Attachment D - Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2018 addendum adopted with the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan (SP 19-0003) / Conditional Use Permit (CUP 18-0004) — San Marcos City Council, July 26, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

ATTACHMENT D
ND 03‐681 ‐ Mitigated Negative Declaration and 2018
addendum adopted with the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan (SP 19‐0003) / Conditional Use Permit (CUP 18‐0004).

Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration
ND 03-681

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment
SP 18-0001/CUP 18-0004

City of San Marcos
September 2018

Prepared by:

Sophia Mitchell & Associates

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment i City of S an Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................................... ............. ................................ ................................ ................................................... ............. ................................ ................................ ................................................... ..... ........................ ........................ ........................ 11 11-- --11 11

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................ ..................................................................................1-1

1.2 PROPSOED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, PERMITS AND CON SULTATIONS ............................ 1-1

1.3 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION .......... .......................................................... 1-1

1.4 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM......... ............................................................ 1-2

1.4.1 Use of an Addendum to a Previously Adopted MND .............................................................1-3

1.5 EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY REFERE NCE .......................................... 1-3

1.6 CONTACT PERSON ................................ ................................................................................... 1-4

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................................... ............. ................................ ................................ ................................................... ............. ................................ ................................ ........................................... ........... ........... ........... 22 22-- --11 11

2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING AND EXISTING SITE CONDITI ONS .....................................................2-1

2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................ .............................................................................. 2-1

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................... ................................................................................ 2-3

2.4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................... .......................................................................... 2-5

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................................... ............. ................................ ................................ ................................................... ............. ................................ ................................ ................................................... ....... .......................... .......................... .......................... 33 33-- --11 11

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .................. .....................................................................3-1

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................... ........................................................................... 3-4

FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES FIGURES
Figure 1. Currently Adopted Specific Plan Buildout ................................................................................1-2 Figure 2. Project Location ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 3. Proposed Phase 1A Site Plan .................................................................................................. 2-4

TABLES TABLES TABLES TABLES
Table 1. Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summar y (Current Specific Plan, Phase 1) ............ 3-21 Table 2. Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissio ns Summary (Proposed Project) ............... 3-21 Table 3. Operational Emissions Summary (Proposed P roject) ........................................................ 3-22 Table 4. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service - Weekday ........................................................... 3-50 Table 5. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service - Weekend .......................................................... 3-50 Table 6. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of S ervice - Weekday ............................................ 3-51 Table 7. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of S ervice – Weekend Day ................................... 3-51 Table 8. Existing Peak Hour Queueing Analysis - Wee kday ............................................................. 3-52 Table 9. Existing Peak Hour Queueeing Analysis – We ekend Day .................................................. 3-52 Table 10a.Propsoed Project Trip Generation – Scenario A ................................................................. 3-53 Table 10b.Propsoed Project Trip Generation – Scenario B ................................................................ 3-55 Table 11. Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway LOS – Weekday (Scenario A) ................................... 3-56 Table 12. Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway LOS – Weekend Day (Scenario A) ........................... 3-56 Table 13. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS – Weekday (Scenario A) ..................... 3-57 Table 14. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS – Weekend (Scenario A) .................... 3-58 Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment ii City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

Table 15. Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway – Weekday (Scenario A) ..................................... 3-58 Table 16. Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway – Weekend Day (Scenario A) ............................. 3-59 Table 17. Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway LOS – Weekday (Scenario B)................................... 3-59 Table 18. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection LOS- Weekday (Scenario B) ....................... 3-60 Table 19. Queuing Analysis for Project Driveway – Weekday (Scenario B) ...................................... 3-61 Table 20. Implementation Timing for Mitigation Measures Identified in the 2004 MND ................ 3-73

ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A - 2004 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
Appendix B - Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Appendix C - Additional Site Assessment (Soil Vapor)
Appendix D - Traffic Memorandum

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 1-1 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE PURPOSE AND SCOPE PURPOSE AND SCOPE PURPOSE AND SCOPE This Initial Study/Addendum is an addendum to the F inal Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted by the City of San Marcos (City) in April 2004 for SP 03-41/CUP 03-596 (San Marcos Studios).

This document serves as the environmental review of the proposed project, as required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Qual ity Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq., and the State and local CEQA Guidelines . A complete project description is included in Section 2.0.

Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines , the City of San Marcos is the Lead Agency. As part of the decision-making process, the City is required to review and consider the potential environmental effects that could result from the modification of the project analyzed in the previously adopted MND.

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 PROPOSED DISCRETIONA PROPOSED DISCRETIONA PROPOSED DISCRETIONA PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS, PERMITS RY ACTIONS, PERMITS RY ACTIONS, PERMITS RY ACTIONS, PERMITS & CONSULTATION & CONSULTATION & CONSULTATION & CONSULTATION The proposed project requires the following discret ionary actions by the City of San Marcos to: 1) modify the timing of the currently required conditions of approval and mitigation measures, and 2) to change the proportion of the site that can be used for the various allowed uses:
• Specific Plan Amendment (SP18-0001)
• Condition Use Permit (CUP18-0004)

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 PREVIOUS ENV PREVIOUS ENV PREVIOUS ENV PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTA IRONMENTAL DOCUMENTA IRONMENTAL DOCUMENTA IRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION TION TION TION In 2004, the San Marcos City Council adopted an MND (ND 03-681) for a Specific Plan and a Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a film produc tion facility and associated operations within an existing 217,653 (s.f.) building in Phase 1. Phase 2 included the construction of a 132,000 s.f. office building and a parking structure.

The MND concluded that all impacts were determined to be either less than significant in relation to the identified significance threshold levels or were mitigated to a level of less than significant through recommended mitigation measures. The 2004 MND is included as Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A Appendix A of this document.

The Specific Plan that was adopted along with the 2004 MND included additional details on the uses that would occur by each floor area, including gross and net calculations. Figure 1 Figure 1 Figure 1 Figure 1 depicts the ultimate buildout of the project site, including details per building floor, as depicted in the Specific Plan t hat was adopted in 2004.

As shown in Figure 1, first floor (Level 1) use area was identified as 210,182 s.f. (gross)/174,411 s.f. (net), with the following uses occurring on the first floor (Level 1): 89,715 s.f of sound stages, 23,320 s.f. of production support, 22,026 of tenant lease area, 19,380 s.f. of mill and workshops, and at 20,000 s.f. office building.

For the purposes of this MND Addendum analysis, the 217,653 s.f. assumed for Phase 1 in the 2004 MND serves as the basis of the CEQA analysis.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 1-2 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018
Figure 1. Currently Adopted Specific Plan Buildout Figure 1. Currently Adopted Specific Plan Buildout Figure 1. Currently Adopted Specific Plan Buildout Figure 1. Currently Adopted Specific Plan Buildout

1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 FINDINGS OF THIS INI FINDINGS OF THIS INI FINDINGS OF THIS INI FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM TIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM TIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM TIAL STUDY/ADDENDUM Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines , this Initial Study/Addendum has been prepared as the proposed changes to the previously approved project do not result in a change in circumstances, new impacts, or new information of substantial importance requiring the preparation of a subsequent MND under Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines .

Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines , the City’s environmental review of the proposed project is limited to examining the environmental e ffects associated with the changes between the previously adopted MND and the potential impacts th at may result from implementation of the proposed project. This focus is due to the fact that the MND has already addressed the environmental impacts and required mitigation measures associated with the previous project and that the San Marcos City Council adopted that the MND was adequate and met the provisions of CEQA.

Based upon the information provided in the attached Initial Study/Addendum, the implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new si gnificant impacts and the conclusions in the San Marcos Studio MND are valid for this project.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 1-3 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

1.4.1 1.4.1 1.4.1 1.4.1 Use of an Addendum to a Previously Adopted MND Use of an Addendum to a Previously Adopted MND Use of an Addendum to a Previously Adopted MND Use of an Addendum to a Previously Adopted MND Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an MND shall be prepare d “if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent MND have oc curred.” Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies the conditions that require preparation of a subsequent MND. A proposed change in a project would require preparation of a subsequent MND if:

1. The change in the project is substantial.

Substantial changes in the project are those that would require major revision of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant envir onmental effects, or if a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects has occurred.

2. The circumstances under which the project is und ertaken have substantially changed.

Substantial changes in circumstances are defined as those that would require major revisions of the previous MND in order to describe and analyz e new significant environmental effects, or any changes that would cause a substantial incre ase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects.

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted, shows:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; B. The significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous MND;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously foun d not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

If none of the above conditions are met, the City is not required to prepare a subsequent MND. Rather, an Addendum shall be prepared, or the City may decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary.

This Addendum has evaluated each of the issues addr essed in the MND in Section 3.0 of this document.

Based on this analysis and the information containe d herein, there is no evidence that the proposed project requires major changes to the MND. Comparis on of the previous project with the proposed project, as described in Section 2.3 of this docume nt, indicates that there are no new significant environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project.

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 EXISTING DOCUMENTS T EXISTING DOCUMENTS T EXISTING DOCUMENTS T EXISTING DOCUMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED BY O BE INCORPORATED BY O BE INCORPORATED BY O BE INCORPORATED BY RE RE RE REFERENCE FERENCE FERENCE FERENCE Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines permits an environmental document to incorporate b y reference other documents that provide relevant data.

The following document is hereby incorporated by reference, and the pertinent material is summarized throughout this Initial Study/Addendum, where that information is relevant to the analysis of impacts Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 1-4 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018
of the project. Any document incorporated by reference is available for review at the City of San Marcos, Planning Division.
• SPA 03-41/CUP 03-596 (San Marcos Studios) Mitigated Negative Declaration . 2004.

1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON The Lead Agency for the Initial Study/Addendum for the proposed project is the City of San Marcos.

Any questions should be referred to the following:

Joseph Farace, Principal Planner
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Tel: (760) 744-1050, ext. 3248
Email: [email protected]

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 2-1 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 PROJECT SITE SETTING PROJECT SITE SETTING PROJECT SITE SETTING PROJECT SITE SETTING AND EXISTING SITE C AND EXISTING SITE C AND EXISTING SITE C AND EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ONDITIONS ONDITIONS ONDITIONS The 18.98-acre Specific Plan area is located on the south side of San Elijo Road, west of Elfin Forest Road within the City of San Marcos, California (Fig ure Figure Figure Figure 22 22). It is located within the southern portion of the Questhaven/La Costa Meadows Community Plan and is currently designated as Specific Plan Area (SPA). The site is bordered on the west and south by vacant land and is adjacent to a closed landfill to the east. San Elijo Road separates the site from open space and the San Elijo Hills community to the north.

The site is currently developed with a large main b uilding separated into four rooms and a two-story office building. There are also several smaller auxiliary structures onsite. These structures include two metal tool shed/garage areas, a masonry electrical building, two former shredder structures, and a large water tankhouse with several smaller auxiliary structures. These are the same structures that were on the project site when the 2004 MND was adopted. No modifications to these structures have occurred since adoption of the 2004 MND.

Assessor’s parcel numbers associated with the project site include: 223-080-41-00, 223-080-042-00 and 760-248-46-00.

Figure Figure Figure Figure 22 22. Project . Project . Project . Project Location Location Location Location

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT BACKGROUND PROJECT BACKGROUND Prior Land Use Permitting Prior Land Use Permitting Prior Land Use Permitting Prior Land Use Permitting The project site is situated within the southern po rtion of the Questhaven/La Costa Meadows Community Plan and is currently designated as Loma San Marcos Specific Plan (SP). The previous zoning of Solid Waste Management (SWM) was changed to allow the Loma San Marcos to be built under the flexibility of the Specific Plan Area cla ssification. A summary of the project site history is included below:

Project Site
Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 2-2 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018
• Late 1970's- The original County landfill in San Marcos opened. The site included space for a waste-to-energy facility being developed by the The rmo Electron Corporation, which was originally due to begin operations in the mid - 1980's. • 1987- City of San Marcos voters approved Propositio n A, which allowed the waste-to-energy facility to be built and operated.
• August/September 1991 -The County Board of Supervisors did not approve a contract to allow trash from the San Marcos landfill to be utilized i n the waste-to-energy facility. In response to market changes, a recycling plant facility was appro ved instead. The proposed project was built as a materials recovery facility (MRF).
• January 1992 - Construction of the MRF started and was paid for by $134 million in bonds from the California Pollution Control Financing Authority. • February 1994 - The San Marcos MRF opened. During t he 24-month construction phase, the County of San Diego mandated curbside recycling; an action that reduced expected recycling volumes of 20,000 tons per month to only 5,000 tons. In addition, during construction, the U.

S. Supreme Court ruled that governmental entities could not dictate where waste haulers take garbage. Several cities opted to have their contrac ted haulers divert waste to less expensive landfills outside of San Diego County. As a result, the County generated less revenue than anticipated from lost landfill tipping fees and shared recycling revenues from the MRF. • June 1995- The County decided to buy out the contract from the Thermo-Electron Corporation and stopped diverting trucks to the recycling facility. The plant was idle for one year while the County put together a plan to redeem the $134 milli on in bonds that had been sold for the construction and put the MRF up for sale.
• May 1997- The City of San Marcos invalidated the CU P for the facility because it had not operated in the previous 12 months.
• October 1997- Allied Waste was the successful bidde r for the County solid waste system, including the San Marcos MRF. Allied Waste decided against obtaining a new permit to operate the facility because the City was no longer interes ted in hosting a MRF (or landfill) due to the development of the large residential community bein g built across the street. However, the City was willing to rezone the property to a light industrial application. Allied Waste divested of the recycling equipment and listed the property for sale. • June 2003 - The facility was non-operational. The r ecycling equipment was removed, and the building was vacant. The City of San Marcos approved a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to the land use designation of Specific Plan Area ( SPA). A MND was adopted as part of this approval. Since 2003 the property was purchased by the current project applicant. • April 2004 – A Specific Plan and CUP were approved to allow a film production facility and associated operations within an existing building a s Phase 1 and construction of an office building and parking garage as Phase 2.
• 2004 - A Real Property and Lien Agreement (Agreement) between the City and property owner was recorded. The Agreement established City and property owner cooperation on phasing of the conditions of approval, including payment of Pu blic Facility Fees (PFF) and street improvement requirements. The phasing of fees and improvements in the Agreement were consistent with approved CUP conditions for the pro ject. The Agreement was amended in 2007 and was recorded in 2009 to add a legal description. • September 2014 – A General Plan Amendment (GPA13-007) was approved renaming the SPA from San Marcos Studio to Loma San Marcos Specific Plan. This action also changed the name reference in the City’s General Plan.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 2-3 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project The proposed project is a request for a Specific Pl an Amendment (SPA) to the Loma San Marcos Specific Plan and a modification to the existing CUP to change the project phasing.

The request would create a “pre-phase” or Phase 1A that temporarily allows for the reconfiguration of previously permitted uses within a 179,535 s.f. fir st-floor portion of the existing facility. The 200 4 MND assumed up to 217,653 s.f. of movie production use within the existing structures under Phase 1, thus the uses proposed under Phase 1A fall within the area considered for use in the 2004 MND.

Phase 1A would utilize a smaller portion of the pro ject site for film production use compared to the approved project. In doing so, the applicant would be able to operate the facility with a less intense level of use and avoid any direct traffic impacts t o the San Elijo Road project intersection. Due to t he limited scope of the current request, no exterior improvements beyond parking lot striping, landscape upkeep and circulation signage are proposed.

Development will occur in several phases, as allowe d under the currently adopted Specific Plan and existing CUP.

Project Phasing Project Phasing Project Phasing Project Phasing The currently adopted Specific Plan and CUP, as rev ised by the 2004 Agreement, amended in 2007 and recorded in 2009, identifies two phases of deve lopment for the project site (Phase 1 and Phase 2). The proposed modification to the Specific Plan divides Phase 1 of the project into two separate phases (Phase 1A and Phase 1B). Phase 2 will remain as currently identified in the adopted Specific Plan. The CUP will be modified to implement the Specific Plan Amendment consistent with the change in the project’s phasing and will include any new conditions applicable to Phase 1A.

As proposed, Phase 1A does not change the uses allowed under Phase 1 of the existing Specific Plan and CUP, and as analyzed under the 2004 MND but doe s change the intensity of use by square footage. Phase 1A will occupy 179,535 s.f. (gross) of ground level space in existing buildings and will be used as follows:
• Movie production space (61,650 s.f), to be used under either Scenario A or Scenario B (further described below)
• Office space (9,750 s.f.)
• Storage space (108,135 s.f.)

Figure Figure Figure Figure 33 33 depicts the building layout and proposed uses for each building under Phase 1A.

With regard to the use of the 61,650 s.f. of movie production space, two use scenarios are considered under Phase 1A. The two use scenarios provide flexi bility on the types of filming activities that coul d occur on the project site. Only one scenario would occur on a given day. • Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A proposes that the 61,650-s.f. of movie p roduction space will include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreatio nally competitive games with live audiences.

Operation hours for Scenario A would be between 3 PM and 9 PM during weekdays and from 8 AM to 8 PM on weekends. Workers would have a 2 PM to 10 PM schedule on weekdays and a 7 AM to 9 PM schedule on weekends. Filming with li ve audiences is allowed in the Specific Plan and the Covenants, Conditions and Restriction (CC&Rs) recorded on the property between the property owner and the County of San Diego. The SP and CC&Rs permit “recreational uses related to production facility activities” and live audiences as an allowed use and these uses were considered in the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 2-4 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018

Figure Figure Figure Figure 33 33. Proposed Phase 1A Site Plan . Proposed Phase 1A Site Plan . Proposed Phase 1A Site Plan . Proposed Phase 1A Site Plan

• Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B consists of a movie studio use for different movie production purposes, other than the youth sports recreation, within the 61,650 s.f. movie production space. This use would occur between 8 AM and 3 PM on weekdays for movie p roduction instead of filming youth sports. This type of use is consistent with the typ es of filming activities for the site in the SP and CC&Rs and this type of use was considered in the 2004 MND.

No additions or expansions to the existing structur es are proposed under Phase 1A under either scenario. The site will remain in its current condi tion and operate on a limited basis specifically designed to avoid any significant or direct environmental impacts. The only changes that would occur would be internal to the buildings, specifically to construct the youth sports courts and audience viewing area. Internal modifications and renovations were considered in the 2004 MND.

Phase 1B, which would represent the full use of the site as contemplated in Phase 1 of the 2004 MND and adopted Specific Plan, would not change. Additionally, Phase 1B would not be completed until all adopted mitigation measures and conditions of appro val are met. Similarly, Phase 2 uses, which includes the construction of the office building an d parking structure would not change under the proposed project.

Project Design Features and 2004 MND Mitigation Measure Implementation Project Design Features and 2004 MND Mitigation Measure Implementation Project Design Features and 2004 MND Mitigation Measure Implementation Project Design Features and 2004 MND Mitigation Measure Implementation During Phase 1A, the project driveway would restric t the northbound left-turn movement to San Elijo Road by modifying the existing configuration to all ow only the northbound right-turn movement onto San Elijo Road. The 2004 MND required the installat ion of a traffic signal at the intersection of the

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 2-5 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018
project access point with San Elijo Road prior to t he occupancy of Phase 1. This Addendum analyzed if the restriction of the left turn movement out of the proposed project driveway could be temporarily accomplished through the installation of a raised pinned AC channelization (pork-chop) island, without significant impacts.

The project applicant has coordinated with the Coun ty of San Diego and County staff has concurred with the left turn movement restriction. Implementation of this restriction would ensure that there are no traffic impacts associated with the implementati on of Phase 1A. Complete details are provided in the traffic analysis prepared by Chen Ryan Associat es (Appendix D) and summarized in the Transportation/Traffic analysis later in this document.

Prior to completion and occupancy of Phase 1B, a tr affic signal shall be installed at the project entrance to San Elijo Road as required by the 2004 MND. Previously this improvement was to be in place prior to occupancy of Phase 1, however, with the split of Phase 1 into Phase 1A and Phase 1B and the limiting of uses under Phase 1A as contempl ated by the proposed project, this improvement will not be needed until prior to occupancy of Phas e 1B. Further, an additional travel lane on the project frontage and transitions shall be construct ed and right-of-way dedications shall be made consistent with the traffic mitigation measures ide ntified in the 2004 MND. Phase 1B also includes on-site circulation and parking modifications, enhan ced onsite street frontage landscaping and installation of the front entry statement.

Table 20, located at the end of this document, prov ides a summary of the mitigation measures from the 2004 MND and their timing for implementation based upon the analysis in this Addendum.

2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 FINDINGS AND CONCLUS FINDINGS AND CONCLUS FINDINGS AND CONCLUS FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS IONS IONS IONS Based on the project description contained in Secti on 2.3 of this Initial Study, each of the issues addressed in the MND, as well as the analysis presented in Section 3.0 of this document, have been evaluated, leading to the following findings and conclusions:
• The proposed Amendment does not result in any subst antial changes in type or intensity of land use.
• The youth sports filming would not be in conflict w ith the Specific Plan since filming with live audiences was contemplated in the SP and CC&Rs reco rded on the property between the property owner and the County of San Diego. The SP and CC&Rs permit “recreational uses related to production facility activities” and live audiences as an allowed use and these uses were considered in the 2004 MND.
• The proposed Amendment reduces trip generation duri ng Phase 1 between 25.6 to 43.3 percent, depending on the scenario in use. This tri p reduction results in an associated reduction in vehicular air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions and vehicular noise. • All mitigation measures identified in the previous MND will still apply to the project but some will have different timing triggers, see Table 20.
• The MND with this Addendum sufficiently analyzes th e potential impacts of the proposed project.

Thus, none of the conditions described in Section 1 5162 calling for preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.

1. The change in the project analyzed in the MND fo r SP 03-41/CUP 03-596 (San Marcos Studios) is not substantial. Substantial changes in the project are those that w ould require “major revisions of the previous MND … due to the i nvolvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 2-6 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September 2018
significant effects.” As noted above, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase i n the severity of previously identified significant effects.

2. The circumstances under which the project is und ertaken have not substantially changed.

Substantial changes in the circumstances under whic h the project is being undertaken are defined as those that would “require major revision s of the previous MND … due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” The only changes required in the MND to address the impacts of the proposed grading refinements are to include the project description contained in this Addendum as part of the MND project description.

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could have not been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MND was adopted, does not show:
• “The project will have one or more significant effe cts not discussed in the previous MND;
• “Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND;
• “Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adop t the mitigation measure or alternative; or
• “Mitigation measures or alternatives that are consi derably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially re duce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.”
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an MND shall be prepare d “if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent negative de claration have occurred.” Since none of the conditions of Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines occur, an Addendum to the SP 03-41/CUP 03-596 (San Marcos Studios) MND is the appropriate form of environmental documentation under CEQA for the proposed project.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-1 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY INITIAL STUDY

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM IST FORM IST FORM IST FORM The following pages contain the Environmental Checkl ist Form (Form) for the proposed project. The Form is marked with findings as to the environmental effects of the project. As explained in Section

1.0, this analysis has been undertaken, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, to provide the City of San Marcos with the factual basis for determining, base d on the information available, the form of environmental documentation the project warrants. T he basis for each of the findings is provided directly below each checklist item.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM

1. 1. 1. 1. Project Title: Project Title: Project Title: Project Title: Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment

2. 2. 2. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Lead Agency Name and Address: Lead Agency Name and Address: Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Marcos 1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069

3. 3. 3. 3. Contact Person: Contact Person: Contact Person: Contact Person: Joseph Farace , Principal Planner (760) 744 -1050 ext. 32 48

4. 4. 4. 4. Project Location: Project Location: Project Location: Project Location: The project site is located on the south side of San Elijo Road, west of Elfin Forest Road within
the City of San Marcos.

5. 5. 5. 5. Project Applicant: Project Applicant: Project Applicant: Project Applicant: Eden Park SM 160 Industrial Street, Suite 200
San Marcos, CA 92069

6. 6. 6. 6. Existin Existin Existin Existin g and Proposed General Plan g and Proposed General Plan g and Proposed General Plan g and Proposed General Plan Designations: Designations: Designations: Designations:

Existing: Specific Plan
Proposed: Specific Plan

7. 7. 7. 7. Existing and Proposed Zoning: Existing and Proposed Zoning: Existing and Proposed Zoning: Existing and Proposed Zoning: Existing: Specific Plan Proposed: Specific Plan

8. 8. 8. 8. Project Description: Project Description: Project Description: Project Description: The project applicant is requesting a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the Loma San Marcos
Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
modification. The SPA will separate Phase 1 into
two distinct Phases (1A and 1B). Phase 1A will
include youth sports courts for the filming of
recreationally competitive games with live
audiences, movie production space, office space
and storage within an existing building. The
remainder of Phase 1 (now called 1B) and Phase
2 would remain as planned in the original
Specific Plan. The CUP and timing of
implementation of the mitigation measures will
be modified to reflect the SPA changes to project
phasing. The project also proposes to reconfigure
the scope and extent of previously approved
uses on the site, including a reduction in movie
production uses and an increase in storage .

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-2 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

9. 9. 9. 9. Existing and Proposed Surrounding Land Use Existing and Proposed Surrounding Land Use Existing and Proposed Surrounding Land Use Existing and Proposed Surrounding Land Use and Setting: and Setting: and Setting: and Setting:

The project site is bordered on the west and
south by vacant land and is adjacent to a closed
landfill to the east. San Elijo Road separates the
site from open space and the San Elijo Hills
community to the north.
10 10 10 10 Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or (e.g., permits, financing approval, or (e.g., permits, financing approval, or (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): participation agreement): participation agreement): participation agreement):

City of San Marcos

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-3 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Determination Determination Determination Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:

The City finds that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM will be prepared.
_____ The City finds that although the proposed pro ject could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to t he project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
_____ The City finds the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. If the effect is a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated an ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to addressed. _____ The City finds that changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken require major revisions to the previo us EIR in order to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in accorda nce with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared _____ The City finds that changes to the project or the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken require only minor revision to the pre vious EIR in order to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the proposed project in acc ordance with Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15163. Thus, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR shall be prepared
XX XX The City finds that the significant effects that w ould result from the proposed project have been addressed in an earlier MND, and that none of the determinations set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 can be established. Thus, an ADDENDUM to SP 03-41/CUP 03-596/ND 03-681 (San Marc os Studios) MND shall be prepared.

Joseph Farace, Principal Planner

Date: Date: Date: Date: September 24, 2018

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-4 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS IS IS IS

1. 1. 1. 1. AESTHETICS AESTHETICS AESTHETICS AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista (page 1). Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses u nder Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B woul d be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project does not propose any changes to the exterior of the buildings or other changes which would result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The existing eight-foot wall screens views of the activities on the site and would be retained.

Finding Finding Finding Finding : There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, inc Substantially damage scenic resources, inc Substantially damage scenic resources, inc Substantially damage scenic resources, inc luding, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings , and historic luding, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings , and historic luding, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings , and historic luding, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings , and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? buildings within a State scenic highway? buildings within a State scenic highway? buildings within a State scenic highway? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded that the project would not substa ntially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees , rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway (page 1). No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project: : : : Since adoption of the MND, there have not been any additional scenic resources that have been identified on the project site or vicinity. The proposed project would not impact any of these types of resources. Proposed activities would take place within existin g buildings on the project site.

No new impacts are identified.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND co ncluded that the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding and impacts were determined to be less than significant. (page 1).

As a condition of project approval, the following mitigation measures were identified in the 2004 MND:
• Require approval of any major outdoor filming activ ities by the City Manager. The request will specify the time, place, extent of filming activities, and any special lighting or noise which would result fr om those activities.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-5 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
• Require additional architectural articulation on th e easterly elevation of the proposed office buildin g such as architectural enhancements or decorative screening. Revised elevations and/or site plan will be submitted for final review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project does not propose any changes to the ext erior of the buildings or other changes which would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surrounding. The existing eight- foot wall screens views of the activities on the site and would be retained. The conditions /mitigation measures identified in the 2004 MND for aesthetics would still be applicable to the project. See Table 20 , at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of these measures.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in infor mation that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would advers Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would advers Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would advers Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would advers ely affect daytime or nighttime views in the ely affect daytime or nighttime views in the ely affect daytime or nighttime views in the ely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? area? area? area?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed Not Analyzed . The MND analyzed aesthetics (page 1), however, th is specific threshold was not addressed.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project does not propose any changes to the existing lighting requirements identified in the current Specific Pla n. Per the Specific Plan (Section 6.A.4, Lighting), l ight standards shall be located and designed to minimize direct glare beyond the parking lot or service area. Exterior lighting shall be low pressure sodium. All lighting shall be consistent with respect to design, architectural style, materials, and color of the project. A Lighting Pla n Exhibit has been prepared for the project. Future entry signage may have lighting and would be guided by Section 6.D.2, Entry Statement Signage.

Night filming is rare but may be necessary for some "shoots". In such cases, the project applicant would provide the City with appropriate notification along with a full description of the scenes to be filmed. Sp ecial attention will be given to minimize the effect of the lightin g at night to keep any visual impacts limited to th e property.

No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and n o changes in information that would req uire preparation of a new MND.

2. 2. 2. 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural reso urces are significant environmental effects, lead agencies ma y refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluat ion and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In d etermining whether impacts to forest resources, inc luding timberland, are significant environmental effect s, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy project, and forest carb on measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resource Board. Would the project:

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-6 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
a) a) a) a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the maps prepared pursuant to the maps prepared pursuant to the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non to non to non to non-- --agricultural use? agricultural use? agricultural use? agricultural use? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 2) that the project site was already developed and would, therefore, not impact agricultural resources. No impact was identified.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

Per Figure 4-4, Agricultural Areas, of the City’s G eneral Plan, the project site is identified as “Urb anized”. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND . No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 2) that the project site wa s already developed and would, therefore, not impact agricultural resources. No impact was identified.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existi ng building on the project site. Proposed uses unde r Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND.

The project site is zoned Specific Plan and would r etain that zoning. The site is not zoned for agricu ltural use nor is it subject to a Williamson Act contract.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-7 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
c) c) c) c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g) 12220(g) 12220(g) 12220(g))) )), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timbe , timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code s ection 4526), or timberland zoned Timbe , timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code s ection 4526), or timberland zoned Timbe , timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code s ection 4526), or timberland zoned Timbe rland rland rland rland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51140(g))? Production (as defined by Government Code section 51140(g))? Production (as defined by Government Code section 51140(g))? Production (as defined by Government Code section 51140(g))? MND Conclusion: No MND Conclusion: No MND Conclusion: No MND Conclusion: No t Analyzed. t Analyzed. t Analyzed. t Analyzed. At the time t he 2004 MND was adopted, this threshold was not part of the Appendix G Environmental Checklist of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Pr Pr Pr Proposed Project oposed Project oposed Project oposed Project: : : : The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by divi ding Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live a udiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project site has a General Plan and zoning designation of Specific Plan and would retain that designation.

The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, o r cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Result in the loss of forest land or conve Result in the loss of forest land or conve Result in the loss of forest land or conve Result in the loss of forest land or conve rsion of forest land to non rsion of forest land to non rsion of forest land to non rsion of forest land to non -- --forest land use? forest land use? forest land use? forest land use? MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. At the time the 2004 MND was adopted, this threshold was not part of the Appendix G Environmental Checklist of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The pr oject site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Ph ase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie produc tion space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest land use.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in informatio n that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-8 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
e) e) e) e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could r Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could r Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could r Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could r esult in esult in esult in esult in conversion of Farmland conversion of Farmland conversion of Farmland conversion of Farmland to non to non to non to non-- --agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-- --forest use? forest use? forest use? forest use? MND MND MND MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. Conclusion: Not Analyzed. Conclusion: Not Analyzed. Conclusion: Not Analyzed. At the time the 2004 MND was adopted, this threshold was not part of the Appendix G Environmental Checklist of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The would not involve any changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no impacts for this issue area and no chan ges in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

3. 3. 3. 3. AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact . . . . The MND concluded (page 2) that the project would n ot violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project: : : : The proposed project is related to the R egional Air Quality Standards (RAQS) and State Implementation Plan (SIP) through the lan d use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning process.

The project proposes a reduction in use intensity considered in the current SP for the project. Based upon the traffic report prepared for the project (Chen Ryan Asso ciates 2018), the uses proposed under the SPA would reduce vehicular trips under Phase 1. The reduction would be 43.3 percent for Scenario A and 25.6 percent for Scenario B. The two scenarios are described in Section 2.3 of this document. This results in a corresponding reduction in vehicular emissions. Therefore, the pr oposed uses would generate emissions at a reduced intensity compared to the land use and growth assumptions considered in the RAQS and/or SIP. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct impleme ntation of the applicable air quality plan. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: No new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-9 City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribu Violate any air quality standard or contribu Violate any air quality standard or contribu Violate any air quality standard or contribu te substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? te substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? te substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? te substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 2) that the project would n ot violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality viol ation. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project: : : : The project will reduce air emissions compared to w hat was analyzed in the 2004 MND. Based upon the traffic report prepared for the project (Chen Ryan Associates 2018) , the uses proposed under the SPA would reduce vehicular trips under Phase 1. The reduction would be 43.3 percent for Scenario A and 25.6 percent for Scenario B. The two scenarios are described in Section 2.3 of this document.

This would result in an associated reduction in veh icular emissions. The uses proposed by the project (movie production, storage and offices) are similar to wha t was previous planned for the site . but the overall use intensity would decrease under Phase 1A and would n ot result in an increase in air emissions that would contribute to a violation of an air quality standar d or contribute substantially to an existing or pro jected air quality violation. No new impacts are identified.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: No new impacts for this issue area and no change s in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -- -- attainment under an appli attainment under an appli attainment under an appli attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality stan cable Federal or State ambient air quality stan cable Federal or State ambient air quality stan cable Federal or State ambient air quality standard ( dard ( dard ( dard (including releasing emissions including releasing emissions including releasing emissions including releasing emissions exceeding quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? exceeding quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? exceeding quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? exceeding quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. The MND concluded (page 3) that the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air qu ality standard . Impacts were determined to be less than significant for this issue area.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project: : : : The project will reduce air e missions compared to what was analyzed in the 2004 MND. Based upon the traffic report prepared for the project (Chen Ryan Associates 2018), the uses proposed under the SPA would reduce vehicular trips under Phase 1. The reduction would be 43.3 percent for Scenario A and 25.6 percent for Scenario B. The two scenarios are described in Section 2.3 of this document.

This would result in an associated reduction in veh icular emissions. The uses proposed by the project (movie production, storage and offices) are similar to wha t was previous planned for the site , but the overall use intensity would decrease under Phase 1A and, would not contribute to a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. No new impacts are identified.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: No new impa cts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 3) that the project would not expose sensitive receptor to substantial pollutant concentrations. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is not adjacent to sensitive receptors. The site is adjacent to a landfill that is no longer in operation and to undeveloped open space. Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an exi sting building o n the project site. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND . The project would not involve any changes that would expose sensitive rec eptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The conclusions of the prior analysis remain applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project woul d not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. No new impacts would occur.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-10 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: No new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 3) that the project would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project does not propose any uses that expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The sports-related film production activities, storage, and office uses are not the types of uses that would create objectionable odors. Additionally, the uses proposed under the project are generally similar to the uses contemplated in the 2004 MND. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: No new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

4. 4. 4. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identif Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identif Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identif Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identif ied as ied as ied as ied as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species i n local or regional plans, policies, or regulations , or by the a candidate, sensitive, or special status species i n local or regional plans, policies, or regulations , or by the a candidate, sensitive, or special status species i n local or regional plans, policies, or regulations , or by the a candidate, sensitive, or special status species i n local or regional plans, policies, or regulations , or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact . . . . The MND concluded (page 3) th at since the project site was already developed no substantial adverse effect to candidate, sensitive or special status species would occur.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B wo uld be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The proj ect would not result in substantial adverse effect to candidate, sensitive or special status species would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Have a subs Have a subs Have a subs Have a subs tantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or o ther sensitive natural community identified in tantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or o ther sensitive natural community identified in tantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or o ther sensitive natural community identified in tantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or o ther sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? and Wildlife Service? and Wildlife Service? and Wildlife Service? MND Conclusion: No MND Conclusion: No MND Conclusion: No MND Conclusion: No Impact. Impact. Impact. Impact. The MND concluded (page 3) that since the project s ite was already developed no substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would occur.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-11 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space a nd storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not result in substantial adverse effect on riparian habitats or other sensitive nat ural communities.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would re quire preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally prote cted wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clea n Have a substantial adverse effect on federally prote cted wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clea n Have a substantial adverse effect on federally prote cted wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clea n Have a substantial adverse effect on federally prote cted wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clea n Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ve rnal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, f illing, Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ve rnal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, f illing, Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ve rnal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, f illing, Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ve rnal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, f illing, hydrolo hydrolo hydrolo hydrological interruption, or other means? gical interruption, or other means? gical interruption, or other means? gical interruption, or other means? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 3) that since the project s ite was already developed no substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands would occur.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie prod uction space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not result in substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would re quire preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 3) that since the project s ite was already developed no impacts related to the movement of wildlife would occur Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is already developed and does not func tion as a corridor for wildlife movement. According to the City’s Draft Subarea Plan of the MHCP (page 50), the project site is not identified as a habitat linkage or corridor within the Southern Focused Planning Area (FPA).

The proposed project would decrease the intensity o f Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND. The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to movie production space , decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-12 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
increas e the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitiv e games with live audiences, movie production space , office space and storage space within an exist ing building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fi sh or wildlife species or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
e) e) e) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? policy or ordinance? policy or ordinance? policy or ordinance? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 4) that since th e project site was already developed no impacts to biological resources would occur.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses und er Scenario A include youth sports courts for the f ilming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinance protection biological resources.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
f) f) f) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community C Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community C Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community C Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community C onservation Plan, onservation Plan, onservation Plan, onservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 4) that since the project site was already developed no impacts to biological resources would occur.

Discussion of Discussion of Discussion of Discussion of the Proposed Project: the Proposed Project: the Proposed Project: the Proposed Project: The City of San Marcos has prepared a Draft Subarea Plan for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). According to the Draft Subarea Plan (page 17), t he project site is not located within a Focused Planning Area (FPA). Areas located outside of an FPA have lower mitigation requirements because the habitat in these areas is, in general, of a lower regional value than habitat s within an FPA. The project site is already developed and does not support any habitat of value.

The closest FPA to the project site the former land fill, which is located east of the project site. The landfill is identified as being within the Southern FPA and provides a link to the “County Core” area of conserv ation importance.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the
project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND. The pr oposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decreas e the amount

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-13 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
of first floor building area dedicated to movie production space , decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identifie d for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office spac e and storage space within an existing building on the project site.

Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

5. 5. 5. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064. 5? 5? 5? 5? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 4) that there would be no impact to cultural resources as there was no evidence on record of any cultural resources on the site.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and th e proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and s torage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The existing buildings on the project site would be retained. Therefore, the project would not cause any substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signif Cause a substantial adverse change in the signif Cause a substantial adverse change in the signif Cause a substantial adverse change in the signif icance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? icance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? icance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? icance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 4) that there would be no impact to cultural resources as there was no evidence on record of any cultural resources on the site.

Discussion of t Discussion of t Discussion of t Discussion of t he Proposed Project: he Proposed Project: he Proposed Project: he Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-14 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with l ive audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND and there would not be any new ground disturbing activities. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Per the requirements of SB 18 and AB 52, the City reached out to local Tribes. Responses from the Tribes are detailed below.

The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians submitted a let ter on April 9, 2018. The letter indicated the site has cultur al significance or ties to the Kumeyaay Nation and recommended the City notify the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians (San Pasqual). The letter also r equested that the project follow all applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CEQA, and Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) laws and that the San Pasqual be contacted on any changes or inadvertent discoveries. The San Pasqual Band was notified of the project consistent with the requirements of SB 18. The project is compl iant with applicable environmental laws.

The Campo Band of Mission Indians (Campo)
submitted a letter on April 30, 2018 requesting consultation with the City pursuant to SB 18. City staff communicated with tribal representatives to explain the project does not result in any new ground disturbing activities. In response, Campo provided a correspondence on June 4, 2018 stating that the tribe has no further concern. Given this response, the City considers consultation closed from Campo for the project. To th is end, however, on June 28, 2018, the City request ed a formal closure correspondence from Campo for the project file.

The San Luis Rey Bank of Mission Indians (San Luis R ey) submitted a letter on May 11, 2018 requesting
consultation with the City pursuant to SB 18. Staff met with tribal representative Cami Mojado and P.J.

Stoneburner, on June 5, 2018 to provide information to the tribe as to the project not creating any new ground disturbing activities. With this in mind, San Luis Rey agrees that the proj ect will not impact tribal cultural resources. A letter from Merri Lopez- Keifer, dated June 18, 2018 reiterated this positio n and requested that consultation be concluded.

The Jamul Indian Village of California submitted an e-mail message on May 22, 2017.

The Tribe did not request
consultation and indicated that they would defer to the Kumeyaay on this project. As noted above, the Kumeyaay then deferred the project to San Pasqual. To date the City has not received any further response from San Pasqual.

The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (Rincon) submitt ed and e- mail message on July 17, 2018. Rincon confirmed that the project site is within the Territory of the Luiseño people but that they did not have knowledge of any cultural resources within or near the proposed project site. SB 18 consultation was not requested since the project will take place within an existing building and no exterior expansion is planned.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that woul d require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 4) that there would be no i mpact to paleontological resources as there was no evidence on record of any cultural resources on the site.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-15 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
space , decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increas e the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A i nclude youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exc ept the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

There will not be any new ground-disturbing activit ies. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique or paleontological resource or sit e or unique geologic feature. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 4) that there would be no impact to cultural resources.

The propose d project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND and there would not be any new ground disturbing activities. The previous conclusions regarding this thresh old remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no furth er disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the nec essary findings as to origin.

Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Co de Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in plac e and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspec ted Native Ameri can remains shall be examined in the field and the location of the find shall be kept secure. If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. Th e NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of the discovery. The most likely descendants(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultation concerning trea tment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-16 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

6. 6. 6. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects , including the risk of loss, injury, or death , including the risk of loss, injury, or death , including the risk of loss, injury, or death , including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: involving: involving: involving:
i) i) i) i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -- --Priolo Earthquake Fault Priolo Earthquake Fault Priolo Earthquake Fault Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known a known a known a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 4) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts. As a condition of project approval, the following mitigati on measures were identified in the 2004 MND:
• Prior to issuance of building permits, a geotechnic al investigation shall be performed prior to projec t approval. The applicant shall provide the City with specific information as the geotechnical conditions th at exist and describe design construction measures to be implemented to reduce any potential hazards.
• All grading shall be supervised by a Civil and/or G eotechnical Engineer, who shall prepare a written report to the satisfaction of the City Engineer certi fying that the work has been performed in compliance with recommendation contained in the geotechnical report and approved plans. • Prior to issuance of building permits, complete pla ns (grading, drainage, site improvement, etc.) shal l be submitted to the City of San Marcos Engineering Department for review and approval.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is not located on a fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Department of Conservation 2018) . Implementation of the proposed project would not result in rupture of a known earthquake fault. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the p roposed project. No new impacts would occur. The conditions/mitigation mea sures identified in the 2004 MND for geology/soils would still be applicable to the project and would apply to future development under Phase 2. See Table 20 , at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of these measures.

FF FFinding: inding: inding: inding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
ii) ii) ii) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Strong seismic ground shaking? Strong seismic ground shaking? Strong seismic ground shaking? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geolo gy or soil impacts.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recr eationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

As with the previous project plan, the proposed pro ject would be designed to be consistent with the mo st current building codes r elated to seismic shaking. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-17 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
not expose people or structures to loss, injury, or death related to strong seismic ground shaking. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
iii) iii) iii) iii) Seismic Seismic Seismic Seismic -- --related ground failure, including liquefaction? related ground failure, including liquefaction? related ground failure, including liquefaction? related ground failure, including liquefaction? MND Conclusion: No Im MND Conclusion: No Im MND Conclusion: No Im MND Conclusion: No Im pact. pact. pact. pact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts. As a condition of project approval, the following mitigation measure was identified in the 2004 MND:
• If necessary, special construction techniques shall be used in areas where development will occur on soils susceptible to liquefaction and settlement.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: No seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction risks were id entified for the project site in the 2004 MND and there have not b een any changes in the site condition which would have increased this risk.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the
project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts fo r the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in seismic-related ground failure, includ ing liquefaction. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur. The conditions/mitigation measures identified in th e 2004 MND for geology/soils would still be applicable to the project. See Table 20 , at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of these measures.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
iv) iv) iv) iv) Landslides? Landslides? Landslides? Landslides? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is generally flat and does not inc lude any steep slopes that would be subject to landslide. The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-18 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area an d no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts. As a co ndition of project approval, the following mitigation measures were identified in the 2004 MND:
• The site plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any impacts to erosion.
• If development is to occur on h ighly erosive or expansive soils, then special cons truction techniques, such as compaction and soil removal shall be incorporated into the project.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site does not propose any activities wh ich would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The pr oject site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Pha se 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally c ompetitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur. The conditions/mit igation measures identified in the 2004 MND for geo logy/soils would still be applicable to the project and would apply to future development under Phase 2. See Table 20 , at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of these measures.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, an project, an project, an project, and potentially result in on d potentially result in on d potentially result in on d potentially result in on-- -- or off or off or off or off-- --site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? collapse? collapse? collapse?
MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Proje Discussion of the Proposed Proje Discussion of the Proposed Proje Discussion of the Proposed Project: ct: ct: ct: There have not been any changes to the geologic unit or soil types on the project site since the 2004 MND was prepared, nor h ave there been any changes in the site condition which would have increase the potential for an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, liquefaction or collapse.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-19 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally comp etitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND . previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new i mpacts for this issue area and no changes in inform ation that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 8 -- --11 11-- --B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? substantial risks to life or property? substantial risks to life or property? substantial risks to life or property? MND Conclu MND Conclu MND Conclu MND Conclu sion: No Impact. sion: No Impact. sion: No Impact. sion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: There have not been any changes to the soil types on the project site since the 2004 MND was prepared. The project site is de veloped and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in inform ation that would require preparation of a new MND.
e) e) e) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the us e of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposa l Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the us e of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposa l Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the us e of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposa l Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the us e of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposa l systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 5) that the project would not have any geology or soil impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project site is cu rrently served by the Vallecitos Water District (VW D) for wastewater and would continue to be served by VWD. Per the Specific Plan, fees have been paid to VWD f or capacity rights for up to 15,000 gallons of wastewa ter per day. No additional capacity will be require d fo r the use of the site as proposed by the project. No new impacts are identified for this issue area.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-20 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.

7. 7. 7. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact o n the Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact o n the Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact o n the Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact o n the environment? environment? environment? environment?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. Not Analyzed. Not Analyzed. Not Analyzed. When the MND was adopted in 20 03, there was not a requirement to analyze greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under CEQA. However, subsequent to adoption of the MND thresholds were added to the CEQA Guidelines to address this issue. A Global Climate Change Evaluation (LDN Consulting 2018) was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix B and is discussed below.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The proposed project consists of a movie studio that will film and produce a reality show and documentary about youth sports culture as well as other film production projects.

The project will use 179,535 s.f. of first floor sp ace within the main building on the project site. T his includes 61,650 s.f. of Movie Production, 9,750 s.f. of Media Office, and 108,135 s.f. of Storage.

The 61,650 s.f. Movie Production space will be utilized to buil d five youth sports courts for basketball, volleyball and other sports with the intent to play actual recreationally competitive games while a live audience watches and interacts with the camera and players (Scenario A). In the alternative, the 61,650 s.f. Movie Production area will be utilized for the commercial filming of other productions (Scenario B).

Under the currently approved Specific Plan, Phase 1 had an allowable maximum yield of 213,361 s.f. of net usable area.

The proposed project under the SPA
and CUP would operate within the existing building previously operated under Phase 1 of the 2003 project and does not proposed any addit ional building footprints beyond existing structures.

Based upon the traffic analysis prepared by Chen Ryan Associates (2018), the proposed project would generate
either 439 trips (Scenario A) or 576 daily trips (S cenario B) . This represents a reduction of 43.4 percent (Scenario A) or 25.6 percent (Scenario B) to the 775 trips that were assumed in 2003 for Phase 1 of the e xisting SP.

Once the facility improvements are completed under Phase 1A, the proposed project would generate
operational GHG emissions which would originate fro m daily vehicle operations, area sources, water and wastewater operations offsite, solid waste d ecomposition in landfills, as well as emissions fro m landscaping equipment. Since the project would be operational within an existing facility, water, electrical, and solid waste would be estimated to remain the same however were analyzed based on project operation estimates.

GHG impacts related to construction (improvements) a nd daily operations were calculated using the lates t CalEEMod 2016.3.2 air quality and GHG model, which was developed by BREEZE software for South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in 2016.

Current Specific Plan Current Specific Plan Current Specific Plan Current Specific Plan -- -- Operational Emissions Operational Emissions Operational Emissions Operational Emissions Emissions generated from area, energy, mobile, solid waste and water uses is also calculated within CalEEMod.

The program is largely based on default settings wh ich are automatically populat ed throughout the model based on the inputted land use. Since the existing uses under the current SP are comparatively similar to the proposed uses it is reasonable to assume the area, energy, solid waste and water uses are similar. F ilming with live audiences was contemplated in the SP and the CC&Rs recorded on the property between the property owner and the County of San Diego. The SP and CC&Rs permit “recreational uses related to production facility activities” and live audiences as an allowed use and these uses were considered in the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-21 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
For modeling purposes, only Phase 1 of the current SP operations and traffic was calculated since Phase 2 was never constructed. Given this, the notable changes between the current SP and the SPA would be higher vehicular trips from the current SP as compared to the proposed SPA. As previously noted, the proposed project results in up to a 43.4 percent reduction in vehicular trips.

The calculated operational emissions for the curren t SP are identified in Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 1. Ca lEEMod outputs are included in Attachment A of Appendix B to this document.

Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 1. . . . Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summary MT/Year (Current Specific Plan, Phase 1) Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summary MT/Year (Current Specific Plan, Phase 1) Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summary MT/Year (Current Specific Plan, Phase 1) Unmitigated Operational Emissions Summary MT/Year (Current Specific Plan, Phase 1) Bio Bio Bio Bio-- --CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 NBio NBio NBio NBio-- --CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 N2O N2O N2O N2O CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 230.16 230.16 0.01 0.00 231.00
Mobile 0.00 942.95 942.95 0.05 0.00 944.23
Waste 34.26 0.00 34.26 2.02 0.00 84.87
Water 13.17 176.67 189.84 1.36 0.03 233.79
Total Operations (MT/Year) Total Operations (MT/Year) Total Operations (MT/Year) Total Operations (MT/Year) 1,493.90 1,493.90 1,493.90 1,493.90 Source Source Source Source: LDN Consulting, 2018
Note: Note: Note: Note: Data is presented in decimal format and may have rounding errors.

Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment -- -- Project Related Project Related Project Related Project Related Construction Construction Construction Construction Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Construction emissions analyzed for the project rel ated to construction-related interior tenant improvements, which would begin in early 2019 and would be comple ted in three to four months. Construction equipment assumptions are summarized in Table 2 of the GHG report (Appendix B of this document).

CALEEMOD 2016.3.2, was used to calculate constructi on emissions. The proposed project will produce approximately 63.94 metric tons of CO2e over the construction life of the project. Given the fact that the total emissions will ultimately contribute to cumulative levels, it is acceptable to average the total const ruction emission over the life of the project which is assu med to be 30 years. Given this, the project would a dd 2.13 MT per year. A summary of the construction emissio ns is shown in Table 2 Table 2 Table 2 Table 2. Although only Scenario A contemplates construction, to be conservative, the construction emissio ns are assumed to be the same for both Scenario A and Scenario B.

Table Table Table Table 22 22: : : : Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (Proposed Project) Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (Proposed Project) Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (Proposed Project) Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (Proposed Project) Bio Bio Bio Bio -- --CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 NBio NBio NBio NBio -- --CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 N2O N2O N2O N2O CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) Total 0.000 63.750 63.750 0.008 0.000 63.940
Yearly Avera Yearly Avera Yearly Avera Yearly Avera ge Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) ge Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) ge Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) ge Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 33 33 Source Source Source Source: LDN Consulting, 2018

Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment Specific Plan Amendment -- -- Project Related Operational Emissions Project Related Operational Emissions Project Related Operational Emissions Project Related Operational Emissions Emissions generated from area, energy, mobile, solid waste and water uses is also calculated with in CalEEMod.

The program is largely based on default settings wh ich are automatically populated throughout the mode l based on the imputed land use. Since the proposed u ses under the SPA are comparatively similar to the

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-22 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
proposed uses it is r easonable to ass ume the area, energy, solid waste and water uses ar e similar. Filming with live audiences was contemplated in the SP and the CC&Rs recorded on the property between the property owner and the County of San Diego. The SP and CC&Rs permit “recreational uses r elated to production facility activities” and live audiences as an allowed use and these uses were considered in the 2004 MND.

The existing SP allows up to 213,361 s.f of net usa ble area under Phase 1 and is the development yield that would have been considered in the City’s Climate Ac tion Plan (CAP). The proposed project would have a maximum operational use area of 179,535 s.f. for Phase 1.

Given this, the notable changes between the SP and the SPA would be a smaller operating footprint and fewer vehicular trips. Under the more conservative scenario (Scenario B), the project would generate a maximum of 576 trips (Chen Ryan Associates 2018). The calculated operational emissions for the SPA are identified in Table Table Table Table 33 33.. ..

Table Table Table Table 33 33: Operational Emissions Summary : Operational Emissions Summary : Operational Emissions Summary : Operational Emissions Summary MT/Year (Proposed Project MT/Year (Proposed Project MT/Year (Proposed Project MT/Year (Proposed Project)) )) Bio Bio Bio Bio-- --CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 NBio NBio NBio NBio-- --CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 Total CO2 CH4 CH4 CH4 CH4 N2O N2O N2O N2O CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) CO2e (MT/Yr) Area 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.003
Energy 0.000 230.158 230.158 0.009 0.002 231.001
Mobile 0.000 700.667 700.667 0.038 0.000 701.616
Waste 34.257 0.000 34.257 2.025 0.000 84.870
Water 13.171 176.668 189.839 1.360 0.033 233.794
Total Operational Emissions 1,251.284
Amortized Construction Emissions from Table 2 2.13
Total Operational and Construction Emissions Total Operational and Construction Emissions Total Operational and Construction Emissions Total Operational and Construction Emissions 1,253.41 Existing SP Operations Existing SP Operations Existing SP Operations Existing SP Operations 1,493.90 Net SPA change Net SPA change Net SPA change Net SPA change to existing GHG footprint to existing GHG footprint to existing GHG footprint to existing GHG footprint -240.49 Source Source Source Source: LDN Consulting, 2018
Note: Note: Note: Note: Data is presented in decimal format and may have rounding errors.

As shown in Table 3, construction and operational emissions would generate of 1,251.284 MT per year without considerat ion of existing emissions under the current SP. Based on this, the project is estimated to reduce GHG inventories within the City of San Marcos by 240.49 MT (19 percent). Therefore, GHG emissions would be less than significant and no new impacts are identified for this issue area.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.

b) b) b) b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emi Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emi Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emi Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of ssions of ssions of ssions of greenhouse gases? greenhouse gases? greenhouse gases? greenhouse gases? MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. When the MND was adopted in 2004 , there was not a requirement to analyze GHG emissions under CEQA. However, subsequent to adoption of the MND thresholds were added to the CEQA Guidelines to address this issue. A Global Climate Change Evaluation (LDN, 2018) was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix B and is discussed below.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-23 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The City of San Marcos has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that identifies strategies to reduce GHG from City government operations and community activ ities to support the State’s efforts to mitigate San Marcos' contributio n to climate change. The City, as spelled out in th e CAP, is committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, consistent with AB 32, and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, working to wards the long-term goal of Executive Order S-3- 05.

Based on these targets, San Marcos’s 2020 targeted GHG emissions would be 350,148 MT CO2e and its 2030 targeted GHG emissions would be 296,596 MT CO2e. To meet these targets, San Marcos will need to reduce its GHG emissions 14 percent (or 58,960 MT CO2e) be low the adjusted forecast by 2020 and 33 percent (o r 148,694 MT CO2e) below the adjusted for ecast by 2030 through implementation of local measu res and actions (City of San Marcos, 2013).

Based upon the analysis presented under threshold 7.a, above, the project will reduce GHG emission compared to what is currently ant icipated by 19 percent (1253.41 MT/year under the p roposed project compared to 1,493.90 MT/year under the existing SP). Thus, the project would not generate emissions beyond those t hat were already considered in the City’s CAP. Therefor e, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of red ucing GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require pr eparation of a new MND.

8. 8. 8. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the en vironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of Create a significant hazard to the public or the en vironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of Create a significant hazard to the public or the en vironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of Create a significant hazard to the public or the en vironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? hazardous materials? hazardous materials? hazardous materials? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND conclude d (page 7) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts f or the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses nor the improvements required for Phase 1A would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or d isposal of hazardous materials. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foresee Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foresee Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foresee Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foresee able upset and able upset and able upset and able upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials but that the projec t would have to comply with the City’s Hazardous Was te Ordinance.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-24 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed pro ject would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pro posed uses under Scenario B would be similar, excep t the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses or improvements would not create a signi ficant hazard to the public or environme nt through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition s involving the release of hazardous materials on t he environment. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findin Findin Findin Finding: g: g: g: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acu tely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with in Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acu tely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with in Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acu tely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with in Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acu tely hazardous materials, substances, or waste with in one one one one-- --quarter mile of an exis quarter mile of an exis quarter mile of an exis quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ting or proposed school? ting or proposed school? ting or proposed school? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials but that the projec t would have to comply with the City’s Hazardous Was te Ordinance.

Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Pl an by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games w ith live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses or improvements are not anticipated to emit hazardous emission or h andle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes within on e-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The project site is located more than one-quarter miles from the closest schools (San Elijo Middle School and San Elijo Elementary School). Under Scenario A, youth sports activities will occu r on the project site. As previously noted, the proposed uses are not anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous material.

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-25 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
d) d) d) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials but that the projec t would have to comply with the City’s Hazardous Was te Ordinance.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: A review of the EnviroStor webpage (Department of Toxic Substance Control 2018) identified two listings for 1601 San Elijo Road, which is the project site.

The first listing related to potential diesel conta mination from a leaking underground storage tank. The case was deemed completed and closed as of December 15, 2005.

The second listing is an open case associated with a Voluntary Action Plan (VAP) that was applied for in August 2017. This relates to exploratory testing of the project site by the project applicant per the request of the County of San Diego. Monthly soil vapor testing for six months is required by the County prior to removal of an existing deed restrictions on the project site.

Soil Testing Results Soil Testing Results Soil Testing Results Soil Testing Results Advantage Environmental Consultants (AEC) (2018, at tached as Appendix C ) completed the required testing between March 2018 and August 2018 on behalf of the project applicant. The testing included five sub- slab vapor locations, 11 soil gas probes, one field duplicate and one equipment blank. The results of the field test ing were summarized in a technical study, which is included as Appendix C of this document.

The analysis indicated that volatile organic compou nds (VOCs) were not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limits in soil gas samples collected during th e sampling events with the exception of March 2018 in which benzene was detected in soil gas probes SV2-5 at 0.075ug/L, SV8-5 at 0.10 ug/L, and SV9-5 at 0.086 ug/L. These detections are considered to be insignificant/minor relative to the proposed commerci al land uses referenced in the work plan, which include film and studio production, office, and recreation, among other uses .

In addition, benzene was not detected at the same s ampling locations and depths in the three subsequen t monthly sampling events (AEC, 2018).

Percentages of the fixed gas carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen are consistent through the sampling events

and are considered typical of a property situated a djacent to a land fill (AEC, 2018). Methane and h ydrogen sulfide were not detected above reporting limits during any of the six sampling events (AEC, 2018).

Human Health Risk Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment A human health risk assessment focusing on the poten tial vapor intrusion pathway at the buildings was conducted by AEC to evaluate the potential for che mical volatilization and vapor intrusion of VOCs an d the potential risk of exposure to indoor vapors for futu re users of the project site . Site conditions do not provide reason to assume dermal contact or ingestion of contaminants in soil or groundwater beneath the site by future users of the site. As such, these potential exposure pathways are considered incomplete and are not discussed further herein.

The potential chemical volatilization and vapor int rusion of VOCs at the site was modeled using the Co unt y of
San Diego DEH Vapor Risk 2000 subsurface vapor intrus ion model. The maximum concentration of benzene in soil gas revealed during the additional Site assessment was utilized during the risk modeling effort. The vapor risk evaluation focused on benzene in soil gas, as this was the only compound detected during the course of the assessment (March 2018 sampling event).

Based upon the analysis the estimated carcinogenic risk resulting from potential VOC exposure is 2E- 07 (two in ten million), which is less than the one in one million (1E-06) target risk threshold. The HI for potential VOC exposure was calculated at 0.0004 and is below the target HI of 1.0. Therefore, human health risk impacts would be less than significant.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-26 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Coordination with San Diego Coun Coordination with San Diego Coun Coordination with San Diego Coun Coordination with San Diego Coun ty Department of Environmental Health ty Department of Environmental Health ty Department of Environmental Health ty Department of Environmental Health The project applicant met with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health on August 10, 2018 to discuss the project and the monitoring efforts. The County of San Diego Department of Public Works , in a letter dated August 22, 2018 stated that based upon the sampling results that they revi ewed, none of the constituents tested were above human health risk levels. However, the County did request two conditions for the project related to this item.

During Phase 1A, the following condition of approval will be required to be implemented:
• Install hard-wired methane gas sensor/alarm detectors in appropriate locations in the existing building structures located within a minimum of 1,000 feet o f the landfill and immed iately report to the San Diego County Local Enforcement Agency (for the adja cent closed San Marcos Landfill) any alarm detectors of methane gas above 1.25% by volume in a ir. Calibrate methane gas detectors with a “bump test” every six months. Maintain a log book on site for each calibration event, noting the date, sensor number and alarm/no-alarm response. (Phase 1A)
Sampling results performed to date have not identified any methane at levels above reporting limits. However, should the any of the methane gas sensors/alarm det ectors go off during a time when the site is in use, the buildings would be evacuated until levels have dropped below to the appropriate level.

During Phase 1B, the following condition of approval will be required to be implemented:
• Perform an evaluation to determine if a retrofit and/or sea l of all existing and proposed conduits and conduit perforations into the building structure wi th explosive proof or intrinsically safe conduit se als to preclude the mitigation of landfill gas into the structure would be needed. (Phase 1B) The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally com petitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur. . Further, as noted above, the soil vapor testing has note identified any levels above reporting requirements.

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND, with the additional two conditions of approval.

e) e) e) e) For a project located within an airport land use pl an or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wi For a project located within an airport land use pl an or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wi For a project located within an airport land use pl an or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wi For a project located within an airport land use pl an or, where such a plan has not been adopted, wi thin two thin two thin two thin two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? working in the project area? working in the project area? working in the project area? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 6) that the project would have no impact related t o hazards and hazardous materials.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-27 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No impact is identified for this area.

Findi Findi Findi Finding: ng: ng: ng: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
f) f) f) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working or working or working or working in the project area? in the project area? in the project area? in the project area? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 6) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No impact is identified for this area.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
g) g) g) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? evacuation plan? evacuation plan? evacuation plan? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 6) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of rec reationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any impairment of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold r emain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
h) h) h) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, i Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, i ncluding where ncluding where ncluding where ncluding where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would have no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: The project site is identified as being within a low risk Community Hazard Zone in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (Figure 6-4). CalFire (2009) identifies the site as being in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Th e City’s Fire Marshal has reviewed the project plan s and an Existing Plan addressing egress of buildings under emergency conditions has been prepared for the project.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-28 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity o f Ph ase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the proje ct site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be si milar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any increase in exposure to people or structures to significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildlife fires including where w ildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area an d no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

9. 9. 9. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated . . . . The MND concluded (pag e 7) th at the project had the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. As a condition of project approval, the following mitigation measures were identified in the 2004 MND:
• The applicant/developer ap plicant shall submit landscape plans with character istic that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce runoff by use of efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Said landscaping plans s hall be approved b y the City prior to issuance of any building permit.
• The applicant/developer shall submit for City review and approval for the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the latest Ca ltrans SWPPP Preparation Manual, to manage st orm water and non-storm water discharge from the site at all times. T he SWPPP shall describe all BMPs to be implemented year- round. Specific BMP implementation may be depended upon wet or dry season operations. The SWPP shall also emphasize that eros ion pr evention is the most important measures for keeping sediment on site during construction.
• All construction and grading related BMPs shall be shown in detail on the construction plans submitted to the City for review and approval.
• The applicant/developer sh all submit to the City for review and approval, a r eport that identifies affected receiving water bodies, applicable water quality objectives (RWQCB and SANDAG) and pollutants of concern and estimated post-construction discharge rages (wi th all BMPs in pla ce) and explains why the projected pollutant loads will not cause a violation of the water quality objectives. • The applicant/developer shall submit to the City for review and approval a plan that includes a combination of source control and structural treatment BMPs that, at a minimum, will:
• Control post-development peak storm water runoff discharge rates and velocities to maintain or reduce pre-development downstream erosion;
• Conserve natural areas;
• Minimize pollutants of concern form the urban runof f thro ugh implementation of the source control BMPs;

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-29 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
• Remove pollutants of concern from the urban runoff through implementation of structural treatment BMPs;
• Minimize directly connected impervious areas;
• Protection slopes and channels from eroding;
• Include storm drain stenciling and signage;
• Include properly designed outdoor material storage areas; • Be implemented close to pollutant sources and prior discharging into receiving waters; • Include properly designed trash storage areas;
• Ensure that post-development runof f does not contain pollutant loads which have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.

The structural BMPs shall be designed so as to filt er or treat the volume or flow outlined in the nume ric sizing criteria outlined below:

Volume – Volume based BMPs shall be designed to fil er or treat the volume of runoff produced for a 24- hour 85
th percentile storm event, as determined from the local historical rainfall record OR
Flow – Flow based BMPs shall be designed to filter or treat the maximum flow ra te of runoff produced from
a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches of rainfall per hour. • The applicant/developer shall construct desiltation/detention basin and erosion devices of a type and size and at a location as approved by the City Engineer. Devices shall be installed and maintained in working condition during the rainy season (November 1 through April 1). Each such basin shall be provided with an all-weather access/maintenance road.
• The applicant/developer shall ensure that grading and or other constructi on activities meet the provisions specific in the California RWQCB, San Diego Region, Order 2001-01, NPDES No CAS0108758 – Section F.2.
• The applicant/developer shall utilize sediment cont rols only as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction – NEVER as a single or primary method. • The applicant/developer shall clear and grade only the areas on the project site that are necessary fo r construction. These areas shall be clearly denoted on the plans and in the SWPPP. • The applicant/developer shall minimize exposure time of disturbed soils areas. • The applicant/developer shall submit landscape plan s with characteristics that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce irrigation and storm runo ff, use efficient irrigatio n, and minimizes the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Said landscaping plan shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of building permit.
• The applicant/developer shall submit for City review and approval for the implementation of a SWP PP, per the latest Caltrans SWPPP Preparation Manual, to ma nage storm water and non- stormwater discharges from the site at all times. The SWPPP shall describe all BMPs to be implemented year-round. Specific BMP implementation may be dependent upon wet or d ry season operations. The SWPPP shall also emphasiz e that erosion prevention is the most important measu re for keeping sediment on the site during construction.
• All construction and grading related BMPs shall be shown in detail on the construction plans su bmitted to the City for review and approval.
• The applicant/developer shall submit a schedule to the City for review and approval, with the proposed dates, demonstrating the minimization of grading du ring the wet season and coinciding the grading with

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-30 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
dry w eather periods, permanent re -vegetation and landscaping as early as feasible, temporary stabilization and reseeding of disturbed solid areas as early as feasible.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses are not of a nature that would violate w ater quality standards or waste discharge req uirements.

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur. The conditions/mitigation measures for identified i n the 2004 MND for hydrology/water quality would still be applicable to the project. See Table 20 , at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of these measures.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Hav Hav Hav Hav e a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance e a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance e a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance e a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality. No impact was identified for this issue area.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Pla n by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount o f first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games wi th live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses are n ot of a nature that would have potentially significant adverse impacts on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater quality or a degradation to beneficial uses.

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-31 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
c) c) c) c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inter f Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inter f Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inter f Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inter f ere substantially with groundwater recharge such th at ere substantially with groundwater recharge such th at ere substantially with groundwater recharge such th at ere substantially with groundwater recharge such th at there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g ., the there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g ., the there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g ., the there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g ., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support exi production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support exi production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support exi production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support exi sting land uses or sting land uses or sting land uses or sting land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? planned uses for which permits have been granted? planned uses for which permits have been granted? planned uses for which permits have been granted? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would not substantially deplete ground water supplies nor would it interfere with groundwater recharge. No impact w as identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project does not propose the use of groundwater . Potable water to the site is provided by the Olivenhain Municipal Wa ter District. The project would not change the amount of pervious surface on the projects site and groundwat er recharge rates would not be change. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not s ubstantially deplete groundwater supplies or interf ere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level . The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would resu course of a stream or river, in a manner which would resu course of a stream or river, in a manner which would resu course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on lt in substantial erosion or siltation on lt in substantial erosion or siltation on lt in substantial erosion or siltation on-- --or off or off or off or off-- --site (e.g. site (e.g. site (e.g. site (e.g. downstream)? downstream)? downstream)? downstream)?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant . . . . The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would not substantially deplete ground water supplies nor would it interfer e with groundwater rech arge. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Proposed Project: Proposed Project: Proposed Project: Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include yout h sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project does not propose the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management improvements. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan anal yzed in the 2004 MND and would not result in any alteration to the existing drainage pattern of the site or are a that could cause substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. The pr evious conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-32 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
e) e) e) e) Create a Create a Create a Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? volumes? volumes? volumes?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant . . . . The MND concluded (page 7) that the project would not cause a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes.

Impact were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr o posed uses under Scenario B would be similar, excep t the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project does not propose the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management improvements. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan anal yzed in the 2004 MND and would not result in any alteration to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area that could cr eate a significant adverse environmental impact due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold r emain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
f) f) f) f) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern o f the site or area, including through the alteratio n of the course of a stream or river, or substantially incre ase course of a stream or river, or substantially incre ase course of a stream or river, or substantially incre ase course of a stream or river, or substantially incre ase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, w hich the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, w hich the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, w hich the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, w hich would result in flooding on would result in flooding on would result in flooding on would result in flooding on-- --or off or off or off or off-- --site? site? site? site? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (pag e 7) that the project would not substantially alter the drainage patter of the site or area in a manner tha t would increase the rate or amount of runoff resul ting in flooding on- or off-site. No impact was identified for this issue area.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the proje ct site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be si milar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project does not propose the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management improvements. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan anal yzed in the 2004 MND and would not result in any alteration to the existing drainage pattern of the site or are a t hat could result in a substantial increase in the r ate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would cause flooding. The project would use the existing stormwater

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-33 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
drainage system that is already on the project site . The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
g) g) g) g) Create or contribute runoff water which Create or contribute runoff water which Create or contribute runoff water which Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of planned stormwat er drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the pro posed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenario s, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storag e space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project does not propose the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management improvements. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan anal yzed in the 2004 MND . The project would make us of the existing st ormwater drainage system that is already on the pro ject site. The project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold rema in applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
h) h) h) h) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated inc Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated inc Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated inc Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated inc reased runoff? reased runoff? reased runoff? reased runoff? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated . . . . The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would result in increased impervious surfaces and associa ted runoff. Mitigation measures for hydrology and w ater quality were included on pages 9 and 10 of the MND to reduce potential impac ts to below a level of significance. Mitigation measures identified in the 2004 MND would still be applicable to the proposed project.

Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Discussion of the Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project: : : : The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The project does not propose the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management i mprovements. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan anal yzed in the 2004 MND and no new construction is pro posed and there would not be an increase in impervious surfaces or associated increases in runoff. Runoff from the project site is treated in accordance with current regulatory requirements. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-34 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
i) i) i) i) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? MND Conclusio MND Conclusio MND Conclusio MND Conclusio n: n: n: n: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant . . . . The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would not result in a significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction. Impact were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion of the Proposed P Discussion of the Proposed P Discussion of the Proposed P Discussion of the Proposed Project: roject: roject: roject: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The project does not propose the addition or replacement of imperv ious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management i mprovements. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan anal yzed in the 2004 MND and no new construction is pr oposed.

Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. These uses w ould not result in a significant alteration of receiving water quality. Runoff from the project site is treated in accordance with current regulatory requirements. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
j) j) j) j) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to re ceiving waters? Consider water quality paramet Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to re ceiving waters? Consider water quality paramet Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to re ceiving waters? Consider water quality paramet Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to re ceiving waters? Consider water quality paramet ers such as ers such as ers such as ers such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-- --demanding substances, and demanding substances, and demanding substances, and demanding substances, and trash). trash). trash). trash).

MND Conclusion: No Impac MND Conclusion: No Impac MND Conclusion: No Impac MND Conclusion: No Impac t. t. t. t. The MND concluded (pag e 8 ) that the project would not result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters and no impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The proposed project would still occur within the footp rint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. These uses would not result i n additional increase in pollutant discharge beyond those that were already considered in the 2004 MND . Runoff from the project site is treated in accord ance with current regulatory requirements. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain app licable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
k) k) k) k) Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the C Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the C Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the C Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the C lean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, can it lean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, can it lean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, can it lean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (pag e 80 that the project would not result in an increase in any pollutants to an already impaired water body, a s listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list . No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The proposed project would still occur within the footp rint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Proposed uses include construction of youth s ports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Runoff from the project site is trea ted in accordance with curren t regulatory requirements. The

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-35 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
l) l) l) l) Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e. g. MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Signific ance, Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e. g. MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Signific ance, Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e. g. MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Signific ance, Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e. g. MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Signific ance, etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would not exacerbate existing sensitive conditions at any environmentally sensitive areas. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would de crease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The proposed project would still occur within the footp rint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Proposed uses include con struction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. These uses would not exacerbate cond itions in environmentally sensitive area. Runoff from the project site is treated in accordance with current regulatory requirements. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
m) m) m) m) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? waters? waters? waters?
MND Conclusi MND Conclusi MND Conclusi MND Conclusi on: No Impact. on: No Impact. on: No Impact. on: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would not have any potentially significant environmental impacts on surface water quality. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Discussion of the Proposed Project Discussion of the Proposed Project Discussion of the Proposed Project:: :: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The proposed project would still occur within the footp rint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. These uses would not result in any increase in potential for environmental impacts on surface water quality to either marine, fresh or wetland wa ters. Runoff from the project site is treated in accordan ce with current regulatory requirements. The previous conclu sions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
n) n) n) n) Otherwise substantially Otherwise substantially Otherwise substantially Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? degrade water quality? degrade water quality? degrade water quality? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would have no t have any other impacts or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Discussion of the Proposed Discussion of the Proposed Discussion of the Proposed Project: Project: Project: Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage space. The project does not propose the addition or replacement of impe rvious surfaces to the extent that the project will require additional storm water quality management i mprovements. Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreational ly competitive games with live audiences, movie pro duction

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-36 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
space, office space and storage space within an exi sting building on the project site. These uses wou ld not result in any increase in potential for impacts rel ated water quality. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
o) o) o) o) Place housing within a 100 Place housing within a 100 Place housing within a 100 Place housing within a 100 -- --year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazards area. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: According to Figure 6-3 from the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is not located in a flood area. The project does not propose any housing. The project proposes use of existing buildings on the project site for construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie studio production, office and storage. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
p) p) p) p) Place within a 100 Place within a 100 Place within a 100 Place within a 100 -- --year flood hazard area structures which would impede o year flood hazard area structures which would impede o year flood hazard area structures which would impede o year flood hazard area structures which would impede o r redirect flood flows? r redirect flood flows? r redirect flood flows? r redirect flood flows? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would have no hydrology and water quality impact. No impact was identified for this threshold.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
q) q) q) q) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? a result of the failure of a levee or dam? a result of the failure of a levee or dam? a result of the failure of a levee or dam? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the pro ject would not expose people or structure to significant loss from flooding, including flooding from a dam failure. Impact were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion of the Prop Discussion of the Prop Discussion of the Prop Discussion of the Proposed Project: osed Project: osed Project: osed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage sp ace.

According to Figure 6-3 from the Safety Element of the City’s General Pla n, the project site is not located in a flood area nor is it located in a dam inundation zone. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-37 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
r) r) r) r) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 8) that the project would not result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of uses on the project site by decreasing the production space and increasing the storage sp ace.

Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production s pace, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. These uses would not result in any i ncrease in potential for impacts from inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The project site is not located by any large bodies o f water which would be subject to seiche or tsunami. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold r emain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in informati on that would require preparation of a new MND.

10. 10. 10. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING LAND USE AND PLANNING LAND USE AND PLANNING LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Physically divide an established community? Physically divide an established community? Physically divide an established community? Physically divide an established community? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (pag e 10 ) that the project would not have any land use and planning impacts and that the project would not divide and established community.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A in clude youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

East of the project site is a closed landfill, west and south of the site are undeveloped areas and no rth of the site is San Elijo Road, additional undeveloped area s and then residential deve lopment associated with San Elijo Hills. The uses proposed by the project would be inside an existing structure would not result in an y physical division of an established community. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold r emain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agen Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agen Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agen Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agen cy with jurisdiction over the project cy with jurisdiction over the project cy with jurisdiction over the project cy with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded ( page 10 ) that the project would not have any land use and planning impacts and that the project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limi ted to the general plan, specific plan, local

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-38 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for t he purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environment al effect.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Sc enario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an ex isting building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

With the proposed SPA, the refinements to the project phasing and the proposed uses would be in compliance.

There are no other aspects of the project that woul d conflict with conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdictio n over the project (including, but not limited to t he general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for t he purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Findings: Findings: Findings: Findings: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (pa ge 10 ) that the project would not have any land use and planning impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The City of San Marcos has prepared a Draft Subarea Plan for the MHCP.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing buildin g on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would not result in any conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-39 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

11. 11. 11. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES MINERAL RESOURCES MINERAL RESOURCES MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known miner al resource that would be of value to the region an d the Result in the loss of availability of a known miner al resource that would be of value to the region an d the Result in the loss of availability of a known miner al resource that would be of value to the region an d the Result in the loss of availability of a known miner al resource that would be of value to the region an d the residents of the State? residents of the State? residents of the State? residents of the State? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 11 ) that the project would not have any mineral resources impacts.

The proposed proje ct would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally imp ortant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local Result in the loss of availability of a locally imp ortant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local Result in the loss of availability of a locally imp ortant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local Result in the loss of availability of a locally imp ortant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local gene gene gene general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ral plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ral plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ral plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 11 ) that the project would not have any mineral resources impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed proje ct would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space wit hin an existing building on the project site. Propo sed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-40 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

12. 12. 12. 12. NOISE NOISE NOISE NOISE – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of n oise levels in excess of standards established in t he local Result in exposure of persons to or generation of n oise levels in excess of standards established in t he local Result in exposure of persons to or generation of n oise levels in excess of standards established in t he local Result in exposure of persons to or generation of n oise levels in excess of standards established in t he local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less Less Less Less than Significant than Significant than Significant than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 12 ) that the project would not r esult in exposure of persons to or generation of noise level s in excess of standards established in the local g eneral plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. As a condition of project approval, the following mitigation measure was identified in both the noise and hydrology sections of the 2004 MND:
• The applicant/developer applicant shall submit land scap e plans with characteristic that maximize infiltration, provide retention, reduce runoff by u se of efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Said landsc aping plans shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any building permit.

The proposed project would re fine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not o ccur. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND.

With regard to traffic-related operational noise, t he traffic analysis prepared for the project (Chen Ryan Associates 2018) concluded that Phase 1 traffic und er the project would decrease by approximately 43.3 percent under Scenario A and 25.6 percent under Sce nario B. This would result in a corresponding reduction in vehicular noise.

For operational noise associated with film
ing, these activities will occur indoors. Additionally, from the location of the onsite buildings, there an intervening roadw ay an open space between the buildings and off- site residences. Therefore, the previous conclusions reg arding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur. The conditions/mitigation measure identified in the 2004 MND for noise would still be applicable to the project. See Table 20 , at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of this measure.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? noise levels? noise levels? noise levels? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Less than Less than Less than Significant Significant Significant Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 12 ) that the project would not r esult in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-41 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
space , decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office spa ce, and increas e the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recrea tionally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not be characterized as generating excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels. Therefore, the previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project.

No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without th without th without th without the project? e project? e project? e project? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 12 ) that the project would not r esult in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed proj ect would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for th e filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These are not the types of uses that would be characterized as creating a subs tantial permanent increase in ambient noise in the project vicinity. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND.

The buildings on the project site are buffered from the nearest residential uses by San Elijo Road and open space. Additionally, the traffic analysis prepared for the project (Chen Ryan Associates 2018) concluded that Phase 1 traffic under the project would decrease by approximately 25.6 to 43.3 percent, depending on the scenario considered. This would result in a corresponding reduction in vehicular noise. Therefore, the previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in a Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in a Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in a Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in a mbient noise levels in the project vicinity above mbient noise levels in the project vicinity above mbient noise levels in the project vicinity above mbient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? levels existing without the project? levels existing without the project? levels existing without the project? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 12 ) that the project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambie nt noise le vels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-42 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Ph ase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Proposed use s under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These are not the types of uses that would be chara cterized as creating a substantial temporary or p eriodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vic inity above levels existing without the project. The sports filming activities with the live audience would occur indoors. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND.

The buildings on the project site are buffered from the nearest residential uses by San Elijo Road and open space. Additionally, the traffic analysis prepared for the project (Chen Ryan Associates 2018) concluded that Phase 1 traffic under the project would decrease by approximately 25.6 to 43.3 percent, depending on the scenario considered. would result in a corresponding reduction in vehicu lar noise. Therefore, the previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
e) e) e) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, whe For a project located within an airport land use plan or, whe For a project located within an airport land use plan or, whe For a project located within an airport land use plan or, whe re such a plan has not been adopted, within two re such a plan has not been adopted, within two re such a plan has not been adopted, within two re such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? project area to excessive noise levels? project area to excessive noise levels? project area to excessive noise levels? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 12 ) that the project would not result in an impact related to airport noise from a public airport or public use airport. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is not located within an airport land use pl an or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Further, according to Figure 6-5 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is not located withi n a Review Area of the McClellan- Palomar Airport Influence Area. The p revious conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No impact is identified for this area
Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
f) f) f) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? project area to excessive noise levels? project area to excessive noise levels? project area to excessive noise levels? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 12) that the project would not result in an impac t related to airport noise from a private airstrip. No impact was identified for this issue area.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is not located near a private airstrip. There is no potential for airport noise from a private airstrip to cause an impact on the project site. The previo us conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-43 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that wo uld require preparation of a new MND.

13. 13. 13. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING POPULATION AND HOUSING POPULATION AND HOUSING POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ei ther directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and Induce substantial population growth in an area, ei ther directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and Induce substantial population growth in an area, ei ther directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and Induce substantial population growth in an area, ei ther directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infr businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infr businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infr businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? astructure)? astructure)? astructure)? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 1 3) the project would not have any population or housing impact.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the projec t site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be sim ilar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The project will use the existing buildings on the site and will not require the construction of any new buildings.

The project would not Induce substantial population growth in an area, ei ther directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) as the site has already been developed and in use for movie studio uses. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, n ecessitating the construction of replacement housin g Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, n ecessitating the construction of replacement housin g Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, n ecessitating the construction of replacement housin g Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, n ecessitating the construction of replacement housin g elsewhere? elsewhere? elsewhere? elsewhere?
MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 1 3) the project would not have any population or housing impact.

Discussion of the Pr Discussion of the Pr Discussion of the Pr Discussion of the Proposed Project: oposed Project: oposed Project: oposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by divi ding Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live a udiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

There are no residential uses on the project site. The project would not dis place a substantial number of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-44 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
c) c) c) c) DD DDisplace substantial numbers of people, necessitatin g the construction of replacement housing isplace substantial numbers of people, necessitatin g the construction of replacement housing isplace substantial numbers of people, necessitatin g the construction of replacement housing isplace substantial numbers of people, necessitatin g the construction of replacement housing els els els elsewhere? ewhere? ewhere? ewhere?
MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 1 3) the project would not have any population or housing impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project would not displace people. The uses pro posed would occur within existing buildings on the project site. No e xisting buildings or homes would be removed. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and n o chan ges in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

14. 14. 14. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts asso ciated with the provision of new or physically alte red Result in substantial adverse physical impacts asso ciated with the provision of new or physically alte red Result in substantial adverse physical impacts asso ciated with the provision of new or physically alte red Result in substantial adverse physical impacts asso ciated with the provision of new or physically alte red governmental facilities, need for new or physic governmental facilities, need for new or physic governmental facilities, need for new or physic governmental facilities, need for new or physic ally altered governmental facilities, the construct ion of which ally altered governmental facilities, the construct ion of which ally altered governmental facilities, the construct ion of which ally altered governmental facilities, the construct ion of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: or other performance objectives for any of the public services: or other performance objectives for any of the public services: or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) i) i) i) Fire protection? Fire protection? Fire protection? Fire protection? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 13) that the project would not result in an increase in significant demand on fire protection s ervices. As a condition of project approval, the following mitigation measure were identified in the 2004 MND:
• Applicant shall annex into the Police & Fire Community Facility Districts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site was annexed into CFD 2001-01. The City’s Fire Marshal has reviewed the project plans and an Existing Plan addres sing egress of buildings under emergency conditions has been prepared for the project.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the
project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce nario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any increase fire pr otection demand beyond what is already expected for the project site. The previous conclusions regarding th is threshold remain applicable to the proposed proj e ct. No new impacts would occur. The project site has already been annexed into the applicable fire CFD so the mitigation measure related to police services is no longer applicable to the project since its requirements have been fulfilled.

Also, the adopted
SP stated that on an interim basis, fire protection facilities and personnel may be located on the project site and that fire protection services would include one fire -fighting apparatus with a two -person

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-45 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
crew. The crew may be housed either on -site or at the station on Rancho Santa Fe Road. Since adoption of the SP, Fire Station #4, located at 204 San Elijo Road, has opened. However, the SPA does not delete or am end the provision that fire protection facilities and personnel may be located on the project site.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
ii) Police protection? Police protection? Police protection? Police protection? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. Less than Significant. Less than Significant. Less than Significant. The MND concluded (page 1 3) that project would not result in an increase in significant demand on police protection services.

As a condition of project approval, the following mitigation measure were identified in the 2004 MND:
• Applicant shall annex into the Police & Fire Community Facility Districts.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Pl an by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games w ith live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any increase demand for police protection services beyond what is already expected for the project site. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold r emain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur. The project si te has already been annexed into the applicable police CFD so the mitigation measure related to police services is no longer applicable to the project since its requirements have been fulfilled.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and n o changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
iii) Schools? Schools? Schools? Schools?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 13) that the project would have a less than significant impact on school services.

Discussion of the Proposed Pr Discussion of the Proposed Pr Discussion of the Proposed Pr Discussion of the Proposed Project: oject: oject: oject: Student generation is associated with residential development. The project does not propose any residential uses. Proposed uses include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audie nces, movi e production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project si te. These changes do not result in any other changes th at could result in impacts to schools. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicab le to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-46 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
iv) Parks? Parks? Parks? Parks?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (p age 1 3) that the project would have a less than significant impact on parks.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Sce na rio A include youth sports courts for the filming o f recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be simil ar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the f ootprint analyzed in the 2004 MND. These changes do not result in any other changes that could result in im pacts to parks. The previo us conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
v) Other public fa Other public fa Other public fa Other public fa cilities? cilities? cilities? cilities? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND concluded (page 1 3) that the project would have a less than significant impact on other public facilities.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These changes do not result in any other changes th at could result in impacts to other public faciliti es . The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-47 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

15. 15. 15. 15. RECREATION RECREATION RECREATION RECREATION – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facili Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facili Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facili Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facili ties such that ties such that ties such that ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 1 4) that the project would not have an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or o ther recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration would occur. No impact was identified.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific P lan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These changes do not result in any other changes that could result in impacts to existing neighborhood parks, regional parks or recreational facilities. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an ad have an ad have an ad have an adverse physical effect on the environment?verse physical effect on the environment? verse physical effect on the environment? verse physical effect on the environment? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 1 4) that the project would not have any impact related to recreation. No impact was identified for this issue area.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information t hat would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-48 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

16. 16. 16. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance performance performance performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non and non and non and non-- --motorized travel and relevant circulation systems, including but not limited to intersections, streets, motorized travel and relevant circulation systems, including but not limited to intersections, streets, motorized travel and relevant circulation systems, including but not limited to intersections, streets, motorized travel and relevant circulation systems, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian, bicycle pa highways and freeways, pedestrian, bicycle pa highways and freeways, pedestrian, bicycle pa highways and freeways, pedestrian, bicycle paths and mass transit? ths and mass transit? ths and mass transit? ths and mass transit? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact Less than Significant Impact .. .. The MND concluded (page 1 4) that the project would have a less than significant increase in traffic related to the existing capacity and traffic load of the street system.

As a conditio n of project approval, the following conditions of approval/mitigation measures were identified in the 2004 MND:
• Require installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of the project access point with San Elijo Road, prior to completion and occupancy of Phase 1.
• Prior to grading permit the applicant will be condi tioned to submit a revised site entry site plan delineation detailed ingress/egress to the adjacent Encina site, and ingress/egress to the Landfill and studio/office project. The site plan sh all also illustrate required stacking or queueing distance on San Elijo Road or the entry area.
• Require the project to contribute its fair share co ntribution to the ultimate street improvement of th e San Elijo Road to a prime arterial as a reimbursement.
• Dedicate adequate right of way for new travel lanes, turn pockets and transition lanes required for the project.
• Pay applicable PFF fees.
• Provide an analysis demonstrating that there is ade quate parking and on- site circulation, for each phase.

Discussion o Discussion o Discussion o Discussion of the Proposed Project: f the Proposed Project: f the Proposed Project: f the Proposed Project: A traffic analysis memorandum was prepared for the proposed project and is included as Appendix D (Chen Ryan Associates 201 8). The purpose of the analysis was to determine if traffic mitigation measures would be required for Phase 1A of the project.

Previous Traffic Analysis Previous Traffic Analysis Previous Traffic Analysis Previous Traffic Analysis The previously approved traffic study conducted for the San Marcos Studios Project, prepared by Crain & Associate (2003) , stated that the development of the San Marcos Stu dios was scheduled to occur in two phases. Phase 1 would consist of the conversion of the existing ons ite vacant MRF buildings to house the intended production, studio and office uses, including interior structural modifications to increase the useable floor area from approximately 190,000 to 213,361 s.f. Completion of Phase 1 was expected to occur in 2005.

Phase 2 was to include the construction of a new si x-story, 120,000 square foot office building and a multi- story parking structure capable of accommodating up to approximately 935 vehicles.

The previous traffic study concluded that after com pletion and occupancy, Phase 1 of the project could generate approximately 775 net new daily trips, including 101 (91-inbound, 10 outbound) new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 101 net new trips (20 inbound, 81 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour.

At full buildout, the project could generate approximately 1,857 net new daily trips, including 242 net new trips (218 inbound; 24 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 242 net new trips (48 in bound, 194 outbound) during the PM peak hour.

The trip generation rate methodology used in the 20 03 traffic report was similar to that used in the Burbank
Media District Specific Plan, which reflected a sim ilar type of use. SANDAG’s Not So Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation information was not used for the 2004 MND as it di d not include standardized rates and equations for entertainment production studios, primarily because such developments are not commonplace,

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-49 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
and collection of relevant, appropriat e, data occurs infrequently in San Diego County. This Addendum take s a more conservative approach to trip generation and uses the SANDAG rates for soccer complex, industrial park and storage for Scenario A, and movie production, i ndustrial park and storage for Scenario B , as they are the most relevant generation rates in light of the prop osed uses. The analysis scenarios and the anticipat ed trip generation for the proposed project is described later in this document.

Project Assumptions for Project Assumptions for Project Assumptions for Project Assumptions for New New New New Traffic Anal Traffic Anal Traffic Anal Traffic Analysis ysis ysis ysis The proposed project consists of the following land uses:
• 61,650 sq.ft. of Movie Production;
• 9,750 sq.ft. of Media Office; and
• 108,135 sq.ft. of Storage.

Two use scenarios are analyzed as it relates to the use of the 61,650 s.f. of movie production space. • Scenario A: Youth Sports Reality Show Scenario A: Youth Sports Reality Show Scenario A: Youth Sports Reality Show Scenario A: Youth Sports Reality Show –– –– This scenario assumes that the 61,650- s.f. of movie production space will include construction of youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences. Operation hours for Scenario A would be between 3 PM and 9 PM during weekdays and from 8 AM to 8 PM on weekends . Workers would have a 2 PM to 10 PM schedule on weekdays and a 7 AM to 9 PM schedule on weekends. • Scenario B: Movie Production Scenario B: Movie Production Scenario B: Movie Production Scenario B: Movie Production - Scenario B would use the 61,650 s. f. movie production space between the hours of 8 AM and 3 PM for movie production . No youth sports activity would occur under this use scenario.

Project Study Area Project Study Area Project Study Area Project Study Area Based on the project location and proposed land use s, it was determined that the study area would include the following:

Roadway Segments Roadway Segments Roadway Segments Roadway Segments • San Elijo Road, between Melrose Drive/Dove Trail Drive and Project Driveway; and • San Elijo Road, between Project Driveway and Baker Street.

Intersections Intersections Intersections Intersections • San Elijo Road / Project Driveway
• San Elijo Road North / Baker Street
• San Elijo Road South / Baker Street
All intersections were analyzed during the PM peak h our for Scenario A and during the AM peak for Scenario B, which reflects the proposed hours of use for eac h scenario. It is important to note that the i ntersections of San Elijo Road North / Baker Street and San Elijo Ro ad South / Baker Street are only analyzed during “weekday” conditions because of higher traffic volumes when compared to a weekend day.

Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions This section documents the exist ing study area roadway and intersection configurati on, traffic volumes and traffic operations.

Roadway Facilities Roadway Facilities Roadway Facilities Roadway Facilities San Elijo Road – Within the study area, San Elijo Road is a 4-lane roadway with a raised median and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. There are curren tly five-foot-wide sidewalks and Class II bike lanes on both sides of the roadway. On-street parking is prohibite d on both sides of the roadway. At the time of the 2003 traffic study, which supported the 2004 MND, San Elijo Road was a four-lane undivided road.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-50 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Traffic counts for the intersection and roadway segments within the study area were conducted on a weekday and two weekend days on Wednesday, November 29, 2017 and Tuesday, December 5, 2017 and Saturday, January 13, 2 018 and Sunday, January 14, 2018. As a conservative approach, the weekend day with the highest traffic volumes was utilized for the analysis (Saturday). Traffic counts are provided in Attachment 1 of Appendix D of this document.

Traffic Operations Traffic Operations Traffic Operations Traffic Operations Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Segment Segment Segment Segment The City of San Marcos utilizes the roadway capacit ies and level of service (LOS) standards outlined i n the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies [TIS] within the San Diego Region, March 2000 .

Table Table Table Tabless ss 44 44 and and and and 55 55 display the daily roadway lev el of service for San Elijo Road within the study area, under Existing Conditions during a weekday and on the weekend. As shown in these tables, San Elijo Road currently operates at LOS C on the weekend and LOS B on the weekend under existing conditions within the study area.

Table 4. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service Table 4. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service Table 4. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service Table 4. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service –– –– Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Segment Segment Segment Segment XX XX-- --Section Section Section Section ADT ADT ADT ADT Capacity (LOS E) Capacity (LOS E) Capacity (LOS E) Capacity (LOS E) V/C V/C V/C V/C San Elijo Road Between Melrose
Drive/Dove Tail
Drive and Project
Driveway
4-Lane w/
Raised Median 28,733 40,000 0.718
Be tween Project
Driveway and
Baker Street

29,151 0.729
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes Notes Notes Notes: V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio

Table Table Table Table 55 55. Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service . Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service . Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service . Existing Daily Roadway Level of Service –– –– Week Week Week Weekend end end end Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Segment Segment Segment Segment XX XX-- --Section Section Section Section ADT ADT ADT ADT Capacity (LOS E) Capacity (LOS E) Capacity (LOS E) Capacity (LOS E) V/C V/C V/C V/C San Elijo Road Between Melrose
Drive/Dove Tail
Drive and Project
Driveway
4-Lane w/
Raised Median 19,497 40,000 0.487
Between Project
Driveway and
Baker Street

19,621 0.491
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes: V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio

Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
The overall average intersection delay and LOS methodologies outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) were utilized to analyze the study area inters ection. Synchro 9.0 Traffic Analysis Software was utilized to perform the analysis. Signal timing sheets are provided in Attachment 1 of Appendix D.

Table Table Table Table 66 66 displays the overall average intersection delay and LOS for the study area intersections under Existing Conditions during a weekday. LOS calculation worksh eets are provided in Attachment 3 of Appendix D. As shown in Table 6, the analyzed intersection currently operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour under Existing Conditions during a weekday. It is important to not e that the intersections of San Elijo Road North / Baker Street and San Elijo Road South / Baker Street are only analyzed during “weekday” co nditions because of higher traffic volumes when compared to a weekend day.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-51 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

Table Table Table Table 66 66. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service . Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service . Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service . Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service –– –– Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
Control Control Control Control
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

AM AM AM AM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) AM (sec.) AM (sec.) AM (sec.) AM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

AM AM AM AM
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) PM (sec.) PM (sec.) PM (sec.) PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

PM PM PM PM

1. San Elijo Road /
Project Driveway SSSC NBR 17.1 C NBL 184.4 F F FF

2. San Elijo Road
North / Baker
Street
Signalized
- 29.7 C - 31.1 C

3. San Elijo Road
South / Baker
Street
Signalized
- 12.1 B - 12.3 B

Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, July 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes: SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control. For SSSC intersections, the delay shown is the wor st delay experienced by any of the approaches.

Table Table Table Table 77 77 displays the overall avera ge intersection delay and LOS for the study area intersections under Existing Conditions during a weekend day. LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment 3 of Appendix D.

Table Table Table Table 77 77.. .. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service –– –– Weekend Weekend Weekend Weekend Day Day Day Day Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Traffic Control Traffic Control Traffic Control Traffic Control Worst Approach Worst Approach Worst Approach Worst Approach

PM PM PM PM
Average Delay (sec) Average Delay (sec) Average Delay (sec) Average Delay (sec)

PM PM PM PM

LOS PM LOS PM LOS PM LOS PM

1. San Elijo Road /
Project Driveway
SSSC NBR 12.1 B

2. San Elijo Road
North / Baker
Street
Signalized
- N/A N/A

3. San Elijo Road
South / Baker
Street
Signalized
- N/A N/A
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes Notes Notes Notes: : : : SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control. For SSSC intersections, the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches.

Queueing Queueing Queueing Queueing
The 95 th percentile queue was calculated based on the methodologies outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) to analyze the study area intersection. Synch ro 9.0 Traffic Analysis Software was utilized to perform the analysis.

Table Table Table Table 88 88 displays queueing at the proposed project driveway under Existin g Conditions during a weekday, while Table Table Table Table 99 99 displays queueing during a weekend day. As shown in Tables 9 and 10 , 25 feet of queue or one vehicle is anticipated at the project driveway during the PM peak hour during the weekday and the weekend day.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-52 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

Table Table Table Table 88 88: Existing Peak Hour Queueing Analysis : Existing Peak Hour Queueing Analysis : Existing Peak Hour Queueing Analysis : Existing Peak Hour Queueing Analysis –– –– Weekda Weekda Weekda Weekdayy yy

Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
Control Control Control Control
Project Project Project Project
Driveway Driveway Driveway Driveway
Length Length Length Length 11 11
Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

AM AM AM AM
95 95 95 95 th th th th
Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft)

AM AM AM AM
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
95 95 95 95 th th th th
Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft)

PM PM PM PM

1. San Elijo Road / Project
Driveway SSSC 200 feet NBR 25 feet NBR 25 feet
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control.

Queuing results obtained from HCM 2010 report assuming 25 feet per vehicle. 1 Measured from existing driveway stop bar to existing gate.

Table Table Table Table 99 99.. .. Existing Peak Hour Existing Peak Hour Existing Peak Hour Existing Peak Hour Queueing Analysis Queueing Analysis Queueing Analysis Queueing Analysis –– –– Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic Control Control Control Control
Project Driveway Project Driveway Project Driveway Project Driveway Length Length Length Length
Worst Approach Worst Approach Worst Approach Worst Approach

PM PM PM PM
95 95 95 95 th th th th Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Queue (feet) PM Queue (feet) PM Queue (feet) PM Queue (feet) PM

1. San Elijo Road
/ Project
Driveway
SSSC 200 feet NBR 25 feet
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control.

Queuing results obtained from HCM 2010 report assuming 25 feet per vehicle. 1 Measured from existing driveway stop bar to existing gate.

Trip Generation Trip Generation Trip Generation Trip Generation This section outlines th e analysis assumptions relating to the Proposed Pro ject trip generation, assumed trip distribution pattern and trip assignment under Scen arios A and B. The primary difference between Scenarios A and B are the assumption for the hours of operation.

Trip Ge Trip Ge Trip Ge Trip Generation neration neration neration –– –– Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A The proposed project under Scenario A consists of construction of youth sports courts and a movie studio that will film and produce a reality show in front of a live studio audience and documentary about youth sports culture and the making of Loma San Marcos. The proposed project consists of the following land uses:
• 61,650 sq.ft. of Movie Production;
• 9,750 sq.ft of Media Office; and
• 108,135 sq.ft. of Storage.

The 61,650 sq.ft. of Movie Production will be utilized to build five youth sports courts designed for b asketball,
volleyball and other floor sports with the intent t o play actual recreationally competitive games whil e a live audience watches and interacts with the cameras and the players. Media offices will be used for editing a nd producing the episodes and film documentary.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-53 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project under Scenario A would be in operation between 3 PM and 9 PM during weekdays and from 8 AM to 8 PM during weekends, with workers having a 2 PM to 10 PM schedule on weekdays and a 7 AM to 9 PM schedule on weekends.

Neither the SANDAG Not So Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation nor the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual contain trip rates for land uses similar to this facility, therefore the following trip rates are proposed:
• 61,650 sq.ft. of Movie Production - Although the proposed project land use is classifie d as “Movie Production”, the square footage would be used to build 5 youth sports courts, therefore, it is proposed as a conservative approach that the “Soccer Complex” land use t rip rate from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition was utilized to determine the number of trips generated.

• 9,750 sq.ft of Media Office – Based on conversations with the project applicant, the “Media Office” land use would operate similarly to that of an “Industrial Park” land use because of all the ope rations being confined within the proposed project. Therefore, the “Industrial Park” trip rate found in the SANDAG Not So Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation was utilized to determine the number of trips generated.

• 108,135 sq.ft. of Storage – The proposed project site currently has storage operations and based on counts conducted on November 29, 2017, it was determined that 2 trips during the PM peak hour egressed from the project driveway. The prop osed project would not cause the existing storage trip generation to increase, however, it would restrict storage operations to of f peak hours. Therefore, the trips associated with t he existing storage land use would be removed from the transportation network during peak hours.

Table Table Table Table 10a 10a 10a 10a displays the proposed project trip generation under Scenario A.

Table Table Table Table 10a 10a 10a 10a: Proposed Project Trip Generation : Proposed Project Trip Generation : Proposed Project Trip Generation : Proposed Project Trip Generation –– –– Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Trip Rate Trip Rate Trip Rate Trip Rate Daily Daily Daily Daily
Trips Trips Trips Trips PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Soccer
Complex 5 71.33 trips 1 /
Field 357 26% 93
(39 -in / 54 -out)
Industrial
Park 9,750 sf 8 trips 2 / 1,000 sf 78 12% 5
(1 -in / 4 -out) 3
Storage 108,135 sf Based on driveway
counts 4 50%
Trips will not occur
during the PM peak
hour 4
Proposed Project Total Proposed Project Total Proposed Project Total Proposed Project Total 439 - 98 (40-in / 58-out)
Source: Source: Source: Source: Che n Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:
1 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition Soccer Complex Rates were utilized. 2 SANDAG Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Park were utilized. 3 Workers would work between 2pm and 10pm. However, for a conservative analysis, it is assumed that 50% of the trips generated by the “Media Office” land use would occur during the PM peak hour. 4 Existing storage trips would be restricted to non -peak hour operations .

As shown, the Proposed Project under Scenario A is anticipate d to generate a total of 439 daily trips, including 98 trips (40-in / 58- out) during the PM peak hour. This trip generation a pplies for both the weekday and weekend day.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-54 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

Trip Generation Trip Generation Trip Generation Trip Generation –– –– Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B The proposed project under Scenario B consists of a mo vie studio used for different movie production purposes that differ from the youth sports reality show. The proposed project consists of the following land uses:
• 61,650 sq.ft. of Movie Production;
• 9,750 sq.ft of Media Office; and
• 108,135 sq.ft. of Storage.

The proposed project would be in operation between 8 AM and 3 PM under Scenario B.

Neither the SANDAG Not So Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation nor the latest ITE Trip Generation Manual contain trip rates for land uses similar to this facility, therefore the following trip rates are proposed:
• 61,650 sq.ft. of Movie Production - Based on conversations with the project applicant, the “Movie Production” land use would operate similarly to that of an “Industrial Park” land use because of all the operat ions being confined within the proposed project. Therefore, the “Industrial Park” trip rate found in the SANDAG Not So Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation was utilized to determine the number of trips generated.

• 9,750 sq.ft of Media Office – Based on conversations with the project applicant, the “Medi a Office” land use would operate similarly to that of an “Industrial Park” land use because of all the operations being confined within the proposed project. Therefo re, the “Industrial Park” trip rate fou nd in the SANDAG Not So Brief Guide to Vehicular Trip Generation was utilized to determine the number of trips generated.

• 108,135 sq.ft. of Storage – The proposed project site currently has storage ope rations and based on counts conducted on November 29, 2017, it was determined that 2 trips during the PM peak hour egressed from the project driveway. The proposed pr oject would not cause the existing storage trip generation to increase, however, it would restrict storage operations to off peak hours. Therefo re, the trips associated with the existing storage land use would be removed from the transportation network during peak hours.

Table Table Table Table 10b 10b 10b 10b displays the proposed project trip generation under Scenario B.

As shown in Table 10b, the Proposed Project under S cenario B is anticipated to generate a total of 576 daily trips, including 63 trips (57-in / 6-out) during th e AM peak hour and 69 trips (14-in / 55- out) during the PM peak hour.

Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The project trip distribution for both Scenarios A and B were developed based on existing travel patterns and land uses along San Elijo Road. It was assumed tha t 80 percent of the traffic would access the Proposed Project to/from the west and the other 20 percent would access the Propose d Project to/from the east. Peak hour project traffic was then distributed to the st udy intersections. The project trip assignment for both Scenarios A and B were calculated by applying the project trip generation (and distributing it to the study area roadway network based on the assumed project trip distribution

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-55 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

Table Table Table Table 10b 10b 10b 10b : Proposed Project Trip Generation : Proposed Project Trip Generation : Proposed Project Trip Generation : Proposed Project Trip Generation –– –– Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Land Use Land Use Land Use Land Use Quantity Quantity Quantity Quantity Trip Rate Trip Rate Trip Rate Trip Rate Daily Daily Daily Daily
Trips Trips Trips Trips
AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Movie
Production
61,650
sf
8 trips 1 / 1,000
sf 494 11% 54
(49-in / 5-out) 12%
60 (12-in / 48-
out)
Industrial
Park 9,750 sf 8 trips 1 / 1,000
sf 78 11% 9
(8 -in / 1 -out) 12% 9
(2 -in / 7 -out)
Storage 108,135
sf
Based on
driveway counts 4 50%
Trips will not
occur during
the AM peak
hour 2
50%
Trips will not
occur during
the PM peak
hour 2
Proposed Project Total Proposed Project Total Proposed Project Total Proposed Project Total 576 - 63 (57-in / 6-out) -
69 (14-in / 55-
out)
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:
1 SANDAG Trip Generation Rates for Industrial Park were utilized. 2 Existing storage trips would be restricted to non-peak hour operations.

Existing Plus Project Roadway Configurations and Traffic Volumes Existing Plus Project Roadway Configurations and Traffic Volumes Existing Plus Project Roadway Configurations and Traffic Volumes Existing Plus Project Roadway Configurations and Traffic Volumes –– –– Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A It was assumed that the roadway cross-section along project frontage section of San Elijo Road would remain identical as the Existing conditions with the implementation of the Proposed Project.

The project driveway would restrict the northbound left-turn movement, modifying the existing configuration to allow only the northbound right-turn movement. The restriction of the left turn movement out of the proposed project driveway would be accomplished through the installation of a raised pinned AC channelization ( pork- chop) island. The project applicant has coordinated with the County of San Diego and County staff has concurred with the left turn movement restriction.1.

Restriction of the left turn movement out of the dr iveway improves traffic operations at both roadway and intersection level because it removes an additional point of conflict which increases the capacity of the roadway and intersection. Additionally, it improves safety at the intersection because it p revents drivers from crossing two lanes of traffic on a major arterial with limited sight distance due to the location of the driveway (middle of horizontal curve).

The restriction of the left turn moveme
nt out of the project driveway would result in project trips that intend to go west of the project to have to go east to the intersection of San Elijo Road South and Baker Street, turn left at this intersection and subsequently turn left aga in at the inter section of San Elijo Road North and Baker Street to be able to head west.

Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions –– –– Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A This section documents the anticipated traffic oper ations under Existing Plus Project conditions withi n the study area. Roadway segment and intersection operations are discussed separately below.

1 Email correspondence from Tony Sawyer, Program Coordinator, Landfill Management Unit, Department of Public Works, County of San Diego to Matt Simmons, Nicholas Abboud and Francisco Ortiz, dated June 14, 2018.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-56 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Roadway Segment Roadway Segment Roadway Segment Roadway Segment -- -- Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Table Table Table Table 11 1111 11 displays the daily roadway level of service for San Elijo Road, along the project frontage under Existing Plus Project conditions on a weekday for Scenario A . As shown in Table 11 , San Elijo Road is projected to continue operate at LOS C within the study area with the implementation of the proposed project.

Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 111 11: Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service : Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service : Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service : Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service –– –– Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday (Sc (Sc (Sc (Scenario A) enario A) enario A) enario A) Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Segment Segment Segment Segment XX XX-- --Section Section Section Section ADT ADT ADT ADT Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
(LOS E) (LOS E) (LOS E) (LOS E)
With Project With Project With Project With Project Existing Existing Existing Existing V/C V/C V/C V/C ∆∆ ∆∆ S? S? S? S? V/C V/C V/C V/C LOS LOS LOS LOS San Elijo
Road
Between
Melrose
Drive/Dove Tail
Drive and Project
Driveway
4-Lane
w/Raised
Median
29,084
40,000

0.727 C 0.718 0.009 No
Between Proje ct
Driveway and
Baker Street
29,239 0.731 C 0.729 0.002 No
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio.
∆: Change in V/C ration between Existing Plus Project and Existing Conditions.

S?: Significant impact?

Based on the significant impact criteria identified in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies [TIS]
within the San Diego Region, the analyzed roadway segments would operate at acce ptable LOS C with the implementation of the Proposed Project, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. It would take an additional 5,916 and 5,761 daily trips, respectivel y, to cause a significant impact at the analyzed ro adway segments.

Table Table Table Table 11 1122 22 displays the daily roadway level of service for San Elijo Road, along the pro ject fontange under Existing Plus Project conditions on a weekend day for Scenario A. As shown in Table 12, San Elijo Road is projected to continue operate at LOS B along the project frontage with the implementation of the proposed project.

Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 122 22: Exis : Exis : Exis : Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service ting Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service ting Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service ting Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service –– –– Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Segment Segment Segment Segment XX XX-- --Section Section Section Section ADT ADT ADT ADT Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
(LOS E) (LOS E) (LOS E) (LOS E)
With Project With Project With Project With Project Existing Existing Existing Existing V/C V/C V/C V/C ∆∆ ∆∆ S? S? S? S? V/C V/C V/C V/C LOS LOS LOS LOS San Elijo
Road
Between Melrose
Drive/Dove Tail
Drive and Project
Driveway
4-Lane
w/Raised
Median
29,084
40,000

0.496 B 0.487 0.009 No
Between Project
Driveway and Baker
Street
29,239 0.493 B 0.491 0.002 No
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Asso ciates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:
∆: Change in average intersection delay between Existing Plus Project and Existing Conditions.

SSSC: Side-Street Stop Control intersection.

For SSSC intersections, the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches.

S?: Significant Impact?

Based on the significant impact criteria identified in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies [TIS] within the San Diego Region, the analyzed roadway segments would operate at acce ptable LOS B with the implementatio n of the Proposed Project, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. It would take an

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-57 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
additional 15,152 and 15,291 daily trips, respectiv ely, to cause a significant impact at the analyzed roadway segments.

Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis -- -- Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Table Table Table Table 11 1133 33 displays the overall average intersection delay and LOS for the study area intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions on a weekday for Scenario A. As noted above, the project will restrict left turn movement out of the project driveway. Trips that intend to go west out of the project to have to go east to the intersection of San Elijo Road South and Baker Street, turn left at this intersection and subsequently turn left aga in at the intersection of San Elijo Road North and Baker Street to be able to head west.

LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Attachme nt 4 of Appendix D. As shown in Table 13 , the analyzed intersection is projected to operate at acceptable LOS D with the implementation of the project under Scenario A.

Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 133 33. . . . Existin Existin Existin Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service g Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service g Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service g Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service –– –– Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
With Project With Project With Project With Project Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions ∆∆ ∆∆ S? S? S? S?
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay (sec.) Delay (sec.) Delay (sec.) Delay (sec.)

PM PM PM PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.)

PM PM PM PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

PM PM PM PM

1. San Elijo Road / Project
Driveway NBR 34.8 1 D 184.4 F F FF -149.6 No

2. San Elijo Road North / Baker
Street - 31.2 C 31.1 C 0.1 No

3. San Elijo Road South / Baker
St reet - 12.6 B 12.3 B 0.3 No
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:
∆: Change in average intersection delay between Existing Plus Project and Existing Conditions.

SSSC: Side-Street Stop Control intersection.

For SSSC intersections, the delay shown is the worst delay experienced by any of the approaches.

S?: Significant Impact?
1 The restriction of the northbound left -turn movement improved the traffic operations at the project driveway.

Based on the significant impact criteria identified in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies [TIS]
within the San Diego Region, the project driveway is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour with the implementation of the project. This is because the project includes the restric tion of left turn movements onto San Elijo Road from the project driv eway. With this improvement, the existing intersect ion of the San Elijo Road, which currently operates at LOS F is forecasted to operate at LOS D during the weekday PM Peak hour. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.

It would take an additional trip (1) during the PM peak hour to trigger an impact at the intersection. However, it is important to note that as a conservative approac h, existing peak hour factor values were util ized under Existing Plus Project scenario. If the peak hour factor were to be modified to reflect a more uniform traffic arrival pattern, the intersection operations would improve.

Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 144 44 displays the overall average intersection delay and LOS for the st udy area intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions on a weekend day for Scenar io A . LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Attachment 4 of Appendix D. As shown in Table 14, the analyzed intersection is projected to continue operating at acceptable LOS B with the implementation of the proposed project.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-58 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 44 44. . . . Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service –– –– Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A)
Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
With Project With Project With Project With Project Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions ∆∆ ∆∆ S? S? S? S?
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(s (s (s (sec.) ec.) ec.) ec.)

PM PM PM PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.)

PM PM PM PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

PM PM PM PM

1. San Elijo Road / Project Driveway NBR 14.2 B 12.1 B 2.1 No Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:
∆: Change in average intersection delay between Existing Plus Project and Existing Conditions. *SSSC: Side-Street Stop Control intersection.

S?: Significant Impact?

It would take an additional 203 trips during the PM peak hour to trigger an impact at the intersection. However, it is important to note that as a conservative appr oach, existing peak hour factor values were utilized under Existing Plus Project scenario. If the peak hour factor were to be modified to reflect a more uniform traffic arrival pattern, the intersection operations would improve.

Queueing Queueing Queueing Queueing Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis -- -- Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 155 55 displays queueing at the proposed project drivewa y under Existing Conditions during a weekday for Scenario A, while Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 166 66 displays queueing during a weekend day for Scenario A.

Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 155 55.. .. Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway –– –– Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A)

Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection

Project Project Project Project
Driveway Driveway Driveway Driveway
Length Length Length Length 11 11
With Project With Project With Project With Project
Existing Existing Existing Existing
Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions
∆∆ ∆∆
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
Control Control Control Control
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
95 95 95 95 th th th th Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Queue (ft) PM Queue (ft) PM Queue (ft) PM Queue (ft) PM 95 95 95 95 th th th th Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile Queue (ft) PM Queue (ft) PM Queue (ft) PM Queue (ft) PM

1. San Elijo Road
/ Project Driveway SSSC 200 feet NBR 75 feet 25 feet 50 feet Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control.

Queuing results obtained from HCM 2010 report assuming 25 feet per vehicle. 1 Measured from existing driveway stop bar to existing gate.

As shown in Table 15
, 75 feet of queue or three vehicles, is anticipated at the project driveway during the PM peak hour. The project driveway is 200 feet in length and it would be able to accommodate the projected queue with the implementation of the proposed project.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-59 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 166 66. . . . Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway –– –– Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day Weekend Day (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) (Scenario A) Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
With Project With Project With Project With Project
Existing Existing Existing Existing
Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions
∆∆ ∆∆ Traffic Control Traffic Control Traffic Control Traffic Control Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

1. San Elijo Road /
Project Driveway SSSC NBR 25 feet 25 feet 0 feet
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control.

Queuing results obtained from HCM 2010 report assuming 25 feet per vehicle.

As shown in Table 16, 25
feet of queue or one vehicle is anticipated at the project driveway during the PM peak hour. The project driveway is 200 feet in length and it would be able to accommodate the projected queue with the implementation of the proposed project. No queueing impacts are identified for the proposed project under Scenario A.

Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions Traffic Operations Under Existing Plus Project Conditions –– –– Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B This section documents the anticipated traffic oper ations under Existing Plus Project conditions withi n the study area under Scenario B. The same roadway and intersection geometries assumed under Scenario were assumed under Scenario B.

Roadway Segment Roadway Segment Roadway Segment Roadway Segment Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis –– –– Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Table Table Table Table 17 17 17 17 displays the daily roadway level of service for San Elijo Road, along the project fontange un der Existing Plus Project conditions on a weekday for Scenario B. As shown in Table 17 , San Elijo Road is projected to continue operate at LOS C within the study area wit h the implementation of the proposed project under Scenario B.

Table 17: Existing Pl Table 17: Existing Pl Table 17: Existing Pl Table 17: Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Level of Service us Project Daily Roadway Level of Service us Project Daily Roadway Level of Service us Project Daily Roadway Level of Service –– –– Weekday (Scenario B) Weekday (Scenario B) Weekday (Scenario B) Weekday (Scenario B) Roadway Roadway Roadway Roadway Segment Segment Segment Segment XX XX-- --Section Section Section Section ADT ADT ADT ADT Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity
(LOS E) (LOS E) (LOS E) (LOS E)

With Project With Project With Project With Project Existing Existing Existing Existing V/C V/C V/C V/C ∆∆ ∆∆ S? S? S? S? V/C V/C V/C V/C LOS LOS LOS LOS San Elijo
Road
Between Melrose
Drive/Dove Tail
Drive and Project
Driveway
4-Lane
w/Raised
Median
29,194

40,000

0.730 C 0.718 0.012 No
Between Project
Driveway and
Baker Street
29,266

0.732 C 0.729 0.003 No
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates, 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio.
∆: Change in V/C ration between Existing Plus Project and Existing Conditions.

S?: Significant impact?

Based on the significant impact criteria identified in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact S tudies [TIS] within the San Diego Region, the analyzed roadway segments would operate at acce ptable LOS C with the implementation of the Proposed Project, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. It would ta ke an

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-60 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
additional 5, 806 and 5,7 43 daily trips, respectively, to cause a significant impact at the analyzed roadway segments.

Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis –– –– Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 188 88 displays the overall average intersection delay and LOS for the study area intersections under Existing Plus Project conditions on a weekday for Scenario B. As noted above, the project will restrict left turn movement out of the project driveway. Trips that intend to go west out of the project to have to go east to the intersection of San Elijo Road South and Baker Street, turn l eft at this intersection and subsequently turn left again at the intersection of San Elijo Road North and Baker Street to be able to head west.

LOS calculation worksheets are provided in Attachme nt 4 of Appendix D. As shown in Table 18 , the analyzed intersection is projected to operate at acceptable LOS D with the implementation of the project under Scenario B. Restriction of the left turn movement out of the dr iveway improves traffic operations at both roadway and intersection level because it removes an a dditional point of conflict which increases the capacity of the roadway and intersection. Additionally, it improves safety at the intersection because it prevents drivers fro m crossing two lanes of traffic on a major arterial with limited sight distance du e to the location of the driveway (middle of horizontal curve).

Table 18. Existing Plus Project Table 18. Existing Plus Project Table 18. Existing Plus Project Table 18. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Peak Hour Intersection Peak Hour Intersection Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Level of Service Level of Service Level of Service –– –– Weekday (Scenario B) Weekday (Scenario B) Weekday (Scenario B) Weekday (Scenario B) Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
With Project With Project With Project With Project Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Existing Conditions ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ S?
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

AM AM AM AM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.)

AM AM AM AM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

AM AM AM AM
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.)

PM PM PM PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

PM PM PM PM
Average Average Average Average
Delay Delay Delay Delay
(sec.) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.)

AM / PM AM / PM AM / PM AM / PM

LOS LOS LOS LOS

AM / AM / AM / AM /

PM PM PM PM

1. San Elijo Road /
Project Driveway NBR 18.2 C NBR 33.1 1 D 17.1 /
184.4 F 1.1 / -
151.3 No

2. San Elijo Road
North / Baker
Street
- 30.0 C - 31.2 C 29.7 /

31.1 C 0.3 / 0.1 No

3. San Elijo Road
South / Baker
Street
- 12.1 B - 12.6 B 12.1 /

12.3 B 0.0 / 0.3 No

Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ryan Associates , 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

V/C: Volume to Capacity Ratio.
∆: Change in V/C ration between Existing Plus Project and Existing Conditions.

S?: Significant impact?

Based on the significant impact criteria identified in the SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies [TIS]
within the San Diego Region, the proj ect driveway is anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour with the implementation of the Proposed Project, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated . It would take five (5) additional trips during the PM peak hour to trigge r an impact at the intersection. However, it is important to note that as a conservative approac h, existing peak hour factor values were utilized un der Existing Plus Project scenario. If the peak hour factor were to be modified to reflect a more uniform tr affic arrival pattern, the intersection operations would improve.

Queueing Queueing Queueing Queueing Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis –– –– Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Table 1 Table 1 Table 1 Table 199 99 displays queueing at the proposed project drivewa y under Existing Conditions during a weekday for Scenario B.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-61 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018

Table 19. Table 19. Table 19. Table 19. Queueing Analysis for Pro Queueing Analysis for Pro Queueing Analysis for Pro Queueing Analysis for Project Driveway ject Driveway ject Driveway ject Driveway –– –– Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday (Scenario (Scenario (Scenario (Scenario BB BB)) ))
Intersection Intersection Intersection Intersection
Traffic Traffic Traffic Traffic
Control Control Control Control
Project Project Project Project
Driveway Driveway Driveway Driveway
Length Length Length Length 11 11

With Project With Project With Project With Project
Existing Existing Existing Existing
Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions
∆ ∆ ∆ ∆
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

AM AM AM AM
95 95 95 95 th th th th
Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft)

AM AM AM AM
Worst Worst Worst Worst
approach approach approach approach

PM PM PM PM
95 95 95 95 th th th th
Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft) Queue (ft)

AM / PM AM / PM AM / PM AM / PM

1. San Elijo
Road /
Project
Driveway
SSSC 200 feet NBR 25 feet NBR 75 feet 25 feet
0 feet
/ 50
feet
Source: Source: Source: Source: Chen Ry an Associates , 2018 Notes: Notes: Notes: Notes:

SSSC = Side-Street Stop Control.

Queuing results obtained from HCM 2010 report assuming 25 feet per vehicle. 1 Measured from existing driveway stop bar to existing gate.

As shown in Table 19, 75 feet of queue or three vehicles, is anticipated at the project driveway during the PM
peak hour. The project driveway is 200 feet in length and it would be able to accommodate the projected queue with the implementation of the proposed project under Scenario B.

All of the conditions/miti gation measures for identified in the 2004 MND for traffic would still be applicable to the project with the exceptions: of the fair share contribution to street improvements to San Elijo Ro ad . This fair share payment has already been paid. See Tabl e 20 at the end of this document, for information on the timing of implementation of the remaining traffic mitigation measures.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Co Co Co Co nflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service nflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service nflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service nflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, other standards established by the county congestion management standards and travel demand measures, other standards established by the county congestion management standards and travel demand measures, other standards established by the county congestion management standards and travel demand measures, other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designation roads or highways? agency for designation roads or highways? agency for designation roads or highways? agency for designation roads or highways? MND Conc MND Conc MND Conc MND Conc lusion: Less than Significant. lusion: Less than Significant. lusion: Less than Significant. lusion: Less than Significant. The MND concluded (page 1 4) that the project would have a less than significant increase in traffic related to the exis ting capacity and traffic load of the street system . Mitigation was identified for the project requiring a t the time of actual use the project would be required to annex into the San Elijo Road Financing District for installation of road improvements as identified in the San Elijo EIR or install road improvements and intersection improvements as required by th e City Engineer or pay reimbursements for improvements already completed.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Based upon the analysis presented in 16.a, above, t he project will not result in any significant intersection, roadway or queuing impacts. All imp acts will be less than significant. The project would not conflict with any congestion management programs. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new i mpacts for this issue area and no changes in inform ation that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-62 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
c) c) c) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety that results in substantial safety that results in substantial safety that results in substantial safety risks? risks? risks? risks? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 1 5) that the project would not have a significant impact related to a result in change in air traffic patter ns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site would not result in a change in ai r traffic patterns. The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie productio n space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Prop osed uses under Scenario A include youth sports cou rts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scen ario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feat ure Substantially increase hazards due to a design feat ure Substantially increase hazards due to a design feat ure Substantially increase hazards due to a design feat ure (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 1 5) that the project would not have a significant impact related to hazards due to design features or incompatible uses.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: As part of the traffic analysis for the project, Ch en Ryan Associates conducted a site distance analysis (December 18, 20 17, Appendix D). Based on the City of San Marcos minimum sight distance requirements, the safe sight distance at the proposed project driveway is 610 feet for vehicles turning left or right, to accelerate to th e operating speed of the street without causing app roaching vehicles to reduce speed by more than 10 miles per hour. Based on a sight d istance engineering study conducted on December 18, 2017 the project driveway meets the required 610 feet of safe sight distance .

Additionally, the ongoing pruning of trees in the m edian on San Elijo Road, which is maintained by the City of San Marcos, will ensure no sight obstructions occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and no changes in i nformation that would require preparation of a new MND.
e) e) e) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in inadequate emergency access? MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded (page 15 ) that the project provides adequate emergency access and no impact was identified.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The City’s Fire Marshal has reviewed the project plans and an Existing Plan addressing egress of buildings under emergency conditions has been prepared for the project.

The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity o f Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-63 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally com petitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any changes to emerg ency access. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new impacts for this issue area and n o changes i n information that would require preparation of a new MND.
f) f) f) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Result in inadequate parking capacity? Result in inadequate parking capacity? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated .. .. The analysis in the MND (page 15) identified potentially significant impact related to parking capacity. Mitigation was included in the 2004 MND (pages 15 and 16) that would reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation measures identified in the 2004 MND would still be applicable to the proposed project.

Discussion of the Prop Discussion of the Prop Discussion of the Prop Discussion of the Proposed Project: osed Project: osed Project: osed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividi ng Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live aud iences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any conflict with adopted policies, plans, or pr ograms regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, nor would it oth erwise decrease the performance of safety of such f acilities.

No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are no new imp acts for this issue area and no changes in informat ion that would require preparation of a new MND.
g) g) g) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian fa cilities, or Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian fa cilities, or Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian fa cilities, or Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian fa cilities, or otherwise decrease performance of safet otherwise decrease performance of safet otherwise decrease performance of safet otherwise decrease performance of safety of such facilities? y of such facilities? y of such facilities? y of such facilities? MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. This specific threshold was not analyzed in the 2004 MND . However, on page 15 of the 2004 MND , a threshold related to adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation was analyzed and no impact was identified.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-64 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

These uses would not result in any conflict with ad opted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, nor would it oth erwise decrease the performance of safety of such f acilities.

No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

17. 17. 17. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i Would the project cause a substantial adverse change i n the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public n the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public n the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public n the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feat ure, place, cultural landscape that is geographical ly defined in Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feat ure, place, cultural landscape that is geographical ly defined in Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feat ure, place, cultural landscape that is geographical ly defined in Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feat ure, place, cultural landscape that is geographical ly defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object wi terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object wi terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object wi terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object wi th cultural value to a California Native American th cultural value to a California Native American th cultural value to a California Native American th cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: tribe, and that is: tribe, and that is: tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? MND Conclusion: Not MND Conclusion: Not MND Conclusion: Not MND Conclusion: Not AA AAnalyzed. nalyzed. nalyzed. nalyzed. Tribal Cultural Resources were not analyzed in the previous MND, as Assembly Bill (AB) 52 had not gone into effect by the time t he MND was adopted. Under AB 52, passed in 2014, th is significance threshold was added to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available, early in the project planning process, to identify and ad dress potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resour ces. “Tribal cultural resources” considers the tribal cultural values in addition to the scientific and archaeolog ical values when determining project- related impacts and mitigation. Per Public Resources Code Section 21074, tribal cultural resources are either listed or determined to be e ligible for listing on the national, state, or loca l register of historic resources or are a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a tribal cultural resource. Tribal consultation is required under AB 52, as codified under Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(a).

The MND concluded (page 4) that no impacts to cultural resources, including historical resources, would occur from implementation of the project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a s ubstantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for li sting the California Register of Historical Resourc es or in a local register of historical resources.

Per the requirements of SB 18 and AB 52, the City reached out to local Tribes. Responses from the Trib es are
detailed below.

The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians submitted a let ter on April 9, 2018. The letter indicated the site has cultural significance or ties to the Kumeyaay Nation and recommended the City notify the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians (San Pasqual). The letter also requested that the p roject follow all applicable NEPA/CEQA/NAGPRA laws and that San Pasqual be contacted on any changes or inadvertent discoveries. San Pasqual Band was notified of the project consistent with the requirements of SB 18, The project is compliant with applicable environmental laws.

The Campo Band of Mission Indians (Campo) submitted a letter on April 30, 2018 requesting consultation with the City pursuant to SB 18. City staff communicated with tribal representati ves to explain the project does not result in any new ground disturbing activities. In response, Campo provided a correspondence on June 4, 2018 stating that the tribe has no further concern. Given this response, the City considers consultation closed fro m

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-65 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Campo for the project. To this end, however, on Ju ne 28, 2018, the City requested a formal closure correspondence from Campo for the project file.

The San Luis Rey Bank of Mission Indians (San Luis Rey) submitted a letter on May 11, 2018 requesting con sultation with the City pursuant to SB 18. Staff me t with tribal representative Cami Mojado and P.J.

Stoneburner, on June 5, 2018 to provide information to the tribe as to the project not creating any new ground disturbing activities. With this in mind, Sa n Luis Rey agrees that the project will not impact tribal cultural resources and will be sending a consultation closur e correspondence to memorialize the meeting and a subsequent staff discussion with Cami Mojado on June 28, 2018.

The Jamul Indian Village of California submitted an e-mail message on May 22, 2017. The Tribe did not request consultation and indicated that they would defer to the Kumeyaay on this project. As noted above, the Kumeyaay then deferred the project to San Pasqual. To date the City has not received any further response from San Pasqual.

The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (Rincon) submitt ed and e- mail message on July 17, 2018. Rincon confirmed that the project site is within the Territory of the Luiseño people but that they did not h ave knowledge of any cultural resources within or near the proposed project site. SB 18 consultation was not requested since the project will take place within an existing building and no exterior expansion is planned.

Communications received from the Tr ibes and subsequent consultation did not identify a ny tribal cultural resources on the project site.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) A resource determined b A resource determined b A resource determined b A resource determined b y the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be y the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be y the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be y the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resourc applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resourc applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resourc applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency es Code section 5024.1, the lead agency es Code section 5024.1, the lead agency es Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

MND Conclusion: Not MND Conclusion: Not MND Conclusion: Not MND Conclusion: Not AA AAnalyzed. nalyzed. nalyzed. nalyzed. As identified above, Tribal Cultural Resources were not analyzed in the previous MND; however, th e MND concluded (page 4) that no impact to cultural resources would occur with implementation of the project.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: As identified in Section 5, above, the proposed project would not result in any new impacts to cultural resources and no change s of information require preparation of a new MND. As part of the processing of this project, the City re ached out to interested Tribes. Communication received from the Tribes was discussed in 17,a, above. No signifi cant tribal cultural re sources were identified through the course of consultation with the Tribes.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

18. 18. 18. 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) a) a) a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND (page 1 6) concluded that the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board . Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-66 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for th e filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B wou ld be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Development under the proposed project would not in troduce ne w land uses that could exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Therefore, implementation o f the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional W ater Quality Control Board . The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
b) b) b) b) Require or result in the construction o Require or result in the construction o Require or result in the construction o Require or result in the construction o f new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing f new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing f new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing f new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND (page 16 ) concluded that the project would not req uire or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envir onmental effect. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: of the Proposed Project: The project will utilize the existing wastewater facilities within the Vallecitos Water District. An 8-inch sewer line will connect the facility to the public sewer system. Fees have been paid to the Vallecitos Waster District for capacity rights up to 15,000 of wastewater per day. No additional capacity will be required for the use of the site as proposed by the project.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Development under the proposed project w ould not introduce new land uses that would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effe cts. The previous con clusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-67 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
c) c) c) c) Require or result Require or result Require or result Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. The MND (page 13) concluded that the project wou ld not require or result in the construction of new stormwater draina ge facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envir onmental effect. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion Discussion Discussion Discussion of the Specific Plan Amendment: of the Specific Plan Amendment: of the Specific Plan Amendment: of the Specific Plan Amendment: Modification of the site’s current drainage system will not be required for the proposed project.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the
project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Propose d uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenari o B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Development under the proposed project would not re quire the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant envi ronmental effects. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed proj ect. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
d) d) d) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are resources, or are resources, or are resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? new or expanded entitlements needed? new or expanded entitlements needed? new or expanded entitlements needed? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND (page 1 6) concluded that the project would have sufficient water supplies to serve the project. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Dis Dis Dis Discussion of the Specific Plan Amendment: cussion of the Specific Plan Amendment: cussion of the Specific Plan Amendment: cussion of the Specific Plan Amendment: The Olivenhain Municipal Water District provides potable water service to this site. Current facilities supply approximately 20 PSI of residual pressure and a minimum flow of 2,500 gallons per minute. A 10-inch main provides potable water to the site. Because the proposed use of the property is anticipated to be less intensive than i ts previous use, the current water facilities will be sufficient to service the project.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scen ario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-68 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan ana lyzed in the 2004 MND .

Development under the proposed project would not require additional or expanded water supply entitlements or resources. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
e) e) e) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequ has adequ has adequ has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing ate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing ate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing ate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? commitments? commitments? commitments?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant .. .. The MND (page 1 6) concluded that the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment pr ovider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project will utilize the existing wastewater facilities within the Vallecitos Water District. An 8-inch sewer line will connect the facility to the public sewer system. Fees have been paid to the Vallecitos Waster District for capacity rights up to 15, 000 of wastewater per day. No additional capacity will be required for the use of the site as proposed by the project.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses unde r Scenario A include youth sports courts for the fi lming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would b e similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

Vallecitos Water District has adequate capacity of serve the project. The previous conclusions regarding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
f) f) f) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? needs? needs? needs?
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant. Less than Significant. Less than Significant. Less than Significant. The MND (page 1 6) concluded that the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to acco mmodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: EDCO currently provides solid waste disposal services to this area. Solid waste is collected at th e site, deposited at the EDCO Transfer Station in the City of Escondido, where it is loaded to transfer trucks, and transported to an appropriate landfill.

The project site is developed and the proposed proj ect would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-69 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The previous conclusions rega rding this threshold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.
g) g) g) g) Comply with Federal, State, and l Comply with Federal, State, and l Comply with Federal, State, and l Comply with Federal, State, and l ocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ocal statutes and regulations related to solid waste? MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. MND Conclusion: Not Analyzed. This is a new threshold that was not adopted at the time the 2004 MND was prepared.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenari o A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space wi thin an existing building on the project site. Prop osed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

The project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The previous conclusions regarding this thre shold remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: There are n o new impacts for this issue area and no changes in information that would require preparation of a new MND.

19. 19. 19. 19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-- --sustaining levels, sustaining levels, sustaining levels, sustaining levels, threaten to threaten to threaten to threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? prehistory? prehistory? prehistory?
MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. MND Conclusion: No Impact. The MND concluded ( page 3) that there would be no impact to biological resources (MND Section IV). The MND also concluded (page 4) that there would be no impact to cultural resources (MND Section V). The project was determined to not meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-70 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in t he Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1 A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally compe titive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, exce pt the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND.

The additional analysis for biological resources, c ultural resources and tribal cultural resources in the Addendum did not identify any new impact regarding the potential for the project to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to elim inate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, the previous conclusions regarding this Mandatory Finding of Significance remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding Finding Finding Finding:: :: Therefore, there are no changes or new information that would require the preparation of a new MND. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limite Does the project have impacts that are individually limite Does the project have impacts that are individually limite Does the project have impacts that are individually limite d, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively d, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively d, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively d, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are consider considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are consider considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are consider considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection able when viewed in connection able when viewed in connection able when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future future future future projects.) projects.) projects.) projects.)
MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. Less than Significant Impact. Less than Significant Impact. Less than Significant Impact. The 2004 MND concluded (page 1 7) that cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The project was determined to not meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance.

The 2004 MND did not identify a specific list of cumulative projects.

Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Discussion of the Proposed Project: Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3 of t his document, the project will not have any new impacts. The project site is developed and the proposed project would decrease the intensity of Phase 1 uses on the project site compared to what is identified the 2004 MND.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie production space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage. Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Sc enario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an ex isting building on the project site. Proposed uses under Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not o ccur. The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND.

The 2004 MND concluded there would not be any signi ficant cumulative impacts for the project, though n o specific list of cumulative projects was identified. The 2003 Crain & Associates traffic study, which supported the 2004 MND, relied on the U niversity Commons and the San Elijo Town Center tra ffic studies to generate future growth forecasts for traffic. These studies did include consideration of cumulative projects.

As part of the traffic analysis for the proposed pr oject, Chen Ryan Associated collected new traffic counts in November 2017, December 2017 and January 2018. These counts reflect any projects that were constructed

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-71 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
and are now generating trips since the 2004 MND was adopted. Th ese new traffic counts serve as the basis for the traffic analysis in this Addendum.

Two other projects are proposed in the project vici nity that were not considered in the 2004 MND, t he Artis
Senior Living project and the Copper Hills project. The Artis Senior Living project, located at San Elijo Road and Paseo Plomo approximately one mile northwest of the project site, proposes a 64-bed senior living facility. The Artis Senior Living project is still undergoing env ironmental review with a Mitigated Negative Declaration anticipated to be circulated for public review in l ate 2018/early 2019. Based upon preliminary a nalysis, the Artis project is expected to generated 192 ADT. Given the low trip generation, the anticipated trip distribution, and the distance from the proposed project, the Artis project is not expected to contribute a significant number of trips nor contribute to a cumulative impact for the proposed project.

The Copper Hills project site is located immediately west of the project site within the County of San Diego and within the Sphere of Influence of the City. The existing General Plan designation on t he Copper Hills site is Light Industrial, Commercial and Open Space. The preliminary project proposal includes a General Plan Amendment and Prezone to also allow for residential uses on t he Copper Hills site. The Copper Hills project is in the very early planning stages and technical studies related to the project’s environmental review are not available.

The traffic analysis in this document (Section 3.16.a) indicated with the addition of project traffic, the segments of San Elijo Road analyzed would still continue to operate at LOS C on weekdays (Tables 11 and 17) and LOS B on the weekends (Table 12). The traffic analysis a lso concluded with implementation of the project, the analyzed intersections would operate between LOS B to LOS D on weekdays (Tables 13 and 18) and LOS B on the weekend (Table 14). There is additional capacity in San Elijo Road in the project vicinity , therefore it is expected that any traffic generated from the Artis Senior Living and Copper Hills projects , when considered with the proposed project, would not result in a cumulative impact for the proposed project.

In conclusion, implementation of the proposed proje ct would reduce amount of traffic and similar associated air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the project’s cumulative contribution to traffic, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions would be less than assumed in the 2004 MND.

No other cumulative contributions beyond what was i dentified in the MND for the other environmental issue areas would occur under the proposed project. Therefore, the previous conclusions regarding this Mandatory Finding of Significance remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding Finding Finding Finding:: :: Therefore, there are no changes or new information that would require the preparation of a new MND. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? either directly or indirectly? either directly or indirectly? either directly or indirectly? MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: MND Conclusion: No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. No Impact. The MND concluded (page 1 7) that the project would not result in impacts for any issue area that would have significant environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.

All impacts were determined to be less than significant or no impact. Therefore, the project was determined to not meet this Mandatory Finding of Significance.

The proposed project would refine the phasing in the Specific Plan by dividing Phase 1 into a Phase 1A and a Phase 1B. Phase 1A would decrease the amount of fir st floor building area dedicated to movie prod uction space, decrease the amount of first floor building area dedicated to office space, and increase the amount of first floor building area dedicated to storage . Two use scenarios, Scenario A and Scenario B, are identified for the movie production space. Proposed uses under Scenario A include youth sports courts for the filming of recreationally competitive games with live audiences, movie production space, office space and storage space within an existing building on the project site. Pr oposed uses unde r Scenario B would be similar, except the youth sports courts and related filming would not occur.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-72 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
The proposed project would still occur within the footprint of the prior project plan analyzed in the 2004 MND .

As identified above, implementation of the proposed project would result in a reduction in traffic generation during Phase 1 which results in an associated decre ase in vehicular air emissions, GHG emissions and vehicular noise. Based upon the analysis in this c hecklist, the proposed project would no t have any environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human being either directly or indirectly.

Therefore, the previous conclusions regarding this Mandatory Finding of Significance remain applicable to the proposed project. No new impacts would occur.

Finding: Finding: Finding: Finding: Therefore, there are no changes or new information that would require the preparation of a new MND.

20. 20. 20. 20. EARLIER ANALYSES EARLIER ANALYSES EARLIER ANALYSES EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tie ring, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or mo re effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or MND (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). These document s are on file with the City of San Marcos, Planning Division:
• SP 03-41/CUP 03-596 (San Marcos Studios) Mitigated Negative Declaration . 2004.

21. 21. 21. 21. REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES REFERENCES Advantage Environmental Consultants (AEC). 2018. Report of Additional Site Assessment 1610 San Elijo Road, San Marcos California. Voluntary Assistance Program Case #DEH2017-LSAM-000452. September 10.

California Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/ Viewed May 17, 2018.

CalFire. 2009. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map for San Diego County. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps_sandiego. Viewed May 17, 2018.

Chen Ryan Associates 2018. San Marcos Movie Studio – Traffic Analysis Memorandum. August 15.

City of San Marcos. 2012. General Plan. http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general- plan Viewed May 17, 2018.

City of San Marcos. 2001. Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan for the City of San Marcos. May.

County of San Diego (Department of Public Works). 2018. Letter from Richard E. Compton to Joseph Farace (City of San Marcos). August 22.

Crain & Associates. 2003. Traffic Study for the Proposed San Marcos Studios Project, South of San Elijo Road,
West of Elfin Forest Road in San Marcos. October.

Department of Toxic Substance Control. 2018. EnviroStor. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=san+marcos%2C+ca Viewed May 17.

LDN Consulting. 2018. Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment GHG Screening Letter. July 27.

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-73 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Table Table Table Table 20 20 20 20. Implementation Timing for Mitigation Measures Identified in the 2004 MND . Implementation Timing for Mitigation Measures Identified in the 2004 MND . Implementation Timing for Mitigation Measures Identified in the 2004 MND . Implementation Timing for Mitigation Measures Identified in the 2004 MND Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Sti Sti Sti Sti ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed Project? Project? Project? Project?
Timing Timing Timing Timing

Phase Phase Phase Phase
1A 1A 1A 1A
Phase Phase Phase Phase
1B 1B 1B 1B
Phase Phase Phase Phase
22 22
Aesthetics Aesthetics Aesthetics Aesthetics
Require approval of any major outdoor filming
activities by the City Manager. The request will
specify the time, place, extent of filming activities,
and any special lighting or noise which would result
from those activities.

Yes . The 2004 MND
required this for both
Phase 1 and Phase 2 and it
will also be applicable to
the Phase 1A and Phase
1B components.

XX XX XX XX XX XX
Require additional architectural articulation on the
easterly elevation of the proposed office building
such as architectural enhancements or decorative
screening. Revised elevations and/or site plan will
be submitted for final review and approval prior to
issuance of any building permit.

Yes , with same timing a s
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- --
XX XX
Geology/Soils Geology/Soils Geology/Soils Geology/Soils Prior to issuance of building permits, a
geotechnical investigation shall be performed prior
to project approval. The applicant shall provide the
City with specific information as the geotechnical
conditions that exist and describe design
construction measures to be implemented to
reduce any potential hazards.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
If necessary, special construction techniques shall
be used in areas where development will occur on
soils susceptible to liquefaction and settlement.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
All grading shall be supervised by a Civil and/or
Geotechnical Engineer, who shall prepare a written
report to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
certifying that the work has been performed in
compliance with recommendation contained in the
geotechnical report and approved plans.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
Prior to issuance of building pe rmits, complete
plans (grading, drainage, site improvement, etc.)
shall be submitted to the City of San Marcos
Engineering Department for review and approval.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The site plan shall include a comp lete plan for
temporary and permanent drainage facilities to
minimize any impacts to erosion.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
If development is to occur on highly erosive or
expansive soils, then special construction
techniques, such as compaction and soil removal
shall be incorporated into the project.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-74 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Sti Sti Sti Sti ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed Project? Project? Project? Project?
Timing Timing Timing Timing

Phase Phase Phase Phase
1A 1A 1A 1A
Phase Phase Phase Phase
1B 1B 1B 1B
Phase Phase Phase Phase
22 22
Hydrology/Water Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Hydrology/Water Quality The applicant/developer applicant shall submit
landscape plans with characteristic that maximize
infiltration, provide retention, reduce runoff by use
of efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Said
landscaping plans shall be approved by the City
prior to issuance of any building permit.

Yes, w ith same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall submit for City
review and approval for the implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per
the latest Caltrans SWPPP Preparation Manual, to
manage storm water and non-storm water
discharge from the site at all times. The SWPPP
shall describe all BMPs to be implemented year-
round. Specific BMP implementation may be
depended upon wet or dry season operations. The
SWPP shall also emphasize that erosion prevention
is the most important measures for keeping
sediment on site during construction.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
All construction and grading related BMPs shall be
shown in detail on the construction plans
submitted to the City for review and approval.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall submit to the City fo r
review and approval, a report that identifies
affected receiving water bodies, applicable water
quality objectives (RWQCB and SANDAG) and
pollutants of concern and estimated post-
construction discharge rages (with all BMPs in
place) and explains why the projected pollutant
loads will not cause a violation of the water quality
objectives.

Yes, with sam e timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall submit to the City fo r
review and approval a plan that includes a
combination of source control and structural
treatment BMPs that, at a minimum, will:
a. Control post-development peak storm
water runoff discharge rates and velocities
to maintain or reduce pre-development
downstream erosion;
b. Conserve natural areas;
c. Minimize pollutants of concern form the
urban runoff through implementation of
the source control BMPs;
d. Remove pollutants of concern from the
urban runoff through implementation of
structural treatment BMPs;
Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-75 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Sti Sti Sti Sti ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed Project? Project? Project? Project?
Timing Timing Timing Timing

Phase Phase Phase Phase
1A 1A 1A 1A
Phase Phase Phase Phase
1B 1B 1B 1B
Phase Phase Phase Phase
22 22
e. Minimize directly connected impervious
areas;
f. Protection slopes and channels from
eroding;
g. Include storm drain stenciling and
signage;
h. Include properly designed outdoor
material storage areas;
i. Be implemented close to pollutant sources
and prior discharging into receiving
waters;
j. Include properly designed trash storage
areas;
k. Ensure that post-development runoff does
not contain pollutant loads which have not
been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable.

The structural BMPs shall be designed so as to
filter or treat the volume or flow outlined in the
numeric sizing criteria outlined below:

The applicant/developer shall construct
desiltation/detention basin and erosion devices of
a type and size and at a location as approved by
the City Engineer. Devices shall be installed and
maintained in working condition during the rainy
season (November 1 through April 1). Each such
basin shall be provided with an all-weather
access/maintenance road.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The appl icant/developer shall ensure that grading
and or other construction activities meet the
provisions specific in the California RWQCB, San
Diego Region, Order 2001-01, NPDES No
CAS0108758 – Section F.2.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004 MND
and. activities shall comply
with the most recent
requirements.
-- -- XX XX

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-76 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Sti Sti Sti Sti ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed Project? Project? Project? Project?
Timing Timing Timing Timing

Phase Phase Phase Phase
1A 1A 1A 1A
Phase Phase Phase Phase
1B 1B 1B 1B
Phase Phase Phase Phase
22 22
The applicant/developer shall utilize sediment
controls only as a supplement to erosion
prevention for keeping sediment on-site during
construction – NEVER as a single or primary
method.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall clear and grade only
the areas on the project site that are necessary for
construction. These areas shall be clearly denoted
on the plans and in the SWPPP.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall minimize exposure
time of disturbed soils areas.

Yes, with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND.
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall submit landscape
plans with characteristics that maximize
infiltration, provide retention, reduce irrigation and
storm runoff, use efficient irrigation, and minimizes
the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

Said landscaping plan shall be approved by the City
prior to issuance of building permit.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND, and landscaping
plans shall also comply
with City’s Water Efficiency
Landscape Ordinance
(WELO).
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall submit for City
review and approval for the implementation of a
SWPPP, per the latest Caltrans SWPPP Preparation
Manual, to manage storm water and non-
stormwater discharges from the site at all times.

The SWPPP shall describe all BMPs to be
implemented year-round. Specific BMP
implementation may be dependent upon wet or dry
season operations. The SWPPP shall also
emphasize that erosion prevention is the most
important measure for keeping sediment on the
site during construction.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND, and activities shall
comply with the most
recent requirements.
-- -- XX XX
All construction and grading related BMPs shall be
shown in detail on the construction plans
submitted to the City for review and approval.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND,
-- -- XX XX
The applicant/developer shall submit a schedule to
the City for review and approval, with the proposed
dates, demonstrating the minimization of grading
during the wet season and coinciding the grading
with dry weather periods, permanent re-vegetation
and landscaping as early as feasible, temporary
stabilization and reseeding of disturbed solid areas
as early as feasible.

Yes , with same timing as
identified in the 2004
MND,
-- -- XX XX

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-77 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Sti Sti Sti Sti ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed Project? Project? Project? Project?
Timing Timing Timing Timing

Phase Phase Phase Phase
1A 1A 1A 1A
Phase Phase Phase Phase
1B 1B 1B 1B
Phase Phase Phase Phase
22 22
Noise Noise Noise Noise
The applicant/developer applicant shall submit
landscape plans with characteristic that maximize
infiltration, provide retention, reduce runoff by use
of efficient irrigation, and minimize the use of
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Said
landscaping plans shall be approved by the City
prior to issuance of any building permit.

Yes , but timing is shifted to
Phase 1B when the
enhanced landscaping
would occur. Additionally,
the landscaping plans shall
also comply with City’s
Water Efficiency Landscape
Ordinance (WELO).
-- XX XX XX XX
Public Services Public Services Public Services Public Services Applicant shall annex into the Police & Fire
Community Facility Districts.

No. This mitigation
measure was identified in
the 2004 MND. Since the
project site has already
annexed into the
appropriate Police and Fire
CFDs, this mitigation
requirement has been met.
-- -- --
Transportation/Traffic Transportation/Traffic Transportation/Traffic Transportation/Traffic Require installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of the project access point with San
Elijo Road, prior to complete and occupancy of
Phase 1.

Yes . The 2004 MND
identified this requirement
prior to occupancy of Phase
1, however, the analysis in
this Addendum has
indicated it can be moved
to prior to occupancy of
Phase 1B with placement
of a temporary left turn
restriction from the project
driveway (north bound) to
west bound San Elijo Road.
-- XX XX --
Prior to grading permit the applicant will be
conditioned to submit a revised site entry site plan
delineation detailed ingress/egress to the adjacent
Encina site, and ingress/egress to the Landfill and
studio/office project. The site plan shall also
illustrate required stacking or queueing distance
on San Elijo Road or the entry area.

Yes . The 2004 MND
identified this requirement
prior to occupancy of Phase
1, however, the analysis in
this Addendum has
indicated it can be moved
out to prior to occupancy of
Phase 1B.
-- XX XX --
Require the project to co ntribute its fair share
contribution to the ultimate street improvement of
the San Elijo Road to a prime arterial as a
reimbursement.

No. This requirement was
already satisfied and is no
longer applicable to the
project.
-- -- --
Dedicate adequate right of way for new travel
lanes, turn pockets and transition lanes required
for the project.

Yes . The 2004 MND
identified this requirement
prior to occupancy of Phase
-- XX XX --

Loma San Marcos Specific Plan Amendment 3-78 City o f San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Marcos MND Addendum September2018
Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Sti Sti Sti Sti ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed ll Applicable to Proposed Project? Project? Project? Project?
Timing Timing Timing Timing

Phase Phase Phase Phase
1A 1A 1A 1A
Phase Phase Phase Phase
1B 1B 1B 1B
Phase Phase Phase Phase
22 22
1, however, as a condition
of project approval this will
now be required prior to
occupancy of Phase 1B.

Pay applicable PFF fees. No. This requirement was
already satisfied and is no
longer applicable to the
project.
-- -- --
Provide an analysis demonstrating that there is
adequate parking and on-site circulation, for each
phase.

Yes . The 2004 MND
required this for both
Phase 1 and Phase 2 and it
will also be applicable to
the Phase 1A and Phase
1B components.

XX XX

3900 Fifth Avenue, Suite 310 | San Diego, CA 92103 | (619) 795-6086 www.ChenRyanMobility.com

August 15, 2018

Mr. Jason Simmons
Consultants Collaborative
160 Industrial Street
Suite 200
San Marcos, CA 92078

Re: San Marcos Movie Studio – Traffic Analysis Memorandum

Dear Mr. Simmons,

The purpose of this Traffic Analysis Memorandum is to assess the potential transportation related impacts that may be associated with the San Marcos Movie Studio Project (Proposed Project).

Project Background
The previously approved traffic study conducted for the San Marcos Studios Project, prepared by Crain & Associates, 2003, stated that the development of the San Marcos Studios was scheduled to occur in two phases. Phase I would consist of the conversion of the existing onsite vacant MRF buildings to house the intended production, studio and office uses, 'including interior structural modifications to increase the useable floor area from approximately 194,500 to 213,361 square feet. Additionally, completion of Phase I was expected to occur in 2005. Phase II was to include the construction of a new six-story, 120,000 square foot office building and a multi-story parking structure capable of accommodating up to approximately 935 Vehicles.

The previous traffic study concluded that after completion and occupancy, Phase I of the project could generate approximately, 775 net new daily trips, including 101 (91-inbound, 10 outbound) new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 101 net new trips (20 inbound, 81 outbound) occurring during the PM peak hour. At full buildout, the project could generate approximately 1,857 net new daily trips, including 242 net new trips (218 inbound; 24 outbound) during the AM peak hour and 242 net new trips (48 inbound, 194 outbound) during the PM peak hour.

Page 2 of 32 ends

San Marcos City CouncilJuly 26, 2022

San Marcos City Council
July 26, 2022