Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
Methodology
Literature Review
Prior to conducting the field study, species and habitat information was gathered a literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the project site. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project were determined through a query of the CDFWs CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special-status species published by CDFW, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings for the El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. These two quadrangles were queried due to the proximity of the project site to quadrangle boundaries and regional topography.
All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project site were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred on the project site that would otherwise limit the distribution of special-status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special-status and non-special-status biological resources, as well as the following resources:
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1985-2024); • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey2
;
• USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI);
The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring on the project site. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and determine the distance from the project.
Field Investigation
Following the literature review, biologist Jacob H. Lloyd Davies inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within a 200-foot buffer around the project site, where applicable, on April 30, 2024. Plant communities identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects through the plant communities and along boundaries between plant communities. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field survey.
All plant and wildlife species observed, as well as dominant plant species within each plant community, 2 A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources.
May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
were recorded. Plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field. Unusual and less familiar plant species were photographed during the field survey and identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. Wildlife detections were made through observation of scat, trails, tracks, burrows, nests, and/or visual and aural observation. In addition, site characteristics such as soil condition, topography, hydrology, anthropogenic disturbances, indicator species, condition of on-site plant communities, and presence of potential jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were noted.
Soil Series Assessment
On-site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field survey using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for San Diego County Area, California. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the project site has undergone.
Plant Communities
The plant communities were evaluated for their potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species.
Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography.
The plant communities were classified in accordance with Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009) and delineated on an aerial photograph, and then digitized into ArcGIS. The ArcGIS application was used to compute the area of each plant community in acres.
Plants
Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less-familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only).
Wildlife
Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey included The Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well-standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names in this report (first reference only).
Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands
Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land- May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the project site.
Topography and Soils
The project site occurs at an elevation of approximately 331 to 336 feet above mean sea level and is generally flat with no areas of topographic relief. The area surrounding the site slopes marginally from south to north towards the San Diego River.
Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site is entirely by Grangeville sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes). Soils underlying the site have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from historic agricultural land uses and ongoing routine weed abatement activities.
Existing Site Condition
The project site occurs in a primarily developed area that historically supported agricultural land uses and rural agricultural communities. Presently, the site is bounded in all directions by existing commercial and institutional development and paved roadways. The site itself supports developed land and undeveloped, vacant land that has been subject to several decades of weed abatement activities following several decades of agricultural land uses.
Vegetation
Due to historic and ongoing land uses, no natural plant communities are present within or adjacent to the project site. The project site supports one (1) plant community: non-native grassland. In addition, the site supports one (1) land cover type that would be classified as developed (refer to Exhibit 3, Vegetation). Refer to Attachment C, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs.
The majority of the project site supports a non-native grassland plant community that is dominated by non-native grass species such as slim oat (Avena barbata), wildoats (Avena fatua), rescue grass (Bromus catharticus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordaceus), foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis), and red brome (Bromus rubens), and primarily supports non-native weedy/early successional species. Other common species observed in this plant community include fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), nettle leaf goosefoot (Chenopodium murale), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), sacred datura (Datura wrightii), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), Italian rye (Festuca perennis),Crete weed (Hedypnois rhagadioloides), mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), scarlet pimpernel (Lysimachia arvensis), cheese weed (Malva parviflora), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), burclover (Medicago polymorpha), yellow sweetclover (Melilotus indicus), stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus).
Developed land generally encompasses all buildings/structures and paved or otherwise impervious surfaces.
The western and eastern boundaries of the project site generally support paved roadways associated with adjacent developments.
May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
Wildlife
Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the project site. The discussion is to be used as a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field survey was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation.
Fish
No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., perennial creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) that would provide suitable habitat for local fish species were observed within the project site. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur, and all are presumed to be absent.
Amphibians
No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features that would provide suitable habitat for local amphibian species were observed within the project site. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur, and all are presumed to be absent.
Reptiles
The project site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for local reptilian species that are adapted to routine disturbance and development. Reptiles observed during the field investigation include and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes) and common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Other common reptilian species that could be expected to occur on-site include San Diego alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbii).
Birds
The project site provides limited foraging and nesting habitat for resident and seasonal avian species that are adapted to routine disturbance and development. Avian species detected during the field survey include Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), lesser goldfinch (Sprinus psaltria), northern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Bewick's wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
Mammals
The project site provides limited foraging and cover habitat for local mammalian species that are adapted to routine disturbance and development. Mammalian species observed/detected during the field investigation include desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) and pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Other common mammalian species that could be expected to occur include coyote (Canis latrans), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and black rat (Rattus rattus). No bat species are expected to roost on-site due to the lack of suitable roosting opportunities; however, the site provides suitable foraging habitat for local bat species that might roost nearby.
May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
Nesting Birds and Raptors
No active nests were observed on-site during the field investigation; however, several active nests were observed in adjacent ornamental landscaping. The project site and surrounding area support suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area.
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction.
Migratory Corridors and Linkages
Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development.
Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources.
The project site has not been identified as supporting a wildlife migratory corridor or linkage. The nearest corridor/linkage to the site occurs approximately 500 feet to the north within the San Diego River, beyond existing commercial development and associated parking lots. The site is bounded exclusively by development and managed ornamental landscaping, which are not expected to provide suitable movement opportunities for local wildlife species. Further, the site itself does not support any natural plant communities capable of providing such opportunities. As such, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact to wildlife movement opportunities or prevent local wildlife movement through the area.
Jurisdictional Areas
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The USFWS NWI and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset were reviewed to determine if any blueline streams or riverine resources have been documented on the project site. Based on this review, no blueline streams or freshwater resources have been mapped as occurring on-site. The nearest mapped features to the site are a Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland located approximately 60 feet to the east and a Freshwater Emergent Wetland located approximately 180 feet to the west; however, these features were mapped using imagery from 1985 and the corresponding areas are presently developed.
May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the project site during the field investigation. Further, no blueline streams have been recorded on the project site. Therefore, development of the project will not result in impacts to Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW jurisdiction and regulatory approvals will not be required.
It should be noted that a topographic low spot was observed traversing the northern portion of the site from east to west. This area only supports water in response to direct precipitation and no ordinary high-water mark, flow indicators, or riparian vegetation was observed. No water was observed during the field investigation. Vegetation within the swale was consistent with that observed in the non-native grassland plant community that dominates the site and no riparian or wetland plant species were observed. Therefore, this feature would not be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW.
Special-Status Biological Resources
The CNDDB was queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as natural communities of special concern in the El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. These two quadrangles were queried due to the proximity of the site to quadrangle boundaries and regional topography. A search of published records was conducted using the CDFW BIOS database and the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California that supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants in the vicinity of the project site. The habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the project site to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species.
The literature search identified thirty-five (35) special-status plant species and sixty-seven (67) special-status wildlife species as having potential to occur within the El Cajon USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. No special-status plant communities were identified as occurring within this quadrangle. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site based on habitat requirements, availability, and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Species determined to have the potential to occur within the general vicinity of the project site are presented in Attachment D:
Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources.
Special-Status Plants
According to the CNDDB and CNPS, thirty-five (35) special-status plant species have been recorded in the El Cajon quadrangles. No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the field investigation.
Based on habitat requirements for specific species, the availability and quality of on-site habitats, and known occurrences, it was determined that the project site does not have the potential to support any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the vicinity and all are presumed to be absent.
Special-Status Wildlife
According to the CNDDB, sixty-seven (67) special-status wildlife species have been reported in the El Cajon quadrangles. No special-status wildlife species were observed during the field investigation. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that project site has a high potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). It was further determined that the project site does not have potential to support the remainder of special-status wildlife species known to occur in the vicinity, and all are presumed to be absent.
May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
None of the aforementioned species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure impacts to special-status avian species do not occur from implementation of the proposed project, a pre-construction clearance survey is recommended to be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of the pre-construction clearance survey, impacts to special-status species will be less than significant and no mitigation will be required.
Critical Habitat
Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat.
The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a CWA Permit from the Corps). If there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS.
The project site is not located within any federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest federally designated Critical Habitat to the site is located approximately 0.27 mile to the west for least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Refer to Exhibit 4, Critical Habitat. Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat will not occur as a result of the proposed project and consultation with the USFWS will not be required for impacts to Critical Habitat.
San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan
The project is site is located within the Santee Subarea Plan of the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The MSCP Subregional Plan Area is located in the southwestern portion of the San Diego region and includes the City of Santee, portions of the unincorporated County of San Diego, and the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, and Poway. The MSCP Subregional Plan is a comprehensive long-term program designed to create, manage, and monitor an ecosystem preserve that will support viable populations of native plant and animal species and their habitats in perpetuity in accordance with the State Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The MSCP Subregional Plan also accommodates continued economic development and quality of life amenities such as open space and passive recreational opportunities for residents within the appropriate areas. The MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented through local Subarea Plans.
The City of Santee has prepared a draft Subarea Plan to address the implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan within the jurisdictional boundary of Santee, which is located east of the City of San Diego and north of El Cajon. As of 2023, five jurisdictions included in the MSCP Subregional Plan have prepared and implemented MSCP Subarea Plans, including the County of San Diego and cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, La Mesa, and Poway. The draft Santee Subarea Plan has been prepared pursuant to the Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
May 20, 2024
requirements of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the State Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, and section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
The Draft Santee Subarea Plan (2023) was prepared in affiliation with the MSCP, but has not been formally adopted; however, applicable provisions of the plan are implemented, to the extent practical, when conducting environmental review for development projects in Santee. It should be noted that the project site is not located within any hardline or softline focused planning areas identified by the MSCP.
Further, all undeveloped areas supported by the project site have been subject to significant disturbances from historic agricultural land uses and ongoing weed abatement regimes, and no natural plant communities are present. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will be consistent with the MSCP, and no further surveys will be required.
Conclusion
Based on the literature review and field survey, and existing site conditions discussed in this report, implementation of the project will have no significant impacts on federally or State listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat, or regional wildlife corridors/linkage because none exists within the area. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the project site during the field investigation. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the recommendations provided below, no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents or special-status species will occur from implementation of the proposed project.
Recommendations
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code
Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season.
If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the May 20, 2024
Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway
Biological Resources Assessment
buffer area can occur.
Please do not hesitate to contact Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or [email protected], or Jacob Lloyd Davies at [email protected] should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Travis J. McGill | Director Jacob H. Lloyd Davies | Associate Biologist Attachments:
A. Project Exhibits
B. Site Plan
C. Site Photographs
D. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources E. Regulations
Attachment A
Project Exhibits
Regional Vicinity
MISSION GORGE AND TOWN CENTER
Exhibit 1
O
Source: USA Topographic Map, San Diego County
^_
PROJECT
LOCATION
0 625 1,250 2,500
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Project Site
MISSION GORGE AND TOWN CENTER
Exhibit 2
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Diego County
0 62.5 125 250
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Vegetation
MISSION GORGE AND TOWN CENTER
Exhibit 3
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Diego County
0 62.5 125 250
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Non-Native Grassland
Developed
Critical Habitat
MISSION GORGE AND TOWN CENTER
Exhibit 4
O
Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, USFWS Critical Habitat, San Diego County 0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
Project Site
Least Bell's vireo
Attachment B
Site Plan
EXISTING POST OFFICE N.A.P. EXISTING WALMART PARKING N.A.P. ±480' 27.3'
43.0'
±441' ±432' 60' 48' 5' 5' 26' 32.5'
43.0'
30.0' 21.2'
36.0' 21.2'
13'
14'
14'
30'
26'
14'
14' 32'
22'
15'
30'
20' EXISTING LOWE'S N.A.P. Existing Access Road Existing Access Road 10' Side Setback Open Space ±4,000sf Existing Easements to be Confirmed 14' Paseos (typ) ±3,000sf 5' 22'
30'
14'
14' Perimeter Wall 13' 16' 16' 16' 12' 12' 30' 13.2'
30.0' REA 10' 20' 15' 4' Sidewalk Trail connects to River Park Perimeter Wall 4' 13' 18' 14' 10'
30' Landscaping along Existing Access Road (typ)
16' Green Court ±4,000sf (min 20') Green Court ±3,000sf (min 20') Green Court ±3,000sf (min 20') 13'-15' Paseo ±5,000sf Architecture + Planning 17911 Von Karman Ave, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92614 949.851.2133 ktgy.com # MISSION GORGE & TOWN CENTER SANTEE, CA 2023-0935 KB HOME CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN APRIL 8, 2024 0 20 40 80 SITE INFORMATION APN: 381-040-30-00 City: Santee, CA County: San Diego County General Plan: Town Center Current Zoning: R-22 (22-30du/ac) Town Center Specific Plan, Lower Income Housing Opportunity Site State Density Bonus Law Parking: 1bd: 1.0 sp/unit 2bd: 1.5 sp/unit 3bd: 1.5 sp/unit 4bd: 2.5 sp/unit R-22 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Setbacks: Front: 10' Street Side: 10' Interior Side: 10' Rear: 10' Building Height: 40'; 3-story Coverage: 70% Parking: 1bd: 1.75 sp/unit 2bd+: 2.25 sp/unit Private Open Space: 60sf/unit Common Open Space: 100sf/unit A minimum of 50% of the required common open space must be consolidated in one area with a minimum dimension (width and length) of 20 feet; however, a minimum of 500 sq. ft. of common open space in one area with a minimum dimension (width and length) of 20 feet must be provided. Recreation Area/Facility: For all development within the R-7, R-14, R-22 and R-30 districts, the developer shall provide recreational amenities in conjunction with common open space. SITE SUMMARY Gross Site Area: ±5.26 ac Development Area*: ±3.7 ac (*site minus access road dedications and easements) Units: 6 units - Plan X (13'x30' - single car) 4 units - Plan 1 (1140sf – 2bd/2.5ba) 4 units - Plan 2 (1220sf – 2bd/2.5ba) 20 units - Plan 3x (1492sf - 3bd/3ba, tandem) 20 units - Plan 4x (1644sf - 4bd/3.5ba, sxs) 34 units - Plan 5 (21'x30' - Xbd, sxs) 27 units - Plan 6 (21'x36' - 4bd, sxs) 115 units - Total Development Density: ±30.5 du/ac Parking Provided: 224 spaces - Garages 30 spaces - Open 254 spaces - Total Common Open Space Required: 11,300sf (100sf/unit)* *A minimum of 50% of the required common open space must be consolidated in one area with min dimension of 20' Common Open Space Provided: ±28,000sf (±240sf/unit) OPTION 3g Attachment C
Site Photographs
Attachment C – Site Photographs
Photograph 1: From the northwest corner of the project site looking south along the western boundary.
Photograph 2: From the northwest corner of the project site looking east along the northern boundary.
Attachment C – Site Photographs
Photograph 3: From the northeast corner of the project site looking west along the northern boundary.
Photograph 4: From the northeast corner of the project site looking south along the eastern boundary.
Attachment C – Site Photographs
Photograph 5: From the southeast corner of the project site looking north along the eastern boundary.
Photograph 6: From the southeast corner of the project site looking west along the southern boundary.
Attachment C – Site Photographs
Photograph 7: From the southwest corner of the project site looking east along the southern boundary.
Photograph 8: From the southwest corner of the project looking north along the western boundary.
Attachment C – Site Photographs
Photograph 9: Looking east along the northern boundary of the project site along the topographic low spot.
Photograph 10: Culvert near the northwest corner of the project site that connects into the underground storm drain system.
Attachment D
Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper’s hawk
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Generally found in forested areas up to 3,000 feet in
elevation, especially near edges and rivers. Prefers
hardwood stands and mature forests but can be found in
urban and suburban areas where there are tall trees for nesting. Common in open areas during nesting season.
No
High
Suitable foraging habitat is
present within and surrounding
the project site. No suitable
nesting opportunities are
present onsite. This species is
adapted to urban environments
and occurs commonly.
Accipiter striatus
sharp-shinned hawk
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Found in pine, fir and aspen forests. They can be found hunting in forest interior and edges from sea level to near alpine areas. Can also be found in rural, suburban and
agricultural areas, where they often hunt at bird feeders.
Typically found in southern California in the winter months.
No
Low
Suitable foraging habitat is
present within and surrounding
the project site. This species
does not nest in the region.
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
Fed:
CA:
None
THR/SSC
Range is limited to the coastal areas of the Pacific coast of North America, from Northern California to upper Baja
California. Can be found in a wide variety of habitat
including annual grasslands, wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands, agricultural fields, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Occasionally forage in riparian scrub habitats along marsh borders. Basic habitat requirements for breeding include open accessible water, protected nesting substrate (freshwater marsh dominated by cattails, willows, and
bulrushes), and either flooded or thorny or spiny vegetation and suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Aimophila ruficeps canescens
southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Typically found between 3,000 and 6,000 feet in elevation.
Breed in sparsely vegetated scrubland on hillsides and
canyons. Prefers coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), but they can also be found breeding in coastal bluff scrub, low-growing serpentine chaparral, and along the edges of tall chaparral habitats.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Occurs in grassland, upland meadow, pasture, hayfield, and old field habitats. Optimal habitat contains short- to
medium-height bunch grasses interspersed with patches of bare ground, a shallow litter layer, scattered forbs, and few shrubs. May inhabit thickets, weedy lawns, vegetated
landfills, fence rows, open fields, or grasslands.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Anaxyrus californicus
arroyo toad
Fed:
CA:
END
SSC
Occurs in semi-arid regions near washes or intermittent streams, including valley-foothill grasslands, desert riparian, desert washes, and oak woodlands. Breeding habitat consists of shallow streams with a mixture of sandy and gravelly substrate and sandy terraces. Generally requires mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) and willow (Salix sp.) in the
streambed for vegetative canopy for breeding areas and
forages for insects primarily under oak (Quercus sp.),
cottonwood (Populus fremontii), and sycamore (Platanus
racemosa) trees. Occurs at elevations from near sea level to about 4,600 feet above msl.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Anniella stebbinsi
southern California legless lizard
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Occurs primarily in areas with sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation of beaches, chaparral, or pine-oak woodland; or near sycamores, oaks, or cottonwoods that
grow on stream terraces. Often found under or in the close vicinity of logs, rocks, old boards, and the compacted debris of woodrat nests.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Locally common species of low elevation in California.
Occurs in grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
Fed:
CA:
None
FP, WL
Occupies nearly all terrestrial habitats of the western states except densely forested areas. Favors secluded cliffs with overhanging ledges and large trees for nesting and cover.
Hilly or mountainous country where takeoff and soaring are supported by updrafts is generally preferred to flat habitats.
Deeply cut canyons rising to open mountain slopes and crags are ideal habitat.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Ardea alba
great egret
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Yearlong resident throughout California, except for the high mountains and deserts. Feeds and rests in fresh and saline emergent wetlands, along the margins of estuaries, lakes, and slow-moving streams, on mudflats and salt ponds, and in irrigated croplands and pastures.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Fairly common all year throughout most of California, in shallow estuaries and fresh and saline emergent wetlands.
Less common along riverine and rocky marine shores, in
croplands, pastures, and in mountains about foothills. Nests colonially in tall trees (typically Eucalyptus sp.), on cliffsides, or in isolated spots in marshes.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy snake
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Occurs in a wide variety of habitat types including open desert, grasslands, shrublands, chaparral, and woodlands.
Prefers areas where the soil is loose and sandy which allows for burrowing.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Artemisiospiza belli belli
Bell's sage sparrow
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Generally prefers semi-open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs 1 – 2 meters in height. Dry chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Less common in tall dense, old chaparral.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
orangethroat whiptail
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Semi-arid brushy areas typically with loose soil and rocks, including washes, stream sides, rocky hillsides, and coastal chaparral. They are typically found in hot, dry, flat open spaces. Typically, they are seen on the ground running in open spots from bush to bush, but rarely climbing on rocks or vegetation.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found in a variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse foliage such as chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
Fed:
CA:
None
CE
Colonial species that lives almost exclusively from coastal California east towards the Sierra-Cascade Crest and can be found uncommonly in western Nevada and south through
Baja California. Inhabits grassland and scrub habitats in hotter and drier climates than most other bumblebee species and is only capable of tolerating a narrow range of climatic conditions. This species usually nests underground, often in abandoned rodent dens.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Bombus pensylvanicus
American bumble bee
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Prefers farmlands, meadows, grasslands, and open fields.
Nests below grass or underground. Feeds on pollen of a wide variety of flowering plants including vetches, clovers, goldenrods, and many crop species.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy shrimp
Fed:
CA:
END
None
Habitat is restricted to vernal pools along coastal southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico.
Usually observed from January to March during seasonal
rainfall events.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Occurs primarily in open grasslands and fields, but may be found in sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills, or along the edges of pinyon-juniper woodland. Feeds primarily on small mammals and typically found in agricultural or open fields.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Buteo swainsoni
Swainson’s hawk
Fed:
CA:
None
THR
Typical habitat is open desert, grassland, or cropland
containing scattered, large trees or small groves. Breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, and in oak savannah in the Central Valley. Forages in adjacent grassland or suitable grain or alfalfa fields or livestock pastures.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Calypte costae
Costa’s hummingbird
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Desert and semi-desert, arid brushy foothills and chaparral.
A desert hummingbird that breeds in the Sonoran and
Mojave Deserts. Departs desert heat moving into chaparral, scrub, and woodland habitats.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus wren
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found in arid and semi-arid habitats with a high occurrence of cactus and spiny trees. Nests almost exclusively in prickly pear and cholla cactus.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Chaetodipus californicus femoralis
Dulzura pocket mouse
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Occurs in desert and coastal habitats in southern California, Mexico, and northern Baja California, from sea level to at least 1,400 meters. Found in a variety of temperate habitats ranging from chaparral and grasslands to scrub forests and deserts. Requires low growing vegetation or rocky
outcroppings, as well as sandy soils for burrowing.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Occurs in desert and coastal habitats in southern California, Mexico, and northern Baja California, from sea level to at least 1,400 meters above msl. Found in a variety of temperate habitats ranging from chaparral and grasslands to scrub forests and deserts. Requires low growing vegetation or rocky outcroppings, as well as sandy soils for burrowing.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Chaetura vauxi
Vaux’s swift
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Prefers redwood and Douglas-fir habitats with nest-sites in large hollow trees and snags, especially tall, burned-out snags. Fairly common migrant throughout most of the state in April and May, and August and September.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Choeronycteris mexicana
Mexican long-tongued bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found in deep canyons in small, insular mountain ranges.
Can be found in desert scrub, tropical deciduous, and mixed pine-oak forest. Roosts in caves and mines, and less
commonly in buildings and culverts.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert
sinks, fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands; seldom found in wooded areas. Mostly found in flat, or hummocky, open areas of tall, dense grasses moist or dry shrubs, and edges for nesting, cover, and feeding.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Coleonyx variegatus abbotti
San Diego banded gecko
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Occurs in coastal and cismontane southern California from interior Ventura County south, although it is absent from the extreme outer coast. It is uncommon in coastal scrub and chaparral, most often occurring in granite or rocky outcrops in these habitats.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend’s big-eared bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found typically in montane forests; at higher elevations, the surrounding vegetation is subalpine. Roosts most commonly in caves, cliffs, and rock ledges but have been found in abandoned mines and other man-made structures.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Shallow marshes, and wet meadows; in winter, drier fresh-water and brackish marshes, as well as dense, deep grass, and rice fields.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
It can be found from the desert, through dense chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the mountains above around 4,000 feet), to warm inland mesas and valleys, all the way to the cool ocean shore. It is most commonly associated with
heavy brush with large rocks or boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills, cactus or boulder associated coastal sage scrub, oak and pine woodlands, and desert slope scrub
associations are known to carry populations of the northern red-diamond rattlesnake; however, chamise and red shank associations may offer better structural habitat for refuges and food resources for this species than other habitats.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Danaus plexippus plexippus pop. 1
monarch – California overwintering
population
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Occurs in open fields and meadows dominated by
milkweed. In winter, species can be found on the coast of southern California in Eucalyptus groves and at high
altitudes in central Mexico.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Diadophis punctatus similis
San Diego ringneck snake
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Prefers moist habitats, including wet meadows, rocky
hillsides, gardens, farmland, grassland, chaparral, mixed coniferous forests, and woodlands.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Egretta thula
snowy egret
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Widespread in California along shores of coastal estuaries, fresh and saline emergent wetlands, ponds, slow-moving
rivers, irrigation ditches, and wet fields. In southern California, common yearlong in the Imperial Valley and
along the Colorado River.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
Fed:
CA:
None
FP
Common in savannas, open woodlands, marshes, desert
grasslands, partially cleared lands, and cultivated fields.
Tend to avoid heavily cleared or grazed areas. Breeds in lowland grasslands, agricultural wetlands, oak-woodland and savannah habitats.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow flycatcher
Fed:
CA:
END
END
Occurs in riparian woodlands in southern California.
Typically requires large areas of willow thickets in broad valleys, canyon bottoms, or around ponds and lakes. These areas typically have standing or running water or are at least moist.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation, either rocky or muddy bottoms, in woodland, forest, and grassland. In
streams, prefers pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are required for basking. May enter brackish water and even seawater. Found at elevations from sea level to over 5,900 feet (1,800 m).
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Eugnosta busckana
Busck’s gallmoth
Fed:
CA:
None
None Inhabits coastal scrub dunes. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Primarily a cliff-dwelling species, roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs. Roosts are generally high above the ground, usually allowing a clear vertical drop of at least 3 meters below the entrance for flight. In California, it is most frequently encountered in broad open areas. Its foraging habitat includes dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and agricultural areas.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Euphydryas editha quino
quino checkerspot butterfly
Fed:
CA:
END
None
Range is now limited to a few populations in Riverside and San Diego counties. Common in meadows and upland sage
scrub/chapparal habitat.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
Fed:
CA:
DL
DL, FP
Uncommon winter resident of the inland region of southern California. Active nesting sites are known along the coast north of Santa Barbara, in the Sierra Nevada, and in other mountains of northern California. Breeds mostly in
woodland, forest, and coastal habitats. Riparian areas and coastal and inland wetlands are important habitats yearlong, especially in nonbreeding seasons.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Primarily found in tall, dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well-developed understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds. Breeding habitat must be dense to provide
shade and concealment. It winters south the Central
America.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Prefers open habitats with bare ground, scattered shrubs, and areas with low or sparse herbaceous cover including open-canopied valley foothill hardwood, riparian, pinyon-juniper, desert riparian, creosote bush scrub, and Joshua tree woodland. Requires suitable perches including trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Larus californicus
California gull
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Require isolated islands in rivers, reservoirs and natural lakes for nesting, where predations pressures from
terrestrial mammals are diminished. Uses both fresh and saline aquatic habitats at variable elevations and degrees of aridity for nesting and for opportunistic foraging.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Roosts in palm trees in foothill riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats with access to water for foraging. No Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Lepus californicus bennettii
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found in diverse habitats, but primarily is found in arid regions supporting shortgrass habitats. Openness of open scrub habitat is preferred over dense chaparral.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Lycaena hermes
Hermes copper butterfly
Fed:
CA:
THR
None
Occupies cismontane woodland, California coastal sage
scrub, and chaparral habitats with a high occurrence of its host plant, spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea). Typically
restricted to canyon bottoms and north-facing hillsides, with host and nectar plants intermixed or in close proximity.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Myotis yumanensis
Yuma myotis
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Found in forests and woodlands near water. Roosts in
caves, buildings, mines, and crevices. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Nannopterum auritum
double-crested cormorant
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Common yearlong resident in southern California. Occurs widely in freshwater and marine habitats along coastlines.
Require open water where they can forage for schooling fish.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Neotoma lepida intermedia
San Diego desert woodrat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Occurs in coastal scrub communities between San Luis
Obispo and San Diego Counties. Prefers moderate to dense canopies, and especially rocky outcrops.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Nycticorax nycticorax
black-crowned night heron
Fed:
CA:
None
None
Fairly common, yearlong resident in lowlands and foothills throughout most of California, including the Salton Sea and Colorado River areas, and very common locally in large
nesting colonies. Feeds along the margins of lacustrine, large riverine, and fresh and saline emergent habitats and rarely, on kelp beds in marine sub tidal habitats. Nests and roosts in dense-foliaged trees and dense emergent wetlands.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Nyctinomops femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Prefers open lowland areas near water in arid or semi-arid habitats including deserts and scrublands including pinyon-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, desert succulent shrub, desert riparian, desert wash, alkali desert scrub, Joshua tree, and palm oasis. Colonial roosting sites include caves, mines, and rock crevices, and to a lesser extent, buildings, bridges, and trees.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Inhabits rugged, rocky habitats in arid landscapes. Found in a variety of plant associations including desert shrub, woodlands, and evergreen forests. Associated with lowlands.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Onychomys torridus ramona
southern grasshopper mouse
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Inhabits alkali desert scrub and other desert scrub habitats, and to a lesser extent succulent shrubs, desert washes, desert riparian, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and sagebrush habitats. Generally rare in valley foothill and montane riparian habitats. Prefers low to moderate shrub cover and requires friable soils.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Pandion haliaetus
osprey
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Associated strictly with large, fish-bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine through mixed conifer habitats. Uses large trees, snags, and dead-topped trees in open forest habitats for cover and nesting. Requires open, clear waters for foraging and uses rivers, lakes, reservoirs, bays, estuaries, and surf zones.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos
American white pelican
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Locally common winter resident of southern California.
Typically forage in shallow inland waters, such as open areas in marshes and along lake or river edges. Also occur in shallow coastal marine habitats.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Found in a wide variety of vegetation types including
coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak
woodland, riparian woodland and coniferous forest. In
inland areas, this species is restricted to areas with pockets of open microhabitat, created by disturbance (i.e. fire, floods, roads, grazing, fire breaks). The key elements of such habitats are loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction; an abundance of native ants or other insects; and open areas with limited overstory for basking and low, but relatively dense shrubs for refuge.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis
Coronado skink
Fed:
CA:
None
WL
Occurs in grassland, chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodland, juniper sage woodland, pine-oak forests, and pine forests in the Coast Ranges. Prefers early successional stages or open areas and is usually found in rocky areas close to streams or on dry hillsides.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Polioptila californica californica
coastal California gnatcatcher
Fed:
CA:
THR
SSC
Obligate resident of sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). This species generally occurs below 750 feet elevation in coastal regions and below 1,500 feet inland. Ranges from the Ventura
County, south to San Diego County and northern Baja
California and it is less common in sage scrub with a high percentage of tall shrubs. Prefers habitat with more low-growing vegetation.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Pooecetes gramineus affinis
Oregon vesper sparrow
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Occupies open areas with short, sparse grass and scattered shrubs including old fields, pastures, weedy fence lines and roadsides, hayfields, and native grasslands. In the West, Vesper Sparrows breed in mountain meadows, grassy mesas, and sagebrush steppe up to 9,800 feet.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
coast patch-nosed snake
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Inhabits semi-arid brushy areas and chaparral in canyons, rocky hillsides, and plains. Requires friable soils for burrowing.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Setophaga petechia
yellow warbler
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Nests over all of California except the Central Valley, the Mojave Desert region, and high altitudes and the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. Winters along the Colorado River and in parts of Imperial and Riverside Counties. Nests in riparian areas dominated by willows, cottonwoods,
sycamores, or alders or in mature chaparral. May also use oaks, conifers, and urban areas near stream courses.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
Fed:
CA:
PT
SSC
Prefers open areas with sandy or gravelly soils, in a variety of habitats including mixed woodlands, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, sandy washed, lowlands, river
floodplains, alluvial fans, playas, alkali flats, foothills, and mountains. Rainpools which do not contain bullfrogs, fish, or crayfish are necessary for breeding.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Taxidea taxus
American badger
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Primarily occupy grasslands, parklands, farms, tallgrass and shortgrass prairies, meadows, shrub-steppe communities
and other treeless areas with sandy loam soils where it can dig more easily for its prey. Occasionally found in open chaparral (with less than 50% plant cover) and riparian zones.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped garter snake
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
Utilizes a variety of habitats including forests, mixed woodlands, grassland, chaparral, and farmlands. Often
found near ponds, marshes, or streams.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell’s vireo
Fed:
CA:
END
END
Primarily occupy Riverine riparian habitat that typically feature dense cover within 1 -2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. Typically it is associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood-willow forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvial woodlands, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian forest, or mesquite in desert localities. It uses habitat which is limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses, 2,000 feet elevation in the interior.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
Vireo vicinior
gray vireo
Fed:
CA:
None
SSC
A common factor to the habitat type is shrub cover that forms a continuous zone of twig growth from one to five feet above the ground. Shrubbery may either be closed as in chaparral, or partly open, as in the understory of pinyon-juniper
woodland.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or near the
project site.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
San Diego thorn-mint
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
THR
END
1B.1
Clay, Openings; Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Elevation range: 35 to 3150 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego ambrosia
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
END
None
1B.1
Alkaline (sometimes), Clay (sometimes), Disturbed areas (often), Loam (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes); Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Elevation range: 65 to 1360 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Oct.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Artemisia palmeri
San Diego sagewort
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Mesic, Sandy; Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest, Riparian scrub, Riparian woodland; Elevation range: 15 to 3000 feet; Blooming period: (Feb)May-Sep.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Asplenium vespertinum
western spleenwort
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Rocky; Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 590 to 3280 feet; Blooming period: Feb-Jun.No Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site. The project site
occurs outside of the known
elevation range for this species.
Astragalus deanei
Deans milk-vetch
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.1
Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian forest; Elevation range: 245 to 2280 feet; Blooming period:
Feb-May.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Bahiopsis laciniata
San Diego County viguiera
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 195 to 2460 feet; Blooming period: Feb-Jun(Aug). No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Bloomeria clevelandii
San Diego goldenstar
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.1
Clay; Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Elevation range: 165 to 1525 feet; Blooming period: Apr-May.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt’s brodiaea
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.1
Clay, Mesic; Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Closed-cone coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Elevation range: 100 to 5550 feet; Blooming period: May-Jul.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Calandrinia breweri
Brewer’s calandrinia
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Burned areas, Disturbed areas, Loam (sometimes), Sandy (sometimes); Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 35 to 4005 feet; Blooming period: (Jan)Mar-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Castilleja plagiotoma
Mojave paintbrush
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.3 Great Basin scrub (alluvial), Joshua tree "woodland", Lower montane coniferous forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland; Elevation range: 985 to 8205 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site. The project site
occurs outside of the known
elevation range for this species.
Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.1
Alkaline; Chenopod scrub, Meadows and seeps, Playas,
Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 0 to 2100 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Sep.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Clarkia delicata
delicate clarkia
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.2
Gabbroic (often); Chaparral, Cismontane woodland;
Elevation range: 770 to 3280 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Jun.No Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site. The project site
occurs outside of the known
elevation range for this species.
Convolvulus simulans
small-flowered morning-glory
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Clay, Seeps, Serpentine; Chaparral (openings), Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 100 to 2430 feet; Blooming period: Mar-Jul.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Dudleya variegata
variegated dudleya
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.2
Clay; Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Elevation
range: 10 to 1905 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Ericameria palmeri var. palmeri
Palmer’s goldenbush
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.1
Mesic; Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 100 to 1970 feet; Blooming period: (Jul)Sep-Nov. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Ferocactus viridescens
San Diego barrel cactus
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
2B.1
Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, Vernal pools; Elevation range: 10 to 1475 feet; Blooming period: May-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Grindelia hallii
San Diego gumplant
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.2
Chaparral, Lower montane coniferous forest, Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 605 to 5725 feet; Blooming period: May-Oct.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site. The project site
occurs outside of the known
elevation range for this species.
Harpagonella palmeri
Palmer's grapplinghook
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Clay, Openings; Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 65 to 3135 feet;
Blooming period: Mar-May.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata
curving tarplant
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 195 to 3610 feet;
Blooming period: May-Nov.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens
decumbent goldenbush
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal scrub (often disturbed areas, sandy); Elevation range: 35 to 820 feet; Blooming period: Apr-Nov. No Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Iva hayesiana
San Diego marsh-elder
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
2B.2
Marshes and swamps, Playas; Elevation range: 0 to 1640
feet; Blooming period: Apr-Oct. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Juglans californica
southern California black walnut
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland; Elevation range: 165 to 2955 feet; Blooming
period: Mar-Aug.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii
southwestern spiny rush
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Coastal dunes (mesic), Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), Meadows and seeps (alkaline seeps); Elevation range: 10 to 2955 feet; Blooming period: (Mar)May-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Lathyrus splendens
pride-of-California
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.3 Chaparral; Elevation range: 655 to 5005 feet; Blooming period: Mar-Jun. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site. The project site
occurs outside of the known
elevation range for this species.
Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii
Robinson's pepper-grass
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 5 to 2905 feet; Blooming period: Jan-Jul. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Pentachaeta aurea ssp. aurea
golden-rayed pentachaeta
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest, Riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 260 to 6070 feet;
Blooming period: Mar-Jul.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Piperia cooperi
chaparral rein orchid
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 50 to 5200 feet; Blooming
period: Mar-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum
white rabbit-tobacco
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
2B.2
Gravelly, Sandy; Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland; Elevation range: 0 to 6890 feet; Blooming period: (Jul)Aug-Nov(Dec).
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Quercus dumosa
Nuttall’s scrub oak
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
1B.1
Clay, Loam, Sandy; Chaparral, Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 50 to 1310 feet; Blooming period: Feb-Apr(May-Aug).
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Sensitive Biological Resources Scientific Name
Common Name
Status Habitat
Observed
On-site
Potential to Occur
Quercus engelmannii
Engelmann’s oak
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Chaparral, Cismontane woodland, Riparian woodland,
Valley and foothill grassland; Elevation range: 165 to 4265 feet; Blooming period: Mar-Jun.
No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Romneya coulteri
Coulters Matilija poppy
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Burned areas (often); Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 65 to 3935 feet; Blooming period: Mar-Jul(Aug). No Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Selaginella cinerascens
ashy spike-moss
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.1 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 65 to 2100 feet; No Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Stipa diegoensis
San Diego County needle grass
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.2 Mesic (often), Rocky; Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 35 to 2625 feet; Blooming period: Feb-Jun. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Viguiera laciniata
San Diego County viguiera
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 195 to 2460 feet; Blooming period: Feb-Jun(Aug). No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site.
Xanthisma junceum
rush-like bristleweed
Fed:
CA:
CNPS:
None
None
4.3 Chaparral, Coastal scrub; Elevation range: 785 to 3280 feet; Blooming period: Jan-Oct. No
Presumed Absent
There is no suitable habitat
present within or adjacent to the
project site. The project site
occurs outside of the known
elevation range for this species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Fed) - Federal
END- Federal Endangered
THR- Federal Threatened
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CA) - California
END- California Endangered
THR- California Threatened
Candidate- Candidate for listing under the
California Endangered Species Act
FP- California Fully Protected
SSC- Species of Special Concern
WL- Watch List
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
California Rare Plant Rank
1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California and Elsewhere
2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California, But More Common Elsewhere
3 Plants About Which More Information is Needed –
A Review List
4 Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List
CNPS Threat Ranks
0.1- Seriously threatened in
California
0.2- Moderately threatened in
California
0.3- Not very threatened in
California
Attachment E
Regulations
Attachment E – Regulations
Special status species are native species that have been afforded special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. There are several categories of protection at both federal and state levels, depending on the magnitude of threat to continued existence and existing knowledge of population levels.
Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act of 1973
Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species. “Take” under the ESA is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The presence of any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the ESA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.
Critical Habitat is designated for the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Critical Habitat includes those areas occupied by the species, in which are found physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of an ESA listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. Critical Habitat may also include unoccupied habitat if it is determined that the unoccupied habitat is essential for the conservation of the species.
Whenever federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, they must consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highway Administration or a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)).
If USFWS determines that Critical Habitat will be adversely modified or destroyed from a proposed action, the USFWS will develop reasonable and prudent alternatives in cooperation with the federal institution to ensure the purpose of the proposed action can be achieved without loss of Critical Habitat. If the action is not likely to adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, USFWS will include a statement in its biological opinion concerning any incidental take that may be authorized and specify terms and conditions to ensure the agency is in compliance with the opinion.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 703) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, possess, or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CFR 10, 21).
Attachment E – Regulations
The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered “take.” This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests.
In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras); Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and many relatively common species.
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the protection of the environment within the State of California by establishing State policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by State lead agencies. If a project is determined to be subject to CEQA, the lead agency will be required to conduct an Initial Study (IS); if the IS determines that the project may have significant impacts on the environment, the lead agency will subsequently be required to write an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A finding of non-significant effects will require either a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of an EIR. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines “endangered” and “rare” species separately from the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under CEQA, “endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
In addition to federal laws, the state of California implements the CESA which is enforced by CDFW. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the FESA, although the provisions of each act are similar.
State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the CESA. Activities that may result in “take” of individuals (defined in CESA as; “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of “take” under CESA. Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted “take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species.
The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the Attachment E – Regulations
absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.
The CDFW has also produced a species of special concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection. At the federal level, USFWS also uses the label species of concern, as an informal term that refers to species which might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. As the Species of Concern designated by USFWS do not receive formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species will be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species.
Fish and Game Code
Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 are applicable to natural resource management.
For example, Section 3503 of the Code makes it unlawful to destroy any birds’ nest or any birds’ eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. Section 3511 of the Fish and Game Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are State fully protected by the State include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.
Native Plant Protection Act
Sections 1900–1913 of the Fish and Game Code were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance Rare and Endangered plants in the state of California. The act requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed.
California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Species Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which have no designated status under FESA or CESA are defined as follows:
California Rare Plant Rank
1A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Attachment E – Regulations
2A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere 2B- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere 3- Plants about Which More Information is Needed - A Review List 4- Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List
Threat Ranks
.1- Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2- Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
.3- Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known).
San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan
The project is site is located within the Santee Subarea Plan of the San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). The MSCP Subregional Plan Area is located in the southwestern portion of the San Diego region and includes the City of Santee, portions of the unincorporated County of San Diego, and the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, and Poway. The MSCP Subregional Plan is a comprehensive long-term program designed to create, manage, and monitor an ecosystem preserve that will support viable populations of native plant and animal species and their habitats in perpetuity in accordance with the State Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) and the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The MSCP Subregional Plan also accommodates continued economic development and quality of life amenities such as open space and passive recreational opportunities for residents within the appropriate areas. The MSCP Subregional Plan is implemented through local Subarea Plans. The City of Santee has prepared a draft Subarea Plan to address the implementation of the MSCP Subregional Plan within the jurisdictional boundary of Santee, which is located east of the City of San Diego and north of El Cajon. As of 2023, five jurisdictions included in the MSCP Subregional Plan have prepared and implemented MSCP Subarea Plans, including the County of San Diego and cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, La Mesa, and Poway. The draft Santee Subarea Plan has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the MSCP Subregional Plan, the State Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, and section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Attachment E – Regulations
There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFG regulates activities under the Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616, and the Regional Board regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Federal Regulations
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
In accordance with the Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming (September 8, 2023), “waters of the United Sates” are defined as follows:
(a) Waters of the United States means:
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters;
(2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section; (3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or (ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section (b) The following are not “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of this section:
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA; Attachment E – Regulations
(3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water;
(4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased; (5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing;
(6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; (7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.
(c) In this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
(2) Adjacent means having a continuous surface connection (3) High tide line means the line of intersection of the land with the water's surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The high tide line may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gages, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.
(4) Ordinary high water mark means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. (5) Tidal waters means those waters that rise and fall in a predictable and measurable rhythm or cycle due to the gravitational pulls of the moon and sun. Tidal waters end where the rise and fall of the water surface can no longer be practically measured in a predictable rhythm due to masking by hydrologic, wind, or other effects.
Attachment E – Regulations
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in any discharge to waters of the United States must provide certification from the State or Indian tribe in which the discharge originates. This certification provides for the protection of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters, addresses impacts to water quality that may result from issuance of federal permits, and helps insure that federal actions will not violate water quality standards of the State or Indian tribe. In California, there are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Board) that issue or deny certification for discharges to waters of the United States and waters of the State, including wetlands, within their geographical jurisdiction. The State Water Resources Control Board assumed this responsibility when a project has the potential to result in the discharge to waters within multiple Regional Boards.
State Regulations
Fish and Game Code
Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et. seq. establishes a fee-based process to ensure that projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely impact fish and wildlife resources, or, when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following:
(1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State. CDFW’s regulatory authority extends to include riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, the CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream or to the outer limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater. Notification is generally required for any project that will take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation. A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required if impacts to identified CDFW jurisdictional areas occur.
Porter Cologne Act
The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act gives the State very broad authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. The Porter-Cologne Act has become an important tool in the post SWANCC and Rapanos regulatory environment, with respect to the state’s authority over isolated and insignificant waters. Generally, any Attachment E – Regulations
person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must file a Report of Waste Discharge in the event that there is no Section 404/401 nexus. Although “waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the Regional Board also interprets this to include fill discharged into water bodies.
14010 Poway Road, Suite A, Poway, California 92064; Phone (858) 484-0915 May 31, 2024
Jesse Kleist
KB Home
9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92131
Subject: Results of a Cultural and Paleontological Due Diligence Study for the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project (APN 381-040-36), City of Santee, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. Kleist:
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company (BFSA), conducted a cultural and paleontological resources due diligence study for the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project.
This project consists of the proposed residential subdivision of an approximately 5.25-acre (gross) property (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 381-040-36). The subject property is located northwest of Town Center Parkway and Mission Gorge Road within the city of Santee, San Diego County, California. The proposed project is situated within the unsectioned El Cajon Land Grant of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) El Cajon, California (7.5-minute) topographic quadrangle (Township 15 South, Range 1 West, projected).
This due diligence study focused upon the potential of the property to contain significant archaeological, historical, and/or paleontological resources that could represent a constraint to future development. The scope of work for this assessment includes:
1) A review of existing records regarding recorded archaeological sites and fossil localities within and adjacent to the property;
2) A review of previous cultural resource studies for the project; 3) A review of a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC);
4) An intuitive survey of the property to search for any significant cultural or paleontological resources; and
5) Preparation of this letter report to summarize the results of the study and present an opinion regarding the potential constraints associated with cultural and paleontological resources during the development of the project.
BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company — Page 2 Cultural and Paleontological Resources
The assessment of the potential constraints associated with archaeological or paleontological resources within the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project is presented in three categories: research of existing records, an assessment of property conditions, and recommendations. Fortunately for this study, a sufficient quantity of data is available to permit a strong assessment of the property’s potential to contain significant archaeological or paleontological resources.
Review of Available Archaeological Records Data
Archaeological records data held at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University are the primary sources of information utilized for this type of review. BFSA also reviewed the National Register of Historic Places, the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, the California Register of Historical Resources, the OHP Built Environment Resources Directory, and information held in-house at BFSA. The records search did not identify any previously recorded resources within the subject property; however, eight resources (four prehistoric and four historic) are recorded within one-half mile of the subject property. The previously recorded prehistoric sites are habitation and resource extraction/processing sites associated with the nearby San Diego River. The historic resources are all associated with the built environment.
The records search also identified five previous studies which overlap the subject property (Fink 1973; Cupples 1975; RECON 1980; Wolf 2011; Daniels and Becker 2016). Most of these previous studies are large overviews that do not directly address the subject property. However, the RECON (1980) and Wolf (2011) studies did include a formal study of the property in support of the commercial development surrounding the properties.
A cursory review of aerial imagery found that the property was graded between 1985 and 1986 and subjected to repeated disturbances through 1990 as surrounding commercial parcels were developed. Subsequent aerial photographs depict the property repeatedly disced and cleared since the early 1990s. Based on the records search and aerial imagery review, the property has previously been studied for cultural resources and graded. Therefore, the potential for significant unidentified resources within the property is low.
NAHC SLF Search
A SLF search was requested from the NAHC. The results of the SLF search were positive for recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the project vicinity.
Results of the Archaeological Field Survey
An intuitive survey of the property was conducted on May 21, 2024, by staff archaeologist David Grabski. The survey found the property had previously been graded, consistent with the aerial imagery review findings. Visibility of the ground surface at the time of the survey was BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company — Page 3 limited due to dense non-native vegetation. However, during the survey, an isolated granitic prehistoric mano fragment was identified within the property near a series of gopher holes. Given that the property was subjected to grading simultaneously with the surrounding parcels, it is likely the artifact fragment had been deposited within the property by the modern ground disturbances.
Further, as an isolate, the mano fragment is not considered a significant resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and poses no constraints to the proposed development of the parcel.
Results of the Paleontological Assessment
The geology of the project is mapped as Holocene-aged young alluvial deposits composed of silt, clay, sand and gravel (Tan 2002). These sedimentary deposits are the result of occasional flooding by the San Diego River. In general, paleontological resources are not found in Holocene alluvial deposits, since they are too young. The paleontological resource sensitivity of the geologic strata mapped at the project is low. As such, a Paleontological Resource Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) is not warranted and BFSA would not recommend paleontological monitoring.
Conclusion
The review of current property conditions and a records search has provided sufficient information to form an opinion regarding the potential cultural and paleontological constraints to the development of the property. The following points are salient to the evaluation of potential constraints:
• The property has previously been studied for cultural resources and does not contain any recorded or significant cultural resources.
• The property has been previously graded.
• The paleontological assessment found the property has a low potential for fossils.
The development of the Exchange at Santee Town Center Project does not appear to be a source of direct impact on any known significant cultural or paleontological resources. Although the current intuitive study identified an isolated prehistoric mano fragment within the property, it is not a CEQA-significant resource and poses no constraint to the proposed development of the parcel. Further, the property has a low potential for fossils. Despite the previous ground disturbance of the property, it is possible that the City of Santee will require a formal updated cultural resources and paleontological study of the property prior to development of the proposed project. Should the City require such studies, it is not anticipated that the findings would differ from those presented herein. It is possible that the City may still condition the project with archaeological and Native American monitoring due to the proximity of the parcel to the San Diego River and previously recorded resources. Such conditions are standard for developments within this area of San Diego County, not considered a constraint, and, due to the past grading of the BFSA Environmental Services, a Perennial Company — Page 4 property, unlikely to result in the discovery of any unrecorded significant subsurface archaeological deposits.
The information and conclusions provided in this letter report represent opinions based upon a preliminary review of the project. If you have any questions or wish further information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA Todd A. Wirths, M.S.
Archaeological Project Manager Senior Paleontologist
California Professional Geologist No. 7588
1011 N. Armando Street, Anaheim, CA 92806-2606 (714) 630-1626 August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
Mr. Erik Pfahler
Borstein Enterprises
11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Subject: Geotechnical Design Report, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, Exchange at Santee Town Center, APN 381-040-30-00, Santee, California Dear Mr. Pfahler,
Pursuant to your request, Albus & Associates, Inc. is pleased to present to you our geotechnical design report for the proposed development at the subject site. This report presents the results of our aerial photo and literature review, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses.
Conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the proposed site development are also presented herein based on the findings of our work.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you should have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Daniel Albus
Project Engineer
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................... 1
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 2
2.0 INVESTIGATION .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION .......................................................................................... 3
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................... 3
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 4
3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 4
3.2 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 4
3.3 FAULTING ............................................................................................................................. 5
4.0 ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 STATIC SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 6
4.3 LIQUEFACTION .................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 8
5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ......................................................................................................... 8
5.2.1 Ground Rupture ................................................................................................................ 8
5.2.2 Ground Shaking ................................................................................................................ 8
5.2.3 Landsliding ....................................................................................................................... 8
5.2.4 Liquefaction ...................................................................................................................... 8
5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................ 8
5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................. 9
5.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE ..................................................................................... 10
5.6 SOIL EXPANSION ............................................................................................................... 10
5.7 IMPACT TO BURIED SERVICES ...................................................................................... 10
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................ 10
6.1 EARTHWORK ...................................................................................................................... 10
6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications ............................................................. 10
6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation ........................................................ 10
6.1.3 Site Clearing.................................................................................................................... 11
6.1.4 Ground Preparation ......................................................................................................... 11
6.1.5 Fill Placement ................................................................................................................. 12
6.1.6 Import Materials.............................................................................................................. 12
6.1.7 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................. 12
6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS .................................................................................... 13
6.2.1 Mapped Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................... 13
6.2.2 Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters ....................................................................... 13
6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN ..................................................................................................... 14
6.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 14
6.3.2 Soil Expansion ................................................................................................................ 14
6.3.3 Static Settlement ............................................................................................................. 14
6.3.4 Allowable Bearing Value ................................................................................................ 14 Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
Page ii
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6.3.5 Lateral Resistance ........................................................................................................... 15
6.3.6 Conventional Footing and Slab on Grade ....................................................................... 15
6.3.7 Post-Tensioned Slab on Grade ........................................................................................ 16
6.3.8 Foundation Observations ................................................................................................ 17
6.4 RETAINING AND SCREENING WALLS.......................................................................... 17
6.4.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 17
6.4.2 Allowable Bearing Value and Lateral Resistance .......................................................... 17
6.4.3 Active Earth Pressures .................................................................................................... 18
6.4.4 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing .................................................................................... 19
6.4.5 Foundation Observations ................................................................................................ 19
6.5 EXTERIOR FLATWORK .................................................................................................... 19
6.6 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN .................................................................................................. 20
6.7 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ............................................................................. 20
6.7.1 Preliminary Pavement Structural Sections...................................................................... 20
6.7.2 Subgrade Preparation ...................................................................................................... 20
6.7.3 Aggregate Base ............................................................................................................... 21
6.7.4 Asphaltic Concrete .......................................................................................................... 21
6.7.5 Concrete Paver ................................................................................................................ 21
6.7.6 Portland Cement Concrete .............................................................................................. 22
6.8 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 22
6.8.1 Site Drainage and Irrigation ............................................................................................ 22
6.8.2 Utility Trenches .............................................................................................................. 22
6.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ....................................................... 23
7.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 23
8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 25
FIGURES AND PLATES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Exploration Logs
Plates A-0 through A-7
Appendix B - Laboratory Test Program
Table B – Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Plates B-1 through B-6 – Consolidation Plots
Plates B-7– Direct Shear Plot
Appendix C – Liquefaction Analysis
Plates C-1 through C-3 – Results of Liquefaction Analysis Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of our geotechnical design report were to evaluate geotechnical conditions within the project area and to provide conclusions and recommendations relevant to the design and construction of the proposed improvements at the subject site. The scope of this investigation included the following:
Review of the historical aerial photographs
Review of published geologic and seismic data for the site and surrounding area Exploratory drilling and soil sampling
Laboratory testing of selected soil samples
Engineering analyses of data obtained from our review, exploration, and laboratory testing Evaluation of site seismicity, liquefaction potential, and settlement potential Preparation of this report
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The project site consists of Parcel 1 PM 16310 (APN 381-040-36) and is located northwest of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway within the city of Santee, California.
The site is bordered on all sides by neighboring commercial and retail properties. The location of the site and its relationship to the surrounding areas are shown in Figure 1, Site Location Map.
The site consists of approximately 4.9 acres of land and is presently an undeveloped lot. The site appears to be partially graded based on historical imagery. Drainage on site appears to be primarily via sheet flow, likely directed to the north margin towards a drainage channel that appears to run from east to west and connects to the nearby San Diego River to the north.
Chain link fencing is present along the west, north and east property lines with a masonry block wall along the south. The site is covered by a growth of light grasses.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
© 2025 Google
N
FIGURE 1-SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development
APN 381-040-30-00, Santee, California
NOT TO SCALE
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on the proposed plan provided to us, prepared by Rick Engineering, we understand the proposed site development will consist of (100) units of at-grade, three-story townhomes. Associated interior driveways, perimeter/retaining walls, underground utilities, and decorative hardscape and landscape areas are also anticipated.
No grading or structural plans were available in preparing this report. However, we anticipate some minor to moderate cut and filling of the site will be required to achieve future surface configuration and we expect future foundation loads will be relatively light.
SITE
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2.0 INVESTIGATION
2.1 RESEARCH
We have reviewed the referenced geologic publications, maps, and historical aerial photos of the vicinity. Data from these sources were utilized to the development of some of our findings and conclusions presented in this report.
Review of the geologic map by S. S. Tan (2002) within the vicinity of the site suggests the site is underlain by younger alluvium (Qya). The Qya is primarily associated with deposition by the San Diego River derived from surficial materials in the local hill sides and mountains. Deposition would be expected to create an interlayered and cross-bedded soil profile. Older Alluvium (Qoa) may also be present at depth.
Historical imagery shows that the site was an undeveloped lot in 1953 and has remained undeveloped to present times. However, the site was actively used for agricultural purposes in 1953. By 1964, agricultural use appears to be discontinued. Between 1985 and 1986, minor grading of the site appears to have taken place.
Topographically, the site is relatively flat with exception of a subtle drainage channel along the northerly perimeter of the site. Historical topography suggests this drainage is not natural and may have been created during the grading in 1985 to 1986.
2.2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
Subsurface exploration for this investigation was conducted on April 29, 2024, and consisted of drilling five (5) soil borings to a maximum depth of approximately 46.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem-auger drill rig. Representatives of Albus & Associates, Inc. logged the exploratory borings. Visual and tactile identifications were made of the materials encountered, and their descriptions are presented on the Exploration Logs in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
Bulk, relatively undisturbed and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samples were obtained at selected depths for subsequent laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3- inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California split-spoon soil sampler lined with brass rings. SPT samples were obtained using a standard SPT soil sampler. During each sampling interval, the samplers were driven 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound automatic hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches of advancement per soil sample is recorded on the exploration log.
Samples were placed in sealed containers or plastic bags and transported to our laboratory for analyses and testing. The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion of drilling.
2.3 LABORATORY TESTING
Selected samples of representative earth materials from the borings were tested in our laboratory.
Tests consisted of in-situ moisture and dry density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, expansion potential, soluble sulfate content, percent passing No. 200 sieve, Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
consolidation/collapse potential, Atterberg limits, direct shear, and corrosivity. Descriptions of laboratory testing and a summary of the test results are presented in Appendix B and on the exploration log in Appendix A.
3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS
Artificial fill (Af) was encountered throughout the site with approximately 3 feet of fill along the southern margin of the site and increases to 6 feet at the northern margin. During this investigation, we observed that site topography expresses a mounding focused primarily within the central portion of the site where fill was noted to a depth of 6 feet. Review of the aerial photographs suggest this fill was placed in and around 1985 to 1986 and is believed to be non-engineered. The artificial fills consisted of silty sands and were generally brown and damp.
Young alluvial deposits (Qya) were encountered below the fill materials to a depth of 11 feet. These materials consisted of clayey sand that was gray, moist, and medium dense. The younger alluvium contains some gravel and rock fragments.
Older Alluvial deposits (Qoa) were encountered below the Qya and extended to at least 46.5 feet.
These materials generally consisted of clayey sands that are reddish brown, moist to very moist and dense to a depth of 25 feet. Below 25 feet, the unit becomes a sand with a trace of silt that is yellowish brown, wet, and dense. At a depth of 41 feet, the material becomes a silty sand with a trace of clay that is light gray, moist, and dense.
A more detailed description of the interpreted soil profile at each of the boring locations, based upon the borehole cuttings and soil samples, are presented in Appendix A. The stratigraphic descriptions in the logs represent the predominant materials encountered and relatively thin, often discontinuous layers of different material may occur within the major divisions.
3.2 GROUNDWATER
Based on our review of the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones maps and Earthquake Fault Zone maps, the site is not currently mapped for historic high groundwater. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 13 feet below the existing grade during this firm’s subsurface exploration. A finer-grained layer was encountered below a depth of 15 feet and was noted to only be moist. This condition suggests the initial occurrence of groundwater at 13 feet is a thin perched condition within the more granular layer located between 11 and 15 feet in depth. Soils encountered from 25 to 40 feet were noted to be saturated but underlain by a second finer-grained layer that was only moist. As such, the groundwater encountered from 25 to 41 feet is also likely a perched condition.
Review of well data from the California Department of Water Resources indicates that a well is located about 2,500 feet northwest of the site. The well is identified at well No. 328442N1169971W001 and historical readings were made from Oct. 2015 through May 2025. Measurements from this well indicate a relatively consisting depth to ground water and a typical elevation of 316 feet. This elevation correlates to a depth of about 18 feet at the subject site which is relatively consistent with the depth to the lower perched water condition indicated by our borings.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3.3 FAULTING
Based on our review of the referenced publications and seismic data, no active faults are known to project through or immediately adjacent to the subject sites and the sites do not lie within an Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
According to the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps, the closest known fault is the Rose Canyon Fault and is located over 10 miles from the site.
4.0 ANALYSES
4.1 SEISMICITY
2022 CBC requires seismic parameters in accordance with ASCE 7-16 and supplements 1, 2, and 3.
Unless noted otherwise, all section numbers cited in the following refer to the sections in ASCE 7-16.
Per Section 20.3, the project site was designated as Site Class D. We used the OSHPD seismic hazard tool to obtain the basic mapped acceleration parameters, including short periods (SS) and 1-second period (S1) MCER Spectral Response Accelerations.
Section 11.4.8 and supplement 3 require site-specific ground hazard analysis for structures on Site Class D with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2. Based on the mapped values of SS and S1 the project site falls within this category, requiring site-specific hazard analysis in accordance with Section 21.2.
However, “A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures where the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of SM1 in the Standard. The resulting value of the parameter SD1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of SD1 in this Standard.” Assuming this exception is met for this project, a ground motion hazard analysis is not required and mapped seismic values can be used. Should this exception not be met, a ground motion hazard analysis is required to determine the Design response spectra for the proposed structures at this site. Both mapped and site-specific seismic design parameters are provided in this report, as presented in Section 6.2. Details of a ground motion hazard analysis are explained below.
According to Section 21.2.3 (Supplement 1), the site-specific Risk Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) spectral response acceleration at any period is the lesser of the probabilistic and the deterministic response accelerations, subject to the exception specified in the same section. The probabilistic response spectrum was developed using the computer program OpenSHA (Field et al., 2013), which implements Method 1 as described in Section 21.2.1.1. Fault Models 3.1 and 3.2 from the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) were used as the earthquake rupture forecast models for the PSHA. In addition to known fault sources, background seismicity was also included in the PSHA. The ground motion Prediction Equations (GMPEs) selected for use in this analysis are those developed for the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER) Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) West 2 project. Four GMPEs - Abrahamson et al. (2014), Boore et al. (2014), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2014), and Chiou and Youngs (2014) were used to perform the analysis.
In accordance with Section 21.2.2 (Supplement 1), the deterministic spectral response acceleration at each period was calculated as the 84th percentile, 5% damped response acceleration, using NGA- Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
West2 GMPE Worksheet. For this, the information from at least three causative faults with the greatest contribution per deaggregation analysis were used and the larger acceleration spectrum among these was selected as the deterministic response spectrum. The deterministic spectrum was adjusted per requirements in Section 21.2.2 (Supplement 1) where applicable. Both probabilistic and deterministic spectra were subjected to the maximum direction scale factors specified in Section 21.2 to produce the maximum acceleration spectra.
Design response spectrum was developed by subjecting the site-specific MCER response spectrum to the provisions outlined in Section 21.3. This process included comparison with 80% code-based design spectrum determined in accordance with Section 11.4.6. The short period and long period site coefficients (Fa and Fv, respectively) were determined per Section 21.3 in conjunction with Table
11.4-1. Site-specific design acceleration parameters (SMS, SM1, SDS, and SD1) were calculated according to Section 21.4.
Per Section 11.2 (definitions on Page 79 of ASCE7-16) for evaluation of liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlements, and other soil-related issues, Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration PGAM shall be used. The site-specific PGAM is calculated per Section 21.5.3, as the lesser of the probabilistic PGAM (Section 21.5.1) and deterministic PGAM (Section 21.5.2), but no less than 80% site modified peak ground acceleration, PGAM, obtained from OSHPD seismic hazard tool. According to Section 21.5.3 of ASCE 7, either mapped or site-specific PGAm may be used for soil related analysis. For this investigation, a mapped PGAm of 0.42g was incorporated into the analysis.
4.2 STATIC SETTLEMENT
Analyses were performed to estimate settlement of footings for the anticipated loading conditions and configurations. Loading conditions for the proposed foundations are not known at this time. Based on previous experience, we have assumed the maximum load will not exceed 3 kips/ft. for continuous footing loads and 75 kips per column loads. Using the results of consolidation testing, we estimate total settlement could be up to about 0.9 inches for continuous wall footings and up to about 1.6 inches for column pad footings assuming the footings are founded upon native alluvial soils in their current conditions. If pad footings are underlain by 2 feet of compacted fill, the total settlement is estimated to be about 0.9 inches. Settlement of footings on existing fill was not evaluated.
4.3 LIQUEFACTION
Engineering research of soil liquefaction potential (Youd, et al., 2001) indicates that generally three basic factors must exist concurrently in order for liquefaction to occur. These factors include:
A source of ground shaking, such as an earthquake, capable of generating soil mass distortions. A relatively loose silty and/or sandy soil.
A relative shallow groundwater table (within approximately 50 feet below ground surface) or completely saturated soil conditions that will allow positive pore pressure generation.
The site has not been formally evaluated by the California Geological Survey for liquefaction hazards and thus is not located within a state designated liquefaction hazard zone. Groundwater was encountered at 13 feet below the existing grade during this firm’s subsurface exploration and is Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
believed to be a very thin perched condition. However, conditions in our borings and data from a nearby monitoring well suggest a more predominate depth of 18 feet to groundwater. Therefore, analyses were performed to evaluate liquefaction. Our analyses followed the guidelines presented in the CGS Special Publication 117A (2008) and the procedures by Youd, et al. (2001).
Our liquefaction analyses were based on a soil profile from boring B-1. High groundwater was conservatively assumed at a depth of 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Fine-grained soils that have a Plasticity Index (PI) greater than 12 or field moisture contents less than 85% of liquid limit (LL) or soils with (N1)60-CS “corrected blow counts” greater than 30 per foot were assumed to be not susceptible to liquefaction. From our analysis, all the site materials located below groundwater exhibit a (N1)60-CS greater than 30 and therefore, are not susceptible to liquefaction. Results of this analysis are provided in Appendix C.
Seismic-induced settlement can occur both above and below the groundwater table during a strong seismic event. Soils located below groundwater are not considered liquefiable and as such, seismic settlement is assumed to be negligible. We have estimated the dry seismic settlement of the soils located above groundwater using the Tokumatsu and Seed (1987) Method. The analyses indicate the dry seismic settlement would be on the order of 0.01 inches. The calculations are provided in Appendix C.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
From a geotechnical point of view, the proposed site development is considered feasible, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Furthermore, it is also our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely impact the stability of adjoining properties. Key issues that could have significant fiscal impacts on the geotechnical aspects of the proposed site development are discussed in the following sections of this report.
5.2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
5.2.1 Ground Rupture
No known active faults are known to project through the subject site, nor does the site lie within the boundaries of an “Earthquake Fault Zone” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The closest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault located over 10 miles away. Therefore, potential for ground rupture due to an earthquake beneath the sites is considered low.
5.2.2 Ground Shaking
The site is situated in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by generally moderate to occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies in relatively close proximity to several seismically active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed improvements, the property will probably experience similar moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California region. Design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements is anticipated to address the issues related to potential ground shaking.
5.2.3 Landsliding
The site has not been evaluated by the California Geological Survey for seismic landslide hazards.
However, due to the relatively flat topography of the site and setback of more than 500 feet from the San Diego River embackment, the risk of landsliding is considered low.
5.2.4 Liquefaction
While groundwater was encountered at a relatively shallow depth of 13 feet, site materials are relatively dense and are not anticipated to be subject to liquefaction. Settlement due to seismic shaking is estimated to be negligible. As such, no mitigation of liquefaction is anticipated. The results of seismic settlements are provided in Appendix C.
5.3 STATIC SETTLEMENT
Our exploration indicates the presence of non-engineered fills. The settlement characteristics of these materials could be highly variable and lead to excessive total and differential settlement. This condition can be mitigated by recompaction of these soils within structural areas. The younger alluvial Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
soils below the existing fill are compressible and could lead to excessive settlement if they are located less than 2 feet below footings. This condition could lead to excessive total and differential settlement.
This condition can also be mitigated by recompaction of these soils to a depth of 2 feet below bottom of footings. Assuming all existing fill and any alluvial soils located less than 2 feet below bottoms of footings are recompacted, total and differential static settlement can likely be limited to a maximum of 1 inch and ½-inch over 30 feet, respectively. These estimated magnitudes of static settlements are considered within tolerable limits for the proposed residential structures.
5.4 EXCAVATION AND MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Temporary construction slopes and trench excavations can likely be cut vertically up to a height of 5 feet within the onsite materials provided that no surcharging of the excavations is present. Temporary excavations greater than 5 feet in height will likely require side laybacks to 1:1 (H:V) or flatter to mitigate the potential for sloughing.
Onsite disposal systems, clarifiers and other underground improvements are not anticipated but may be present beneath the site. If encountered during future rough grading, these improvements will require proper abandonment or removal.
Existing walls are present along the south side of the property line. These walls do not appear to be retaining. If the proposed buildings are close to the existing walls, special grading, such as slots cuts, may be required in order to complete remedial earth work along this wall.
The presence of the existing off-site improvements may limit removals of unsuitable materials adjacent to the property lines. Therefore, construction of perimeter site walls may require deepened footings and/or additional reinforcement and additional control joints, where removals are restricted .by property boundaries. At this time, no retaining walls are anticipated for site construction.
However, it retaining walls are required along the perimeters, A-B-C slot construction may be required in these locations.
Subsurface soils are anticipated to be relatively easy to excavate with conventional heavy earthmoving equipment. Removal and recompaction of the site materials will result in some minor shrinkage and subsidence. Design of site grading will require consideration of this loss when evaluating earthwork balance issues.
Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 13 feet during our exploration. However, seasonal variations are likely to occur and we estimate that groundwater could rise to a depth of 10 feet. Site development is not anticipated to extend below this depth. However, if unusually deep utility excavations are required and could extend below about 10 feet, special steps will be required to accommodate groundwater such as shoring and dewatering.
The site soils encountered during our investigation were generally below or near optimum moisture content and will require the addition of water to achieve proper compaction.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
5.5 SHRINKAGE AND SUBSIDENCE
Volumetric changes in earth quantities will occur when excavated onsite soil materials are replaced as properly compacted fill. Based on our experience with similar types of earth materials, we estimate that the existing soils will shrink approximately 5 to 10 percent when removed and replaced as compacted fill. Subsidence due to reprocessing of removal bottoms is anticipated to be on the order of 0.1 feet.
The estimates of shrinkage and subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities based on actual swelling and bulkage that occurs during the grading process.
5.6 SOIL EXPANSION
Based on our laboratory test results and the USCS visual manual classification, the near-surface soils are generally anticipated to possess a Low to High expansion potential. As such, special requirements as set forth in CBC Chapter 18 regarding expansive soils are required. Expansive soil can cause heave or settlement of structures when they become wet or dried. Such conditions can be mitigated through proper design of improvements. Recommendations to mitigate expansive soils are provided in Section
6.0. 5.7 IMPACT TO BURIED SERVICES
A number of existing underground utilities are present at the site. The potential impact of grading-related earthwork near existing buried utilities at the project site were previously evaluated and addressed by our firm (Albus 2024). The conclusion from this report indicate the existing underground pipes are not anticipated to undergo adverse impacts during site construction or from permanent site development. As such, no mitigating steps are deemed necessary for protection of these pipelines.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 EARTHWORK
6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with applicable requirements of Cal/OSHA, applicable specifications of the Grading Codes of the City of Santee, California in addition to the recommendations presented herein.
6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation
Prior to commencement of grading, we recommend a meeting be held between the developer, City Inspector, grading contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical consultant to discuss the proposed grading and construction logistics. We also recommend a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering and engineering geologic services during site grading and foundation construction. This is to observe compliance with the design specifications and recommendations and to allow for design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. If conditions are encountered that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, the project Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required.
6.1.3 Site Clearing
Areas to be graded should be cleared of vegetation, existing asphalt, underground improvements to be abandoned and deleterious materials. Existing underground utility lines within the project area that will be protected in place and that fall within a 1 to 1 (H:V) plane projected down from the edges of footings may be subject to surcharge loads. Under such conditions, this office should be made aware of these conditions for evaluation of potential surcharge. Supplemental recommendations may be required to protect such improvements in place.
The project geotechnical consultant should be notified at the appropriate times to provide observation services during clearing operations to verify compliance with the above recommendations. Voids created by clearing and excavation should be left open for observation by the geotechnical consultant.
Should any unusual soil conditions or subsurface structures be encountered during site clearing or grading that are not described or anticipated herein, these conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for corrective recommendations as needed.
Temporary construction equipment (office trailers, power poles, etc.) should be positioned to allow adequate room for clearing and recommended ground preparation to be performed for proposed structures, pavements, and hardscapes.
6.1.4 Ground Preparation
In general, the existing artificial fill is considered unsuitable for support of the proposed development in its current condition. Existing artificial fill is estimated to generally be 3 feet thick within the southern portion of the site, increasing to a depth of up to 6 feet in the northern portion. These artificial fills should be removed from within the limits of residential structures and pavement areas. Further, the existing native alluvial soils should be overexcavated to minimum two feet below the bottom of the building foundations.
Review of the referenced plan indicates no retaining walls are proposed for the project. Screen walls are proposed along the eastern property line and footings can be directly cut into existing soils. Soils exposed in the bottoms of footings for screen walls should be compacted in place prior to construction of footings.
Removals should extend beyond the limits of buildings a horizontal distance equal to the depths removals, but not less than 5 feet. Removals should extend beyond the edges of pavement a horizontal distance of 3 feet where feasible.
Laboratory test results indicate the presence of highly expansive clay below a depth of five feet. This material should be removed to a depth of 5 feet if found within five feet below finish pad grade.
The actual depth of removal should be determined by the geotechnical consultant during grading. All removal excavations should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading to confirm the exposed conditions are as anticipated and to provide supplemental recommendations if required.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
The grading contractor should take appropriate measures when excavating adjacent any existing improvements to remain in-place to avoid disturbing or compromising support of existing structures.
Following removals and overexcavation, the exposed grade should first be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to at least 110 percent of the optimum moisture content, and then compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
6.1.5 Fill Placement
Materials excavated from the site may be reused as fill provided they are free of deleterious materials and particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension (oversized materials). Asphaltic and concrete debris generated during site demolition or encountered within the existing fill can be incorporated within new fill soils during earthwork operations provided they are reduced to no more than 4 inches in maximum dimension. Such materials should be mixed thoroughly with fill soils to prevent nesting. Fill materials with an expansion index greater than 60 should not be placed within the upper 5 feet of finish pad grades for the residential buildings. Such materials may be placed below a depth of 5 feet in building areas are elsewhere on the project.
All fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to at least the optimum moisture content, then compacted in place to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Each lift should be treated in a similar manner. Subsequent lifts should not be placed until the project geotechnical consultant has approved the preceding lift.
6.1.6 Import Materials
If import materials are required to achieve the proposed finish grades, the proposed import soils should have an Expansion Index (EI, ASTM D 4829) less than 60 and possess negligible soluble sulfate concentrations. Import sources should be indicated to the geotechnical consultant prior to hauling the materials to the site so that appropriate testing and evaluation of the fill materials can be performed in advance.
6.1.7 Temporary Excavations
Temporary construction slopes and trench excavations may be cut vertically up to a height of 5 feet provided that no surcharging of the excavations is present. Temporary excavations greater than 5 feet in height but no more than 10 feet should be laid back to a 1.5:1 (H:V) or flatter or shored to mitigate the potential for instability.
Excavations should not be left open for prolonged periods of time. The project geotechnical consultant should observe all temporary cuts to confirm anticipated conditions and to provide alternate recommendations if conditions dictate. All excavations should conform to the requirements of Cal/OSHA.
The grading contractor should take appropriate measures when excavating adjacent existing improvements to avoid disturbing or compromising support of existing structures.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
6.2.1 Mapped Seismic Design Parameters
For the design of the project in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2022 CBC, the mapped seismic parameters may be taken as presented in the tables below.
TABLE 6.1
2022 CBC Mapped Seismic Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Site Class D
Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SS 0.773 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-second period, S1 0.284 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.191
Site Coefficient, Fv * 2.032
Adjusted MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SMS 0.92 Adjusted MCER Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-second period, SM1 * 0.866 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SDS 0.614 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-second period, SD1 * 0.577 Long-Period Transition Period, TL (sec.) 8
Seismic Design Category for Risk Categories I-IV II
MCER = Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake
*According to Section 11.4.8 in ASCE 7-16 and supplement 3, “a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed in accordance with Section 21.2 for the following structures on Site Class D site with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2.” However, “A ground motion hazard analysis is not required for structures where the value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50% for all applications of SM1 in the Standard. The resulting value of the parameter SD1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of SD1 in this Standard.” Should this exception not be met, the site-specific seismic design parameters provided in the next section should be used.
6.2.2 Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
In addition to the Code Spectra parameters presented in Table 6.1, we have performed a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis in accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16 to obtain site-specific seismic design acceleration parameters, the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake response spectrum, and the design earthquake response spectrum. The site-specific seismic design parameters are presented below.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TABLE 6.2
2022 CBC Site-Specific Seismic Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Site Class D
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.19
Site Coefficient, Fv 2.5
Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SMS 1.092 Adjusted MCE Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-second period, SM1 0.772 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, short periods, SDS 0.728 Design Spectral Response Acceleration, at 1-second period, SD1 0.515 MCE = Maximum Considered Earthquake
6.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN
6.3.1 General
The following design parameters are provided to assist the project structural engineer to design foundations for structures at the site. These design parameters are based on typical site materials encountered during subsurface exploration and are provided for preliminary design and estimating purposes. The project geotechnical consultant should provide final design parameters following observation and testing of site materials during grading. Depending on actual materials encountered during site grading, the design parameters presented herein may require modification.
6.3.2 Soil Expansion
Medium expansion materials are present in the upper 5 feet with Highly expansive soils being present below this depth. Therefore, recommendations presented herein are based on soils with an expansion potential of 60 or less within the upper 5 feet of finish building pad grades but having a higher expansion below 5 feet. Following site grading, additional testing of site soils should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to confirm the basis of these recommendations. If site soils with an expansion potential greater than 60 are placed present within the upper 5 feet, the recommendations contained herein may require modification.
6.3.3 Static Settlement
Based on anticipated foundation loads and provided that the recommendations for ground preparation in this report are followed, total and differential static settlement are anticipated to be less than 1 inch and ½ inch over 30 feet, respectively. These values are considered within tolerable limits of proposed structures and site improvements. Design of the structures should consider these maximum anticipated settlements.
6.3.4 Allowable Bearing Value
Foundations may utilize a bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for continuous and pad footings with a minimum width of 12 inches and founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. This value may be increased by 400 psf and 1000 psf for each additional foot in width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum value of 3,000 psf. Recommended allowable Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
bearing values include both dead and live loads and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic forces.
6.3.5 Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (psf/ft) up to a maximum value of 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used to determine lateral bearing for footings. This value may be increased by one-third when designing for wind and seismic forces. A coefficient of friction of 0.37 times the dead load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. No increase in the coefficient of friction should be used when designing for wind and seismic forces.
The above values are based on footings placed directly against compacted fill or competent native soils. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
6.3.6 Conventional Footing and Slab on Grade
Exterior and interior building footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches and 12 inches, respectively, below the lowest adjacent grade. All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two top and two bottom. The structural engineer may require different reinforcement and should dictate if greater than the recommendations provided herein.
Interior isolated pad footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at minimum depths of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade. Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of patio covers or similar construction should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade.
Interior concrete slabs constructed on grade should be a minimum 4 inches thick and should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars spaced 12 inches on center, each way. Care should be taken to ensure the placement of reinforcement at mid-slab height. Based on the requirements of the WRI method, the slabs should be provided with stiffening beams in each direction spaced no more than 18 feet on center. The stiffening beams should be at least 12 inches in width, extend at least 12 inches below the bottom of the slab, and be reinforced with at least 2 number 5 bars near the bottom. The beams should be either monolithically cast with the slab or provided with ties to the slab. The structural engineer may recommend a greater slab thickness and reinforcement based on proposed use and loading conditions and such recommendations should govern if greater than the recommendations presented herein.
Concrete floor slabs in areas to receive carpet, tile, or other moisture sensitive coverings should be underlain with a minimum of 10-mil moisture vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E 1745, Class A.
The membrane should be properly lapped, sealed, and underlain with at least 4 inches of sand having a SE no less than 30. One inch of this sand may be placed over the membrane to aid in the curing of the concrete. This vapor retarder system is anticipated to be suitable for most flooring finishes that can accommodate some vapor emissions. However, this system may emit more than 4 pounds of water per 1000 sq. ft. and therefore, may not be suitable for all flooring finishes. Additional steps should be taken if such vapor emission levels are too high for anticipated flooring finishes.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Prior to placing concrete and vapor barrier, subgrade soils below slab-on-grade areas should be thoroughly moistened to provide moisture contents that are at least 120 percent of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. Presaturation will likely require spraying of water over a few days. Flooding of the pad surface is not recommended.
Special consideration should be given to slabs in areas to receive ceramic tile or other rigid, crack-sensitive floor coverings. Design and construction of such areas should mitigate hairline cracking as recommended by the structural engineer.
Garage floor slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced in a similar manner as living floor slabs. Garage floor slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8-inch minimum felt expansion joint materials and provided with saw cuts or cold joints at a maximum spacing of 12 feet in each direction.
Consideration should be given to providing a vapor retarder below the garage slab to mitigate the potential for effervescence on the slab surface.
Block-outs should be provided around interior columns to permit relative movement and mitigate distress to the floor slabs due to differential settlement that will occur between column footings and adjacent floor subgrade soils as loads are applied.
A grade beam should be provided across the entries to garages. The beam should be a minimum of 18 inches in depth and 12 inches in width. The grade beam should be reinforced with four No.4 bars, 2 top and 2 bottom and be tied into the adjacent house footings.
6.3.7 Post-Tensioned Slab on Grade
As an alternate to conventional slabs on grade, the homes may use post-tensioned slabs. Perimeter edge beams for the post-tensioned slabs should have a minimum effective width of 12 inches and be founded at a minimum depth of 15 inches below the lowest adjacent final ground surface. Interior beams may be founded at a minimum depth of 12 inches below the tops of the finish floor slabs.
Where a post-tensioned mat is utilized, the exterior edge of the mat should be embedded at least 8 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The thickness of the floor slab/mat should be determined by the project structural engineer; however, we recommend a minimum slab thickness of 4.5 inches.
Design of the mat may be based on a modulus of subgrade reaction (Kv1) of 60 pounds per cubic inch (pci). The modulus is based on an effective loading area of 1 foot by 1 foot. The modulus may be adjusted for other effective loading areas using the equation provided below.
𝐾
(𝑝𝑐𝑖) = 𝐾𝑣1 ቄ
ାଵ
ଶ ቅ
ଶ
; where “b” is the effective width of loading (minimum dimension) in feet.
Concrete floor slabs in areas to receive carpet, tile, or other moisture sensitive coverings should be underlain with a minimum of 10-mil moisture vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E 1745, Class A.
The membrane should be properly lapped, sealed, and underlain within a layer of sand at least 4 inches thick. One inch of sand may be placed over the membrane to aid in the curing of the concrete. The sand should have a SE no less than 30. This vapor retarder system is anticipated to be suitable for most flooring finishes that can accommodate some vapor emissions. However, this system may emit more than 4 pounds of water per 1000 sq. ft. and therefore, may not be suitable for all flooring finishes.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Additional steps should be taken if such vapor emission levels are too high for anticipated flooring finishes. If a post tension mat is used and is at least 8 inches in thickness, sand below the slab may be omitted.
Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils below slab-on-grade/mat areas should be thoroughly moistened to provide moisture contents at least 120 percent of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches.
Based on the guidelines provided in the “Design of Post-Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground” 3rd Edition by Post-Tensioning Institute, the em and ym values are summarized in Table 6.3. These values already consider differential settlement from liquefiable soils.
TABLE 6.3
PTI Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em 4.1 feet
Edge Lift, ym 2.13 inches
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em 7.7 feet
Center Lift, ym 1.49 inches
6.3.8 Foundation Observations
Foundation excavation should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedment recommended above. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. Loose, sloughed or moisture-softened materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete.
6.4 RETAINING AND SCREENING WALLS
6.4.1 General
The following preliminary design and construction recommendations are provided for general retaining and screen walls supported by engineered compacted fill or competent native soils. Final wall designs specific to the site development should be provided for review once completed. The structural engineer and architect should provide appropriate recommendations for sealing at all joints and applying moisture-proofing material on the back of the walls.
6.4.2 Allowable Bearing Value and Lateral Resistance
Design of retaining and screen walls may utilize the bearing and lateral resistance values provided in Section 6.3.4 and 6.3.5. The passive earth pressure for walls along property lines, where lateral removals are likely restricted, should be reduced by 50%.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6.4.3 Active Earth Pressures
Static and seismic earth pressures for level and 2:1 (H:V) backfill conditions are provided in Table
6.3. Seismic earth pressures provided herein are based on the method provided by Seed & Whitman (1970) using a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.25g for 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. As indicated in Section 1803.5.12 of the 2022 CBC, retaining walls supporting 6 feet of backfill or less are not required to be designed for seismic earth pressures. The values provided in the following table do not consider hydrostatic pressure. Retaining walls should also be designed to support adjacent surcharge loads imposed by other nearby footings or traffic loads in addition to the earth pressure.
TABLE 6.3
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURES
Pressure Diagram
Static Seismic Total
Component Component Force
Pressure Values
Walls Up To 10 Feet High
Value
Backfill Condition
Level 2H:1V Slope
A 60H 90H
B 8H 8H
C 34H 49H
Note: H is in feet and resulting pressure is in psf. Design may utilize either the sum of the static component and the seismic component force diagrams or the total force diagram above. SEAOSC has suggested using a load factor of 1.7 for the static component and 1.0 for the seismic component. The actual load factors should be determined by the structural engineer.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6.4.4 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing
Retaining walls should be constructed with a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain to prevent entrapment of water in the backfill. The perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch-diameter, ABS SDR-35 or PVC Schedule 40 with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in ¾- to 1½- inch open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. The gravel should be at least one foot wide and extend at least one foot up the wall above the footing and drainage outlet. Drainage gravel and piping should not be placed below outlets and weepholes. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, or equal. Outlet pipes should be directed to positive drainage devices.
The use of weepholes may be considered in locations where aesthetic issues from potential nuisance water are not a concern. Weepholes should be 2 inches in diameter and provided at least every 6 feet on center. Where weepholes are used, perforated pipes may be omitted from the gravel subdrain.
Retaining walls supporting backfill should also be coated with a moisture-proofing compound or covered with such material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. Moisture-proofing material should cover any portion of the back of the wall that will be in contact with soil and should lap over and onto the top of the footing. A drainage panel should be provided between the soil backfill and water proofing. The panel should extend from the top of the backdrain gravel up to within 12 inches of finish grade. The top of footing should be finished smooth with a trowel to inhibit the infiltration of water through the wall. The project structural engineer should provide specific recommendations for moisture-proofing, water stops, and joint details.
6.4.5 Foundation Observations
Footing excavations should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedment recommended herein.
These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. Loose, sloughed or moisture-softened materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete.
6.5 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Concrete sidewalks, patios, and similar flatwork should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and provided with saw cuts or expansion joints at spacing no greater than 5 feet in each direction. Flatwork more than 5 feet in width across the minimum dimension should be reinforced with 6” by 6”, W2.9 by W2.9 welded wire mesh or No 3 bars spaced 24 inches center to center in both directions. Cold joints should be keyed or provided with dowels spaced 24 inches on center. Flatwork that meets the structure at points of entry should be doweled into the footing or grade beam of the structure. Consideration should also be given to doweling flatwork into curbs where they meet. Special jointing detail should be provided in areas of block-outs, notches, or other irregularities to avoid cracking at points of high stress.
Drainage from flatwork areas should be directed to local area drains and/or other appropriate collection devices designed to carry runoff water to the street or other approved drainage structures. The concrete flatwork should also be sloped at a minimum gradient of 1 percent away from building foundations and retaining walls.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Subgrade soils below flatwork should be thoroughly moistened to at least 120 percent of the optimum moisture content to a depth of 12 inches. Flooding or ponding of the subgrade is not recommended.
Moistening should be accomplished by lightly spraying the area over a period of a few days just prior to pouring concrete. The geotechnical consultant should observe and verify the density and moisture content of subgrade soils prior to pouring concrete to ensure that the required compaction and pre-moistening recommendations have been met.
6.6 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
Laboratory testing of near-surface soils for soluble sulfate content indicates soluble sulfate concentration of 0.2%, Severe. We recommend following the procedures provided in ACI 318, Section 19.3, Table 19.3.1.1 for S2 sulfate exposure to adequately mitigate of sulfate attack on concrete. Upon completion of rough grading, an evaluation of as-graded conditions and further laboratory testing should be completed for the site to confirm or modify the recommendations provided in this section.
6.7 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
6.7.1 Preliminary Pavement Structural Sections
Based on the soil conditions present at the site and an estimated traffic index, preliminary pavement sections are provided in the table below. An assumed “R-value” of 15 was used for the near-surface soil in this preliminary pavement design. The sections provided below are for planning purposes only and should be re-evaluated subsequent to site grading. Final pavement sections should be based on actual R-value testing of in-place soils and analysis of anticipated traffic. It should be noted that the preliminary paving sections provided below are considered suitable for support of a 94,000-pound fire apparatus.
TABLE 6.4
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTIONS
Location Traffic
Index
AC 1.
(inches)
Concrete
Pavers
(mm)
PCC
(inches)
AB
(inches)
Entry Way and Driveway 6.0
3.0 4.0 -- --
13.0 10.0
-- -- 8.0 --
-- 80.0 -- 13.0
Parking Stalls -- 3.0 -- -- 5.0
Note: 1.- Where asphaltic paving meets concrete within traffic areas, the thickness of aggregate base should be reduced by 2 inches and the asphaltic concrete increased by 2 inches within 2 feet horizontally of the joint.
6.7.2 Subgrade Preparation
Prior to placement of paving elements, subgrade soils should be scarified 6 inches, moisture-conditioned to above the optimum moisture content then compacted to at least 90 percent of the Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. Areas observed to pump or yield under vehicle traffic should be removed and replaced with firm and unyielding engineered compacted soil or aggregate base materials.
6.7.3 Aggregate Base
Aggregate base materials should be Crushed Aggregate Base or Crushed Miscellaneous Base conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook) or Class 2 Aggregate Base conforming to Caltrans’ Standard Specifications. The materials should be moisture conditioned to slightly over the optimum moisture content then compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D 1557.
6.7.4 Asphaltic Concrete
Paving asphalt should be PG 64-10 conforming to the requirements of Section 203-1 of the Greenbook.
Asphalt concrete materials should conform to Section 203-6 and construction should conform to Section 302 of the Greenbook. Where traffic will traverse over cold joints in asphaltic concrete such as against concrete ribbon gutters and concrete paver sections, the asphaltic concrete section should be thickened by 1 additional inch from the values indicated in the above Table 6.5 within 2 feet of cold joints.
6.7.5 Concrete Paver
Concrete pavers should conform to the requirements of ASTM C 936. Construction of the pavers, including bedding sand, should follow manufacturer’s specifications. Typical thickness of bedding sand is about 1 inch. The gradation of bedding sand should meet the requirement in Table 6.5.
TABLE 6.5
Gradation for Sand Bedding
Sieve Size Percent Passing
⅜” 100
No. 4 95 - 100
No. 8 80 - 100
No. 16 50 - 85
No. 30 25 - 60
No. 50 5 - 30
No. 100 0 - 10
No. 200 0 - 1
Proper performance of pavers will require placing polymeric sand in the joints between pavers. The sand should be consolidated in the joints by running a vibratory plate across the pave surface. Sand should be added to the pavers and vibrated until the joints will not take additional sand. The edges of the pavers should be constrained lateral by concrete bands. The bands should extend to the bottom of the underlying aggregate base and provided in at least one continuous No. 4 bar near the center of the band. Bands should be provided with cold joints every 15 feet or less. Reinforcing should extend across the joints or a dowel should be provided. Polymeric sand should also be placed and vibrated into the joints between pavers and the bands.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6.7.6 Portland Cement Concrete
Portland cement concrete used to construct concrete paving should conform to Section 201 of the Greenbook and should have a minimum compressive strength of 3,250 pounds per square inch (psi) at 28 days. Reinforcement and jointing of concrete pavement sections should be designed according to the minimum recommendations provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Transverse and longitudinal contraction joints should be provided at spacing no greater than 15 feet. Score joints may be constructed by saw cutting to a depth of ¼ of the slab thickness. Expansion/cold joints may be used in lieu of score joints. Such joints should be properly sealed. Where traffic will traverse over cold joints without keyways or dowels or edges of concrete paving, the edges should be thickened by 20% of the design thickness toward the edge over a horizontal distance of 5 feet.
Trash pickup areas should be provided with a concrete slab where the bins will be picked up and extend at least 3 feet past the front wheel landing areas. The slab should be at least 8 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 4 bars spaced at 24 inches on centers, both ways. The slabs should be provided transverse and longitudinal joints spacing as specified above. Dowels or a keyway should be provided at all cold joints.
6.8 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS
6.8.1 Site Drainage and Irrigation
Positive drainage devices, such as sloping concrete flatwork, graded swales or area drains, should be provided around the new construction to collect and direct all surface water to suitable discharge areas The ground immediately adjacent to foundations should be provided with positive drainage away from the structures in accordance with 2022 CBC, Section 1804.4. No rain or excess water should be allowed to pond against structures such as walls, foundations, flatwork, etc.
Excessive irrigation water can be detrimental to the performance of the proposed site development.
Water applied in excess of the needs of vegetation will tend to percolate into the ground. Such percolation can lead to nuisance seepage and shallow perched groundwater. Seepage can form on slope faces, on the faces of retaining walls, in streets, or other low-lying areas. These conditions could lead to adverse effects such as the formation of stagnant water that breeds insects, distress or damage of trees, surface erosion, slope instability, discoloration and salt buildup on wall faces, and premature failure of pavement. Excessive watering can also lead to elevated vapor emissions within buildings that can damage flooring finishes or lead to mold growth inside the home.
Key factors that can help mitigate the potential for adverse effects of overwatering include the judicious use of water for irrigation, use of irrigation systems that are appropriate for the type of vegetation and geometric configuration of the planted area, the use of soil amendments to enhance moisture retention, use of low-water demand vegetation, regular use of appropriate fertilizers, and seasonal adjustments of irrigation systems to match the water requirements of vegetation. Specific recommendations should be provided by a landscape architect or other knowledgeable professional.
6.8.2 Utility Trenches
Trench excavations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in Section 6.1.7 of this report. Trench excavations must also conform to the requirements of Cal/OSHA.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Trench backfill materials and compaction criteria should conform to the requirements of the local municipalities. As a minimum, utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Materials placed within the pipe zone (6 inches below and 12 inches above the pipe) should consist of particles no greater than ¾ inches and have a SE of at least 30. The materials within the pipe zone should be moisture-conditioned and compacted by hand-operated compaction equipment. Above the pipe zone (>1 foot above pipe), the backfill may consist of general fill materials.
Trench backfill should be moisture-conditioned to slightly over the optimum moisture content, placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness, and then mechanically compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
For trenches with sloped walls, backfill material should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness, and then compacted by rolling with a sheepsfoot roller or similar equipment. The project geotechnical consultant should perform density testing along with probing to verify that adequate compaction has been achieved.
Within shallow trenches (less than 18 inches deep) where pipes may be damaged by heavy compaction equipment, imported clean sand having a SE of 30 or greater may be utilized. The sand should be placed in the trench, thoroughly watered, and then compacted with a vibratory compactor. For utility trenches located below a 1:1 (H:V) plane projecting downward from the outside edge of the adjacent footing base or crossing footing trenches, concrete or slurry should be used as trench backfill.
6.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
We recommend Albus & Associates, Inc. be engaged to review any future development plans, including civil plans (grading plans), foundation plans, and proposed structural loads, prior to construction. This is to verify that the assumptions of this report are valid and that the preliminary conclusions and recommendations contained in this report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. If we are not provided the opportunity to review these documents, we take no responsibility for misinterpretation of our preliminary conclusions and recommendations.
We recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering services during construction of the project. These services are to observe compliance with the design, specifications or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
If the project plans change significantly from the assumed development described herein, the project geotechnical consultant should review our preliminary design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report or subsequent design reports, the project geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the proposed development and geotechnical data as described herein. The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory testing for this investigation are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions and recommendations Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and vertically, and those variations could affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant during the grading and construction phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report.
This report has been prepared consistently with that level of care being provided by other professionals providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty.
This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or project concept changes from that described herein.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Borstein Enterprises and their project consultants in the planning and design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
This report is subject to review by the regulating agency.
Respectfully submitted,
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
David E. Albus Daniel D. Albus
Principal Engineer Project Engineer
G.E. 2455
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
8.0 REFERENCES
Publications
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J., and Kamai, R., 2014., “Update of the AS08 Ground-Motion Prediction Equations Based on the NGA-West2 Data Set.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (3): 1179-1197.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-16.
Boore, D.M., Stewart, J.P., Seyhan, E., and Atkinson, G.M., 2014, “NGA-West2 Equations for Predicting PGA, PGV, and 5% damped PSA for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (3): 1057-1085.
California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
Campbell, K.W., and Bozorgnia, Y., 2014, “NGA-West2 Ground Motion Model for the Average Horizontal Components of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped Linear Acceleration Response Spectra.” Earthquake Spectra 30 (3): 1087-1115.
Chiou, B.S.-J., and Youngs, R.R., 2014, “Update of the Chiou and Youngs NGA Model for the Average Horizontal Component of Peak Ground Motion and Response Spectra, Earthquake Spectra, 30 (3): 1117-1153.
Historic Aerials by Netronline, accessed 2024. https://www.historicaerials.com/ Field, E.H., Biasi, G.P., Bird, P., Dawson, T.E., Felzer, K.R., Jackson, D.D., Johnson, K.M., Jordan, T.H., Madden, C., Michael, A.J., Milner, K.R., Page, M.T., Parsons, T., Powers, P.M., Shaw, B.E., Thatcher, W.R., Weldon, R.J., II, and Zeng, Y., 2013, Uniform California earthquake rupture forecast, version 3 (UCERF3)—The time-independent model: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1165, 97 p., California Geological Survey Special Report 228, and Southern California Earthquake Center Publication 1792, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1165/.
Seed, H.B. and Whitman, R.V., 1970, “Design of Earth Retaining Structures for Dynamic Loads,” ASCE Specialty Conference, Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth Retaining Structures, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, New York, 103-147.
Tan, S.S., 2002, Geologic map of the El Cajon 7.5-minute quadrangle, San Diego County, California:
A digital database., California Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Maps PGM-02-06, 1:24,000.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D.L., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcuson, W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed, R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 127 (10): 817-833.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Reports
Albus & Associates, Inc., 2024, Revised Limited Geotechnical Report (Rev3), Geotechnical Evaluation of Impact to Existing Buried Utilities, Proposed Multi-Family Residential Development, APN 381-04-30-00, 110 Town Center Parkway, Santee, California. JN. 3245.00, dated October 17.
Plans
Rick Engineering Co., 2025, Vesting Tentative Map -- Santee the Exchange, City of Santee, California, VTM No. 2025-0002/DR 2025-0002, 16 Sheets, dated June 02.
B-3 B-1 B-2 B-4 B-5 EXPLANATION (Locations Approximate) 0 30 60 120 APPROX SCALE : 1" = 60' - Exploratory Boring Job No.: 3245.00 Date: 07/22/2024 Plate: 1 Base Provided By GEOTECHNICAL MAP Rick Engineering ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX A
EXPLORATION LOGS
Field Identification Sheet
Light gray Description Order:
Description, Color, Moisture, Density, Grain Size, Additional Description Gray Description %
0-5
trace 5-15
Dark gray with 15-30
30+ Gravelly Sand with Silt trace Clay
Moisture Silty Clay with Sand trace Gravel
Gray Brown Dry
Damp
Moist
Light brown Very Moist
Wet
Brown Density (Navfac)
SPT CA
0-3 0-5
Dark Brown 3-8 5-13
8-14 13-22
14-25 22-40
Olive brown 25> 40>
2< 0-3
Olive 2-4 3-6
4-8 6-13
8-15 13-24
Yellow 15-30 24-48
30> 48>
Yellowish brown Grain Size
Description Sieve Size Approx. Size
>12" Larger than basketball
Yellowish red 3-12" Fist to basketball
coarse 3/4-3" Thumb to Fist
fine #4-3/4" Pea to Thumb
Red coarse #10-4 Rock Salt to Pea
medium #40-10 Sugar to Rock Salt
fine #200-40 Flour to Sugar
Reddish Brown Pass #200 Smaller than Flour
Additional Description (ie. roots, pinhole pores, debris, etc.) Tan Trace 5% Moderate 15% Abundant 30%
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate A-0
absence of water
near optimum
below optimum
Very Loose
Sand
Sand trace Silt
Sand with Silt
Silty Sand
Example
Very Soft
Soft
Stiff
above optimum
free water visible
Loose
Medium Dense
More Examples
Fines
Sand
Gravel
Sand with Silt and Clay
Sand trace Silt and Clay
Sand with Silt trace Clay
Very Stiff
Hard
Fine grained soils
Medium Stiff
Boulders
Cobbles
Dense
Coarse grained soils
Very Dense
Project:
Address:
Job Number:
Drill Method:
Client:
Driving Weight:
Location:
Elevation:
Date:
Logged By:
Depth
(feet)
Lith-ology
Blows
Per
Foot
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other
Lab Tests
Samples Laboratory Tests
Material Description
E X P L O R A T I O N L O GWater
Core
Bulk
5 10
15 20
EXPLANATION
Solid lines separate geologic units and/or material types.
Dashed lines indicate unknown depth of geologic unit change or material type change.
Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California Split Spoon sampler (2.5in ID, 3in OD).
Double triangle in core column represents SPT sampler.
Vertical Lines in core column represents Shelby sampler.
Solid black rectangle in Bulk column respresents large bag sample.
Other Laboratory Tests:
Max = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content
EI = Expansion Index
SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content
DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded
DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed
SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve)
Hydro = Particle Size Analysis (SA with Hydrometer)
200 = Percent Passing #200 Sieve
Consol = Consolidation
SE = Sand Equivalent
Rval = R-Value
ATT = Atterberg Limits
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate A-1
Artificial Fill (Af)
Silty Sand with Clay (SM-SC): brown, damp,
medium dense, fine grained
Younger Alluvium (Qya)
Clayey Sand (SC): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to
medium grained
@ 6 ft, Gravel up to 2 inch diameter
Older Alluvium (Qoa)
Silty Sand with Clay (SM-SC): reddish brown, moist,
medium dense, fine grained
Clayey Sand (SC): reddish brown, moist, dense, fine
grained
@ 20 ft, very moist, medium dense, upper 6 inches
was very moist
39 36
31 17
29 9
11.4 111.5
4.1 200
15.3 200 att
28.1 EXPLORATION LOG B-1
JOB NO. CLIENT/PROJECT DAY DATE
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION
LOGGED BY DRILLER DRILL METHOD DRIVING WEIGHT
DEPTH LITHO DESCRIPTION
H2OCORBAG
BLOW
COUNT
MC
(%)
DD
(pcf)
LAB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
3245.00 Borstein Enterprises Monday 2024-04-29
110 Town Center Parkway, Santee 32.83996 -116.98996 333.6 ddalbus 2R Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger 140 lbs / 30 in
1011 North Armando Street, Anaheim CA 92806 (714) 630-1626 PLATE A-2 Sand trace Silt (SP): yellowish brown, wet, dense,
fine to coarse grained
@ 30 ft, trace gravel
Silty Sand (SM): light gray, moist, fine grained
Total Depth 46.5 feet
Groundwater at 13 feet
28 27
54/
4"
no
recover
27 26
200
200
26 att
EXPLORATION LOG B-1
JOB NO. CLIENT/PROJECT DAY DATE
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION
LOGGED BY DRILLER DRILL METHOD DRIVING WEIGHT
DEPTH LITHO DESCRIPTION
H2OCORBAG
BLOW
COUNT
MC
(%)
DD
(pcf)
LAB
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
3245.00 Borstein Enterprises Monday 2024-04-29
110 Town Center Parkway, Santee 32.83996 -116.98996 333.6 ddalbus 2R Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger 140 lbs / 30 in
1011 North Armando Street, Anaheim CA 92806 (714) 630-1626 PLATE A-3 Artificial Fill (Af)
Silty Sand with Clay (SM-SC): brown, damp,
medium dense, fine grained
Younger Alluvium (Qya)
Clayey Sand (SC): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to
medium grained
@ 4 ft, gravel and rock fragments
@ 6 ft, dense
Silty Sand trace Clay (SM): brown, moist, medium
dense, fine grained
Total Depth 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
21 17
50 17
19.8 102.6 conso
l
11.1 104.1
6.6 123.5
18.5 104.5
EXPLORATION LOG B-2
JOB NO. CLIENT/PROJECT DAY DATE
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION
LOGGED BY DRILLER DRILL METHOD DRIVING WEIGHT
DEPTH LITHO DESCRIPTION
H2OCORBAG
BLOW
COUNT
MC
(%)
DD
(pcf)
LAB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
3245.00 Borstein Enterprises Monday 2024-04-29
110 Town Center Parkway, Santee 32.84003 -116.99076 333.1 ddalbus 2R Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger 140 lbs / 30 in
1011 North Armando Street, Anaheim CA 92806 (714) 630-1626 PLATE A-4 Artificial FIll (Af)
Silty Sand with Clay (SM-SC): brown, damp,
medium dense, fine grained
Younger Alluvium (Qya)
Clayey Sand (SC): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to
medium grained
@ 10 ft, trace gravel
Total Depth 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
15 20
23 23
12.9 114
10.3 124.4 consol
14.9 105.1
16 107
EXPLORATION LOG B-3
JOB NO. CLIENT/PROJECT DAY DATE
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION
LOGGED BY DRILLER DRILL METHOD DRIVING WEIGHT
DEPTH LITHO DESCRIPTION
H2OCORBAG
BLOW
COUNT
MC
(%)
DD
(pcf)
LAB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
3245.00 Borstein Enterprises Monday 2024-04-29
110 Town Center Parkway, Santee 32.84041 -116.99044 336.7 ddalbus 2R Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger 140 lbs / 30 in
1011 North Armando Street, Anaheim CA 92806 (714) 630-1626 PLATE A-5 Artificial Fill (Af)
Silty Sand with Clay (SM-SC): brown, damp,
medium dense, fine grained
Younger Alluvium (Qya)
Clayey Sand (SC): gray, moist, medium dense, fine
grained
Total Depth 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
29 38
18 19
max
ei so4
ph
resist
ch 9.5 125.5
9.5 128.3 consol
20.1 98.3 consol ei
19.2 103
EXPLORATION LOG B-4
JOB NO. CLIENT/PROJECT DAY DATE
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION
LOGGED BY DRILLER DRILL METHOD DRIVING WEIGHT
DEPTH LITHO DESCRIPTION
H2OCORBAG
BLOW
COUNT
MC
(%)
DD
(pcf)
LAB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
3245.00 Borstein Enterprises Monday 2024-04-29
110 Town Center Parkway, Santee 32.84068 -116.99075 333.5 ddalbus 2R Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger 140 lbs / 30 in
1011 North Armando Street, Anaheim CA 92806 (714) 630-1626 PLATE A-6 Artificial Fill (Af)
Silty Sand with Clay (SM-SC): brown, damp,
medium dense, fine grained
Younger Alluvium (Qya)
Clayey Sand (SC): gray, moist, medium dense, fine
grained
Total Depth 11.5 feet
No Groundwater
21 36
29 35
14.9 89 conso
l
7.8 130.4
17.9 99.5 consol
5.1 117.4
EXPLORATION LOG B-5
JOB NO. CLIENT/PROJECT DAY DATE
LOCATION LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION
LOGGED BY DRILLER DRILL METHOD DRIVING WEIGHT
DEPTH LITHO DESCRIPTION
H2OCORBAG
BLOW
COUNT
MC
(%)
DD
(pcf)
LAB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
3245.00 Borstein Enterprises Monday 2024-04-29
110 Town Center Parkway, Santee 32.84074 -116.99007 334.7 ddalbus 2R Drilling Hollow-Stem Auger 140 lbs / 30 in
1011 North Armando Street, Anaheim CA 92806 (714) 630-1626 PLATE A-7 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Soil Classification
Soils encountered within the exploratory borings were initially classified in the field in general accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487). The samples were re-examined in the laboratory and classifications reviewed and then revised where appropriate. The assigned group symbols are presented on the Exploration Logs provided in Appendix A.
In Situ Moisture and Density
Moisture content and unit dry density of in-place soil materials were determined in representative strata. Test data are summarized in the Boring Logs, Appendix A.
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were performed on representative samples of the site materials obtained from our field explorations. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Pertinent test values are given in Table B.
Expansion Potential
An Expansion Index test was performed on a selected sample in accordance with ASTM D 4829. The test result and expansion potential are presented in Table B.
Soluble Sulfate Content
Chemical analysis is being performed on selected samples to determine soluble sulfate content. The test was performed in accordance with California Test Method No. 417.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits (Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index) were performed in accordance with Test Method ASTM D4318. Pertinent test values are presented in Table B.
Consolidation
Consolidation tests were performed for selected soil samples in general conformance with ASTM D 2435. Axial loads were applied in several increments to a laterally restrained 1-inch-high sample.
Loads were applied in geometric progression by doubling the previous load, and the resulting deformations were recorded at selected time intervals. Results of the tests are graphically presented on Plates B-1 through B-6.
Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve
The percentage of material passing the No. 200 sieve was determined on selected samples to verify visual classifications performed in the field. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1140. Test results are presented in Table B.
Borstein Enterprises August 26, 2025
J.N.: 3245.00
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Direct Shear
Direct shear testing was performed for a selected soil sample remolded to 90 percent of the maximum dry density. This test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D3080. Three specimens were prepared for the test. The test specimens were artificially saturated and then sheared under varied normal loads at a constant rate. The results are graphically presented on Plate B-7.
Corrosion Analysis
Select samples were tested for minimum resistivity, chloride, pH in accordance with California Test Method 643. Results of these tests are provided in Table B.
TABLE B
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Boring
No.
Sample
Depth (ft) Soil Description Test Results
B-1 10 Clayey Sand (SC) Passing #200 Sieve (%): 36.6
B-1 15 Clayey Sand (SC)
Passing #200 Sieve (%):
Liquid Limit:
Plastic Index:
50.6 25
9 B-1 25 Sand trace Silt (SP) Passing #200 Sieve (%): 6.9 B-1 40 Sandy Clay (CL) Passing #200 Sieve (%): 8.9
B-1 45 Sandy Clay (CL) Liquid Limit:
Plastic Index:
44 16
B-4 0-5 Silty Sand with Clay
(SM-SC)
Max. Dry Density (pcf):
Opt. Moisture Content (%):
Expansion Index:
Expansion Potential:
Soluble Sulfate Content:
Sulfate Exposure:
Resistivity (ohm-cm):
pH:
Chloride content (ppm):
129.5
10.5 55
Medium
0.2 %
Severe
660
7.52 60
B-4 6-8 Clayey Sand (SC) Expansion Index:
Expansion Potential:
104
High
CONSOLIDATION
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-2 2
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-1
Description
Clayey Sand (SC)
103.7 18.6 19.3
Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 100 1000 10000 100000 CONSOLIDATION (%)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Field Saturated
CONSOLIDATION
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-3 4
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-2
Description
Silty Sand (SM)
122.9 10.2 12.3
Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 100 1000 10000 100000 CONSOLIDATION (%)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Field Saturated
CONSOLIDATION
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-4 4
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-3
Description
Silty Sand (SM)
128.5 9.3 11.1
Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 100 1000 10000 100000 CONSOLIDATION (%)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Field Saturated
CONSOLIDATION
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-4 6
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-4
Description
Clayey Sand (SC)
96.9 20.6 21.7
Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 100 1000 10000 100000 CONSOLIDATION (%)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Field Saturated
CONSOLIDATION
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-5 2
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-5
Description
Silty Sand (SM)
112.5 15.1 17.9
Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 100 1000 10000 100000 CONSOLIDATION (%)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Field Saturated
CONSOLIDATION
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-5 6
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-6
Description
Clayey Sand (SC)
96.3 18.1 21.9
Initial Dry Density (pcf) Initial Moisture Content (%) Final Moisture Concent (%) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 100 1000 10000 100000 CONSOLIDATION (%)
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Field Saturated
DIRECT SHEAR
Sample Type:
Normal Stress (ksf) 1 2 4
Peak Shear Stress (ksf) 1.08 1.824 2.616
Peak Displacement (in) 0.006 0.005 0.005
Ultimate Shear Stress (ksf) 0.792 1.536 2.568
Ultimate Displacement (in) 0.25 0.25 0.25
Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.3 116.4 116.3
Initial Moisture Content (%) 10.5 10.5 10.5
Final Moisture Content (%) 16.5 15.9 16.5
Strain Rate (in/min)
Job Number Location Depth
3245.00 B-4 0-5
Albus & Associates, Inc. Plate B-7
Description
Silty Sand (SM)
0.01 Remolded, Saturated
-0.008
-0.006
-0.004
-0.002
0 0.002
0.004
0.006
0 2 4 6 8 10 Vertical Displacement (in)
Strain (%)
1 2 4
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 2 4 6 8 10 Shear Stress (ksf)
Strain (%)
1 2 4
0.0 0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0 2.5
3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 SHEAR STRESS (ksf) NORMAL STRESS (ksf)
Peak
Ultimate
Linear (Peak)
Linear (Ultimate)
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX C
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
TABLE C-1
ANALYSIS OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
BORING: B-1 (2%PE in 50 yrs; FS=1.3)
Client: Borstein Enterprises
J.N. 3245.00
Site: Santee
Hammer Type (D,S,A) A [Ce= D 0.75, S 0.95, A Hammer Efficiency] Boring Diameter, ID (in) 4
Site Acceleration (g) 0.441 PGAm w/o MSF
for a Magnitude (Mw) of 6.42 Corresponding to 2%PE in 50 yrs and MSF of 1.58 Analysis Type: General
Depth to High GW 10.0 ft. FS for Liquefaction: 1.3
Depth to GW during invest. 13.0 ft. FS for Liqu. Settlement: 1.3 Hammer Efficiency 84.1 % PI Threshold for Liquefaction: 12 Sublayer Thickness 1.0 ft. Min. Moisture Cnt for Liqu. (%LL) 85 Depth of Analysis 50.0 ft. Max FS for Plotting: 5.0
Layer
Label LL PI M
(Auto) (%) (%)
Top Bottom
1 0.0 3.0 1.5 SM 35 39 CA 124
2 3.0 5.0 4.0 SC 35 35 19 11 36 CA 124
3 5.0 11.0 8.0 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115
4 11.0 15.0 13.0 SC 37 25 9 15 17 CA 115
5 15.0 20.0 17.5 SC 30 30 15 15 29 SPT 120
6 20.0 25.0 22.5 SC 30 30 15 28 9 SPT 120
7 25.0 30.0 27.5 SP 7 28 SPT 120
8 30.0 35.0 32.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120
9 35.0 41.0 38.0 SP 7 27 SPT 120
10 41.0 45.0 43.0 SC 35 44 16 26 27 SPT 120
11 45.0 50.0 47.5 SC 35 44 16 26 26 SPT 120
12 50.0
13 50.1
14 50.2
15 50.3
Soil
Wet
Density
(pcf)
Sample Type
SPT/CA
Depth Interval (ft) Layer Mid-Depth (ft)
Soil Type
(USCS)
Fines
<#200
Sieve
(%)
Field Nf
(bls/ft)
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-1
TABLE C-2
Client: Borstein Enterprises ANALYSIS OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL J.N. 3245.00 BORING: B-1 (2%PE in 50 yrs; FS=1.3)
Site: Santee
Hammer Type (D,S,A) A
Boring Diameter, ID (in) 4 Notes: Underlined numbers are estimated values. (4) A Layer is located above historically high groundwater Site Acceleration (g) 0.441 (1) Based on current groundwater conditions at the time of investigation. B Factor of Saftey is greater than the specified value of FS=1.3 for a Magnitude (Mw) of 6.42 (2) Based on assumed/proposed high groundwater conditions. C The (N1 )60-cs is greater than 30 blows per foot
and MSF of 1.58 (3) Kα=1.0 D PI > 12 or the in situ moisture content (M%) < 85% LL Depth to High GW 10 ft. FS for Liquefaction: 1.3
Depth to GW during invest. 13 ft. FS for Liqu. Settlement: 1.3 Reference: Youd, T.L., et.al., (2001), "Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report From The 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation Hammer Efficiency 84.1 % PI Threshold for Liquefaction: 12 of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils", ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.127, No.10, pp.817-833, October, 2001.
Sublayer Thickness 1 ft. Moisture Cnt Threshold for Liqu. (%LL) 85 Depth of Boring 50 ft.
Layer
Label LL PI M
(%) (%)
Top Bottom
1.30 1 0.0 1.0 0.5 SM 35 39 CA 124 62 62 1.7 1.40 1.00 0.75 1.0 39.0 5.0 1.20 51.8 62 1.00 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 1 1.0 2.0 1.5 SM 35 39 CA 124 186 186 1.7 1.40 1.00 0.75 1.0 39.0 5.0 1.20 51.8 186 1.00 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 1 2.0 3.0 2.5 SM 35 39 CA 124 310 310 1.6 1.40 1.00 0.75 1.0 37.5 5.0 1.20 50.0 310 0.99 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 2 3.0 4.0 3.5 SC 35 35 19 11 36 CA 124 434 434 1.6 1.40 1.00 0.75 1.0 33.1 5.0 1.20 44.7 434 0.99 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 2 4.0 5.0 4.5 SC 35 35 19 11 36 CA 124 558 558 1.5 1.40 1.00 0.75 1.0 31.8 5.0 1.20 43.1 558 0.99 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 3 5.0 6.0 5.5 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115 678 678 1.4 1.40 1.00 0.75 1.0 26.3 5.0 1.20 36.6 678 0.99 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 3 6.0 7.0 6.5 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115 793 793 1.4 1.40 1.00 0.80 1.0 27.1 5.0 1.20 37.5 793 0.99 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 3 7.0 8.0 7.5 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115 908 908 1.3 1.40 1.00 0.80 1.0 26.2 5.0 1.20 36.4 908 0.98 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 3 8.0 9.0 8.5 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115 1023 1023 1.3 1.40 1.00 0.80 1.0 25.3 5.0 1.20 35.4 1023 0.98 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 3 9.0 10.0 9.5 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115 1138 1138 1.3 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.0 26.1 5.0 1.20 36.3 1138 0.98 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N A 3 10.0 11.0 10.5 SC 35 35 19 11 31 CA 115 1253 1253 1.2 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.0 25.3 5.0 1.20 35.3 1221 0.98 NA 1.00 0.28 NA N C 4 11.0 12.0 11.5 SC 37 25 9 15 17 CA 115 1368 1368 1.2 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.0 13.5 5.0 1.20 21.1 1274 0.97 NA 1.00 0.30 NA N D 4 12.0 13.0 12.5 SC 37 25 9 15 17 CA 115 1483 1483 1.2 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.0 13.1 5.0 1.20 20.7 1327 0.97 NA 1.00 0.32 NA N D 4 13.0 14.0 13.5 SC 37 25 9 15 17 CA 115 1598 1566 1.1 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.0 12.8 5.0 1.20 20.4 1379 0.97 NA 1.00 0.32 NA N D 4 14.0 15.0 14.5 SC 37 25 9 15 17 CA 115 1713 1619 1.1 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.0 12.6 5.0 1.20 20.2 1432 0.97 NA 1.00 0.34 NA N D 5 15.0 16.0 15.5 SC 30 30 15 15 29 SPT 120 1830 1674 1.1 1.40 1.00 0.85 1.2 45.6 4.7 1.15 57.3 1487 0.96 NA 1.00 0.34 NA N C 5 16.0 17.0 16.5 SC 30 30 15 15 29 SPT 120 1950 1732 1.1 1.40 1.00 0.90 1.2 47.6 4.7 1.15 59.6 1544 0.96 NA 1.00 0.34 NA N C 5 17.0 18.0 17.5 SC 30 30 15 15 29 SPT 120 2070 1789 1.1 1.40 1.00 0.90 1.2 47.0 4.7 1.15 58.9 1602 0.96 NA 1.00 0.36 NA N C 5 18.0 19.0 18.5 SC 30 30 15 15 29 SPT 120 2190 1847 1.1 1.40 1.00 0.90 1.2 46.3 4.7 1.15 58.2 1660 0.96 NA 1.00 0.36 NA N C 5 19.0 20.0 19.5 SC 30 30 15 15 29 SPT 120 2310 1904 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.90 1.2 45.7 4.7 1.15 57.5 1717 0.96 NA 1.00 0.36 NA N C 6 20.0 21.0 20.5 SC 30 30 15 28 9 SPT 120 2430 1962 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.90 1.2 14.0 4.7 1.15 20.9 1775 0.95 NA 1.00 0.38 NA N D 6 21.0 22.0 21.5 SC 30 30 15 28 9 SPT 120 2550 2020 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.90 1.2 13.8 4.7 1.15 20.7 1832 0.95 NA 1.01 0.38 NA N D 6 22.0 23.0 22.5 SC 30 30 15 28 9 SPT 120 2670 2077 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 14.4 4.7 1.15 21.3 1890 0.95 NA 1.01 0.38 NA N D 6 23.0 24.0 23.5 SC 30 30 15 28 9 SPT 120 2790 2135 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 14.2 4.7 1.15 21.1 1948 0.95 NA 1.00 0.38 NA N D 6 24.0 25.0 24.5 SC 30 30 15 28 9 SPT 120 2910 2192 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 14.1 4.7 1.15 20.9 2005 0.94 NA 1.00 0.40 NA N D 7 25.0 26.0 25.5 SP 7 28 SPT 120 3030 2250 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 43.2 0.1 1.01 43.7 2063 0.94 NA 0.99 0.40 NA N C 7 26.0 27.0 26.5 SP 7 28 SPT 120 3150 2308 1.0 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 42.7 0.1 1.01 43.2 2120 0.94 NA 0.99 0.40 NA N C 7 27.0 28.0 27.5 SP 7 28 SPT 120 3270 2365 0.9 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 42.2 0.1 1.01 42.7 2178 0.94 NA 0.99 0.40 NA N C 7 28.0 29.0 28.5 SP 7 28 SPT 120 3390 2423 0.9 1.40 1.00 0.95 1.2 41.7 0.1 1.01 42.2 2236 0.93 NA 0.98 0.40 NA N C 7 29.0 30.0 29.5 SP 7 28 SPT 120 3510 2480 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 43.4 0.1 1.01 43.9 2293 0.93 NA 0.98 0.40 NA N C 8 30.0 31.0 30.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 3630 2538 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 41.4 0.1 1.01 41.8 2351 0.93 NA 0.97 0.42 NA N C 8 31.0 32.0 31.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 3750 2596 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 40.9 0.1 1.01 41.4 2408 0.92 NA 0.97 0.42 NA N C 8 32.0 33.0 32.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 3870 2653 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 40.4 0.1 1.01 40.9 2466 0.91 NA 0.96 0.40 NA N C 8 33.0 34.0 33.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 3990 2711 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 40.0 0.1 1.01 40.5 2524 0.90 NA 0.96 0.40 NA N C 8 34.0 35.0 34.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4110 2768 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 39.6 0.1 1.01 40.0 2581 0.89 NA 0.96 0.40 NA N C 9 35.0 36.0 35.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4230 2826 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 39.1 0.1 1.01 39.6 2639 0.89 NA 0.95 0.40 NA N C 9 36.0 37.0 36.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4350 2884 0.9 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 38.7 0.1 1.01 39.2 2696 0.88 NA 0.95 0.40 NA N C 9 37.0 38.0 37.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4470 2941 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 38.3 0.1 1.01 38.8 2754 0.87 NA 0.95 0.40 NA N C 9 38.0 39.0 38.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4590 2999 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 37.9 0.1 1.01 38.3 2812 0.86 NA 0.94 0.40 NA N C 9 39.0 40.0 39.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4710 3056 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 37.5 0.1 1.01 38.0 2869 0.85 NA 0.94 0.40 NA N C 9 40.0 41.0 40.5 SP 7 27 SPT 120 4830 3114 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 37.1 0.1 1.01 37.6 2927 0.85 NA 0.93 0.40 NA N C 10 41.0 42.0 41.5 SC 35 44 16 26 27 SPT 120 4950 3172 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 36.8 5.0 1.20 49.1 2984 0.84 NA 0.93 0.40 NA N C 10 42.0 43.0 42.5 SC 35 44 16 26 27 SPT 120 5070 3229 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 36.4 5.0 1.20 48.7 3042 0.83 NA 0.93 0.40 NA N C 10 43.0 44.0 43.5 SC 35 44 16 26 27 SPT 120 5190 3287 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 36.0 5.0 1.20 48.2 3100 0.82 NA 0.92 0.40 NA N C 10 44.0 45.0 44.5 SC 35 44 16 26 27 SPT 120 5310 3344 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 35.7 5.0 1.20 47.8 3157 0.81 NA 0.92 0.40 NA N C 11 45.0 46.0 45.5 SC 35 44 16 26 26 SPT 120 5430 3402 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 34.0 5.0 1.20 45.8 3215 0.81 NA 0.92 0.38 NA N C 11 46.0 47.0 46.5 SC 35 44 16 26 26 SPT 120 5550 3460 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 33.7 5.0 1.20 45.4 3272 0.80 NA 0.91 0.38 NA N C 11 47.0 48.0 47.5 SC 35 44 16 26 26 SPT 120 5670 3517 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 33.4 5.0 1.20 45.0 3330 0.79 NA 0.91 0.38 NA N C 11 48.0 49.0 48.5 SC 35 44 16 26 26 SPT 120 5790 3575 0.8 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 33.0 5.0 1.20 44.7 3388 0.78 NA 0.91 0.38 NA N C 11 49.0 50.0 49.5 SC 35 44 16 26 26 SPT 120 5910 3632 0.7 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.2 32.7 5.0 1.20 44.3 3445 0.77 NA 0.90 0.38 NA N C Sample
Type
SPT/CA
Ce Cr
Depth Interval (ft) Layer Mid-Depth (ft)
Soil Type
(USCS)
Fines
<#200
Sieve
(%)
Field Nf
(bls/ft)
Soil
Wet
Density
(pcf)
Total
Stress
(psf)(1)
Reason(4)
not
Liquifiable
To Liquefy
Y/N?
CRR
(M=7.5
)
Effec.
Stress
(psf)(1)
Cn Cb CSR
(N1)60-cs
(lbs/ft)
Effec.
Stress
(psf)(2)
Kσ FS R (3) CL b d
(N1)60
(lbs/ft
)
a
ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-2
TABLE C-4
ANALYSIS OF DRY SEISMIC SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL
BORING B-1 (2%PE in 50 yrs; FS=1.3)
Client: Borstein Enterprises
J.N. 3245.00
Site: Santee Total Seismic Settlement of Unsaturated Soil w/ FS=2.0 (in): 0.01 Subtotal Seismic Settlement of Unsaturated Soil (in): 0.01 GW Depth: 10 feet Total Thickness of Unsaturated Soil (ft): 10.0 EQ Magnitude 6.42 (psf) (tsf) (tsf) Estimated
MSF 1.58 tavg sm' Gmax Eff. Cyclic Eff. Cyclic Volume Layer Dry Sand Layer Clean Avg. Mean Max. geff Shr.Strain Shr.Strain Strain EQ Mag. Thickness Seismic Mid-Depth Soil Eff. Stress Sand CSR Shear Bulk Dyn.Shr. (Geff/Gmax) geff geff (%) Factor Settlement (ft.) Type s'vo(tsf) (N1)60 Stress Stress Mod. (%) (ft.) (in.) Fig.11 Fig.13
0.5 SM 0.03 51.8 0.28 17.4 0.02 233.6 3.72E-05 4.55E-05 4.55E-03 1.38E-03 1.58 1.0 0.000
1.5 SM 0.09 51.8 0.28 52.1 0.06 404.6 6.44E-05 1.07E-04 1.07E-02 3.24E-03 1.58 1.0 0.000
2.5 SM 0.16 50.0 0.28 86.8 0.10 516.0 8.41E-05 1.70E-04 1.70E-02 5.18E-03 1.58 1.0 0.000
3.5 SC 0.22 44.7 0.28 121.5 0.14 588.8 1.03E-04 2.26E-04 2.26E-02 6.87E-03 1.58 1.0 0.001
4.5 SC 0.28 43.1 0.28 156.2 0.18 659.6 1.18E-04 2.54E-04 2.54E-02 7.72E-03 1.58 1.0 0.001
5.5 SC 0.34 36.6 0.28 189.7 0.22 688.5 1.38E-04 2.99E-04 2.99E-02 1.12E-02 1.58 1.0 0.001
6.5 SC 0.40 37.5 0.28 221.9 0.26 750.8 1.48E-04 3.25E-04 3.25E-02 1.15E-02 1.58 1.0 0.001
7.5 SC 0.45 36.4 0.28 254.1 0.29 795.6 1.60E-04 3.57E-04 3.57E-02 1.35E-02 1.58 1.0 0.001
8.5 SC 0.51 35.4 0.28 286.3 0.33 836.6 1.71E-04 3.85E-04 3.85E-02 1.55E-02 1.58 1.0 0.001
9.5 SC 0.57 36.3 0.28 318.5 0.37 889.6 1.79E-04 3.98E-04 3.98E-02 1.52E-02 1.58 1.0 0.001 ALBUS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Plate C-3
Assessor’s Parcel Number 381-
040-36-00
Mission Gorge Road and Town
Center Parkway
Santee, California 92071
Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
December 9, 2024
Prepared for:
Borstein Enterprises
11760 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 820
Los Angeles, California 90025
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
735 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 280
San Bernardino, California 92408
Project No.: 185806533
Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals Project No.: 185806533
This document entitled Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Report) was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Borstein Enterprises (the “Client”). The conclusions in the Report are Stantec’s professional opinion, as of the time of the Report, and concerning the scope described in the Report. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the scope of work was conducted and do not take into account any subsequent changes. The Report relates solely to the specific project for which Stantec was retained and the stated purpose for which the Report was prepared.
The Report is not to be used or relied on for any variation or extension of the project, or for any other project or purpose, and any unauthorized use or reliance is at the recipient’s own risk.
Stantec has assumed all information received from the “Client” and third parties in the preparation of the Report to be correct. While Stantec has exercised a customary level of judgment or due diligence in the use of such information, Stantec assumes no responsibility for the consequences of any error or omission contained therein.
This Report is intended solely for use by the Client in accordance with Stantec’s contract with the Client.
While the Report may be provided to applicable authorities having jurisdiction and others for whom the Client is responsible, Stantec does not warrant the services to any third party. The report may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written consent of Stantec, which may be withheld at Stantec’s discretion.
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312, (40 CFR 312). I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the property. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Author:
Jennifer Alvarado
Associate Scientist
Quality Reviewer:
Alicia Jansen
Senior Scientist
Independent Reviewer:
Kyle D. Emerson, C.E.G.
Managing Principal
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806533 i
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................III
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1.1
2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................2.1
2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION.........................................................................2.2
2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS.......................2.3
2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ...............................................................2.3
2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS..................................................................................2.4
3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION...............................................................................3.1
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ......................................................................................................4.1
4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING.....................................................................................................4.1
4.1.1 Subject Property Topography and Surface Water Flow ...............................4.1
4.1.2 Regional and Subject Property Geology ......................................................4.2
4.1.3 Regional and Subject Property Hydrogeology..............................................4.2
4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS................................4.2
4.2.1 Listings for Subject Property.........................................................................4.2
4.2.2 Listings for Adjoining and Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Subject Property ...........................................................................................4.3
4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS.....................................................4.4
4.3.1 Environmental Health Department ...............................................................4.5
4.3.2 City and County Department Records..........................................................4.5
4.3.3 State Department Records ...........................................................................4.6
4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW................................................................................4.7
4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds ............................................................................4.7
4.4.2 Aerial Photographs .......................................................................................4.7
4.4.3 City Directories .............................................................................................4.8
4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps .....................................................................4.8
4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps ........................................................................4.8
4.4.6 Other Historical Sources...............................................................................4.9
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................................5.1
5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY ...............................................................5.1
5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................5.1
5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ..................................5.2
5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS.........................................................................................5.2
5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS .......................................................................................5.2
5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES .................................................5.3
5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS ...........................................................................5.3
5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES ...........................................................................................5.4
5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ...........................................................5.4
5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties............................5.4
5.8.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties .........................................5.4
5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................5.4
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806533 ii
6.0 EVALUATION................................................................................................................6.1
6.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS...........................................................................................6.1
6.2 DATA GAPS...................................................................................................................6.1
6.3 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................6.2
7.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................7.1
7.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT.....................................................................................................7.1
7.2 ASBESTOS ....................................................................................................................7.1
7.3 RADON ..........................................................................................................................7.1
7.4 FLOOD ZONES .............................................................................................................7.2
8.0 REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................8.1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Subject Property and Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2 Subject Property Map
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VICINITY..................................... A APPENDIX B STANTEC RESUMES .......................................................................................... B APPENDIX C USER PROVIDED RECORDS ............................................................................. C APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT ......................... E APPENDIX E HISTORICAL RECORDS ...................................................................................... F APPENDIX F AGENCY RECORDS............................................................................................. F
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Project No.: 185806533 iii
Abbreviations
AAI All Appropriate Inquiries
AP Alquist-Priolo
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM ASTM International
AUL Activity Use Limitation
BER Business Environmental Risk
Bgs Below Ground Surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
EP Environmental Professional
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
ft amsl Feet above mean sea level
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
USDA-NRCS United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VES Vapor Encroachment Screen
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
ExecutIve Summary
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 1.1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report of the property located west of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway, in the city of Santee, San Diego County, California (the “Subject Property”), on behalf of Borstein Enterprises (the “Client”). The work was performed according to Stantec’s proposal and terms and conditions dated December 4, 2024. Borstein Enterprises (the “User”) has been designated as the User of this report. The intended use of this Phase I ESA is for due diligence in support of potential redevelopment.
The Phase I ESA was conducted in conformance with the requirements of ASTM International (ASTM) Designation E1527-21, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) as defined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312 (40 CFR 312), except as may have been modified by the scope of work, and terms and conditions, requested by the Client. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, the ASTM or AAI practice are described in Section 2.3.
The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.26 acres of land designated by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 381-040-36-00, and is located west of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway, in the city of Santee, San Diego County, California. The Subject Property is currently vacant land with an asphalt driveway located along the western Subject Property border. Historical records indicate the Subject Property was vacant land since at least the early 1900s. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby surrounding area, include commercial and residential development. A Subject Property Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A Subject Property Vicinity Map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property and vicinity is provided as Figure 2. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.
Stantec previously prepared a Phase I ESA for the Subject Property dated May 17, 2024. No evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property were identified during this report. As a part of this investigation, Stantec cored the asphalt in five locations throughout the asphalted driveway to investigate the potential presence of Petromat. No Petromat was observed in any of the five cored locations in the asphalted surfaces.
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the Subject Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property.
The preceding summary is intended for informational purposes only. Reading of the full body of this report is recommended.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 2.1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this Phase I ESA was to perform AAI into the past ownership and uses of the Subject Property consistent with good commercial or customary practice as outlined by ASTM International (ASTM) in “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process,” Designation E1527-21. “All Appropriate Inquiries” is the process for evaluating a property’s environmental conditions for the purpose of qualifying for landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) following final rule of Part 312 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 312). The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to identify, to the extent feasible, adverse environmental conditions including recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”) of the Subject Property.
The ASTM E1527-21 standard indicates that the goal of the Phase I ESA is to identify RECs, as well as historical recognized environmental conditions (“HRECs”) and controlled recognized environmental conditions (“CRECs”) that may exist at a property. The term “recognized environmental conditions” is defined as:
1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release to the environment;
2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the Subject Property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
ASTM defines a “HREC” as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the Subject Property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority and meets current unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (e.g., activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). A HREC is not considered a REC.
ASTM defines a “CREC” as a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), but with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).
As defined by ASTM, RECs can include hazardous substances or petroleum products present under conditions in compliance with laws if that presence represents a material threat of future release. The release of hazardous substances or petroleum products is, however, not a REC if that presence is a de minimis condition. De minimis conditions are minor releases that generally do not present a material risk
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 2.2
to human health and would not likely be subject to enforcement action if brought to the attention of governmental agencies. ASTM also considers the potential for a business environmental risk (BER), defined as a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the Subject Property, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated by the ASTM standard. Consideration of BERs may involve addressing one or more ASTM non-scope considerations.
This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with our proposal to Borstein Enterprises dated December 4, 2024, and Client’s authorization on the same date. The scope of work conducted during this Phase I ESA consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the Subject Property, interviews with key individuals, and review of reasonably ascertainable documents. The scope of work did not include an assessment for environmental regulatory compliance of any facility ever operated at the Subject Property (past or present), or sampling and analyzing of environmental media. Stantec was not contracted to perform an independent evaluation of the purchase or lease price of the Subject Property and its relationship to current fair market value. The conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA report are professional opinions based on data described herein. The opinions are subject to the limitations described in Section 2.3.
ASTM E1527-21 notes that the availability of record information varies from source to source. The User or Environmental Professional (EP) is not obligated to identify, obtain, or review every possible source that might exist with respect to a property. Instead, ASTM identifies record information that is reasonably ascertainable from standard sources. “Reasonably ascertainable” means:
1. Information that is publicly available;
2. Information that is obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost constraints; and
3. Information that is practicably reviewable.
2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.26 acres of land designated by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 381-040-36-00, and is located west of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway, in the city of Santee, San Diego County, California. The Subject Property is currently vacant land with a driveway located along the western Subject Property border. Historical records indicate the Subject Property was vacant land since at least the early 1900s. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby surrounding area, include commercial and residential development. A Subject Property Location Map is provided as Figure 1. A Subject Property Vicinity Map illustrating the main features of the Subject Property and vicinity is provided as Figure 2. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 2.3
2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL
ASSUMPTIONS
There were no special terms, conditions, or additional assumptions associated with this Phase I ESA.
2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report documents work that was performed in accordance with generally accepted professional standards at the time and location in which the services were provided and given the schedule and budget constraints established by the client. No other representations, warranties, or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report, including no assurance that this work has uncovered all potential and actual liabilities and conditions associated with the Subject Property.
This report provides an evaluation of selected environmental conditions associated with the Subject Property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. There are no assurances regarding the accuracy and completeness of this information received from others.
Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the writing of this report and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available, and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the Subject Property’s environmental condition.
Stantec did not obtain historical records that document the property history in 5-year intervals, and this resulted in data gaps. Although this represents data gaps, these data gaps are not considered to impact the EPs ability to identify RECs unless stated as such. Based on the information obtained during the course of this ESA and general knowledge of development at and near the Subject Property, the absence of this information did not affect the ability of the EPs to identify RECs, HRECs, CRECs, or de minimis conditions.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the client identified herein and any use of or reliance on this report by any third party is prohibited, except as may be consented to in writing by Stantec or as required by law. The provision of any such consent is at Stantec’s sole and unfettered discretion and will only be authorized pursuant to the conditions of Stantec’s standard form reliance letter.
Stantec assumes no responsibility for losses, damages, liabilities, or claims, howsoever arising, from third party use of this report.
Project Specific limiting conditions are provided in Section 2.2.
The locations of any utilities, buildings and structures, and property boundaries illustrated in or described within this report, if any, including pole lines, conduits, water mains, sewers and other surface or sub-surface utilities and structures, are not guaranteed. Before starting site work, the exact location of all such
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Introduction
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 2.4
utilities and structures must be confirmed by the client and the party performing the work, and Stantec assumes no liability resulting from damage to such utilities and structures.
The conclusions are based on the conditions encountered at the Subject Property by Stantec at the time the work was conducted. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.
As the purpose of this report is to identify Subject Property conditions which may pose an environmental risk; the identification of non-environmental risks to structures or people on the Subject Property is beyond the scope of this assessment.
The findings, observations, and conclusions expressed by Stantec in this report are not an opinion concerning the compliance of any past or present owner or operator of the Subject Property which is the subject of this report with any Federal, state, provincial or local law or regulation.
This report presents professional opinions and findings of a scientific and technical nature. It does not and shall not be construed to offer a legal opinion or representations as to the requirements of, nor compliance with, environmental laws, rules, regulations, or policies of Federal, state, provincial or local governmental agencies.
Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report if new or different information later becomes available or if the conditions or activities on the property subsequently change.
2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
This Phase I ESA was conducted by, or under the supervision of, an individual that meets the ASTM definition of an EP. The credentials of the EP and other key Stantec personnel involved in conducting this Phase I ESA are provided in Appendix B.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
User-Provided Information
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 3.1
3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-21 describe responsibilities of the User to complete certain tasks in connection with the performance of “All Appropriate Inquiries” into the Subject Property. The ASTM standard requires that the EP request information from the User on the results of those tasks because that information can assist in the identification of RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions in connection with the Subject Property. Towards that end, Stantec requested that the User provide the following documents and information:
Description of Information
Provided
(Yes / No) Description and/or Key Findings
User Questionnaire and/or Interview No No completed user questionnaire was provided at the time of this report. The lack of
a completed user questionnaire is not
considered a significant data gap and is
unlikely to impact the findings of this report.
Environmental Liens or Activity and Use
Limitations (AUL)
N/A No environmental liens and/or activity and use
limitations were identified in the Stewart
Preliminary Title Report, dated February 29,
2024.
Previous Environmental Permits or
Reports Provided by User
Yes Stantec previously prepared a Phase I ESA
for the Subject Property dated May 17, 2024.
Pertinent information from this report is used
and referenced throughout.
Purpose of the Phase I ESA Yes The intended use of the Phase I is for redevelopment.
User-provided documents are provided in Appendix C.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.1
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
The objective of consulting historical sources of information is to develop the history of the Subject Property and surrounding area and evaluate if past uses may have resulted in RECs. Physical setting records are evaluated to determine if the physical setting may have contributed to adverse environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. During the review of historical records, Stantec attempted to identify uses of the Subject Property from the present to the first developed use of the Subject Property. Stantec’s research included the reasonably ascertainable and useful records described in this section.
4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
A summary of the physical setting of the Subject Property is provided in the table below with additional details in the following subsections:
Topography: According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) El Cajon topographic map provided in the Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) Physical Setting Source Addendum
(Appendix D), the topographic gradient in the vicinity of the Subject Property is to the northwest and the Subject Property is located at approximately 333 feet above mean sea level (ft. amsl).
Soil/Bedrock Data: The United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS), Web Soil
Survey identifies the soils beneath the Subject Property as Grangeville fine sandy loam, with moderately well drained soils. Soil layers are generally comprised of fine sandy loam (0-11 inches) and sandy loam (11-59 inches).
Estimated Depth to Groundwater/
Estimated Direction of Gradient:
Site specific groundwater investigations were not conducted during this ESA; however, according to a 2016 Environmental Site Assessment for a nearby site located approximately 1,600 feet southwest of the Subject Property, groundwater in the vicinity is approximately 9.7-14.2 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a regional flow direction to the northwest.
NOTE:
Site-specific groundwater flow direction and depth can only be determined by conducting site-specific testing, which Stantec has not conducted.
4.1.1 Subject Property Topography and Surface Water Flow The Subject Property is located at an elevation of approximately 333 ft amsl. Based on the topography and existing surface conditions, general surface water flow is to the northwest. As surface water flows over the surface, the water is expected to infiltrate the ground surface.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.2
4.1.2 Regional and Subject Property Geology
The Subject Property is located within the San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin (9-015). The basin , comprised of alluvium deposited by the San Diego River and associated tributaries, is bound by Eocene Poway Group semi-permeable rock, impermeable Cretaceous crystalline rock, and impermeable Jurassic-Cretaceous Santiago Peak volcanic rock (DWR, 2003).
According to California DOC Earthquake Zone Map (Department of Conservation Map Server (ca.gov)), the Subject Property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone boundary. The closest fault zone is located approximately ten miles to the west of the Subject Property.
4.1.3 Regional and Subject Property Hydrogeology
The San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin’s main water-bearing deposits consist of Quaternary alluvial deposits. Within buried river channels, sands and coarse gravels are the most productive. The gravel layer, located towards the base of the aquifer, is thickest near Moreno Valley. Towards Santee, more silt and clay are present. Alluvium within the basin averages approximately 70 feet in thickness but can reach up to 200 feet near Lakeside. Restrictive features include a bedrock constriction near Mission Gorge where discharge occurs from the San Diego River. This constriction results in raised levels of groundwater (DWR, 2003).
Site specific groundwater investigations were not conducted during this ESA; however, according to a 2016 Environmental Site Assessment for a nearby site located approximately 1,600 feet southwest of the Subject Property, groundwater in the vicinity is approximately 9.7-14.2 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a regional flow direction to the northwest.
4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
A regulatory agency database search report was obtained from EDR, a third-party environmental database search firm. A complete copy of the database search report, including the date the report was prepared, the date the information was last updated, and the definition of databases searched, is provided in Appendix D.
Stantec evaluated the information listed within the database relative to potential impact to the Subject Property, assessing the potential for impacts based in part on the physical setting. As part of this process, inferences have been made regarding the likely groundwater flow direction at or near the Subject Property. As described in 4.1.3, the inferred shallow groundwater flow direction is likely to be to the northwest. Observations about the Subject Property and adjoining properties made during the Subject Property reconnaissance are provided in more detail in Section 5.
4.2.1 Listings for Subject Property
The Subject Property was not identified in the EDR.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.3
4.2.2 Listings for Adjoining and Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Subject Property
Stantec assessed data presented in the environmental agency database search report to evaluate the potential for conditions on adjoining and nearby sites to pose a REC, CREC, or HREC for the Subject Property. The evaluation included an opinion of the potential for contamination by hazardous substances or petroleum products to migrate to the Subject Property from an adjoining or nearby site, including by vapor migration or encroachment (i.e., potential for a vapor encroachment condition [VEC]. ASTM E2600- 22 Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions (ASTM, 2022) was used as the basis for a Tier I Vapor Encroachment Screen (VES) for the Subject Property. This included evaluation of release sites within 1/10 mile for Petroleum Hydrocarbon releases, and 1/3 mile for volatile and semi-volatile organic compound (VOC, SVOC), plus other potential vapor phase contaminants (such as mercury).
Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing Distance/Direction from Subject Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
M.L. Chilcote/Chilcote Inc
9510 Mission Gorge Road
Santee, CA
LUST, SAN DIEGO CO.
SAM, SAN DIEGO CO.
HMMD, SWEEPS UST,
CORTESE, HIST
CORTESE, SAN DIEGO
CO. LOP, CERS, UST,
HIST UST, RCRA
NONGEN/NLR, FINDS,
ECHO, HWTS, HAZNET,
UST FINDER RELEASE
0.022 mile/116 feet
south at higher
elevation
No
This automotive repair shop site is listed in the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database as a LUST cleanup case of diesel into soil, with case closure received in 1990. A leak was reported in 1988 into soil only after a 4,000-gallon and 2,000-gallon UST removal. Enhanced biodegradation is listed under abatement methods and this case is listed as a low priority case. Given case closure details and date of closure, with no groundwater reported affected, this site is not considered a REC for the Subject Property.
Lowe’s of Santee #1661/Lowe’s
#1661/KCBQ Radio Station
9416 Mission Gorge Road
Santee, CA
RCRA-SQG, CERS HAZ
WASTE, CERS TANKS,
HWTS, HAZNET, CERS,
AST
0.066 mile/351 feet
west southwest at
higher elevation
No
This site is listed as a hazardous waste generator with at least one AST. The site received permit-related violations between 2016-2022 which were returned to compliance. Due to lack of reported spills or releases, this site is not considered a REC for the Subject Property.
Costco Wholesale #403
101 Town Center Pkwy.
Santee, CA
SAN DIEGO CO. HMMD,
CERS HAZ WASTE,
CERS TANKS, CERS,
RCRA-SQG, FINDS,
ECHO, HWTS, HAZNET
0.068 mile/360 feet
east northeast at higher
elevation
No
This site is listed as a hazardous waste generator with a 20,000-gallon UST containing fuel. The site received permit-related violations in 2015-2022 which were returned to compliance. Given there are no
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.4
Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing Distance/Direction from Subject Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
reported spills or releases at the site, this is not considered a REC for the Subject Property.
Wal-Mart Store #1917
170 Town Center Pkwy.
Santee, CA
AST, SAN DIEGO CO.
HMMD
0.068 mile/361 feet
north at higher
elevation
No
This site is listed as a hazardous waste generator and as having an 1,890-gallon AST. Multiple permit-related violations are noted, and a 1,000-gallon UST containing diesel is reported as being removed in 1999. No spills or releases are reported for this site; therefore, this is not considered a REC for the Subject Property.
Goodyear Devore Tire/Certified
Tire & Service Centers/Express
Tire
9535 Mission Gorge Road
Santee, CA
SWEEPS UST, RCRA
NONGEN/NLR, SAN
DIEGO CO. HMMD,
CERS HAZ WASTE,
CERS, HWTS, HAZNET
0.069 mile/363 feet
south at higher
elevation
No
This automotive repair site is listed as a hazardous waste generator and as having an active 350-gallon UST containing petroleum product. No additional details are provided. Administrative permit-related violations are noted for the site which were returned to compliance. Due to lack of reported spills or releases, this site does not represent a REC for the Subject Property.
Weinen Real Estate/Style
Cleaners
9640 Mission Gorge Road
Santee, CA
CPS-SLIC,
BROWNFIELDS, SAN
DIEGO CO. HMMD,
DRYCLEANERS, EMI,
ENF, SAN DIEGO CO.
LOP, CERS, SAN DIEGO
CO. SAM, FINDS
0.157 mile/830 feet
east southeast at
higher elevation
No
This drycleaning facility is listed in the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database as a release case with closure received in 2019. Subsurface investigations began in 1996 to delineate the extent of PCE contamination in soil and groundwater. As of 1996, sampling results have indicated concentrations of PCE in soil at a maximum of 670 parts per billion (ppb), 10 ppb PCE in groundwater, 52 ppb trichloroethylene (TCE), and 60 ppb cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE). The contaminant plume has been delineated and extends from the site to the northwest Costco parking lot, and is either reported as stable or decreasing. Soil vapor results showed vapor intrusion risk to be insignificant based on screening criteria. Given the case closure status, contaminant delineation, and distance from the Subject Property, this site is not expected to represent a REC for the Subject Property.
The remaining listings in the database search report, including listings of Orphan Sites provided in Appendix D do not constitute a potential REC for the Subject Property.
4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Stantec checked the following sources to obtain information pertaining to Subject Property use and/or indications of RECs in connection with the Subject Property:
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.5
4.3.1 Environmental Health Department
Agency Name
Contact Information Finding
Custodian of Records
San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health (SDCDEH)
Via email:
[email protected]
Date Submitted: December 4, 2024
A written request subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was submitted to the Health Department to review their files regarding the Subject Property. The information requested included file information regarding permits, hazardous
materials, waste, complaints, violations, underground or aboveground storage tanks, remedial action, and case closure documentation, or any records that indicate environmental concern at the Subject Property.
The SDCDEH provided available records for the adjoining properties. Records available included hazardous materials inspection checklists for the adjoining properties. No records indicating a release that would impact the Subject Property were observed.
Additionally, records were provided for the adjacent Wal-Mart facility and included inspection records from 1992 through 2019, hazardous material plans, and underground storage tank (UST) removal documents.
According to the UST removal documents, the UST was
located near the loading docks and not within or adjacent to the Subject Property. Soil samples were collected during the UST removal and reported a maximum detection of 150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). According to the SDCDEH Underground Storage Tank System Closure Report, no holes were observed on the bottom and the tank closure was determined to be complete and no further action was required. Given the UST was not located within or adjacent to the Subject Property and regulatory status, the former UST is not considered an
environmental concern to the Property and Stantec
recommends no further investigation regarding this issue.
4.3.2 City and County Department Records
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
Custodian of Records
City of Santee
Via facsimile:
A written request subject to the FOIA was submitted to the City to review their files regarding the Subject Property. The information requested included file information regarding
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.6
Agency Name
Contact Information Findings
(619) 258-4100
Date Submitted: December 4, 2024
permits, hazardous materials, waste, complaints, violations, underground or aboveground storage tanks, remedial action, and case closure documentation, or any records that indicate environmental concern at the Subject Property.
As of the preparation of this report, a complete response to the FOIA request has not been received from the City. Based on its review of information from other sources, however, Stantec believes the lack of this information is unlikely to affect the conclusions or recommendations of this report and the lack of this information does not represent a significant data gap.
4.3.3 State Department Records
Agency Name
Contact Information Finding
Custodian of Records
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQCB)
Via email: [email protected]
Submitted and accessed on December 4, 2024
Stantec researched Geotracker, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board public
database, to evaluate if there are any reported
releases at the Subject Property or on adjoining
properties. There were no release sites listed for the
Subject Property or adjoining properties.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
Envirostor database
San Diego Regional Office
Online database:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Via email:
[email protected]
Submitted and accessed on December 4, 2024
Stantec researched Envirostor, the DTSC public
database, to evaluate if there are any reported
releases at the Subject Property or on adjoining
properties. There were no release sites listed for the
Subject Property.
Additionally, the DTSC responded on April 19, 2024,
that they have no current or historical records for the Subject Property.
California Geologic Energy Management
(CalGEM)
Online database:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder
Accessed: December 4, 2024
The California Department of Conservation Geologic
Energy Management Division (CalGEM) database
was searched to identify the potential existence of oil and gas production wells within the vicinity of the
Subject Property. No oil or gas wells were located
within the Subject Property boundaries. The closest
well is located approximately five miles north of the
Subject Property and is listed as idle and leased by
R.M. Cole Oil & Gas (API 04073000007). Therefore,
this well is not considered a REC for the Subject
Property.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.7
4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW
4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds
No environmental liens and/or activity and use limitations were identified in the Stewart Preliminary Title Report, dated February 29, 2024. No other land title records, deeds, environmental liens, and activity and use limitation documentation were provided by the User, and public records were not searched by Stantec.
4.4.2 Aerial Photographs
Stantec reviewed historical aerial photographs provided by EDR. The general type of activity on a property and land use changes can often be discerned from the type and layout of structures visible in the photographs. However, specific elements of a facility's operation usually cannot be discerned from aerial photographs alone. The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations of the reviewed historical aerial photographs. Copies of the historical aerial photographs are provided in Appendix E.
Year Scale Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby Properties 1949
1953
1964
1966
1970
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears to be vacant, mowed land. Adjoining properties appear to be vacant and/or agricultural land. Several structures and roads are depicted within the vicinity. By 1964, residential development is depicted adjoining south, northwest, and southeast.
1979 1”=500’ The Subject Property appears vacant with a driveway/road along the west border. A commercial structure is depicted adjoining north. Additional development is shown to the south. Adjoining properties to the east and west are vacant.
1985
1989
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears vacant, with potential soil stockpiling shown in the northern half. Development is depicted adjoining north and south, with vacant land adjoining east and west. By 1989, commercial development is depicted adjoining southeast, and the north adjoining commercial building has been removed. Dense development is shown in the vicinity. 1994
1996
2002
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
1”=500’ The Subject Property appears vacant. Adjoining properties to the north, south, and east appear developed with commercial/residential structures.
Adjoining west appears vacant followed by a structure. By 2005, adjoining west appears developed with a parking lot and commercial building, and the Subject Property shows a driveway along the west border and several vehicles parked within the eastern portion. By 2009, the vehicles are no longer depicted.
Aerial photographs source: The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.8
No RECs were noted during the review of the historical aerial photographs.
4.4.3 City Directories
Stantec retained a third party to research available city directories for the Subject Property and adjoining and nearby properties, in approximately five-year intervals. Copies of the city directory listings are provided in Appendix E.
Stantec retained a third party to research available city directories for the Subject Property and adjoining and nearby properties, in approximately five-year intervals. The Subject Property is not listed in the city directory. Adjoining properties are generally commercial and residential listings.
Name of city directories and source: EDR, 2024
4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Fire insurance maps were developed for use by insurance companies to depict facilities, properties, and their uses for many locations throughout the United States. These maps provide information on the history of prior land use and are useful in assessing whether there may be potential environmental contamination on or near the Subject Property. These maps, which have been periodically updated since the late 19th century, often provide valuable insight into historical Subject Property and adjoining and nearby property uses.
Stantec requested fire insurance maps from EDR; however, no coverage exists for the Subject Property.
The Sanborn® Map Search Report indicating “No Coverage” is presented in Appendix E.
4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps
Stantec reviewed historical USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Maps of the El Cajon and La Mesa, California Quadrangles (scale 1:24,000 and 1:31,680), and the historical USGS 15-minute Topographic Maps of the El Cajon and La Jolla, California Quadrangles (scale 1:50,000 and 1:62,500), to help identify past Subject Property and adjoining and nearby property usage and areas of potential environmental concern. Copies of the historical maps are provided in Appendix E.
The following table summarizes the maps reviewed and our observations.
Year Scale Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby Properties 1893
1901
1903
1:62,500
1:62,500
1:62,500
The Subject Property, adjoining properties, and surrounding area appear largely undeveloped. A stream is depicted ¼ mile to the north. 1930 1:62,500 The Subject Property and adjoining properties are unmapped. 1939 1:62,500 The Subject Property and adjoining properties are depicted as vacant.
The Subject Property appears bound by a road to the south. Several
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Records Review
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 4.9
Year Scale Observations of Subject Property and Adjoining/Nearby Properties roads and structures are depicted throughout the vicinity. 1942
1947
1:31,680
1:24,000
The Subject Property and adjoining properties are unmapped. 1948
1953
1:50,000
1:24,000
The Subject Property and adjoining properties appear to be vacant.
Multiple roads and structures are depicted throughout the vicinity. By 1953, two structures are shown adjoining east.
1967
1975
1:24,000
1:24,000
The Subject Property and adjoining properties are depicted as vacant.
Dense development is shown throughout the vicinity. Radio towers are depicted in the west adjacent property. A commercial building is depicted adjoining north by 1975.
1994 1:24,000 The Subject Property and adjoining properties are shaded pink, indicating dense development.
2012
2015
2018
2022
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
1:24,000
No structures are depicted on the map.
Historical topographic maps source: The EDR Historical Topographic Map Report Features identified in the historical topographic maps do not represent a REC to the Subject Property.
4.4.6 Other Historical Sources
Stantec previously prepared a Phase I ESA for the Subject Property dated May 17, 2024. No evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property were identified during this report. As a part of this investigation, Stantec cored the asphalt in five locations throughout the asphalted driveway to investigate the potential presence of Petromat. No Petromat was observed in any of the five cored locations in the asphalted surfaces.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 5.1
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A visit to the Subject Property and its vicinity was conducted by Daantje Meijer with Stantec, on December4, 2024. Stantec was unaccompanied during the Subject Property visit. Figure 2 provides information about the Subject Property and adjoining sites and the location of potential areas of environmental concern. Detailed Subject Property features are shown on Figure 2. Photographs collected during the site reconnaissance are included in Appendix A.
5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY
The site reconnaissance focused on observation of current conditions and observable indications of past uses and conditions of the Subject Property that may indicate the presence of RECs. The reconnaissance of the Property was conducted on foot and Stantec utilized the following methodology to observe the Property:
• Traverse the outer Subject Property boundary
• Traverse transects across the Subject Property
• Traverse the periphery of all structures on the Subject Property • Visually observe accessible interior areas expected to be used by occupants or the public maintenance and repair areas, utility areas, and a representative sample of occupied spaces Weather conditions during the visit to the Subject Property were clear and sunny. There were no weather-related Subject Property access restrictions encountered during the reconnaissance visit.
5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Subject Property and Area
Description:
The Subject Property is located northwest of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway, in the city of Santee, in the County of San Diego, California.
Subject Property
Operations:
The Subject Property is currently vacant.
Structures, Roads, Other
Improvements:
The Subject Property features an asphalt driveway in the western property boundary.
Subject Property Size
(acres):
5.26 acres
Estimated % of Subject
Property Covered by
Buildings and/or Pavement:
15%
Observed Current Subject None observed.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 5.2
Property Use/Operations:
Observed Evidence of Past
Subject Property Use(s):
None observed.
Sewage Disposal Method
(and age):
None observed.
Potable Water Source: None observed.
Electric and Natural Gas
Utilities:
None observed.
5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations during the Subject Property reconnaissance.
Observations Description/Location
Hazardous Substances and
Petroleum Products as Defined by
CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) with
identified uses:
None observed.
Drums/Totes/Intermediate Bulk
Containers (≥ 5 gallons):
None observed.
Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors: None observed.
Pools of Liquid: None observed.
Unidentified Substance Containers: None observed.
Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-
Containing Equipment:
None observed.
Other Observed Evidence of
Hazardous Substances or Petroleum
Products:
None observed.
5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
No structures were present at the time of Stantec’s site reconnaissance.
5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Stantec made the following observations during the site reconnaissance of exterior areas of the Subject Property and/or identified the following information during the interview or records review portions of the assessment:
Observations Description
On-site Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons: None observed.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 5.3
Observations Description
Stained Soil or Pavement: None observed.
Stressed Vegetation: None observed.
Waste Streams and Waste
Collection Areas:
None observed.
Solid Waste Disposal: None observed.
Potential Areas of Fill Placement: No mounds, piles, or depressions suggesting the placement of fill material were observed on the Subject Property.
Wastewater: No exterior wastewater discharge was observed.
Stormwater: Stormwater from the asphalt driveway as expected to flow to a storm drain that led to the northern portion of the Subject Property. The stormwater is then expected to infiltrate the soil.
Wells: No wells were observed.
Septic Systems: No visible evidence of the existence of a septic system was observed.
Other Exterior Observations: Several manhole covers were observed in the northern portion of the Subject Property.
5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES
Existing
USTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), which would indicate the presence of USTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.
Former
USTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of USTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.
Other
Underground
Structures:
None observed.
5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Existing
ASTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), which would indicate the presence of ASTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.
Former
ASTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of ASTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Reconnaissance
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 5.4
5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES
5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Subject Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about use and activities on adjoining sites:
NORTH Walmart and associated parking lot.
EAST Commercial buildings.
SOUTH USPS Facility.
WEST Residential housing and Lowes.
Refer to Figure 2.
5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties Observations of adjoining sites providing indications of past use and activities, if any, are described below.
NORTH None observed.
EAST None observed.
SOUTH None observed.
WEST None observed.
5.8.3 Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Subject Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about the presence of pits, ponds, and lagoons on adjoining sites:
NORTH None observed.
EAST None observed.
SOUTH None observed.
WEST None observed.
5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING
Topography of the
Subject Property and
Surrounding Area:
The Subject Property is generally flat is located at an elevation of approximately 333 ft amsl.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 6.1
6.0 EVALUATION
This section provides a summary overview of or Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions.
6.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Information gathered from interviews, reviews of existing data, and an inspection was evaluated to determine if RECs are present in connection with the Subject Property. Based on this information, Stantec made the following findings and developed the following opinions. • The Subject Property consists of approximately 5.26 acres of land designated by Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 381-040-36-00, and is located west of the intersection of Mission Gorge Road and Town Center Parkway, in the city of Santee, San Diego County, California. The Subject Property is currently vacant land with a driveway located along the western Subject Property border. Historical records indicate the Subject Property was vacant land since at least the early 1900s. Adjoining properties, as well as the nearby surrounding area, include commercial and residential development.
An asphalt driveway is present on the western border of the Subject Property. Petromat is a stress-absorbing fabric often associated with asphalt, and it sometimes contains asbestos.
Stantec recommends conducting a Petromat survey throughout the asphalted driveway to investigate the potential presence of ACMs so that they may, as necessary, be abated in accordance with all applicable federal and local laws.
On May 17, Stantec cored asphalt in five locations throughout the asphalted driveway to investigate the potential presence of Petromat. No Petromat was observed in any of the five cored locations in the asphalted surfaces.
• An environmental records search was performed and identified sites within their respective ASTM E1527-21 search radii of the Subject Property that may represent RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions.
Based on one or more of the following reasons: distance from the Subject Property, position of sites with respect to assumed groundwater flow direction, the type of native soils, and regulatory status, none of the sites identified in the environmental records search report are expected to impact soil or groundwater quality at the Subject Property. The environmental records search identified no RECs, CRECs, HRECs or de minimis conditions at or near the Subject Property.
6.2 DATA GAPS
The federal AAI final rule [40 CFR 312.10(a)] and ASTM E1527-21 identify a “data gap” as the lack or inability to obtain information required by the standards and practices of the rule despite good faith efforts by the EP or the User.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Evaluation
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 6.2
Any data gaps resulting from the Phase I ESA described in this report are listed and discussed below.
Gap Discussion
Deletions or Exceptions from
Scope of Work Referenced in
Section 1.4:
None.
Weather-Related Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:
None.
Facility Access Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:
None.
Other Site Reconnaissance
Restrictions:
None.
Data Gaps from Environmental
Records Review:
None.
Data Gaps from Historical
Records Review:
Historical records for the Subject Property were not available in five-year increments. These are considered to be data gaps; however, based on available historical records and consistent land use, they do not appear to change the conclusions of this report.
Data Gaps from Interviews: No on-site interview was conducted since the Subject Property vacant land. Therefore the lack of an interview is not considered a significant data gap and is unlikely to impact the findings of this report.
Other Data Gaps: None.
6.3 CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of the Subject Property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described Section 2.3 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), Controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or significant data gaps in connection with the Subject Property.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Non-Scope Considerations
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 7.1
7.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
The following ASTM E1527-13 non-scope services were performed as part of this Phase I ESA:
7.1 LEAD-BASED PAINT
Concern for LBP is primarily related to residential structures. The EPA’s Final Rule on Disclosure of Lead-Based Paint in Housing (40 CFR Part 745) defines LBP as paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.
The risk of lead toxicity in LBP varies based upon the condition of the paint and the year of its application.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified the following risk factors:
• The age of the dwelling as follows:
− Maximum risk is from paint applied before 1950.
− There is severe risk from paint applied before 1960.
− There is moderate risk from deteriorated paint applied before 1970. − There is slight risk from the paint that is intact but applied before 1977. • The condition of the painted surfaces.
• The presence of children and certain types of households in the building. • Previously reported cases of lead poisoning in the building or area.
Construction Date Residential
(Yes/No) Observed Condition of Painted Surfaces
No structures present. N/A N/A
7.2 ASBESTOS
Asbestos can be found in many applications, including sprayed-on or blanket-type insulation, pipe wraps, mastics, floor and ceiling tiles, wallboard, mortar, roofing materials, and a variety of other materials commonly used in construction. The greatest asbestos-related human health risks are associated with friable asbestos, which is ACM that can be reduced to powder by hand pressure. Friable asbestos can become airborne and inhaled, which has been associated with specific types of respiratory disease. The manufacturing and use of asbestos in most building products was curtailed during the late 1970s.
The Subject Property does not contain any structures.
7.3 RADON
Radon is a colorless, tasteless radioactive gas with an EPA-specified action level of 4.0 PicoCuries per liter of air (pCi/L) for residential properties. Radon gas has a very short half-life of 3.8 days. The health
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Non-Scope Considerations
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 7.2
risk potential of radon is primarily associated with its rate of accumulation within confined areas near or in the ground, such as basements, where vapors can readily transfer to indoor air from the ground through foundation cracks or other pathways. Large, adequately ventilated rooms generally present limited risk for radon exposure. The radon concentrations in buildings and homes depend on many factors, including soil types, temperature, barometric pressure, and building construction (EPA, 1993).
Stantec reviewed regional data published by the EPA on average indoor radon concentrations in the vicinity of the Property (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html).
EPA Radon Zones (w/Average Measured Indoor Radon concentrations) Zone 1 – High
(>4.0 pCi/L)
Zone 2 – Moderate
(2 to 4 pCi/L)
Zone 3 – Low
(<2 pCi/L)
X
Normally occupied sub grade areas present? (i.e., basement apartments, offices, stores, etc.) No subgrade areas currently present at the Property.
The Subject Property is located in Zone 3 and is considered to have a low potential for radon. To determine Subject Property-specific radon levels, a radon survey would have to be conducted. However, because the Subject Property does not have any occupied subgrade areas and is planned for redevelopment, further investigation of indoor radon issues does not appear to be warranted.
7.4 FLOOD ZONES
According to the Physical Setting summary portion of the EDR report, the Subject Property is located within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
References
December 9, 2024
Project No.: 185806533 8.1
8.0 REFERENCES
ASTM International, 2021, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation: E 1527-21.
ASTM International, 2022, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Subject Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, Designation E 2600-22.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2024, EnviroStor.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118: San Diego River Valley Groundwater Basin.
California State Department of Water Resources Control Board, 2024, GeoTracker.
California State Department of Water Resources SGMA Portal (SGMA), 2024, GeoTracker.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), 2024. EDR Radius Map, Inquiry Number 7839622.2s, dated December 4, 2024.
_____, EDR Radius Map with Geocheck, Inquiry Number 7628733.2s, dated April 19, 2024. _____, Certified Sanborn Map Report, Inquiry Number 7628733.3, dated April 19, 2024. _____, Historical Topographic Map Report, Inquiry Number 7628733.4, dated April 19, 2024. _____, Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry Number 7628733.8, dated April 19, 2024. _____, City Directory Abstract, Inquiry Number 7628733.5 dated April 19, 2024.
FIGURES
k_r-'
.ca-rlton Oaks Golf
, '
,,,
c
�f .· ��==9F"'l=='�"iE''iF9
0 2500
·-------:::._ -
r.:-.-::-.::::.--=::::::-�:::· :::.:. Gillesp,,_,_,ie"-4-- -��,../,- ./
5000
c:,
"'
Cajon
Speedway
6 OE'NNY WAY
"'
'-'
...,
<:,
-,
7500 ft
SCALE : AS SHOWN
NOTE: THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC SERVICES INC. REPORT AND MUST NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Client:
PROPERTY LOCATION MAP
PHASE I ESA
MISSION GORGE ROAD, SANTEE, CA 92071
BORSTEIN ENERPRISES
Stantec Consulting Ltd. © 2021
Project No.: 185806533 Fig. No.:
Scale:
Date: 1
Dwn. By:
AS SHOWN
05/20/2024
CDvM
SC2021010030
App'd By: KE
� Stantec
NOTE: THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. REPORT AND MUST NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Project No.:
Scale:
Date:
Dwn. By:
Client:
PROPERTY DETAILS
PHASEIESA
MISSION GORGE ROAD, SANTEE, CA 92071
BORSTEIN ENTERPRISES App'd By:
0 185806533
100 200 300 FT
SCALE : AS SHOWN
Fig. No.:
(j Stantec 2
AS SHOWN
05/02/2024
CDvM
SC2021010031
KE
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
PROPERTY AND VICINITY
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #1 View of driveway in the western portion of the Subject Property.
Photo #2 Eastern view of vacant portion of Subject Property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #3 View of Northern vacant portion of Subject Property looking down ditch to the west.
Photo #4 Western view of vacant portion of Subject Property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #5 Southern view of vacant portion of Subject Property.
Photo #6 View of drain covers in northern portion of the Subject Property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #7 View of storm drain in the northwestern portion of Subject Property.
Photo #8 View of solar unit north of Subject Property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #9 View of Walmart parking lot north of Subject Property.
Photo #10 View of shopping center and parking lot northeast of Subject Property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #11 View of shopping center and parking lot southeast of Subject Property.
Photo #12 View of USPS building south of Subject Property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Address: Mission Gorge and Town Center Parkway, Santee, CA Photographer: Daantje Meijer
Date: December 4, 2024
Photo #13 View of commercial building west Subject Property.
Photo #14 View of residential housing northwest of Subject Property.
APPENDIX B
STANTEC RESUMES
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Alicia Jansen CAC, LRCIA
Senior Scientist
21 years of experience
Alicia is a Senior Scientist with over twenty years of
experience in Phase I and II Environmental
Assessments, with strong emphasis in water quality
and environmental research. Alicia has managed the
preparation of environmental documents, training
programs, and environmental compliance during large
scale environmental monitoring projects. Alicia’s
environmental consulting experience includes
performing asbestos and lead-based paint surveys,
oversight of contractors during asbestos abatement,
hazardous materials surveys, and Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in
accordance with the practices identified in the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-21
and the Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property, ASTM
Designation E 2247-16.
EDUCATION
BA, Environmental Studies, San Jose State University,
San Jose, California, 2004
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
Residential Measurement Provider, 108212, National
Radon Proficiency Program, Anaheim, California, 2015
REGISTRATIONS
Certified Asbestos Consultant #CAC #15-5379, State of
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Lead Inspector/Risk Assessor #LRC-00005363,
California Department of Public Health
MEMBERSHIPS
Member, Groundwater Resources Association of
California
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
HEALTH, SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
Cochise County, Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, and
Hazardous Materials Survey | Arizona | Field Lead and
Certified Asbestos Consultant
Alicia conducted with site inspections for asbestos, lead-based paint, and hazardous materials at multiple vacant structures including schools, multi-tenant apartment
buildings, and commercial structures. The scope of work involved sample collection for asbestos and lead-based
paint in addition to the quantification of universal wastes (PCBs, mercury containing equipment, refrigerants, etc.) that would require special handling and disposal. She
assisted with the preparation of reports summarizing
findings. Role: Field Lead | Dates involved: 2020-2022
Confidential Health Care Company, Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, and Hazardous Materials Survey | Northern California | Staff
Alicia assisted with site inspections for asbestos, lead-based paint, and hazardous materials at multiple occupied hospitals and office spaces. The scope of work involved sample collection for asbestos and lead-based paint in
addition to the quantification of universal wastes (PCBs, mercury containing equipment, refrigerants, etc.) that
would require special handling and disposal. She
assisted with the preparation of reports summarizing
findings. Role: Field Lead | Dates involved: 2013-2020
State of California General Services, Asbestos, Lead-Based Paint, and Hazardous Materials Survey | Northern California | 2009 | Technical Support
Alicia assisted with site inspections for asbestos, lead-based paint, and hazardous materials at multiple communication towers in remote areas. The scope of
work involved sample collection for asbestos and lead-based paint in addition to the quantification of universal wastes (PCBs, mercury containing equipment,
refrigerants, etc.) that would require special handling and disposal. She assisted with the preparation of reports
summarizing findings. Role: Technical Support | Cost:
Unknown | Dates involved: 10/2009-10/2009
Indoor Air Quality Assessments* | San Jose, California | 2002-2005 | Staff
Alicia performed site inspections, interviews, and collected air samples to be analyzed for various air pollutants and molds including formaldehyde, penicillium, aspergillus, cladosporium, and stachybotry. She prepared reports
summarizing findings and made recommendations.
Veteran's Administration of Puget Sound, Asbestos and
Lead-Based Paint Survey | Seattle, Washington | 2009 |
Project Scientist
Alicia served as the Project Scientist responsible for
hazardous building material assessments, specifically
asbestos and lead-based paint. These services were
required as part of the pre-design tasks for this project.
Over 300 samples were collected over the span of four
days culminating in a final hazardous building materials report to be incorporated into the facility design as well as demolition activities once the construction phase of the * denotes projects completed with other firms
project commences.
Interim Remedial Action, Indoor Air Sampling, and Sub-Slab Soil Gas Sampling | Sunnyvale, California | 2004– 2014 | Task Manager and Field Support
Alicia conducted an indoor air sampling survey using air sampling pumps, dosimeter badges, and flame ionization
detector (FID) during a sump excavation. She performs
semi-annual sub-slab soil vapor sampling and indoor air quality surveys using summa canisters. She assists with the preparation and submittal of reports summarizing the findings and provides recommendations to the local
regulatory agency. Role: Indoor Air Sampling Survey |
Cost: Unknown | Dates involved: 09/2004-09/2014
Lead Dust Assessment and Abatement Oversight |
Fremont, California | 2009 | Technical Support
Alicia assisted with the evaluation of lead dust in an
industrial facility. A total of 307 dust wipe samples were collected in order to evaluate the potential presence of lead dust throughout the two-story, 500,000 square foot manufacturing building. Role: Technical Support | Cost:
Unknown | Dates involved: 01/2009-03/2009
Former Tesoro Coke Facility, Asbestos, Lead-Based
Paint Survey | Pittsburg, California | Technical Support Alicia assisted with an asbestos and lead paint survey of 20 structures at the facility ultimately scheduled for
demolition. More than 200 samples were collected over
the span of two days. She prepared a report for
demolition while also providing the information needed
for worker safety during demolition activities at the
facility. Role: Technical Support | Cost: Unknown | Dates involved: 04/2009-04/2009
State of California General Services, Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey | Southern California | 2014-2019 | Certified Asbestos Consultant
Alicia conducted with site inspections for asbestos and lead-based paint at multiple bridges, maintenance
stations, and roadways throughout Southern California.
The scope of work involved sample collection for
asbestos and lead-based paint that would require special handling and disposal. She assisted with the review and approval of reports summarizing findings. Role: Certified Asbestos Consultant | Cost: Unknown | Dates involved:
9/2014-10/2019
Confidential Client, Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint
Survey | Multiple Sites, California | Task Manager and
Certified Asbestos Consultant
Alicia conducts pre-demolition asbestos and lead paint
surveys of structures ultimately scheduled for demolition.
She prepared a report for demolition while also providing the information needed for worker safety during
demolition activities at the facility. Role: Task Manager and Certified Asbestos Consultant| Dates involved: 2006 - present
PERMITTING, COMPLIANCE, AUDITING
Tesoro Refinery, Initial Study* | Benicia, California | 2005 | Staff
Alicia assisted with the background research and
preparation of applicant-prepared initial study for the upgrade of a refinery.
Transmission Line Upgrade* | San Mateo to San
Francisco, California | 2005 | Environmental Research
and Compliance Staff
Alicia supported the environmental compliance program
for the construction of a 27-mile 230 kV underground and overhead transmission line. She assisted with the
preparation and submittal of variance requests, extra work space requests, and daily and weekly reports for submittal to the California Public Utilities Commission. She also conducted research and assisted with training and report preparation.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS & ASSESSMENTS
California Department of Transportation Portfolio | Multiple Sites, Northern California and Southern California,
California | 2008-2019 | Task Lead Manager
Alicia prepared quarterly groundwater monitoring reports, subsurface investigation reports, sensitive receptor
surveys, and preferential pathway studies for various
California Department of Transportation locations
throughout Northern California. She assisted with the
utility locating, work plan preparation, field coordination, archived data onto the State Water Resource Control
Board’s (RWQCB) Geotracker electronic filing system.
Alicia currently conducts site inspections for asbestos, lead-based paint, and hazardous materials for bridges,
salt barns, and maintenance buildings associated with
California Department of Transportation locations
throughout Southern California. The scope of work
involves sample collection for asbestos and lead-based
paint that would require special handling and disposal.
She assists with the preparation of reports summarizing findings. Role: Task Lead Manager | Cost: Unknown |
Dates involved: 06/2008-02/2019
Soil Gas Sampling and Human Health Risk Assessment |
San Jose, California | 2014 | Project Lead
Alicia performed a soil vapor survey in conformance with the DTSC Advisory Active Soil Gas Investigations, using soil vapor sampling devices and a mobile laboratory for onsite chemical analysis. She also assisted with the
report preparation summarizing the findings and providing recommendations for further assessment. Role: Task
Lead Manager | Cost: Unknown | Dates involved: 2014
Confidential Clients, Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments | Multiple Sites, California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas, Virginia | Task Manager
Alicia performs Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
for multiple confidential clients in accordance with the practices identified in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-13;
ASTM E 1527-21; and Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments for Forestland or Rural
Property, ASTM Designation E 2247-16 to achieve
compliance with requirements of the “All Appropriate
Inquiries” rule required to obtain protection from liability under the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Cleanup and Liability Act (CERCLA). Previous
sites include large industrial warehouses, multi-tenant * denotes projects completed with other firms
commercial buildings, large lots of vacant land, and
residential properties. She reviews topographic maps,
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and files at local
regulatory agencies. She interviews present and former
property owners and performed site and adjacent
property reconnaissance. She prepares reports
summarizing the findings and provides recommendations
for further assessment if applicable. Role: Task Lead
Manager | Cost: $3,000-8,000 per report. | Dates
involved: 2006-present
Goodyear Portfolio | California and Hawaii | 2005–2020 | Project Lead
Alicia performed Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESA) and Phase II Site Assessments for
various Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company locations
throughout California and Hawaii. She assisted with the installation of monitoring wells and exploratory borings; underground storage tank removals; site restoration;
product removal with passive recovery system; archived
data onto the State Water Resource Control Board’s
Geotracker electronic filing system; and assisted with the preparation of quarterly groundwater monitoring reports, sensitive receptor surveys, site conceptual models, and subsurface investigation reports. Approximately 250 Sites • Cost: $8,000 per site.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Jenny Alvarado
Project Biologist
9 years of experience
A wildlife biologist who specializes in the avian and
botanical fields, Jenny performs threatened and
endangered species surveys, protocol nesting bird
surveys, biological resource assessments, habitat
characterization surveys, and restoration monitoring
across Southern California. Jenny has prepared
permit applications for CDFG Streambed Alteration
Agreements (CDFG Section 1600), Regional Water
Quality Control Board Water Quality Certifications
(Clean Water Act Section 401), and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Permits (Clean Water Act Section 404).
Jenny is also experienced with California
Environmental Quality Act and National Environmental
Policy Act compliance. Although her background is
mainly avian biology, she has experience identifying
mammals, reptiles, and aquatic species. She performs
compliance monitoring for a wide array of clients,
including Southern California Gas Company, Plains All
American Pipeline, and Caltrans. She assists in
preparing Initial Studies, Mitigated Negative
Declarations, Environmental Assessments, and
Environmental Impact Reports for a variety of land
uses. Additionally, she has experience assisting with
asbestos and lead building surveys in California and
Hawaii.
EDUCATION
Ecology, Zoology, Ornithology, Santa Barbra City
College, Santa Barbara, California, 2011
BA, Physical Anthropology, University of California,
Santa Barbra, Santa Barbara, California, 2008
AA, Liberal Arts, Ventura College, Ventura, California, 2005
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
Asbestos Building Inspector Initial, Natec International, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, 2016
Asbestos 40-Hr Contractor/Supervisor, Natec
International, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, 2016
CPR and First Aid Certification, American Red Cross,
Port Hueneme, California, 2015
California Plant Family Identification Workshop, California Native Plant Society, Ojai, California, 2015
40-Hr HAZWOPER, OSHA, Temecula, California, 2015
Desert Tortoise Field Techniques Workshop, Desert
Tortoise Council, Ridgecrest, California, 2014
Metrolink Contractor Safety Railroad Training, Metrolink, Pico Rivera, California, 2014
10-Hr Industrial Safety Training, OSHA, Ventura,
California, 2014
REGISTRATIONS
Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector
#1586, Certified Inspector of Sediment and Erosion
Control
Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector
#1586, CISEC, Inc., 6/30/2018
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
WILDLIFE BIOLOGY
Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors Beach Berm
Construction* | Los Angeles County, California | Snowy
Plover Monitor
Jenny conducted snowy plover monitoring on five Los
Angeles County beaches during berm construction and
deconstruction. Daily monitoring reports were submitted to the County.
United Water District, Least Tern Surveys* | United Water Conservation District | Saticoy, California | Biologist Jenny conducted weekly least tern surveys over two
nesting seasons at the United Water facility. She drafted the final results report for the District.
McGrath State Beach Tidewater Goby and Water Quality
Monitoring* | California Department of Fish and Wildlife | Ventura, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted daily tidewater goby sein netting surveys and relocation for an emergency construction project in the Santa Clara River estuary. She also performed daily water quality sampling and invasive species removal.
Ormond Beach Snowy Plover and Least Tern Surveys* |
California Department of Fish and Wildlife | Ventura,
California | Biologist
Jenny conducted protocol nesting bird surveys for the
snowy plover and least tern within protected enclosures.
Nesting behaviors, nest location, and young were tracked, documented and monitored throughout the nesting
season.
California State University Channel Islands, Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys* | California State University Channel
Islands | Camarillo, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted least Bell’s vireo surveys on the CSUCI campus for one nesting season, and assisted in
preparation of final reporting.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Special-Status Species Surveys* | Recurrent Energy |
Kern County, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted desert tortoise, burrowing owl and kit
fox surveys for several solar projects across Kern
County.
Stantec Architecture, FedEx Construction Site Burrowing Owl Survey | Bloomington, California | Biologist
Jenny performed a pre-construction special status
species survey as well as burrowing owl
presence/absence surveys in support of a proposed
expansion project at a FedEx Ground facility. While
conducting the survey, Jenny observed one burrowing
owl within the proposed project area and helped
coordinate additional protocol surveys in accordance with the project’s mitigation requirements.
Luis Oasis Senior Center, Biological Constraints Analysis | Orcutt, California | Biologist
Jenny performed a field reconnaissance survey to
document existing site conditions, the potential for
sensitive biological resources, and took an inventory of protected native trees. Jenny also drafted the Biological Constraints Analysis Report for the project.
Town Building and Development, ISBA | Ventura County,
California | Biologist
Jenny performed a field reconnaissance survey and
prepared an ISBA to document existing habitat conditions and the potential for sensitive biological resources in accordance with County of Ventura ISBA requirements.
Algonquin Power, SKIC 10 Solar Project San Joaquin Kit
Fox, Burrowing Owl, Nesting Bird and Wildlife Clearance Surveys | Bakersfield, California | Biologist
Jenny performed San Joaquin kit fox, burrowing owl,
nesting bird, and wildlife clearance surveys prior to
project construction.
Comstock Homes, Burrowing Owl Surveys | Camarillo,
California | Biologist
Jenny prepared a proposal and conducted burrowing owl
presence/absence surveys for a residential development
project in Camarillo. She also concurrently performed a nesting bird survey of the project area and prepared a
report of the results.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan* | Southern California Gas Company | Ventura and Los Angeles Counties,
California | Lead Environmental Monitor
Jenny conducted environmental monitoring for several
gas pipeline replacement projects. She monitored
biological resources, storm water and air quality,
hazardous waste control, and cultural and archaeological resources, as well as performing water and
polychlorinated biphenyl sampling. She also conducted
pre-construction surveys, prepared project reports, and compliance monitoring documents.
Caltrans Bridge Replacement Project* | Santa Barbara,
California | Biologist
Jenny conducted the biological monitoring for two bridge replacements that required monitoring stream diversion
installation and removal. She performed aquatic species surveys, nesting bird surveys, and water diversion as well as general construction compliance monitoring.
Biological Monitoring, Line 63 Pipeline Replacement
Project | Plains All American Pipeline Company | Castaic, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted biological and restoration monitoring of a petroleum pipeline replacement within the Angeles
National Forest. She conducted sensitive species
clearance surveys prior to daily construction activities and monitored habitat restoration and Best Management
Practices (BMP) installation.
Plains All American Pipeline Drilling Project | Posey
Canyon, Angeles National Forest, California | Biologist Jenny provided biological resource monitoring, and
nesting bird and wildlife surveys for a drilling project in the Angeles National Forest.
Riparian Habitat Assessment, Line 63 Replacement
Project | Plains All American Pipeline Company (PAALP) | Santa Clara River, Los Angeles County, California |
Biologist
Jenny was approved by CDFW as a qualified biological
monitor and conducted environmental compliance
monitoring for installation of a pipeline through the Santa Clara River via Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD).
During monitoring of construction activities Jenny also surveyed for potential frac- out during HDD operations.
Carpinteria Sanitary District, Carpinteria Creek Aquatic Species Surveys and Horizontal Direction Drilling (HDD) Monitoring | Carpinteria, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted pre-construction aquatic surveys within Carpinteria Creek for red-legged frog, southwestern pond turtle, tidewater goby, and two-striped garter snake. She also provided biological construction monitoring during HDD construction activities within the creek. Jenny
detected a frac-out and was able to prevent any frac-out material from entering Carpinteria Creek by promptly
alerting project personnel.
Phillips 66 Pipeline Biological Monitoring Project | Phillip 66 Pipeline LLC | Arroyo Grande, California | Biologist Jenny conducted environmental compliance monitoring
for a 5.6 mile pipeline project that crossed the Arroyo Grande Creek and an additional tributary. The project
entailed dewatering a 70- foot section of creek and
replacing a portion of pipeline underneath. Jenny also
conducted SWPPP inspections for the entire project.
* denotes projects completed with other firms
STREAM/RIVER RESTORATION
California State University Channel Islands, Restoration Monitoring* | Camarillo, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted quarterly and annual qualitative and
quantitative monitoring for a creek restoration site on CSUCI campus. She also prepared quarterly status
memos and annual restoration monitoring reports in
accordance with agency requirements.
Restoration Monitoring* | City of Santa Barbara | Santa Barbara, California | Biologist
Jenny performed quarterly and annual qualitative and
quantitative monitoring for two bridge projects over
Mission Creek. She prepared annual restoration
monitoring reports in accordance with agency
requirements.
BOTANICAL SURVEYS
California State University Channel Islands, Vegetation Mapping* | California State University Channel Islands | Camarillo, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted vegetation habitat mapping on CSUCI
campus and prepared survey results reports.
Oak Tree Inventory and Vegetation Mapping* |
Confidential | Castaic, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted oak tree inventories for several hundred trees and prepared vegetation habitat maps for three
adjacent parcels.
High Speed Rail Special-Status Floral Surveys* |
Tehachapi, California | Biologist
Jenny conducted focused, rare plant surveys for a portion of a high-speed rail project through Tehachapi.
NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
AND OIL SPILL RESPONSE
Habitat Restoration Monitoring, Refugio Oil Spill | Plains All American Pipeline Company | Goleta, California |
Biologist
Jenny conducted restoration monitoring and assisted with habitat assessments at multiple sites along the California coast following spill cleanup response efforts.
ASBESTOS, LEAD BASED PAINT, AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL (MERCURY, PCB)
ASSESSMENTS
Asbestos and Lead Surveys | Hawaii | Environmental
Scientist
Jenny assisted with asbestos and lead surveys for
several multi-story buildings for a confidential client. The surveys included exterior and interior sampling, mapping, and reporting. Additionally, inventories of hazardous
materials were taken, including potential mercury and
PCB-containing materials.
Asbestos and Lead Surveys | Westlake and Thousand
Oaks, California | Environmental Scientist
Jenny assisted with asbestos and lead surveys for several shopping centers for a confidential client. The surveys included exterior and interior sampling, mapping, and
reporting. Additionally, inventories of hazardous materials were taken, including potential mercury and PCB-containing materials.
PUBLICATIONS
A VanDwerwarker, J Alvarado, P Webb. Analysis and
Interpretation of Intrasite Variability in
Paleoethnobotanical Remains: A Consideration and
Application of Methods at the Ravensford Site, North
Carolina. In: Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany.,
2014.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Kyle has more than 28 years of professional experience—17 of those years with Stantec—providing geotechnical and environmental consulting. During the course of his experience, he has been involved with a wide variety of geological and engineering projects. He has been in direct charge of quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) work for Stantec and previous firms for geological, engineering geological, and environmental services primarily in California. Additionally, Kyle has been a primary contact for Stantec with many different clients (including multi-party actions) and regulatory bodies involving contracting, workplan approvals, site assessments and closures, permitting, remedial action, and litigation support. With regard to litigation services, Kyle has extensive experience providing expert witness testimony, second-party review, and litigation support and analysis.
Kyle's extensive experience includes assessment and remediation of property-specific and regional issues involving soil and groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, heavy metals, pesticides, and PCBs.
He currently serves as the managing principal geologist in Stantec's Redlands, California office.
EDUCATION
Engineering Geology/Hydrogeology, California
State University, Los Angeles, California, 1984
AS, General Science, Crafton Hills College,
Yucaipa, California, 1975
BS, Geological Sciences, California State
University, Long Beach, California, 1982
REGISTRATIONS
Certified Engineering Geologist #1271, State of
California Issued 1985, Expires 2011
Professional Geologist #4066, State of California
Issued 1985, Expires 2011
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Bioremediation
Excavation and Treatment of Petroleum-Contaminated Soil Kyle designed the excavation and treatment of
45,000 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated
soil. Soil treatment included utilizing vapor
extraction, combined with bioremediation.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Chemicals & Polymers
Two Former Chemical Plants, Environmental Site
Assessments and Remediation, Vernon, California
Mr. Emerson was part of the team for conducting
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments (ESA) and developing remedial
action plans for two former chemical plant sites
with 80-year industrial histories. Phase I ESAs
used historical files, maps, aerial photographs,
available documents, and data from public
agencies and historical directories for identifying
recognized environmental concerns. Extensive
Phase II ESA survey activities aided in identifying
below-grade structures such as vaults/USTs, as
well as assessing the extent of influence and
nature of the contamination. These investigations
confirmed the presence of heavy metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic
compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, radioactive
materials, semi-volatile organic compounds, and
polycyclic aromatic compounds in the soils for
these sites. Specific areas of concern included
former settling ponds, a bone yard, maintenance
areas, transformer and substations, wastewater
treatment facilities, and above-ground storage
tank farms. A conceptual mode was developed for
use in a health risk assessment and developed
risk-based corrective actions to address potential
health and environmental concerns. He assisted
with the development and implementation of a
remedial action plan, combined administrative
controls, engineering controls, and active
remediation; this resulted in the cost-effective
return of one site to active use, and is reducing
health risks to occupants and the public at the
second site.
CONFIDENTIAL: Aerospace Adhesives and
Coatings Plant, Glendale, California
Mr. Emerson was part of the team that conducted
feasibility studies to evaluate remedial alternatives
for remediation of chlorinated VOCs, 1,4 dioxane,
and hexavalent chromium (CrVI) in soil, soil vapor,
and groundwater. Feasibility studies included
groundwater pump testing, benchscale column
testing to evaluate in situ alternatives for reducing
CrVI to the less mobile CrIII valence state, soil
vapor extraction, capping, and excavation. Field
pilot studies were performed to evaluate the
efficiency of various CrVI reductants including the
use of ferrous sulfate, calcium polysulfide,
emulsified oil, and fructose. Extensive multi-depth
soil vapor testing was conducted to evaluate the
distribution of VOCs in the subsurface and to
support vapor intrusion risk assessment.
Feasibility studies were completed in 2008.
Remedial actions are expected to be completed in
2011.
Condition Assessments
Assessment and Mitigation of Manufacturing
Facility
Kyle managed the assessment and mitigation of
an ammunition manufacturing facility covering
1,100 acres in a complex geologic environment.
The contaminates involved red and white
phosphorous, TNT, chlorinated solvents, solid
wastes, and live ordinance.
Soil Contamination Assessment Supervision and
Management
Kyle managed and supervised soil contamination
assessment and in-situ remediation of heavy
metals involving chromium, cadmium, nickel and
zinc by chemical fixation to depths in excess of 40
feet below ground surface beneath existing
structures within several manufacturing facilities.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Litigation Support and Expert Testimony
Kyle provided litigation support and expert
testimony on more than 20 separate projects
involving service stations, chlorinated solvent
cases, heavy metal, and semi-volatile releases.
Corporate / Office
Commercial Developer - Environmental
Remediation of Former Dry Cleaners, El Centro,
California
Mr. Emerson was responsible for assessments
and remediation at this former dry cleaners which
released the dry cleaning chemical
tetrachloroethene (PCE) to the ground and
underlying groundwater. The work included initial
site assessment, agency interaction and
negotiations with the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), and Colorado
Basin Region human health risk assessment
(HHRA), design and implementation of remedial
investigations, feasibility studies, remedial action
plans, and implementation of remediation in
mitigating chlorinated solvent contamination in
vadose and saturated zones at concentrations
indicative of DNAPL. The results of the completed
remediation, as well as continued confirmation
sampling and monitoring, allowed the CRWQCB to
issue site closure in 2008. The site has since been
redeveloped into a new commercial development.
Environmental Assessments
Siting Studies
Kyle performed initial siting studies for potential
Class I, II, and III landfills. The project included
detailed geologic mapping, hydrogeological
studies, and permeability studies of caps and
liners.
Environmental Site Remediation
Assessment and Remedial Design, California
(Project Supervisor)
Kyle supervised the assessment and remedial
design of a system to eliminate salt brine
contamination in shallow perched water horizons
in the Yucaipa, San Bernardino, and Riverside
areas of southern California.
Design and Installation of Recovery Systems*
Kyle designed and installed numerous free-product recovery systems that successfully recovered product. One of the sites contained
product up to 11-feet thick covering more than
three city blocks. The dissolved phase had
affected a multi-aquifer system and a public
drinking water system.
Geophysical Characterizations*
Kyle performed and supervised numerous
geophysical characterizations to determine the
extent of old landfills. He provided classification
studies, landfill gas monitoring, removal
verification during grading, methane collection and
mitigation plans, permitting, and closure plans.
Domestic Landfill Development*
Kyle designed and supervised the dynamic
consolidation of a domestic landfill for
development. He used this process to minimize
expected settlement to overlying structures. Kyle
designed commercial developments on closed
landfills that involved complex methane collection
and monitoring systems and building settlement
controls.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Clay Borrow Site Studies
Kyle performed more than 10 separate clay
borrow site studies for determining sources of
material to cap landfills; ranged from a 20-acre dry
lakebed to a 450-acre parcel in complex folded
marine sediments.
Assessment, Clean Up, and Regulatory Support
Management, Santa, Monica (Project Manager)
Kyle managed the assessment, clean up, and
complex regulatory support of a PRP site in an
MTBE case (Charnock subbasin). His work
involved more than 20 environmental
professionals working full time for two years to
complete the assessment and clean up mandated
by the regulatory agencies.
Hazardous Waste
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site, Remediation &
Closure of Multiple Source Areas, Industry,
California
Mr. Emerson performed feasibility studies to
evaluate appropriate and relevant remedial
alternatives to mitigate constituents of concern in
five AOCs contaminated with chlorinated
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, petroleum fuel, and
cutting oils. Ultimately, a combination of remedial
alternatives was implemented that included large-diameter auger excavation to 45 feet to minimize impacts on facility operations, vapor extraction,
vapor intrusion risk assessment, deed restriction,
and monitored natural attenuation. At the
completion of remedial actions, confirmation soil,
soil vapor, and groundwater sampling were
conducted and followed with risk assessment to
demonstrate that remedial objectives had been
achieved. No further action was recently granted
by the US EPA and Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Mixed-Use
Port of San Diego Rohr Facility, Chula Vista,
California
Mr. Emerson assisted in a detailed subsurface
assessment of the Rohr facility. The intent of the
assessment was to evaluate the 40-acre former
aircraft part manufacturing facility for acquisition
by the Port of San Diego for redevelopment into a
business park and entertainment complex. The
assessment identified the presence of soil, soil
vapor, and groundwater impacts by petroleum
hydrocarbons, VOCs, heavy metals, PCBs, and
semi-volatile organic compounds. He utilized
many sampling techniques to assess the limits
and concentrations of contaminants in the
subsurface. Ultimately, the team was able to
develop a cost estimate for potential remedial
action cost associated to corrective action to allow
redevelopment.
Master Planned Commercial/Residential
Redevelopment Project, Whittier, California
(Project Manager)
Kyle oversaw the assessment of 26 contiguous
properties that are part of a 21-acre master
planned commercial/residential redevelopment
project. The properties included industrial facilities, platting lines, fuel USTs, and metal processing
plants, among others. The estimated cleanup
costs are approximately $2 million.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Multi-Unit / Family Residential
Residential Development Assessment, Ventura,
California (Project Director)
Kyle directed an assessment of a 40-acre former
agricultural property proposed for residential
development. Pesticides were identified above
hazardous waste levels and preliminary
remediation goals established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Through
corrective grading methods and onsite placement
of the pesticide impacted soils, all material were
re-used on site without offsite disposal. The over
all cost savings for the client was more than $1
million. Total cost was less than $250,000 for all
necessary activities.
Oil & Gas
Oil Field Site Assessments*
Kyle performed site assessments at oil field leases
involving refineries, bulk storage areas, piping
systems and wellhead, and drilling mud pit
contamination.
Environmental Protection Agency Superfund
Action, Culver City, California (Project Manager)
Kyle served as the project manager representing a
major oil company in the assessment, remedial
action, and litigation support in a multi-party
contamination case affecting a City water supply.
The assessment involved more than 250
continuous core borings up to 100 feet, as well as
extensive remedial actions. The total cost for all
related activities was $22 million. The case is
settled and the closure of the site is pending.
Project Management
Liability and Property Management Consulting
Services
Kyle is providing liability and property
management consulting services to more than 10
medium to large property development firms in the
US. His work involves property transaction
assessments, contract review, acquisition
guideline development, liability management
evaluation, insurance acquisition, and strategic
planning.
Residential Development
Environmental Development Management and
Review (Project Manager)
Kyle manages and reviews environmental
development issues for a large residential
developer specializing in development of
contaminated industrial properties by providing
innovative solutions in developing contaminated
properties for residential use through risk
assessment, engineering, and administrative and
property development controls.
Site Management and Remediation
Design and Implementation of Biodegradation
Programs*, California
Kyle designed and implemented one of the first in-situ biodegradation programs in California; it involved 50,000 cubic yards of diesel-contaminated soils, and groundwater to depths of 70 feet below ground surface.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Soil and Groundwater Remediation Systems
Soil and Groundwater Contamination
Assessments and Mitigation*, California (Project
Manager)
Kyle managed numerous chlorinated solvent soil
and groundwater contamination assessments and
mitigation programs in southern California. The
projects involved releases that impacted soil and
groundwater to depth of groundwater more than
700 feet in multi-aquifer systems. One case
involved with plume dimensions more than 1 mile
from the source affecting residential properties.
Soil and Groundwater Assessment and
Remediation Programs*
Implemented hundreds of soil and groundwater
assessment and remediation programs at various
service station facilities in Southern and Northern
California, and Nevada. Work involved
assessment, remedial design, installation,
maintenance and monitoring. Closure has been
received on a majority of these sites.
Assessment and Remediation Management*
Kyle managed the assessment and remediation of
soil and groundwater manufacturing at dry
cleaning facilities contaminated with chlorinated
solvents.
Warehouse / Light Industrial
Glendale Redevelopment Project, Glendale,
California (Project Manager)
Kyle managed the assessment and remedial
actions during the redevelopment of and industrial
property. The project involved the demolition of a
historic manufacturing facility and a commercial
dry cleaner. Each of these facilities were
associated with releases of solvents and
petroleum hydrocarbons. Remedial actions
involved excavation by pattern drilling and off site
disposal along with removal of former USTs. The
total cost of remediation and assessment was
$450,000.00.
Compton Redevelopment Project, Compton,
California (Project Manager)
Kyle is serving as project manager for the
assessment and remedial actions for a large
redevelopment project. The project involves the
redevelopment of a historic manufacturing facility
and a former dry cleaner. Each of these facilities
were associated with releases of solvents and
petroleum hydrocarbons. The industrial facility was
also associated with significant volumes of buried
waste that required removal and disposal. These
wastes also included the chemical referenced
above, as well as PCBs and heavy metals.
Remediation has included excavation, vapor
extraction, and chemical fixation. The total cost of
this project has been $2.8 million to date.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
PUBLICATIONS
In-Situ Bioremediation of an Underground Diesel
Fuel Spill: A Case Study. Environmental
Management, 1989.
APPENDIX C
USER-PROVIDED RECORDS
Trent Cornell
Operations Manager
Stewart Title Guaranty Company
Commercial Services (Orange
County CA)
19800 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 300
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone
[email protected]
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Order No. : 23000500331
Title Unit No. : 50
Your File No. :
Buyer/Borrower Name : TBD
Seller Name : Walmart Inc.
Property Address: 0 Mission Gorge Road, Santee, CA 92071 In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, Stewart Title Guaranty Company Commercial Services (Orange County CA) hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of a defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Exclusions from Coverage, and Conditions of said policy forms.
With respect to any contemplated owner’s policy, the printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A, attached.
The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA/ALTA Homeowner’s Policy of Title Insurance, which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages, are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a binder or commitment should be requested.
Dated as of February 29, 2024 at 7:30 a.m.
Trent Cornell, Title Officer
When replying, please contact: Trent Cornell, Title Officer File No.: 23000500331
Prelim Report COM r 2-3-23