the maximum noise level for all the equipment that could be used on-site would exceed the 75 dBA standard referenced in Chapter 17-234 of the Escondido Municipal Code at 50 feet.
However, the code assumes a one-hour average (Leq) noise levels. Heavy equipment would not operate continuously at the same time and in the same location. Assuming, three pieces of equipment (i.e., scraper, loader and truck) are operating at 75, 100 and 150 feet from the nearest receiver over a one-hour period, the Leq would be 74.2 dBA which is less than the 75 dBA Leq standard. As stated in the 2007 Initial Study, the project would meet construction noise requirements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4
Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Onsite
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 50
Feet from the
Source
Typical Maximum
Level (dBA) 100 Feet
from the Source
Usage Factor
Air Compressor 78 72 40%
Backhoe 78 72 40%
Bobcat Tractor 84 78 40%
Resolution No. 2026-90
Exhibit "C"