SP19-0001 Attachment D Mitigated Neg Dec — San Marcos City Council, January 24, 2023

Final
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
and Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Montiel Road Office Project
San Marcos, California

Prepared for
City of San Marcos
Development Services Department
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069

Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333

RECON Number 9257
October 2022

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letters of Comments and Responses ............................................................ RTC-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................... MMRP-1

1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ........................................................ 2

3.0 Project Description ......................................................................................... 3

4.0 Initial Study Checklist ................................................................................. 11

4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................. 14

4.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 16

4.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................... 20

4.5 Cultural Resources............................................................................................. 23

4.6 Energy ................................................................................................................ 29

4.7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................... 30

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 34

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................... 35

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................... 40

4.11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 43

4.12 Mineral Resources.............................................................................................. 44

4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................... 45

4.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................... 48

4.15 Public Services ................................................................................................... 49

4.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................... 52

4.17 Transportation ................................................................................................... 53

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 61

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................... 63

4.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................... 66

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................. 68

5.0 Determination and Preparers .................................................................... 70

6.0 Sources Consulted ......................................................................................... 71

FIGURES
1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................ 7 2: Project Location on USGS Map ....................................................................................... 8 3: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ........................................................................... 9 4: Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 10 Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
TABLES
1: Summary of Worst-case Construction Emissions ........................................................ 18 2: Summary of Project Operational Emissions ................................................................ 18 3: Regulatory Records Review ........................................................................................... 39 4: HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Properties ................................................................. 46 5: Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 47 6: Traffic Impact Significance Thresholds ........................................................................ 55 7: County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance—Transportation and Traffic .................................................................................................................... 55 8: Existing Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 56 9: Existing Intersection Operations .................................................................................. 56 10: Existing Street Segment Operations ............................................................................ 57 11: Existing Street Segment Operations ............................................................................ 57 12: Near-Term Intersection Operations ............................................................................. 58 13: Near-Term Street Segment Operations ....................................................................... 58 14: Year 2035 Intersection Operations ............................................................................... 59 15: Year 2035 Street Segment Operations ......................................................................... 60

APPENDICES
A: Air Quality Analysis
B: Cultural Resources Survey
C: Historic Building Evaluation
D: Geotechnical Report
E: CAP Checklist
F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report
G: Hydrology Study
H: S tormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP)
I: Noise Analysis
J: Traffic Impact Analysis
K: Project Plans
L: Montiel Corporate Center Specific Plan

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration RTC-1
Montiel Road Office Building Project Final IS/MND
Letters of Comment and Responses
The Draft IS/MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review comment period, beginning in December 2021 and ending January 2022. The following letters of comment were received from agencies and organizations during the public review period. A copy of each comment letter followed by the corresponding responses are included here. Some of the comments received resulted in changes to the Draft MND text. These text changes are indicated by strikeout (deleted) and underline (inserted) markings in the Final IS/MND text. Revisions to the Draft IS/MND are intended to correct minor discrepancies and provide additional clarification. The revisions do not affect the conclusions of the document.

Letter Author Page
A California Department of Transportation– Letter 1 RTC-2 B California Department of Transportation – Letter 2 RTC-8 C City of Escondido RTC-13
D San Diego County Archaeology Society RTC-15

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS -240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 709-5152 | FAX (619) 688- 4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Jan
uary 13, 2022
11-SD-15, 78
PM VAR
Montiel Road Office Project
MND/SCH#2021120298
Ms. Saima Qureshy
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marco, CA 92069
Dear
Ms. Qureshy:

Thank
you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Montiel Road Office Project located near Interstate 5 (I-5). The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.

Saf
ety is one of Caltrans’ strategic goals. Caltrans strives to make the year 2050 the first year without a single death or serious injury on California’s roads. We are striving for more equitable outcomes for the transportation network’s diverse users. To achieve these ambitious goals, we will pursue meaningful collaboration with our partners. We encourage the implementation of new technologies, innovations, and best practices that will enhance the safety on the transportation network.

These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and
their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work.

Cal
trans is committed to prioritizing projects that are equitable and provide meaningful benefits to historically underserved communities, to ultimately improve transportation accessibility and quality of life for people in the communities we serve.

We
look forward to working with the City of San Marcos in areas where the City and Caltrans have joint jurisdiction to improve the transportation network and connections between various modes of travel, with the goal of improving the experience of those who use the transportation system.

A-1
Letter A
RTC-2
Ms. Saima Qureshy
January 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Caltrans has the following comments:

Hy
drology and Drainage Studies
Caltrans generally does not allow development projects to impact hydraulics within the State’s Right-of-Way. Any modification to the existing Caltrans drainage and/or increase in runoff to State facilities will not be allowed. • Pr
ovide off site hydrology and hydraulics studies, proposed drainage and proposed grading plans for Caltrans to review.
• Provide pre-development and post-development hydrology map with drainage areas.
• Provide proposed drainage profile and calculation with HGL and EGL lines.
• Provide a Drainage Study showing 100-year storm event calculations and 25- year storm event calculations.
• Provide on-site hydrology and hydraulic studies per the Highway Design Manual methodologies and per Caltrans policies and procedures. • On all plans, show Caltrans’ R/W and State Route 78 (SR-78) centerline with stationing.

Com
plete Streets and Mobility Network
Ca
ltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation network. Caltrans supports improved transit accommodation through the provision of Park and Ride facilities, improved bicycle and pedestrian access and safety improvements, signal prioritization for transit, bus on shoulders, ramp improvements, or other enhancements that promotes a complete and integrated transportation network. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations that may affect both Caltrans and the City of San Marcos is encouraged.

To r
educe greenhouse gas emissions and achieve California’s Climate Change target, Caltrans is implementing Complete Streets and Climate Change policies into State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects to meet multi-modal A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
RTC-3
Ms. Saima Qureshy
January 13, 2022

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” mobility needs. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City to evaluate potential Complete Streets projects.

Lan
d Use and Smart Growth
Ca
ltrans recognizes there is a strong link between transportation and land use.

Development can have a significant impact on traffic and congestion on State transportation facilities. In particular, the pattern of land use can affect both local vehicle miles traveled and the number of trips. Caltrans supports collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional, interconnected, multi-modal transportation network integrated through applicable “smart growth” type land use planning and policies.

The
City should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement necessary improvements at intersections and interchanges where the agencies have joint jurisdiction.

Noise
The
applicant must be informed that in accordance with 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 772, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is not responsible for existing or future traffic noise impacts associated with the existing configuration of I-15 and/or SR-78.

Glar
e
Th
e proximity of the project site to SR-78 raises some concerns regarding potential glare that could pose a potential risk to motorists traveling on SR- 78.

The project’s potential glare characteristics should be considered as part of the City’s Permit approval. Caltrans would want to ensure that all lighting, including reflected sunlight and reflected night lighting, within this project should be placed and/or shielded so as not to be hazardous to vehicles traveling on SR-78.

Env
ironmental
Ca
ltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ R/W through the form of an encroachment A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
RTC-4
Ms. Saima Qureshy
January 13, 2022

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” permit process. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation measure for our R/W.

An
encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant must provide approved final environmental documents for this project, corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource agency permits. Specifically, CEQA determination or exemption. The supporting documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures.

We
recommend that this project specifically identifies and assesses potential impacts caused by the project or impacts from mitigation efforts that occur within Caltrans’ R/W that includes impacts to the natural environment, infrastructure including but not limited to highways, roadways, structures, intelligent transportation systems elements, on-ramps and off-ramps, and appurtenant features including but not limited to lighting, signage, drainage, guardrail, slopes, and landscaping.

Br
oadband
Ca
ltrans recognizes that teleworking and remote learning lessen the impacts of traffic on our roadways and surrounding communities. This reduces the amount of VMT and decreases the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. The availability of affordable and reliable, high speed broadband is a key component in supporting travel demand management and reaching the state’s transportation and climate action goals.

Ri
ght-of-Way
• Pe
r Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments by a licensed land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any construction. • Any work performed within Caltrans’ R/W will require discretionary review and approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W prior to construction.

Ad
ditional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158 or emailing [email protected] or by visiting the website at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic -operations/ep. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits.

A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
RTC-5
Ms. Saima Qureshy
January 13, 2022

Page 5 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If y
ou have any questions or concerns, please contact Kimberly Dodson, LDR Coordinator, at (619) 985-1587 or by e-mail sent to [email protected].

Sinc
erely,
Maurice A. Eaton

MAURICE EATON
Branch Chief
Local Development Review
RTC-6
Responses to Comments - Montiel Road Office Building Project Letter A – Caltrans Letter 1 (January 13, 2022)
A-1 This introductory language is in regards to the content of this comment letter. The language does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND.

A-2 – A-7 A grading plan and hydrology study addressing these issues has been prepared for the project and will be provided to Caltrans. There would be no change in the pre- and post -development runoff volumes for the site as the post -development stormwater runoff incremental increase will be mitiga ted through the on-site infiltration and/or retention features incorporated into the project design. The treated site runoff will then be discharged into Caltrans’ right-of-way (ROW), and riprap within the ROW is proposed to mitigate the potential for erosion at the point of discharge.

A-8 These Caltrans policies are acknowledged and the City of San Marcos will continue to coordinate with Caltrans regarding access, mobility, and complete street multi- modal opportunities as they arise.

A-9 Comment noted as the City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans regarding this issue.

A-10 Comment noted as the City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans regarding this issue.

A-11 This comment regarding glare is acknowledged. However, reflective materials are not proposed for the project and would not pose glare issues with motorists on SR-

78. In addition, lighting proposed under the project would be guided by standards set by the C ity, which requires downward directed light emitting diode (LED) lighting, except for specialized streetscape lighting or architectural detail lighting.

These requirements aid in the preservation of dark ‐sky conditions. Development of the project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting standards, and the location, t ype, and direction of the lighting would be reviewed during Improvement Plan review to ensure compliance.

A-12 The project applicant acknowledges the need to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to construction for the proposed drainage outlet and riprap within the Caltrans ROW. As noted above, there would be no change in the pre - and post- development runoff volumes for the site and in the Caltrans ROW. The need to obtain an encroachment permit has been included in the Final MND. Caltrans has also been identified as a responsible agency on page 5 of the Final MND.

A-13 This comment regarding broadband is acknowledged.

A-14 This comment regarding surveyor requirements is acknowledged.

A-15 See Response to Comment A-12 above.

A-16 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND.

RTC-7
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS -240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 709-5152 | FAX (619) 688- 4299 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Mar
ch 29, 2022
11-SD-15, 78
PM VAR
Montiel Office Building
Plan Set
Mr. Jamie Looney
Unite Pacific Inc./EPS Group
993-C S. Santa Fe Ave. PMB #130
Vista, CA 92083
Dear
Mr. Looney:

Thank
you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the development review process for the Montiel Office Building Project located near Interstate 15 (I-15) and State Route 78 (SR-78). The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.

These pursuits are both ambitious and urgent, and
their accomplishment involves a focused departure from the status quo as we continue to institutionalize safety in all our work.

Hydr
ology and Drainage Studies
• Plans show pavement is being proposed in site location that is initially draining to Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (R/W). Additional pavement will increase the runoff draining to State R/W. A hydrology report is required to determine if post development runoff does not exceed predevelopment runoff. Caltrans’ Hydraulics Branch will not approve drainage proposals without review of a Hydrology and Hydraulics study.

Letter B
B-1
B-2
RTC-8
Mr. Jamie Looney
March 29, 2022

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” • Please provide off site hydrology and hydraulics studies, proposed drainage and proposed grading plans for Caltrans to review. o Provide drainage plans and details. Provide existing
and proposed drainage facilities.
o Provide existing and proposed 2-foot contour grading
with legible call outs.
o Include detention basin details of inlets/outlet and
proposed basin grading, include in detention basin
calculations:
 Plan schematic
 Elevation vs storage tables
 Elevation vs area tables
 Elevation vs outlet flow (stage - outflow)
 Inflow vs outflow
 Elevation vs time (stage - time)
 Volume vs time (storage - time)
• Provide a Drainage Study showing 100-year storm event calculations and 25- year storm event calculations.
• Provide on-site hydrology and hydraulic studies per the Highway Design Manual methodologies and per Caltrans policies and procedures.
o Provide all available Caltrans drainage facility as-built and R/W Maps.
o Provide survey data of onsite system that the
development will be draining to.
• On all plans, show Caltrans’ R/W and SR-78 centerline. • Caltrans generally does not allow development projects to impact hydraulics within the State’s Right-of-Way. Any modification to the existing Caltrans drainage and/or increase in runoff to State facilities will not be allowed.
• Early coordination with Caltrans is recommended.
• Please remove rip rap proposed on Caltrans’ R/W.

B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
RTC-9
Mr. Jamie Looney
March 29, 2022

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Environmental
Ca
ltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ R/W through the form of an encroachment permit process. We look forward to the coordination of our efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation measure for our R/W.

Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158 or emailing [email protected]
or by visiting the website at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic -operations/ep. Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment permits.

B-11
B-12
B-13
RTC-10
Mr. Jamie Looney
March 29, 2022

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Kimberly Dodson, LDR Coordinator, at (619) 985-1587 or by e-mail sent to [email protected].

Sin
cerely,
Maurice A. Eaton
MA

URICE EATON
Branch Chief
Local Development Review
cc:

Saima Qureshy, City of San Marcos
B-14
RTC-11
Responses to Comments - Montiel Road Office Building Project Letter B – Caltrans Letter 2 (March 29, 2022)
B-1 This introductory language is in regards to the content of this comment letter. The language does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND.

B-2 A grading plan and hydrology report addressing these issues has been prepared for the project and will be provided to Caltrans. There would be no change in the pre- and post- development runoff volumes for the site as although the post - development stormwater runoff is greater than the pre-development runoff, it will be mitigated through the on -site infiltration and/or retention. The treated site runoff will then be discharged into Caltrans ROW).

B-3 – B-7 An Hydrology Study was prepared which was provided to Caltrans. These comments are acknowledged and the study addressed each of the comments provided by Caltrans. The Hydrology Study and a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) have been included as part of the Final MND for the project.

B-8 Comment noted and the City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans during the processing of the encroachment permit.

B-9 The riprap within the Caltrans ROW has been removed from the project plans.

B-10 This comment regarding future traffic noise associate d with the existing configuration of SR-78 is acknowledged.

B-11 The project applicant acknowledges the need to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to construction of any improvements within the Caltrans ROW. There is no change in the pre - and post-development runoff volumes for the site and in the Caltrans ROW. The need to obtain an Encroachment Permit has been included in the Final MND.

B-12 This comment regarding surveyor requirements and work performed within Caltrans ROW is acknowledged.

B-13 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND.

B-14 Comment noted. This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND.

RTC-12
Adam Finestone, AICP
Interim Director of Community Development
Planning Division
201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025
Phone: 760-839-4671 Fax: 760-839-4313
December 30, 2021
Saima Qureshy
Principal Planner
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069-2918
Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration – ND21-005 (Montiel Road office building) 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road (APNs: 228-370-20-00 and 228-370-39-00) Dear Ms. Qureshy:

Thank you for including the City of Escondido in the environmental review process for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the proposed Montiel Road office project. The City of Escondido has the following comments on the draft MND:

Transportion

1. Add additional information regarding how the circulat ion from the project’s internal driveway to the neighboring property would be utilized and why it is needed.

2. How many trips are anticipated to enter/exit from the neighboring property driveway.

3. Will on-street parking in Escondido need to be removed to meet sight distance requirements at the eastern driveway?

4. Describe any improvements being made in the City of Escondido. If improvements are required, please note them in the project description (Other Required Agency Approvals or Permits Required) on page 4.

If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Eddmond Alberto, Traffic Engineer, at 760-839-4541 or via email at [email protected], or myself at 760-839- 4671 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Adam Finestone
Adam Finestone, AICP
Interim Director of Community Development
cc: Eddmond Alberto, Traffic Engineer
Jay Paul, Senior Planner
Letter C
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
RTC-13
Responses to Comments - Montiel Road Office Building Project Letter C – City of Escondido
C-1 The internal circulation driveway with the property to the east is provided as an ancillary access to facilitate circulation between the two properties. Both properties are owned by the same entity and an access license agreement allows accessory movement between the properties. In doing so, both vehicle trips and pedestrian use would be removed from Montiel Road to access each of the adjoining parcels. The access between parcels is anticipated to be used mostly by the occupants of the church on Sundays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the number of trips between the parcels that would use the internal driveway access is expected to be minimal or non -existent Monday through Friday. The main purpose of the driveway is to provide a connection between the properties that would allow shared parking use of the project’s parking lot during church services on Sunday mornings between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m.C-2 The number of trips between the parcels that would use the internal driveway access is expected to be minimal or non-existent during the week. The main purpose of the driveway is to provide a connection between the properties that would allow shared parking use of the project’s parking lot during church services on Sunday. The number of trips will be based on attendance at the church. Additional trips beyond what is already accommodated on the site and adjacent side streets are not expected and significant traffic impacts have not been identified. Also, per the licensing agreement between the properties, there is no limitation implied or required regarding the access. As noted, the need for access is expected to be limited to primarily Sundays, and signage is not proposed or considered necessary. The project applicant anticipates that safety on the adjacent property and nearby side streets would benefit from the improved vehicle circulation and reduction of number of pedestrians walking along Montiel Road without sidewalks.

Also, there is no need for a gate between the parcels just as there is no gate between large commercial properties that have multiple buildings with adjoining parcels. The access will be open and easy to navigate, and there is no reason to make the access "
limited" in any way. There will be "typical" signage identifying the buildings on the parcels. The anticipated number of tr ips is 100 between the hours of 7 a.m. and 2 p.m.

C-3 Removal of on-street parking in Escondido east of the eastern driveway on Montiel Road is not proposed for sight distance purposes. Any parking removal on Montiel Road in the city of Escondido would be accomplished at the discretion of the City.

C-4 No improvements in the city of Escondido are proposed and impacts have not been identified that would require improvements. Specifically, the alignment of the street is not impacted. The curb line is improved on the San Marcos side to align perfectly with the existing sidewalk and curb line in Escondido.

RTC-14
• ~\£CO Cov
~ +> .,... ~
~=:::::~;;-,- · ~ San ~iego County Archaeological Society, Inc. ~ c:: \ir ~ Envirnnmental Review Committee
C, '
~ ~ . "f'o ~o 15January2022
toc,c-.'-
To:

Subject:

Ms. Saima Qureshy , Principal Planner
Development Services Department
City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Montiel Commercial Project
SP19-0001, SDP19-0003, ND21-005
Dear Ms. Qureshy:

I have reviewed the subject DMND on behalf of this committee of the San Diego County Archaeological Society.

Based on the information contained in the DMND and the cultural resources assessment for the project, we agree with the impact analysis and the recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring program.

Thank you for providing SDCAS with the opportunity to participate in the public review of the environmental documents for the project.
cc: RECON
SDCAS President
File
Sincerely ,
~~
Environmental Review Committee
P.O. Box 81106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 (858) 538-0935
,
Letter D
D-1
RTC-15
Responses to Comments - Montiel Road Office Building Project Letter D – San Diego County Archaeology Society
D-1 The commenter agrees with the impact analysis and the recommended archaeological and Native American monitoring program. This comment does not raise an issue related to the adequacy of the analysis contained within the Draft IS/MND.

RTC-16
Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration MMRP-1
Montiel Road Office Building Project Final IS/MND
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

The following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies measures that specifically apply to this project. The table below includes the mitigation number, description, timeframe of mitigation, monitoring, enforcement, and reporting responsibility.

MMRP-2
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
Biological Resources
BIO-1 In order to begin grading or construction activities within the nesting season, a nesting survey from a qualified biologist must be submitted to the Planning Division to verify there are no active nests on the subject site. This survey must be submitted prior to any disturbance or impact of the site. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans along with a minimum of a 25-foot buffer and up to a maximum buffer of 300 feet for raptors, as determined by the project biologist, and shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. The no-work buffer should be maintained until the end of the breeding season or until surveys by a qualified biologist confirm that fledglings are no longer dependent on the nest.

Prior to grading the site or
causing any impact to the site,
grading and/or construction
activities on-site must be
avoided during the nesting
season (pursuant to the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act)
which extends from February 1
to September 15 to prevent
potential impacts to nesting of
any migratory, songbirds, or
raptors.

City of San
Marcos
Cultural Resources
CR-1: Pre-Excavation
Agreement
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner shall enter into a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Repatriation Agreement (Pre-Excavation Agreement) with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American Tribe (TCA Tribe), identified in consultation with the City.

The purpose of the Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be to formalize protocols and procedures between the Applicant/Owner and the TCA Tribe for the protection, treatment, and repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, cultural and/or religious landscapes, ceremonial items, traditional gathering areas, and other tribal cultural resources. Such resources may be located within and/or discovered during ground disturbing and/or construction activities for the proposed project, including any additional culturally appropriate archaeological studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground disturbing activities.

Any project-specific monitoring plans and/or excavation plans prepared by the project archaeologist shall include the TCA Tribe requirements for protocols and protection of tribal cultural resources that were agreed to during the tribal consultation.

Prior to the issuance of a
Grading Permit, or ground
disturbing activities.

Applicant/Owner
and City of San
Marcos

MMRP-3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all non-burial related tribal cultural resources collected during construction monitoring and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the TCA Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The requirement and timing of such release of ownership, and the recipient thereof, shall be reflected in the Pre-Excavation Agreement. If the TCA Tribe does not accept the return of the cultural resources, then the cultural resources will be subject to curation.

CR-2: Construction
Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor shall provide written documentation (either as signed letters, contracts, or emails) to the City’s Planning Division stating that a Qualified Archaeologist and Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American monitor (TCA Native American monitor) have been retained at the Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor’s expense to implement the construction monitoring program, as described in the Pre-Excavation Agreement.

The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be invited to attend all applicable pre-construction meetings with the General Contractor and/or associated subcontractors to present the construction monitoring program. The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on-site during grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground disturbing activities that occur in areas of native soil or other permeable natural surfaces that have the potential to unearth any evidence of potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources. In areas of artificial paving, the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on-site during grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground disturbing activities that have the potential to disturb more than six inches below the original pre-project ground surface to identify any evidence of potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources. No monitoring of fill material, existing or imported, will be required if the General Contractor Prior to the issuance of a
Grading Permit or ground
disturbing activities.

Applicant/Owner,
Grading
Contractor

MMRP-4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
or developer can provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City that all fill materials being utilized at the site are either: (1) from existing commercial (previously permitted) sources of materials; or (2) are from private or other non-commercial sources that have been determined to be absent of tribal cultural resources by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor.

The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall maintain ongoing collaborative coordination with one another during all ground disturbing activities. The requirement for the construction monitoring program shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including demolition plans, grading plans, etc. The Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor shall provide written notice to the Planning Division and the TCA Tribe, preferably through e-mail, of the start and end of all ground disturbing activities.

Once approved, a final copy of the archaeological monitoring report shall be retained in a confidential City project file and may be released, as a formal condition of AB 52 consultation, to TCA Tribe or any parties involved in the project specific monitoring or consultation process. A final copy of the report, with all confidential site records and appendices, will also be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center after approval by the City.

CR-3: Unanticipated
Discovery Procedures

Both the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor may temporarily halt or divert ground disturbing activities if potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction activities. Ground disturbing activities shall be temporarily directed away from the area of discovery for a reasonable amount of time to allow a determination of the resource’s potential During ground disturbing
activities.

Qualified
Archaeologist
and the TCA
Native American
monitor

MMRP-5
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
significance. Isolates and clearly non-significant archaeological resources (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native American monitor) will be minimally documented in the field. All unearthed archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources will be collected, temporarily stored in a secure location (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction.

If a determination is made that the archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are considered potentially significant by the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor, then the City and the TCA Tribe shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant/Owner and the Qualified Archaeologist, the culturally appropriate treatment of those resources.

If the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor cannot agree on the significance or mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Division Manager for decision. The Planning Division Manager shall make a determination based upon the provisions of CEQA and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) with respect to archaeological resources and California Public Resources Section 21704 and 21084.3 with respect to tribal cultural resources, and shall take into account the religious beliefs, cultural beliefs, customs, and practices of the TCA Tribe.

MMRP-6
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
and the TCA Tribe. The TCA Tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the determination and implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation and the drafting and finalization of any ethnographic study and/or data recovery plan, and/or other culturally appropriate mitigation. Any archaeological isolates or other cultural materials that cannot be avoided or preserved in place as the preferred mitigation shall be temporarily stored in a secure location on-site (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will be inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American monitor.

If a data recovery plan is authorized as indicated above and the TCA Tribe does not object, then an adequate artifact sample to address research avenues previously identified for sites in the area will be collected using professional archaeological collection methods. If the Qualified Archaeologist collects such resources, the TCA Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Moreover, if the Qualified Archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the TCA Native American monitor may, at their discretion, collect said resources for later reburial or storage at a local curation facility, as described in the Pre-Excavation Agreement.

The City shall provide the Applicant/Owner final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the grading permit, if applicable, during project construction. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible for all repatriation and curation costs and provide to the City written documentation from the TCA Tribe or the curation

MMRP-7
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
facility, whichever is most applicable, that the repatriation and/or curation have been completed.

CR-4: Human Remains

As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found on the project site during ground disturbing activities or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the Medical Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.

If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by State law, the Medical Examiner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Medical Examiner recognizes the remains to be Native American, and not under his or her jurisdiction, then he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent, who shall be afforded 48 hours from the time access is granted to the discovery site to make recommendations regarding culturally appropriate treatment.

Applicant/Owner,
Grading
Contractor

MMRP-8
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for the Montiel Road Office Project
Mitigation Measure Description Timeframe of Mitigation
Monitoring,
Enforcement,
and Reporting
Responsibility
reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). In the event that the Applicant/Owner and the Most Likely Descendant are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, state law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a location free from future disturbance (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

Public Services
PS-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD 2001-01 (Fire and Paramedic).

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

Applicant/Owner
PS-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD 98-01 Improvement Area No. 1 (Police). Participation in the CFD would offset the cost of increases in necessary police protection services resulting from implementation of the proposed project and impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit.

Applicant/Owner
Tribal Cultural Resources
See Mitigation
Measures CR-1, CR-2,
and CR-3
See above See above See above

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 1 ends

1.0 Introduction
This Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/ MND) has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended , and the CEQA Guidelines, as revised. This IS/M ND evaluates the environmental effects of the Montiel Road Office Project (project).

The IS/MND includes the following components:
• A Draft MND and the formal findings made by the City of San Marcos (City) that the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment, as identified in the CEQA IS Checklist.
• A detailed project description.
• The CEQA IS Checklist, which provides standards to evaluate the potential for significant environmental impacts from the project, and is adapted from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The project is evaluated in 19 environmental issue categories to determine whether the project’s environmental impacts would be significant in any category. Brief discussions are provided that further substantiate the project’s anticipated environmental impacts in each category.

Because the project fits into the definition of a “project” under Public Resources Code Section 21065 requiring discretionary approvals by the City, and because it could result in a significant effect on the environment, the project is subject to CEQA review. The IS Checklist was prepared to determine the appropriate environmental document to satisfy CEQA requirements: an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration ( ND). The analysis in this IS Checklist supports the conclusion that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts.

This IS/MND will be circulated for 30 days for public and agency review, during which time individuals and agencies may submit comments on the adequacy of the environmental review. Following the public review period, the City Council will consider any comments received on the IS/MND when deciding whether to adopt the IS/MND.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project Page 2

2.0 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Name: Montiel Road OfficeProject Location: 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California. Assessor parcel numbers 228-370-2000 and 228-370-3900. Project Description: The Montiel Road Office project proposes the construction of a 32,969-square-foot administrative office building and parking lot on a 2.6-acre currently developed site located at 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road in the city of San Marcos. Findings: Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and based on information contained in the attached IS Checklist, the City of San Marcos has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. ________________________________________________ _______________________ Signature of Lead Agency Representative Date Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 3 ends

3.0 Project Description

1. Project:

Montiel Road Office

2. Lead Agency:

City of San Marcos
Development Services Department, Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069-2918

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Saima Qureshy, Principal Planner
City of San Marcos, Planning Division
760-744-1050
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The Montiel Road Office project (project) is located in the city of San Marcos, California, north of State Route 78 (SR-78) along Montiel Road at 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road on assessor parcel numbers 228-370-2000 and 228-370-3900. The project site is bounded by existing development to the east and west, and by Montiel Road to the north and SR-78 to the south.

The existing development to the east is in the jurisdiction of the city of Escondido.

5. Project Applicant/Sponsor:

RJ Realty Investors LLC/North Coast Church
Contact: Rick Gittings/Jamie Looney

6. General Plan Designation:

Specific Plan Area (SPA)

7. Zoning:

Specific Plan Area (SPA)

8. Description of Project:

The approximately 2.6-acre project site is currently developed with two single -family dwelling units located at 2355 and 2375 Montiel Road in the city of San Marcos. Single-family residential uses are located north and northeast of the project site, and commercial uses are located west/northwest an d east/southeast of the project site. The regional location of the Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 4 ends

project site is shown on Figure 1 . The project site is mapped on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) map on Figure 2 and an aerial photograph of the project site is shown on Figure 3.

The project would demolish the existing on-site uses and construct a 32,969-square-foot two- story office building and parking. Figure 4 shows the proposed site plan. The proposed project plans can be found in Appendix K. The first floor would consist of 15,712 square feet, complete with a lobby, a “café” area with outdoor seating, bathrooms, mechanical and elevator areas, and three individual office areas available for lease. The second floor would consist of 17,252 square feet, complete with four individual office areas available for lease, bathroom, and mechanical and elevator areas. The second floor would also contain an outdoor deck area above the main entrance to the building.

The discretionary approvals necessary for the project include a Specific Plan and S ite Development Plan. Subsequent to the City approval, an Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans ) would be required as runoff from the project would drain into the Caltrans SR-78 right-of-way.

Parking and Site Access
Access to the project site would be located along Montiel Road, and internal driveways would be constructed to allow for vehicular access to the office building and the proposed on -site surface parking lot.

On-site surface parking would be configured in order to accommodate the proposed buildings, resulting in a total of 171 parking stalls, for a ratio of 5.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, which would be consistent with the requirements set forth in the San Marcos Code Chapter 20.340, Off-Street Parking and Loading requirements.

Grading
The project site is relatively flat and minimal grading would be required to implement the proposed office building and parking. Grading would be balanced on-site. The creation of manufactured slopes and use of retaining walls would not be required.

Utilities and Drainage
The project site is currently developed with existing water, sewer or storm drain utility lines which would be upgraded to accommodate the proposed project . Runoff from the project site would continue to drain into the Caltrans SR-78 right-of-way and an Encroachment Permit would be required by Caltrans.

Surrounding Land Use(s) and Project Setting:

The project site is bounded by existing development to the east and west, and by Montiel Road to the north and SR-78 to the south. Single -family residential uses are located north and northeast of the project site, and commercial uses are located west/northwest and east/southeast of the project site.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 5 ends

9. Other Required Agency Approvals or Permits Required:

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Caltrans Encroachment Permit.

None required.

10. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? The City has notified the following tribes in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1: San Luis Rey B and of Mission Indians (SLR), Rincon Band of Luise no Indians, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians. Two of the tribes have formally requested consultation as of the date of this document. The consultation process is ongoing and further discussed under Section 4.18 of this document below.

11. Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Hazards &
Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural
Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 6 ends

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency)

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

The proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

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

FIGURE 1
Regional Location
kj

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR
Daley Ranch
Los Penasquitos
Canyon Presv
Mission Trails
Regional
Park
Cleveland NF
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
El Capitan
Reservoir
San Vicente
Reservoir
Sweetwater
Reservoir
S
a
n
Di e g u i t o
R
i v e r
S a
n
Lu i s
R e y
R
i v e r
S
an
Di e g u i t o
R
i v e r
S a n t a
Y s a b
e
l
C r e e k
S
w
e
e
tw
a
t er
R
i v
e
r
E
s
c on d
id
o
C
r ee k
S a n D i e g o
R i v e r
Jamul Indian
Village
San
Pasqual
Reservation
Rincon Reservation
Sycuan
Reservation
La Jolla Reservation
Barona
Reservation
Valley Center
Bostonia
Casa
de Oro-Mount
Helix
Crest
Fairbanks
Ranch
Granite Hills
Harbison
Canyon
Hidden
Meadows
Jamul
Lake
San Marcos
Lakeside
La Presa
Ramona
Rancho
San Diego
Rancho
Santa Fe
Spring
Valley
Winter Gardens
UV163
UV78
UV54
UV56
UV76
UV75
UV125
UV67
UV94
UV52
§¨¦8
§¨¦805
§¨¦15
§¨¦5

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La
Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Vista
kj

USMC AIR

STATION

MIRAMAR

USMC AIR

STATION

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Coronado
Del
Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La
Mesa
Lemon
Grove
National City
Oceanside
Poway
San Diego
San Marcos
Santee
Solana
Beach
Vista
0 5 Miles [
M:\JOBS5\9257\common_gis\fig1.mxd 2/20/2019 bma

SAN DIEGO

RIVERSIDE

SAN BERNARDINO
ORANGE
MEXICO
Project Locationkj
FIGURE 2
Project Location on USGS Map
Map Source: USGS 7.5 minute topographic map series, Valley Ce nter quadrangle, 1996, LOS VALLECITOS DE SAN MARCOS LAND GRANT 0 2,000 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9257\common_gis\fig2_env.mxd 8/28/2019 bma FIGURE 3
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
DEO
DAR RD

MONTIEL
RD
UV78
DEO
DAR RD

MONTIEL
RD
UV78
Image Source: Nearmap (flown June 2019)
0 100 Feet [
Project Boundary
M:\JOBS5\9257\common_gis\fig3_env.mxd 8/28/2019 bma /g49/g50/g53/g55/g43
/;####################/;###################
/;####################/;####################
/;####################/;#######################
/;######################/;#########################
/;####################/;####################
/;#########################
/;####################/;######################
/;####################/;######################
/;####################/;######################
/;####################/;#####################
/;#######################
/;####################/;#########################
/;####################/;########################
/g47/g40/g36/g54/g40
/g54/g51/g36/g38/g40 /g54/g51/g44/g53/g44/g55
/g38/g36/g41/g40
/;####################/;###############/;############################/;########################/;###########################/;###/g56/g54/g41 /g41/g44/g53/g40
/g53/g44/g54/g40/g53
/g40/g47/g40/g38/g55/g53/g44/g38/g36/g47
/g53/g50/g50/g48
/g50/g56/g55/g39/g50/g50/g53/;###/g54/g40/g36/g55/g44/g49/g42 /g50/g56/g55/g39/g50/g50/g53/;###/g54/g40/g36/g55/g44/g49/g42 /g47/g40/g36/g54/g40
/g54/g51/g36/g38/g40
/g47/g40/g36/g54/g40
/g54/g51/g36/g38/g40
/g47/g50/g37/g37/g60
/g54/g55/g36/g44/g53/;###/;######/;##################### /g38/g50/g53/g53/g44/g39/g50/g53
/g48/g40/g49 /g55/g50/g44/g47/g40/g55
/g58/g50/g48/g40/g49 /g55/g50/g44/g47/g40/g55
/g40/;#################/g48/;#################/g53/;################# /g45/g36/g49/g44/g55/g50/g53 /g40/g47/g40/g57 /;####################/;########################/;###############/;##########################/;########################/;########################/;###/g54/g41 /g42/g40/g49/g40/g53/g36/g47/;###/g49/g50/g55/g40/g54
/g46/g40/g60/;###/g49/g50/g55/g40/g54
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g39/g46/g39/g37/g54/g52/g43/g37/;###
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g39/g46/g39/g37/g54/g52/g43/g37
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g39/g46/g39/g37/g54/g52/g43/g37
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g39/g46/g39/g37/g54/g52/g43/g37
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g39/g46/g39/g37/g54/g52/g43/g37
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g39/g46/g39/g37/g54/g52/g43/g37
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46 /g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46 /g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46 /g37/g35/g52/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46/;###/;################# /g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g35/g52/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46/;###/;################# /g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g35/g52/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46/;###/;################# /g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g35/g52/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46/;###/;################# /g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52 /g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52 /g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52 /g48/g49/;###/g50/g35/g52/g45/g43/g48/g41 /g48/g49/;###/g50/g35/g52/g45/g43/g48/g41 /g48/g49/;###/g50/g35/g52/g45/g43/g48/g41 /g48/g49/;###/g50/g35/g52/g45/g43/g48/g41 /g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g35/g48/;###/g50/g49/g49/g46
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39
/g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39 /g37/g46/g39/g35/g48/g196/g35/g43/g52
/g56/g39/g42/g43/g37/g46/g39
/g46/g49/g35/g38/g43/g48/g41/;###/;#################/;###/g55/g48/g46/g49/g35/g38/g43/g48/g41/;###/g60/g49/g48/g39 /g51/;#############################/g63/g49/g82/g85/g87/g75/;###/g38/g82/g68/g86/g87/;###/g38/g75/g88/g85/g70/g75/;###/g54/g68/g81/;###/g48/g68/g85/g70/g82/g86/g63/g51/g85/g72/;################/g36/g83/g83/;###/g54/g88/g69/g80/g76/g87/g87/g68/g79/;###/g51/g68/g70/g78/g68/g74/g72/g63/;####################/;###########################/;####################/;####################/;#########################/g66/g36/;####################/;#################/;####################/g66/g50/g89/g72/g85/g68/g79/g79/;###/g54/g76/g87/g72/;###/g51/g79/g68/g81/g66/g53/g72/g89/;####################/;#################/g71/g90/g74 /g77/g82/g75/g81/;#################/g68/g79/g89/g68/g85/g68/g71/g82/;###/g45/g88/g79/;###/;####################/;#####################/;###############/;#####################/;###################/;####################/;############################/;###/;################/;###/;#######################/;#############################/;###################/;############################/g83/g80 /g48/;#############################/g63/g45/g50/g37/g54/;########################/g63/;############################/;#####################/;########################/;##########################/g63/g72/g81/g89/g63/g74/g85/g68/g83/g75/g76/g70/g86/g63/g73/g76/g74/;#######################/;#################/g68/g76/;### /;###################/;###########################/;##################/;#####################/;####################/;##################/;####################/;############################/;### /g69/g80/g68 /g48/g68/g83/;###/g54/g82/g88/g85/g70/g72/;#############################/;###/g37/g88/g85/g74/g75/g68/g85/g71/;###/g39/g72/g86/g76/g74/g81/;###/g42/g85/g82/g88/g83/;###/g36/g85/g70/g75/g76/g87/g72/g70/g87/g86/;###############/;###/g44/g81/g70/;################# /g41/g44/g42/g56/g53/g40/;###/;#######################
/g54/g76/g87/g72/;###/g51/g79/g68/g81
Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 11 ends

4.0 Initial Study Checklist

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project specific factors as well as general standards.

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

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

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

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or (mitigated) negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D).

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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

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

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

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 12 ends

4.1 Aesthetics
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?

c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point).

If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a: Less than Significant Impact
The project site is generally surrounded by residential, commercial/office , and industrial development to the north, south, east, and west, as well as SR-78 directly to the south of the project site.

Scenic vistas within the city are primarily associated with primary and secondary ridgelines, which are identified by the City’s Ridgeline Protection a nd Management Overlay Zone , outlined within Chapter 20.260 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The City’s Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone aims to preserve Primary Ridgelines in their natural state, and to minimize visual impacts to Secondary Ridgelines through a “Ridgeline Overlay Zone” that protects natural view sheds, unique natural resources, minimizes the physical impacts to ridgelines, and establishes innovative site and architectural design standards. The project site is not located in the Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone. Further, the project site does not include any primary or secondary ridgelines, Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 13 ends

as identified on Figure 4‐5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.

The project site is not identified as a viewing platform location, or a scenic vista under the City’s General Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b. Less than Significant Impact
Scenic resources within the city include, but are not limited to, undeveloped hillsides; prominent landforms such as the San Marcos Mountains, Merriam Mountains, Mount Whitney, Cerro de La Posas, Double Peak, Owens Peak, and Franks Peak. Views from Twin Oaks Valley Road include the San Marcos Mountains and Merriam Mountains on the north; and Double Peak and Mount Whitney on the south. SR-78 is designated by the City as a view corridor and eligible as a state scenic highway. This highway corridor provides views of the Merriam Mountains, Mount Whitney, Double Peak, California State University San Marcos (CSUSM), and Palomar Community College. Other scenic resources within the city include, but are not limited to, creek corridors, eucalyptus stands, rock outcroppings, landmark or historic buildings, and ocean views. None of these identified undeveloped hillsides, prominent landforms, or other scenic resources are visible from or contained within the project site.

The project site is located adjacent to SR‐78. Although portions of SR‐78 are recognized as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), there are no designated state scenic highways or eligible state scenic highways within the city. Thus, no impact would occur.

At a local level, SR‐78 is designated by the City as a view corridor. The highway corridor provides views of the Merriam Mountains, Mount Whitney, and Double Peak. The project would not impact views to these peaks from SR -78, as these peaks would not be visible by passengers in cars travelling along SR -78 adjacent to the project site . The City also has a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone, which is designed to protect natural viewsheds and unique natural resources and minimize physical impacts to select primary and secondary ridgelines. These protected ridgelines are shown on Figure 4 ‐5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. Development of the proposed project is not proposed on any area identified as a primary or secondary ridgeline .

Additionally, the project site does not support any significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings as identified in or protected by the City’s General Plan. In summary, the project would not result in significant damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within the City or a State Scenic Highway.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Less than Significant Impact
The existing visual character in the project vici nity is a mix of residential, office, and commercial development. The area north of the project site contains single-family residential development, which is separated from the project site by Montiel Road. The parcels to the east and west of the project s ite contain existing office/commercial buildings ranging from one to two stories in height. The southern border of the project site is adjacent to SR-78.

The project site is relatively flat and has previously been graded . Natural vegetation is limited to ornamental plantings associating with the existing residential uses. The landform and visual character of the project site would be altered from single -family residential to an Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 14 ends

administrative office development; however, due to the presence of existing offi ce and commercial development surrounding the project site, project implementation would be consistent with the visual character of this area.

The use of the project site as an administrative office building would be consistent with the surrounding developments and visual character and quality of the area. Building heights would be limited to 37 feet, and all rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened by a corrugated metal panel.

As such, development of the project site would not result in the substantial degradation of the project site and its surroundings, and impacts would be less than significant. d. Less than Significant Impact
The project is surrounded by existing development that emits light, and the project would add lighting to a site that is currently developed with single-family residential uses. Lighting proposed under the project would be guided by standards set by the City, which requires downward directed light emitting diode (LED) lighting, except for specialized streetscape lighting or architectural detail lighting. These requirements aid in the preservation of dark ‐ sky conditions, which are needed by the local observatories. Development of the project would be required to comply with the City’s lighting standards, and the location, type, and direction of the lighting would be reviewed during Improvement Plan review to ensure compliance.

Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?

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

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 15 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
Section 1220[g]), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104[g])?

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

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The project site is not in agricultural use and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance based on both the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (DOC 2016) and Figure 4-4 of the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2013). Thus, no impact would occur. b. No Impact
The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. In addition, the project site is not located within a Williamson Act contract area (DOC 2014). Thus, no impact would occur. c. No Impact
The project site is zoned as Specific Plan Area. As such, the project site is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned for timberland production. Thus, no impact would occur.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 16 ends

d. No Impact
The project site consists of single-family residential buildings and disturbed habitat. There is no forest land that exists within the project site. Thus, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use, resulting in no impact. e. No Impact
The project site is surrounded by commercial, industria l, and residential development, as well as SR -87. The project site does not support any agricultural or forest land. Therefore, the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, resulting in no impact.

4.3 Air Quality
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?

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

c. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less than Significant Impact
An air quality analysis was prepared for the project by RECON Environmental, Inc. and is included as Appendix A to this IS/MND (RECON 2019a). The Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) is the applicable regional air quality plan that sets forth the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) strategies for achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is designated non -attainment for the federal and state ozone standard.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 17 ends

Accordingly, the RAQS was developed to identify feasible emission control measures and provide expeditious progress toward attaining the standards for o zone. The two pollutants addressed in the RAQS are reactive organic gas (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which are precursors to the formation of ozone. Projected increases in motor vehicle usage, population, and growth create challenges in controlling emissions and by extension to maintaining and improving air quality. The RAQS, in conjunction with the Transportation Control Measures (TCM), were most recently adopted in 2016 as the air quality plan for the region.

The growth projections used by the SDAP CD to develop the RAQS emissions budgets are based on the population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed in general plans and used by San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in the development of the regional transportation plans and sustai nable communities strategy. As such, projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by SANDAG’s growth projections and/or the general plan would not conflict with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development that is less dense than anticipated by the growth projections, the project would likewise be consistent with the RAQS. In the event a project proposes development that is greater than anticipated in the growth projections, further analysis would be warranted to determine if the project would exceed the growth projections used in the RAQS for the specific subregional area.

The project site is designated as a Specific Plan Area . The project would require adoption of a Specific Plan consistent with the Co mmercial zone requirement in Chapter 20.220 of the San Marcos Municipal Code (see Appendix L). However, while the project would require an amendment and generate emissions greater than those currently generated on-site, the project would not significantly alter the planned location, distribution, or growth of the human population in the area, as the project would not provide additional housing and would employ residents currently living in the region. The project would not result in an increase in population and housing stock. Additionally, as shown in Tables 1 and 2, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NO
X), 10-micron particulate matter (PM10), and 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM2.5) from construction and operation would be below the applicable thresholds.

The project would, therefore, not result in an increase in emissions that are not already accounted for in the RAQS. Thus, the project would not obstruct or conflict with implementation of the RAQS. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Less than Significant Impact
The region is classified as an attainment area for all criterion pollutants except ozone, PM10, and PM 2.5. The SDAB is a non-attainment area for the 8 -hour federal and state ozone standards. Ozone is not emitted directly, but is a result of atmospheric activity on precursors.

NO
X and ROG are known as the chief “precursors” of ozone. These compounds react in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. PM2.5 includes fine particles that are found in smoke and haze, and are emitted from all types of combustion activities (motor vehicles, power plants, wood burning, etc.) and certain industrial processes. PM 10 includes both fine and coarse dust particles, and sources include crushing or grinding operations and dust from paved or unpaved roads.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 18 ends

As shown in Tables 1 and 2, emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5 from construction and operation would be below the applicable thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of ozone, PM10, or PM2.5, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 1
Summary of Worst-case Construction Emissions
(pounds per day)
Construction
Emissions
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2 21 15 <1 2 1
Site Preparation 2 20 11 <1 2 1
Grading 2 21 10 <1 8 4
Building Construction 3 20 17 <1 2 1
Paving 2 12 12 <1 1 1
Architectural Coatings 4 2 2 <1 <1 <1
Maximum Daily Emissions 4 21 15 <1 8 4
Significance Threshold 250 250 550 250 100 67
SOURCE: Appendix A

Table 2
Summary of Project Operational Emissions
(pounds per day)
Source
Emissions
ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Sources 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy Sources <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile Sources 1 4 9 <1 2 1
Total 2 4 10 <1 2 1
Significance Threshold 250 250 550 250 100 67
SOURCE: Appendix A

c. Less than Significant Impact
Sensitive land uses include schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities. Sensitive receptors near the project site include residential uses.

Diesel Particulate Matter – Construction
Construction of the project and associated infrastructure would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on -site heavy -duty equipment. Construction of the project would result in the generation of diesel-exhaust diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities and on-road diesel equipment used to bring materials to and from the project site.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Construction is anticipated to last for approximately one year. The dose to which the Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 19 ends

receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 30 -year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015). Thus, if the duration of proposed construction activities near any specific sensitive receptor were one year, the exposure would be 3 percent of the total exposure period used for health risk calculation.

Therefore, DPM generated by project construction is not expected to create conditions where the probability is greater than 10 in 1 million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground- level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than 1 for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Additionally, with ongoing implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements for cleaner fuels; off-road diesel engine retrofits; and new, low -emission diesel engine types, the DPM emissions of individual equipment would be substantially reduced over the years as the p roject construction continues. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
A carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot is an area of localized CO pollution that is caused by severe vehicle congestion on major roadways, typically near intersections. CO hot spots have the potential to violate state and federal CO standards at intersections, even if the broader basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. The Caltrans’ Project- Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol indicates that CO hot spots occur nearly exclusively at signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F spot (U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies 1997).

Due to increased requirements for cl eaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels, CO levels in the state have dropped substantially. All air basins are attainment or maintenance areas for CO.

Therefore, more recent screening procedures based on more current methodologies have been developed. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) developed a screening threshold in 2011, which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 31,600 vehicles per hour or more will require detailed analysis. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District developed a screening threshold in 2010 which states that any project involving an intersection experiencing 44,000 vehicles per hour would require detailed analysis. This analysis conservatively assesses potential CO hot spots using the SMAQMD screening threshold of 31,600 vehicles per hour.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 20 ends

Based on the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project, in horizon year 2035 with the project, the following signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E or F (Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. [LLG] 2019):
• Nordahl Road/Center Drive (South) (PM Peak hour – LOS E) • Nordahl Road/SR-78 Westbound Ramps (PM Peak hour – LOS F) • Nordahl Road/ SR-78 Eastbound Ramps (AM and PM Peak hour – LOS F) • Mission Road/Auto Park Way (AM and PM Peak hour – LOS F) However, the traffic volumes at these intersections would be well less than 31,600 vehicles per hour. All other signalized intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better.

Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in a CO hot spot. d. Less than Significant Impact
The project does not include heavy industrial or agricultural uses that are typically associated with odor complaints. During construction, diesel equipment may generate some nuisance odors. Sensitive receptors near the project site include residential uses; however, exposure to odors associated with project construction would be short term and temporary in nature. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have substantial adverse effects,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the CDFW or
USFWS?

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 21 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?

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

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

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The project site is currently developed and is located in an urbanized area of the city. No sensitive vegetation communities occur within the project work area. The project site is mostly barren of vegetation, but does have some ornamental vegetation and mature trees.

Because ornamental vegetation and mature trees can provide nesting places for migratory bird species, removal of the on-site vegetation could result in a significant impact if it occurs during the breeding season. Pursuant to CDFW Code 3503, which protects nesting birds, implementation of mitigation measure BIO -1 would be requi red as a condition of project approval and would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. b. No Impact
The project site is currently developed and is located in an urbanized area of the city . The project site does not support any riparian hab itat nor does it support any sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). No impact would occur.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 22 ends

c. No Impact
The project site is currently developed. The project site does not support any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No impact would occur. d. No Impact
The project site is currently developed and is located in an urbanized area of the city. Further, the project site is not identified as being located within a wildlife corridor area, as depicted in Figure 4-2, Wildlife Corridors and Linkage, in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project would not 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 impeded the use of native wildlife nu rsery sites. No impact would occur.
e. No Impact
The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Existing ornamental vegetation would be removed during construction and new trees and landscaping would be planted. No impact would occur.
f. No Impact
The project site is not located within a Focused Planning Area of the City’s Draft Subarea Plan for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program nor is the project subject to a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) (Figure 4, Draft NCCP for the City of S an Marcos).

The project site is currently developed with ornamental vegetation. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Prior to grading the site or causing any impact to the site, grading and/or construction activities on-site must be avoided during the nesting season (pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) which extends from February 1 to September 15 to prevent potential impacts to nesting of any migratory, songbirds, or raptors. In order to begin grading or construction activities within the nesting season, a nesting survey from a qualified biologist must be submitted to the Planning Division to verify there are no active nests on the subject site. This survey must be submitted prior to any disturbance or impact of the site. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction p lans along with a minimum of a 25 -foot buffer and up to a maximum buffer of 300 feet for raptors, as determined by the project biologist, and shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete.

The no-work buffer should be maintained until the end of the breeding season or until surveys by a qualified biologist confirm that fledglings are no longer dependent on the nest.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 23 ends

4.5 Cultural Resources
Would the project:

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

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
A cultural resources survey was prepared for the project by RECON Environmental, Inc. and is included as Appendix B to this IS/MND (RECON 2019b). RECON conducted a self search of the records at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, which is a member of the California Historical Resources Information System. The search radius was one mile. A total of 25 cultural resources have been documented within one mile of the project boundary, including 5 historic period, 19 prehistoric period, and 1 with no site description. In addition, there are 24 historic addresses listed within the one -mile search radius.

On June 12, 2019, RECON Envi ronmental, Inc. conducted a historic building evaluation (Appendix C; RECON 2019c) requested by the City of San Marcos to determine the historical significance of the house at 2355 Montiel Road, which is greater than 50 years old. The other house on the project site is less than 50 years old. The survey determined the house to not be eligible as a historic resource per the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluative criteria requirements.

As there are no identified historical resources within the project site, the project would not affect properties outside of the project site , and 2355 Montiel Road was determined as not eligible for the CRHR, the project would not cause a substantial adverse chang e in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 24 ends

b. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Based on the cultural resources study prepared for the project, no archaeological re sources are known to occur on the project site (RECON 2019b). A total of 25 cultural resources have been documented within one -mile of the pr oject boundaries, including 5 hi storic period, 19 prehistoric period, and 1 with no site description. The closest recorded cultural resources are two single bedrock milling features, CA -SDI-16222 and CA -SDI-16223, mapped approximately one-half mile to the southeast of the project. CA-SDI-16222 consisted of three amorphous slicks on a small, low-lying granite boulder outcrop. CA-SDI-16223, the closer of the two, is composed of one amorphous slick on a low lying boulder. In addition, a total of 66 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one -mile radius of the project area, two of which included the project within their boundaries. One was a 1976 survey for the Richland Neighborhood study (report number SD-00225), and the second was a 2003 records search/literature search for the Vall ecitos Water District ( VWD; report number SD-14140).

None of the previous surveys identified or recorded archaeological resources within the project boundary.

Consultation discussions during the City’s monthly consultation meeting regarding the project status and project documents occurred from May 2019 through October 2020 with most of the tribal input occurring in October 2019 and October 2020 in response to technical studies provided to the tribe for consideration. Although consultation is ongoing, the City was informed by SLR on June 19, 2020, that in response to their review of the project documents to date, with the incorporation of standard cultural mitigation measures outlined below in this section, SLR will close the tribal consultation process concurrent with the CEQA public review process. Consultation is still open with the Rincon Band of Mission Indians, though the tribe agreed on October 26, 2020, to the use of the City’s “new” standard mitigation measures to be used for this project.

The City of San Marcos has developed standard mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4 via the tribal consultatio n process to reduce potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources.

Implementation of mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-3 would require an archaeological monitor and a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated (TCA) Native American Tribe monitor be present during earth moving and grading activities to assure that any resources found during project grading be protected. Therefore, impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 25 ends

c. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The cultural resource study prepared for the project did not indicate the likelihood of human remains on the site (RECON 2019b). However, according to the state Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in the event t hat human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the implementing development project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors shall immediately stop all activities in the immediate area of the find. The project proponent shall then inform the San Diego County Coroner and the City of San Marcos Planning Division, and the coroner would be permitted to examine the remains.

If the coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the coroner would notify the NAHC and the Commission would identify the “Most Likely Descendent.” In the event human remains are discovered during project construction, the project would comply with applicable regulations, thereby ensuring impacts would be less than significant.

Furthermore, while there is no evidence of human remains on the project site, as provided by mitigation measure CR-1 through CR -4, an archaeological monitor and a Native American monitor (or TCA Native American Tribe monitor) shall be present during earth moving and grading activities to assure that any resources found during project grading be protected. In addition, as specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project si te during construction or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office. With mitigation and adherence to the state Health and Safety Code, the project would not cause a significant impact to human remains. Impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CR-1: Pre-Excavation Agreement
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permi t, or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner shall enter into a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Repatriation Agreement (Pre -Excavation Agreement) with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American Tribe (TCA Tribe), identified in consultation with the City. The purpose of the Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be to formalize protocols and procedures between the Applicant/Owner and the TCA Tribe for the protection, treatment, and repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, cultural and/or religious landscapes, ceremonial items, traditional gathering areas, and other tribal cultural resources. Such resources may be located within and/or discovered during ground disturbing and/or construction activities for the p roposed project, including any additional culturally appropriate archaeological studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground disturbing activities. Any project-specific monitoring plans and/or excavation plans prepared by the project archaeologist shall include the TCA Tribe requirements for protocols and protection of tribal cultural resources that were agreed to during the tribal consultation.

The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all non-burial related tribal cultural resources collected during construction monitoring and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the TCA Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 26 ends

competent jurisdiction. The requirement and timing of such release of ownership, and the recipient thereof, shall be reflected in the Pre -Excavation Agreement. If the TCA Tribe does not accept the return of the cultural resources, then the cultural resources will be subject to curation.

Mitigation Measure CR-2: Construction Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner or Gr ading Contractor shall provide written documentation (either as signed letters, contracts, or emails) to the City’s Planning Division stating that a Qualified Archaeologist and Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American monitor (TCA Native Ame rican monitor) have been retained at the Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor’s expense to implement the construction monitoring program, as described in the Pre-Excavation Agreement.

The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be invited to attend all applicable pre -construction meetings with the General Contractor and/or associated subcontractors to present the construction monitoring program. The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on -site durin g grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground disturbing activities that occur in areas of native soil or other permeable natural surfaces that have the potential to unearth any evidence of potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources. In areas of artificial paving, the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on -site during grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground disturbing activities that have the potential to disturb more than six inches below the original pre-project ground surface to identify any evidence of potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources. No monitoring of fill material, existing or imported, will be required if the General Contractor or developer can provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City that all fill materials being utilized at the site are either: (1) from existing commercial (previously permitted) sources of materials; or (2) are from private or other non-commercial sources that have been determined to be absent of tribal cultural resources by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor.

The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall maintain ongoing collaborative coordination with one another during all ground d isturbing activities. The requirement for the construction monitoring program shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including demolition plans, grading plans, etc. The Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor shall provide written notice to the Planning Division and the TCA Tribe, preferably through e-mail, of the start and end of all ground disturbing activities.

Prior to the release of any grading bonds, or prior to the issuance of any project Certificate of Occupancy, an archaeological monitoring report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the construction monitoring shall be submitted by the Qualified Archaeologist, along with any TCA Native American monitor’s notes and comments received by the Qualified Archaeologist, to the Planning Division Manager for approval. Once approved, a final copy of the archaeological monitoring report shall be retained in a confidential City project file and may be released, as a formal condition of AB 52 consultation, to TCA Tribe or Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 27 ends

any parties involved in the project specific monitoring or consultation process. A final copy of the report, with all confidentia l site records and appendices, will also be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center after approval by the City.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures Both the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor may temporarily halt or divert ground disturbing activities if potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction activities. Ground disturbing activities shall be temporarily directed away from the area of discovery for a reasonable amount of time to allow a determination of the resource’s potential significance. Isolates and clearly non- significant archaeological resources (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native America n monitor) will be minimally documented in the field. All unearthed archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources will be collected, temporarily stored in a secure location (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tri be), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre - Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction.

If the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor cannot agree on the significance or mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Division Ma nager for decision. The Planning Division Manager shall make a determination based upon the provisions of CEQA and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) with respect to archaeological resources and California Public Resources Section 21704 and 21084.3 with respect to tribal cultural resources, and shall take into account the religious beliefs, cultural beliefs, customs, and practices of the TCA Tribe.

All sacred sites, significant tribal cultural resources, and/or unique archaeological resourc es encountered within the project area shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation. If avoidance of the resource is determined to be infeasible by the City as the Lead Agency, then the City shall require additional culturally appropriate mit igation to address the negative impact to the resource, such as, but not limited to, the funding of an ethnographic study and/or a data recovery plan, as determined by the City in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe. The TCA Tri be shall be notified and consulted regarding the determination and implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation and the drafting and finalization of any ethnographic study and/or data recovery plan, and/or other culturally appropriate mitigation. Any archaeological isolates or other cultural materials that cannot be avoided or preserved in place as the preferred mitigation shall be temporarily stored in a secure location on -site (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Trib e), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre - Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 28 ends

competent jurisdiction. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will be inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American monitor.

If a data recovery plan is authorized as indicated above and the TCA Tribe does not object, then an adequate artifact sample to address research avenues previously identified for sites in the area will be collected using prof essional archaeological collection methods. If the Qualified Archaeologist collects such resources, the TCA Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Moreover, if the Qualified Archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the TCA Native American monitor may, at their discretion, collect said resources for later reburial or storage at a local curation facility, as described in the Pre - Excavation Agreement.

In the event that curation of archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources is required by a superseding regulatory agency, curation shall be conducted by an approved local facility within San Diego County and the curation shall be guided by California State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The City shall provide the Applicant/Owner final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the g rading permit, if applicable, during project construction. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible for all repatriation and curation costs and provide to the City written documentation from the TCA Tribe or the curation facility, whichever is most applicable, that the repatriation and/or curation have been completed.

Mitigation Measure CR-4: Human Remains
As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found on the project site during ground disturbing activities or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the Medical Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.

If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by State law, the Medical Examiner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Medical Examiner recognizes the remains to be Native American, and not under his or her jurisdiction, then he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The N ative American Heritage Commission will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent, who shall be afforded 48 hours from the time access is granted to the discovery site to make recommendations regarding culturally appropriate treatment.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 29 ends

If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ (in place) until after the Medical Examiner makes its determination and notifications, and until after the Most Likely Descendent is identified, at which time the archaeological examination of the remains shall only occur on site in the presence of the Most Likely Descendent. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). In the event that the Applicant/Owner and the Most Likely Descendant are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, state law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a location free from future disturbance (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

4.6 Energy
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less than Significant Impact
Construction
During construction, the project would consume energy in two general forms: (1) the fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment and (2) energy used in the manufacturing of construction materials, such as asphalt and pipes.

Construction of the project would require the use of construction equipment for hauling, and building activities. Equipment for these types of activities are discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality. Construction equipment which requires electricity would be gas powered or diesel powered. Construction also includes the vehicles of construction workers traveling to and from the project site.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 30 ends

Furthermore, there are no unusual project characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction projects. Therefore, the proposed short -term construction activities would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption.

Transportation
Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy use during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles wou ld be temporary. Impacts related to transportation energy use during construction would be temporary and would not require expanded energy supplies or the construction of new infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Operational impacts of the proposed project would be comparable to similar uses in the city .

Therefore, impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation would be less than significant. b. No Impact
Development of the proposed project would be required to adhere to Section 3.3, Energy Measures within the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and Title 24 of the California Building Code. Therefore, the project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renew able energy or energy efficiency and no impacts would occur.

4.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:

i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 31 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?

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

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

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

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a.i. Less than Significant Impact
According to the geotechnical report (Appendix D) prepared for the project by Partner Assessment Corporation (Partner), the project site is within the seismically active southern California region (Partner 2018). However, t he project site does not lie within a State of California-designated Alquist–Priolo fault zone and there are no known active fault traces that underlie or project toward the project site. Therefore, the potential for direct surface fault rupture is considered to be low . The nearest known active faults to the project site are Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 32 ends

the Julian, Temecula, and Glen Ivy segments of the Elsinore Fault, located appro ximately

15.5, 15.5, and 35 miles from the project site, respectively. As such, site could be subjected to significant shaking in the event of a major earthquake on any of the faults noted above or other faults in the southern California or northern Baja C alifornia area. However, potential impacts to the project would be reduced through adherence to requirements specified in the Uniform Building Code and Title 24 of the California Building Code . Impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii. Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located in seismically ‐active southern California and the site could be subject to strong seismic ground shaking from regional seismic activity. According to the geotechnical report (see Appendix D), the project site could be subject to significant groundshaking in the event of an earthquake. As identified above, the nearest identified potentially active fault is located approximately 15.5 miles from the project site . All structures on the site would be designed in accordance with seismic parameters of the current Uniform Building Code and Title 24 of the California Building Code. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant. a.iii. Less than Significant Impact
Soil liquefaction occurs when saturated fine -grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake-induced shaking and behave like a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Seismic settlement can occur with or without liquefaction; it results from densification of loose soils.

According to the geotechnical report (see Appendix D), the project site is not mapped within a potential liquefaction zone. The potential hazard associated with surface effects and lateral spreading is generally anticipated to be low based on the relatively flat site and surrounding topography and the negligible potential for liquefaction or significant dynamic settlement.

Impacts would be less than significant.
a.iv. Less than Significant Impact
Landslides are mass movements of the ground that include rock falls, relatively shallow slumping and sliding of soil, and deeper rotational or trans itional movement of soil or rock.

According to the geotechnical report (see Appendix D), the project site is not mapped within a potential landslide zone. In addition, the project site is a relatively flat-lying site. Based on this information , landsliding is not considered to be a significant geologic hazard at the subject site. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less than Significant Impact
As required by City regulations, the project would include best management practices (BMPs) during grading and construction. The construction phase of the project would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soil erosion. The project gra ding would disturb approximately 2 acres. Construction -phase BMPs may include, but are not limited to, soil Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 33 ends

stabilizers, sandbag berms, stabilized construction entrances, and other runoff controls.

Operational BMPs would include landscaping and a storm drain system, which would reduce the potential for erosion (see Appendix D). With adherence to regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Less than Significant Impact
Refer to responses above. Underlying soils consist of sandy alluvium and weathered rock (see Appendix D). Adherence to standard engineering practices would result in less than significant impacts related to subsidence of the land. Furthermore, the project is not located on an unstable geologic unit. Thus, the project would have a le ss than significant impact related to on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. d. Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in the geotechnical report (see Appendix D), site soils are generally anticipated to be suitable for re -use as fill on the site. However, areas of organic materials, waste, construction debris, etc., may be encountered and would require removal and proper disposal.

According to the geotechnical report, it is recommended to u se non-expansive structural fill that is free of deleterious materials, and is properly moisture conditioned and compacted to 95 percent of the modified proctor. E xpansive soils are generally not anticipated to present significant adverse impacts to site d evelopment. With compliance of the recommendations included in the geotechnical report, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
e. No Impact
The proposed project would be connected to a public sewer system and does not include the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, there would be no impact.
f. Less than Significant Impact
The site has a low to no potential to produce paleontological resources during construction.

No mitigation is proposed as a result of the project. However, in the event that fossils are uncovered during construction, a qualified paleontologist should be retained to evaluate the find, in accordance with City, County, and state guidelines. Potential impacts to paleontological resources are determined to be less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 34 ends

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less than Significant Impact
The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2020 to demonstrate how the City will achieve the state’s greenhouse gas ( GHG) reduction targets codified by AB 32 (2006) and SB 32 (2016) and outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan. The City CAP addresses major sources of GHG emissions in the City and sets forth a detailed and long -term strategy that the City and community can implement to achieve GHG emissions reduction targets. The CAP fulfills General Plan Goal COS-4 and Implementation Program COS-4.2. The CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP, and establishes GHG emission targets and identifies achievable, locally -based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. Consistent with CARB’s recommendations for community-wide targets, the CAP identifies GHG emission reduction targets of 4 percent below baseline 2012 emission levels by 2020 and 42 percent below 2012 levels by 2030 (City of San Marcos 2020).

This CAP has been prepared consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, which establishes standards for the content and approval process of plans to reduce GHGs.

Pursuant to these standards, the CAP, as a “qualified” CAP, affords development applicants the opportunity to use CEQA streamlining tools for analysis of GHG emissions and related impacts for projects that are consistent with the CAP. In addition, the qualified CAP helps the City streamline the application and enforcement of GHG reduction measures applicable to development projects.

Along with the CAP, the City adopted a CAP Consistency Review Checklist (Checklist). The purpose of the Checklist is to implement GHG reduction measures from the CAP that apply to new discretionary development projects. New development would demonstrate consistency Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 35 ends

with relevant CAP strategies and would not conflict with the City’s ability to achieve the identified GHG reduction targets through implementation of applicable measures. Projects that are consistent with the CAP, as determined through the use of the Checklist, may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions. Projects that are not consistent with the CAP must prepare a comprehensive project-specific analysis of GHG emissions, including quantification of existing and projected GHG emissions and incorporation of the measures in the Checklist to the extent feasible. Cumulative GHG impacts would be significant for any project that is not consistent with the CAP.

The Checklist includes a GHG screening threshold of 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO
2E) per year for new development projects in order to determine if a project would need to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the Checklist. Projects that are projected to emit fewer than 500 MT CO 2E annually would not make a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change and would not need to provide additional analysis to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. The Checklist also includes project types and sizes that correspond to the 500 MT CO2E screening threshold. For office uses, the screening size is 43,000 square feet. The proposed office would be 32,969 square feet. Thus, it is anticipated that the project would emit less than 500 MT CO2E per year, and as stated in the Checklist, the project’s GHG impact would be less than significant and is not subject to the measures of the CAP. The project Checklist is included as Appendix E. b. Less than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the project would not make a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change because it would emit less than 500 MT CO 2E per year, therefore,
the project would not conflict with the CAP. Since the CAP is a “qualified” CAP that demonstrates how the City will achieve GHG reductions consistent with state reduction targets codified by AB 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016), the project would not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 36 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions
involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?

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

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

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

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

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a: Less than Significant Impact
Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics could pose a Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 37 ends

threat to human health or the environment. Hazards include the risks associated with potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment.

Construction of the project would involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids needed for operation of construction equipment at the site on an as‐needed basis by equipment service trucks. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments, including diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets, would be present during project construction. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment; howe ver, the proposed project would be required to comply with federal, state , and City Municipal Code restrictions which regulate and control those materials handled on-site. Compliance with these restrictions and laws would ensure that potentially significant impacts would not occur during project construction.

In addition, as a commercial/light industrial development, hazardous materials anticipated to be used during site operation s are those routinely used by commercial or light industrial uses such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products. It is anticipated that the use, handling, and disposal of these products would be addressed by hazardous waste programs that are part of the Inte grated Waste Management Plan of the County of San Diego and other federal, state, and City Municipal Code regulations.

Additionally, there are numerous regulations in place that regulate proper disposal of hazardous materials and protect public safety including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b. Less than Significant Impact
As discussed above under Section 4.9(a), construction equipment accessing the site would use hazardous and/or flammable materials, including diesel fuel, gasoline, and other oils and lubricants. During construction of the project, there is the potential for the short-term use of hazardous materials/fuels; however, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of these materials would be required to comply with all existing local, state, and federal regulations governing construction activities.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project. This ESA is included as Appendix F. According to the Phase I ESA, the project site was formerly undeveloped land as early as 1893 (earliest date historical data was available), developed with an orchard in 1939, developed with a dwelling on the northwest corner and a shack on southern side circa 1946 and 1953, developed with two new dwellings on the northern side circa 1964 to 1970, and developed with the current structures in 1975 to present.

According to the Phase I ESA, no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs ) were identified within the project site, and no Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) was identified within the project site. In addition, no Historical Recognized Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 38 ends

Environmental Condition (HREC) was identified within the project site. However, the Phase I ESA did identify an Environmental Issue (EI) within the project site, d ue to the age of the subject property buildings. Within the project site, there is a potential that asbestos - containing material (ACM) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) are present. The identified suspect ACMs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants. However, compliance with existing regulations related to asbestos and lead removal during demolition of existing structures would ensure impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the relea se of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

In addition, the project does not involve a use that would result in foreseeable upset and accident conditions from the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed office uses would be associated with the routine use of common hazardous materials. However, significant hazards due to upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would not occur because the project would not involve the use of any major source of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

As an office building development, hazardous materials anticipated to be used during site operations are those routinely used by office uses such as cleaners, paint, solvents, batteries, and garden maintenance products. It is anticipated that the use, handling, and disposal of these products would be addressed by hazardous waste programs that are part of the Integrated Waste Management Plan of the County of San Diego and other federal, state, and City Municipal Code regulations. Additionally, there are numerous regulations in place that regulate proper disposal of hazardous materials and protect public safety including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The project would result in a less than significant risk to the public related to hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Less than Significant Impact
There are schools within 0.25 mile of the project site; the Dehesa Charter School and the Community Montessori School, located in the adjacent building to the east of the project site.

However, the project does n ot propose uses that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances. Any demolition of existing structures would comply with existing regulations related to the disposal of hazardous substances or materials. Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one ‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, resulting in a less than significant impact. d. Less than Significant Impact
A Phase I ESA was prepared for the project site (see Appendix F). As determined in the ESA, the project site is not identified within a regulatory agency database as a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. A summary of the regulatory agency records review is provided in Table 3.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 39 ends

As such, the project site is not located on any hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, per the Phase I ESA (Appendix F), the adjacent property to the east (1441 Montiel Road) was listed on the AST list. In addition, the Phase I ESA concluded that no releases have been reported for this facility, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. The adjacent property to the south across the freeway was identified as a RCRA-CESQG, Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST), Sweeps UST, AST, SLIC, HAZNET, Historic Cortese, San Diego County Hazardous Materials Management Division Site, and San Diego County Site Assessment and Mitigation Program Site in the regulatory database report. How ever, based on the relative distance to the site, regulatory closures and inferred direction of groundwater flow, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3
Regulatory Records Review
Regulatory Agency Findings
San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health (SDDEH)
No records regarding hazardous substance use,
storage or releases, or the presence of
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and Activity
and Use Limitations (AULs) on the subject
property were on file with the SDDEH.

San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) No records regarding hazardous substance use, storage or releases, or the presence of USTs and
AULs on the subject property were on file with the
SMFD.

Air Quality Management District (AQMD) No Permits to Operate, Notices of Violation, or Notices to Comply or the presence of AULs, dry
cleaning machines, or USTs were on file for the
subject property with the AQMD.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
No records regarding hazardous substance use,
storage or releases, or the presence of USTs and
AULs on the subject property were on file with the
RWQCB.

California Department of Toxic Substance
Control (CDTSC)
No records regarding hazardous substance use,
storage or releases, or the presence of USTs and
AULs on the subject property were on file with the
CDTSC.

San Marcos Building Department Original building permits could not be located after an extensive search; however, other records
indicate the two houses on the property were
constructed in or about 1960 and 1975.

California Division of Oil, Gas and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)
According to DOGGR, no oil or gas wells are
located on or adjacent to the subject property.

SOURCE: Appendix F.
e. No Impact
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. As such, the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Thus, no impact would occur.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 40 ends

f. Less than Significant Impact
The project does not involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. All proposed internal roadways and project access points would comply with City standards for emergency and fire protection vehicles and distances. The project would comply with all design recommendations and requirements provided by the SMFD to ensure that emergency access meets City standards.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g. Less than Significant Impact
According to Figure 6-4 in the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2013), the project site is located within a “High” San Marcos Fire Protection District (SMFPD) Community Hazard Zone. In an effort to reduce the threat posed by wildland fire events, the SMFD completed a comprehensive assessment of Wildland Urban Interface ( WUI )fire hazards and prepared a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) and Hazard Risk Assessment (HRA) for the San Marcos community and unincorporated areas in the SMFPD.

In accordance with the CWPP and the City Zoning Ordinance, all new development in identified community hazard areas requires a Fuel Management Plan. This includes clearing and maintaining defensible space of 100 to 150 feet around structures, depending on the structure and vegetation type. Brush management is required to be undertaken in these areas where urban development interfaces with open space so that fire fuel loads and potential fire hazards can be reduced. The CWPP meets the requirements of the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 20 03 for community fire planning .

Implementation of required regulations in the CWPP and City Zoning Ordinance would reduce any impacts involving wildfire to less than significant.

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 41 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

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

i. result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
ii. substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on-
or off-site;

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

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

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

EXPLANATIONS:

Pursuant to two letters of comment received from Caltrans during public review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, it was determined that a Hydrology Study and Stormwater Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 42 ends

Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) should be prepared to address the runoff from the project site that would be directed into the Caltrans right-of-way. As such, both a Hydrology Study and SWQMP have been included as Appe ndices G and H, respectively, in the Final MND. The results of these reports are summarized below and do not change the conclusions of the Initial Study.
a. Less than Significant Impact
The San Diego RWQCB regulates wastewater di scharge. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in wastew ater treatment demand. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed project shall obtain a service commitment letter from the VWD that will ensure there is existing capacity to service the needs of the proposed project and, therefore, the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. Further, the project has been desi gned to comply with the land development requirements of Regional MS4 Permit and the 2016 Best Management Practices Design Manual – San Diego Region (BMP Design Manual). Adherence with the Model BMP Design Manual and the Nation Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System (NPDES) permit that is in place at the time of development would be required. Impacts would be less than significant. b. No Impact
As identified above, project adherence with the Model BMP Design Manual and the NPDES permit that is in place at the time of deve lopment would be required. The project would not use any groundwater. All water for the proje ct will be provided by VWD. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur. c(i), c(ii), c(iii), c(iv). Less than Significant Impact Pursuant to the Hydrology Study (see Append ix G), all existing drainage sheet flows southerly to Caltrans SR-78 right-of-way. The proposed project has been designed to capture and retain site flows from Drainage Management Area (DMA) 1 and DMA3 utilizing tree wells. An excess of 119 cubic feet of runoff from DMA1 will be discharged into the Caltrans right-of-way. If necessary, the 119 cubic feet of runoff from DMA1 will be stored and discharged with flow control device to ensure post-development runoff from site into Caltrans right-of-way does not exceed pre-developmen t volume. The remaining site runoff will be diverted to DMA2, which will retain the runoff on-site through infiltration. Stormwater runoff from a small portion of the site being co mprised of a driveway ramp and stairs sheet flows to the adjoining property on the southeast. The proposed stairs and drive ramp will be used by the adjoining property for access to pa rking lot. An overflow drainage system is available to handle loads. Stormwater runoff from the building roof will be conveyed to surface drainage via downspout and ultimately into the proposed DMA2.

The project site is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain, as designated on Figure 6-3 in the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2013).

In addition, no change in the local drainage pa tterns of the project site area would occur.

Therefore, impacts to drainage and water quality would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 43 ends

d. No Impact
The project site is not located within a FEMA floodplain, as designated on Figure 6 -3 in the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2013). The project site is located approximately 14 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and, therefore, impacts as a result of a tsunami would not occur. In addition, seiches are considered unlikely due to the absence of large nearby confined bodies of water. No impact would occur.
e. Less than Significant Impact
The project site is located within the Carlsbad Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan. The General Construction Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the NPDES General Permit, as well as BM Ps that control hydrocarbons, trash and debris, and other potential construction-related pollutants. In addition, the project would not utilize groundwater. The project applicant has prepared a S WQMP which has been attached as an appendix to the Final MND (see Appendix H). Therefore, impacts related to implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

4.11 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established
community?
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?

EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The project site is currently developed with two unoccupied single -family homes. The surrounding development consists of other commercial and office uses to the east and west, and SR-78 to the south. The project site is buffered from the residential development to the north by Montiel Road. The proposed use of the site as an administrative office building would be similar to the adjacent co mmercial/office uses and would not physically divide an established community.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 44 ends

b. Less than Significant Impact
The project site is designated as a Specific Plan Area. The project would require adoption of a Specific Plan consistent with the Commercial zo ne requirement in Chapter 20.220 of the San Marcos Municipal Code. However, while the pro ject would require an amendment, the project would not significantly alter the planned location, distribution, or growth of the human population in the area, as the project would not provide additional housing and would employ residents currently living in the region. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.12 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the
state?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The project site is located within an area designated as Mineral Resources Zone 4 (MRZ-4) per the DOC California Geologic Survey Mineral Land Classification Map, Special Report 153, Plate 10 (DOC 1996). MRZ-4 zones are classified as areas where available i nformation is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone. The areas around the project are not being used for the recovery of mineral resources and are not designated by the City’s General Plan or other local, state, or federal land use plan for miner al resources recovery; therefore, the project would not result in the loss of mineral resources. b. No Impact
The project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the City’s General Plan, or any other specific plan or other land use plan (City of San Marcos 2013). Thus, no impact would result.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 45 ends

4.13 Noise
Would the project result in:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?

b. Generation of excessive ground
borne vibration or ground borne
noise levels?

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

EXPLANATIONS:

A noise analysis was prepared for the project by RECON Environmental, Inc. and is included as Appendix I G to this IS/MND (RECON 2019d).
a. Less than Significant Impact
On-site Traffic Noise
The main source of noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on SR-78 and Montiel Road. The exterior noise level standard for office uses is 65 CNEL. This standard is applicable at exterior use areas which include the outdoor seating area at the northeast corner of the proposed building and the second -floor deck located above the building entrance. As shown in Table 4, noise levels at the exterior seating area (Receivers 1 through 3) would range from 54 to 63 CNEL and noise levels at the second-floor deck above the building entrance (Receiver 12) would be 58 CNEL. Noise levels at the exterior use areas would be compatible with the City’s standard of 65 CNEL.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 46 ends

Exterior noise levels at the building façade are projected to range from 54 to 77 CNEL. The interior noise level standard is 50 CNEL. According to the Federal Highway Administration, masonry and concrete buildings with double -pane windows, which are typically required to meet Title 24 energy code requirements, provide a 35 A-weighted decibels [ dB(A)] reduction at interior locations from exterior noise sources (Federal Highway Administration 2011).

Based on these standards, interior noise levels would be reduced to 50 CNEL or less. Impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4
HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Properties
Receiver Land Use
Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
Noise Ordinance Limit
Daytime/Nighttime
[dB(A) Leq]
1 Commercial 40 60/55
2 Commercial 40 60/55
3 Commercial 40 60/55
4 Park 34 60/50
5 Residential 36 60/50
6 Residential 37 60/50
7 Residential 36 60/50
8 Residential 35 60/50
9 Residential 34 60/50
10 Residential 32 60/50
11 Commercial 40 60/55
12 Commercial 38 60/55
HVAC = heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

Off-site Traffic Noise
The additional vehicle trips associated with the project would increase noise levels on nearby roadways. A noise increase of 3 dB or more would be considered significant because 3 dB is the level at which an increase in noise is perceptible to a person. As shown in Table 5, the project would not result in a direct or cumulative noise increase of more than 3 dB. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant direct and cumulative impact related to traffic noise.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 47 ends

Table 5
Construction Noise Levels
Receiver Land Use
Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
1 Commercial 75
2 Commercial 75
3 Commercial 74
4 Park 63
5 Residential 67
6 Residential 71
7 Residential 68
8 Residential 65
9 Residential 62
10 Residential 60
11 Commercial 73
12 Commercial 73

On-site Generated Noise
The noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of any office use, such as vehicles arriving and leaving and landscape maintenance machinery. None of these noise sources are anticipated to violate the City Municipal Code. Rooftop HVAC noise levels were modeled at the adjacent properties. As shown in Table 4, on-site generated noise levels would range from 32 to 40 dB(A) L eq. Noise levels would not exceed the applicable Noise Ordinance limits at the property lines.

As shown in Table 4, noise levels would not exceed the applicable Noise Ordinance limits at the property lines and impacts related to on -site generated noise would be less than significant.
b. Less than Significant Impact
As shown in Table 5 , construction noise levels would range from 60 to 75 dB(A) L eq at the adjacent property lines. The City’s Municipal Code does not place noise limit restrictions on construction activities ; however, other jurisdictions commonly apply a noise level limit of 75 dB(A) Leq at residential uses. Construction activities would generally occur over the period between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.

Although the existing adjacent uses would be exposed to construction noise levels that may be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary and would not exceed 75 dB(A) L eq. As construction activities associated with the project would comply with the time limits established in Section 10.24.020 (b)(9) of the Ci ty Municipal Code, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant. c. No Impact
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 48 ends

or public use airport. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from proximity to a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

4.14 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less than Significant Impact
The project would not directly induce substantial population growth, as the project involves the construction of a two-story office building , and does not propose any new housing developments or development of a new business district. While the project wou ld present additional office and employment space , the additional office space would accommodate employment space consistent with planned growth, and would not induce growth either directly or indirectly. The project site currently contains existing reside ntial development, with access provided by existing roadway infrastructure. The project site has access to exiting water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure within Montiel Road. Impacts related to population growth would be less than significant.
b. Less than Significant Impact
The project site contains two unoccupied single-family homes and ancillary residential uses.

Both structures would be demolished as part of the project. As such, the project would not displace any persons living within these residences. Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 49 ends

4.15 Public Services
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any
of the public services:

i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?

EXPLANATIONS:
a.i. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The SMFD would service the project. SMFD provides service to the City and the San Marcos Fire Protection District, which covers an area of 33 square miles and a population of approximately 95,000 residents (City of San Marcos 2018). Current SMFD facilities include four fire stations and a regional emergency services training facility. SMFD operates four fire stations, four paramedic assessment engine companies, one paramedic assessment truck company, five paramedic transport ambulances (24-hour units), one shift battalion chief, and one on-call duty chief on a daily basis. With an Insurance Services Office (ISO ) Rating 2, SMFD provides a variety of first -responder services to the community including fire suppression, rescue, emergency medical services, fire prevention services, vegetation management, public education, emergency preparedness, and trauma support (City of San Marcos 2018).

The station closest to the proposed project site is Fire Station No. 3 , located approximately two miles west of the project site at 404 Woodland Parkway . The project site is within the existing service area of SMFD, and on-site construction would comply with applicable Fire Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 50 ends

Code requirements. New fire protection facilities are not anticipated at this time. However, development of the project would contribute to the incremental increase in demand for fire protection services city-wide. This represents a significant impact and mitigation is required.

Participation in the Community Facilities District ( CFD 2001 01) (Fire and Paramedic) as outlined in mitigation measure PS-1 would offset the cost of increases in necessary services resulting from implementation of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measure PS-1
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD 2001-01 (Fire and Paramedic).

Participation in the CFD will offset the cost of increases in necessary fire services resulting from implementation of the proposed project and impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.
a.ii. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department San Marcos Station employees over 100 sheriff deputies, volunteers, and professional staff members ( County of San Diego 2018 ). The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department San Marcos Station is located at 182 Santar Place , San Marcos, California 92069, approximately 2.5 miles west of the project site.

The station has a total service area of over 100 square miles, which encompasses the city and the surrounding unincorporated areas of San Marcos and Escondido. The station is currently providing safety services to a population of more than 111,000 residents (County of San Diego 2018). The project site is within the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department’s service area and surrounded by land uses that are currently served by the department. However, development of the project would contribute to the incremental increase in demand for police protection services City -wide. This represents a significant impact mitigation is required.

Mitigation measure PS-2 requires the project applicant to annex the site into the preexisting Community Facilities Distric t for Police Services (CFD 98 -01, Improvement Area No. 1).

Participation in the CFD will offset the cost of increases in necessary services resulting from implementation of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measure PS-2
Prior to the issuance of a grading pe rmit, the applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD 98 -01 Improvement Area No. 1 (Police). Participation in the CFD would offset the cost of increases in necessary police protection services resulting from implementation of the proposed project and impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 51 ends

a.iiii. Less than Significant Impact
The project proposes the construction of a two-story, 32,969-square-foot administrative office building. As such, the project would not result in a population increase within the city and would, therefore, not induce an increase in school attendees. Impacts would be less than significant.

However, as a commercial/industrial (office) development, the applicant would be required to pay required fees that would help fund ongoing school service and new facilities. Pursuant to SB 50 (Government Code Sections 65995(h), 65996(b) and 65996(h)), fees imposed by school districts shall constitute the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities caused by a development project. The payment of statutorily capped fee amounts provides “ full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act . . . on the provision of adequate school facilities” (SB 50). San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) collects residential and commercial developer fees for projects within its service area to support costs of construction and expansion of school facilities.

Current developer fees are $0.61 per square foot for commercial/industrial projects (SMUSD 2018). Commercial/Industrial Fees became effective on July 12, 2018. The project applicant shall pay school mitigation fees pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620 et seq. and Government Code Sections 65995(h), 65996(b), and 65996(h) in effect at the time of building permit issuance, thereby ensuring impacts would be less than significant. a.iv. Less than Significant Impact
The project applicant would be required to pay the City’s Public Facilities Fee (PFF), a portion of which is designated for parks . The PFF money would go towards the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the City. Payment of the PFF will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Because the project is not anticipated to increase de mand on existing parks and through the contribution of funds for the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the City, impacts would be less than significant.
a.v. Less than Significant Impact
The analysis within Sections 4.14 (a) through 4.14(d) concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated related to police and fire protection, and a less than significant impact to schools and parks. The proj ect would not result in an impact to any other public facilities. Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 52 ends

4.16 Recreation
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. No Impact
The project would not involve the provision or alteration of a new or existing park facility.

The project would have no impact on existing recreation facilities, as the proposed office land use would not introduce a new population base that would require additional recreation facilities. No impact would occur.
b. No Impact
The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, as the project would not introduce a substantial increase in the population base within the area. As such, the project would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment due to the construction of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 53 ends

4.17 Transportation
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with the applicable
plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-
motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation
system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?

b. Conflict with or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?

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

d. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
EXPLANATIONS:
a. and b. Less than Significant Impact
The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the Natural Resources Agency have issued new CEQA Guidelines for analyzing transportation impacts. By July 1, 2020, all CEQA lead agencies must analyze a project’s transportation impacts using vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

VMT measures the per capita number of car trips generated by a project and distances cars will travel to and from a project, rather than congestion levels at intersections (level of service or “LOS,” graded on a scale of A– F). Some California cities have already adopted VMT standards and abandoned LOS, but many other jurisdictions continue to require LOS analysis. City staff deemed the project complete before J uly 1, 2020. Due to this timeline, City staff has concluded that the project can move forward with the LOS analysis for traffic Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 54 ends

impacts and the VMT analysis will not be required. A transportation impact analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) analyzing LOS impacts associated with the proposed project (Appendix JH). Therefore, for the purposes of this IS/MND, LOS impacts are analyzed.

Methodology and Significance Criteria
LOS is the term used to denote the different operating conditions which occur on a given roadway segment or intersection under various traffic volume loads and provides an index to the operational qualities of a roadway segment or an intersection. LOS designations range from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions. Level of service designation is reported differently for signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as for roadway segments Signalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions. Average vehicle delay was determined utilizing the methodology found in Chapter 19 of the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6), with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software. Unsignalized intersections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions.

Average vehicle delay and LOS were determined based upon the procedures found in Chapter 20 and Chapter 21 of the HCM 6 with the assistance of the Synchro 10 computer software.

Street segment analysis is based upon the comparison of average daily traffic (ADT) volumes to the City’s Roadway Classification, Level of Service, and ADT Table. This table provides segment capacities for different street classifications, based on traffic volumes and roadway characteristics.

A project is considered to have a significant impact if the new project traffic has decreased the operations of surrounding roadways by a defined threshold. The defined thresholds shown in Table 6 below for freeway segments, roadway segments, intersections, and ramp meter facilities are based on published San Diego Traffic Engineers’ Council guidelines. If the project exceeds the thresholds in Table 6, then the project may be considered to have a significant project impact.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 55 ends

Table 6
Traffic Impact Significance Thresholds
Level of Service with Projecta
Allowable Increase Due to Project Impactsb
Freeways Roadway Segments Intersections
Ramp
Metering
V/C
Speed
(mph) V/C
Speed
(mph)
Delay
(seconds)
Delay
(minutes)

D, E, & F
(or ramp meter delays above
15 minutes)

0.01 1 0.02 1 2 2c
SOURCE: Appendix H

aAll level of service measurements are based upon HCM procedures for peak-hour conditions. However, V/C ratios for Roadway Segments may be estimated on an ADT/24-hour traffic volume basis (using Table 2 or a similar LOS chart for each jurisdiction). The acceptable LOS for freeways, roadways, and intersections is generally “D” (“C” for undeveloped or not densely developed locations per jurisdiction definitions). For metered freeway ramps, LOS does not apply. However, ramp meter delays above 15 minutes are considered excessive. bIf a proposed project’s traffic causes the values shown in the table to be exceeded, the impacts are deemed to be significant. These impact changes may be measured from appropriate computer programs or expanded manual spreadsheets. The project applicant shall then identify feasible mitigations (within the Traffic Impact Study [TIS] report) that will maintain the traffic facility at an acceptable LOS. If the LOS with the proposed project becomes unacceptable (see note a above), or if the project adds a significant amount of peak hour trips to cause any traffic queues to exceed on- or off-ramp storage capacities, the project applicant shall be responsible for mitigating significant impact changes
cThe impact is only considered significant if the total delay exceeds 15 minutes.

Notes:

V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio
Speed = Arterial speed measured in miles per hour
Delay = average stopped delay per vehicle measured in seconds for intersections, or minutes for ramp meters

Since the Montiel Road/Rock Springs Road intersection is within County of San Diego limits, the potential significant impacts are based on the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance—Transportation and Traffic. The defined thresholds are shown in Table 7.

Table 7
County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance—Transportation and Traffic Level of
Service Signalized Unsignalized
LOS E Delay of 2 seconds or less 20 or less peak hour trips on a critical movement
LOS F Either a delay of 1 second, or 5 peak hour
trips or les on a critical movement
5 or less peak hour trips on a critical
movement
SOURCE: Appendix H

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 56 ends

Existing Conditions
Table 8 summarizes available ADT volumes taken from traffic counts. Counts at the study area intersections, including bicycle and pedestrian counts, were also conducted between 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.

Table 8
Existing Traffic Volumes
Street Segment ADTa
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane
Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road
7,350
4,620
Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR-78 Ramps 39,870
SOURCE: Appendix H
aAverage daily traffic volume

Table 9 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations for the existing conditions. As seen in Table 9, all intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS D or better.

Table 9
Existing Intersection Operations
Intersection Control Type Peak Hour
Existing
Delaya LOSb
1) Nordahl Road/Center Drive (South) Signal AM
PM

23.7 38.6
C
D
2) Nordahl Road/Montiel Road Signal AM
PM

16.5 26.6
B
C
3) Nordahl Road/SR-78 WB Ramps Signal AM
PM

27.0 47.2
C
D
4) Nordahl Road/SR-78 EB Ramps Signal AM
PM

16.7 32.4
B
C
5) Mission Road/Auto Park Way Signal AM
PM

48.8 54.1
D
D
6) Rock Springs Road/Montiel Road OWSCc AM
PM

24.1 15.0
C
C
SOURCE: Appendix H
aAverage delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
bLevel of Service
cOWSC = one-way controlled intersection

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 57 ends

Table 10 summarizes the existing roadway segment operations. As seen in Table 10, all the study area segments are calculated to currently operate at LOS C or better.

Table 10
Existing Street Segment Operations
Street Segment
Existing Roadway
Configurations
Capacity
(LOS E)a ADTb V/Cc LOSd
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane 2-Lane Collector
w/TWLTLe 15,000 7,350 0.490 C
Leora Lane to Rock Springs Road 2-Lane Collector 8,000 4,620 0.578 C Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR-78 Ramps 8-Lane Prime Arterial 70,000 39,870 0.570 B SOURCE: Appendix H
aCapacities based on the City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification Table. bAverage daily traffic volumes
cVolume-to-capacity ratio
dLevel of service
eTWLTL = Two-way left-turn lane
Project Trip Generation
Table 11 shows the total project traffic generation based on the data contained in the SANDAG’s trip generation guide for a standard commercial office building. The total project is calculated to generate approximately 659 ADT with 83 inbound/9 outbound trips during the AM peak hour and 17 inbound/69 outbound trips during the PM peak hour.

Table 11
Existing Street Segment Operations
Land Use Size
Daily Trip Ends (ADTs)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Volume Volume
Ratea Volume In Out In Out
Office 32.97 ksf 20/ksf 659 83 9 17 69
SOURCE: Appendix H
aRate is based on SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002
ksf = 1,000 square feet

Near Term Scenario Analysis
Table 12 summarizes the intersection operations for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project scenario. As seen in Table 12, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study intersections are calculated to operate at LOS D or better except at the following intersections:
• 3) Nordahl Road/SR-78 WB Ramps (LOS E during the PM Peak Hour) • 4) Nordahl Road/SR-78 EB Ramps (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours) • 5) Mission Road/Auto Parkway (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours)

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 58 ends

Table 12
Near-Term Intersection Operations
Intersection
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing +
Project
Δc
Existing +
Cumulative + Project
Δc Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb
1) Nordahl Road/Center
Drive (South) Signal AM
PM

23.9 39.4
C
D

0.2 0.8

39.3 52.5
D
D

0.8 0.5
2) Nordahl Road/Montiel
Road Signal AM
PM

16.7 27.5
B
C

0.2 0.9

22.5 32.9
C
C

0.1 2.6
3) Nordahl Road/SR-78 WB
Ramps Signal AM
PM

27.1 47.6
C
D

0.1 0.4

24.8 57.5
C
E

0.1 0.5
4) Nordahl Road/SR-78 EB
Ramps Signal AM
PM

17.0 33.6
B
C

0.3 1.2

81.2 120.0
F
F

1.6 1.3
5) Mission Road/Auto Park
Way Signal AM
PM

48.8 54.1
D
D

0.0 0.0

97.0 177.2
F
F

0.2 0.6
6) Rock Springs Road/
Montiel Road OWSCd AM
PM

24.4 15.3
C
C
1C
7C

34.0 16.6
D
C
1C
7C
SOURCE: Appendix H
aAveraged delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
bLevel of service
cFor San Marcos intersections, Δ denotes a project-induced increase in delay. For County intersections, Δ denotes a project induced increase in traffic on the critical movement. dOWSC – One-Way Stop Controlled intersection

Although the intersections listed above are operating at LOS E or LOS F, the increase in delay due to the project is less than 2 seconds. Therefore, no significant impacts are identified for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project scenario.

Table 13 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Existing + Cumulative Projects + Project scenario. As seen in Table 13, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D.

Table 13
Near-Term Street Segment Operations
Street Segment
Existing
Capacity
(LOS E)a
Existing + Project
Δc
Existing + Cumulative + Project
Δe ADTb V/Cc LOSd ADT V/C LOS
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to
Leora Lane 15,000 7,943 0.530 C 0.040 12,193 0.813 D 0.040 Leora Lane to
Rock Springs Road 8,000 4,686 0.586 C 0.008 4,996 0.625 C 0.008 Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to
SR-78 Ramps 70,000 40,364 0.577 B 0.007 40,864 0.584 C 0.007 SOURCE: Appendix H
aCapacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification & LOS table bAverage Daily Traffic
cVolume to Capacity ratio
dLevel of Service
eΔ denotes a project-induced increase in the Volume to Capacity ratio

Based on the significance criteria, no significant impacts are calculated along the study street segments as the project contribution does not exceed the allowable thresholds.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 59 ends

Year 2035 Analysis
Table 14 summarizes the intersection operations for the Year 2035 + Project scenario. As seen in Table 14, with the addition of project traffic, the following intersections are calculated to operate at LOS E or LOS F:
• 1) Nordahl Road/Center Drive (South) (LOS E during the PM peak hour) • 3) Nordahl Road/SR-78 WB Ramps (LOS F during the PM peak hour) • 4) Nordahl Road/SR-78 EB Ramps (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours) • 5) Mission Road/Auto Park Way (LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours) • 6) Rock Springs Road/Montiel Road (LOS F during the AM peak hour) Table 14
Year 2035 Intersection Operations
Intersection
Peak
Hour
Year 2035 Year 2035 with Project
Δc Sig?d Delaya LOSb Delaya LOSb
1) Nordahl Road/Center Drive (South) AM
PM

51.8 76.7
D
E

54.1 77.3
D
E

2.3 0.6
No
No
2) Nordahl Road/Montiel Road AM
PM

23.1 36.9
C
D

24.5 40.0
C
D

1.4 3.1
No
No
3) Nordahl Road/SR-78 WB Ramps AM
PM

28.0 80.4
C
F

28.0 80.8
C
F

0.0 0.4
No
No
4) Nordahl Road/SR-78 EB Ramps AM
PM
116.7
156.2
F
F
118.3
157.3
F
F

1.6 1.1
No
No
5) Mission Road/Auto Park Way AM
PM
140.0
232.1
F
F
140.2
233.5
F
F

0.2 1.4
No
No
6) Rock Springs Road/Montiel Road AM
PM
311.1

26.5 F
D
348.5

28.1 F
D
1C
7C
No
No
SOURCE: Appendix H
aAveraged delay expressed in seconds per vehicle
bLevel of Service
cFor San Marcos intersections, Δ denotes a project-induced increase in delay. For County intersections, Δ denotes a project induced increase in traffic on the critical movement.
dSig = Significant project impacts based on Significance Criteria.

Although the intersections listed are operating at LOS E or LOS F, the increase in delay due to the project is less than 2 seconds with the exception of the Rock Springs Road/Montiel Road intersection. This unsignalized intersection falls within the County of San Diego’s jurisdiction, and a different significance criterion is applied. As such, the increase in traffic due to the project during the AM peak hour is less than 5 on the critical movement (i.e., northbound left-turn). Therefore, no significant impacts are identified for the Year 2035 + Project scenario.

Table 15 summarizes the roadway segment operations for the Year 2035 + Project scenario.

As seen in Table 15, with the addition of project traffic, all of the study segments are calculated to operate at LOS D or better.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 60 ends

Table 15
Year 2035 Street Segment Operations
Street Segment
Existing
Capacity
(LOS E)a
Year 2035 Year 2035 with Project
Δe Sig?f ADTb V/Cc LOSd ADT V/C LOS
Montiel Road
Nordahl Lane to Leora Lane 15,000 11,610 0.774 D 12,203 0.814 D 0.040 No Leora Lane to Rock Springs
Road 8,000 5,530 0.691 D 5,596 0.700 D 0.008 No
Nordahl Road
Montiel Road to SR-78
Ramps 70,000 43,370 0.620 C 43,864 0.627 C 0.007 No
SOURCE: Appendix H
aCapacities based on City of San Marcos’s Roadway Classification & LOS table bAverage daily traffic
cVolume-to-capacity ratio
dLevel of service
eΔ denotes a project-induced increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio fSig = Significant project impact based on Significance Criteria.

The closest public transit facilities within walking distance of the project site are a bus stop for the North County Transit District Bus Route 305, located approximately 0.8 mile west from the project site along Nordahl Road. Bus Route 305 operates between the Vista Transit Center and Escondido Transit Center, and runs along Mission Road through San Marcos.

There are no bike lanes along Montiel Road near the project site. Sidewalks along Montiel Road, extending from the city of Escondido border to the intersection with Nordahl Road, is generally intermittent. There is no sidewalk along the project frontage within Montiel Road.

The project would construct internal pedestrian pathways along the frontage of the proposed buildings adjacent to the parking lot on-site, as well as a sidewalk along the project sites frontage with Montiel Road. The project would contribute to pedestrian facilities and not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Furthermore, none of the studied intersections or roadway segments would result in a significant impact of L OS E or LOS F with development of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b. No Impact
The project would take primary access from Montiel Road. No alterations to the existing traffic flow or roadway operations would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c. Less than Significant Impact
The project site would be accessed via an internal driveway connecting the project site with the adjacent Montiel Road by a 30-foot-wide City of San Marcos curb cut. Construction of the project would not result in any road closures. Therefore, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 61 ends

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

i. 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)?

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

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 62 ends

EXPLANATIONS:
a.i and a.ii: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated In accordance with SB 18, the Native American Heritage Commission was contacted to obtain a list of tribes that may have cultural association with the project site and its local vicinity.

AB 52 requires that prior to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project, the lead agency shall begin consultation with California Native American tribes that request, in writing, to be informed by the lead agency through formal notification of proposed pr ojects in the geographic area that is traditionally or culturally affiliated with the tribe. Tribes who receive a formal project notification have 30 days to respond and request consultation.

The City of San Marcos, as lead agency, formally notified California Native American tribes of the opportunity to consult via letter in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52 consultation processes in April 2019, and July 16, 2019, respectively. The formal SB 18 notification letter was sent to California Native American tri bes as identified on the NAHC list while the AB 52 letter was sent to the four tribes who have formally requested the AB 52 notification as of the date of the City notification letter. In response to the above letters, the SLR requested consultation on May 8, 2019 and the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians requested consultation on June 11, 2019. Consultation discussions during the City’s monthly consultation meeting regarding the project status and project documents occurred from May 2019 through October 2020 with most of the tribal input occurring in October 2019 and October 2020 in response to technical studies provided to the tribe for consideration. Although consultation is ongoing, the City was informed by SLR on June 19, 2020, that in response to their review of the project documents to date, with the incorporation of standard cultural mitigation measures outlined in Section 4.5 of this document, SLR will close the tribal consultation process concurrent with the CEQA public review proce ss. Consultation is ongoing with the Rincon Band of Mission Indians, though the tribe has also agreed with incorporation of the City’s standard cultural mitigation measures.

Based on the various tribal consultations, it is acknowledged that the general San Luis Rey river valley has areas with tribal cultural resources. Thus, additional effort was taken to address the potential for tribal cultural resources at the project site. RECON conducted a self-search at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University, which is a member of the California Historical Resources Information System. The search radius was one mile. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources are recorded on or adjacent to the project property. A Saving Sacred Site s Luiseno Native American M onitor was present during the RECON cultural study site reconnaissance.

Due to the presence of other known tribal resources in the project area, the potential for unknown subsurface tribal resources was addressed during consultation. This included an evaluation of the subsurface conditions and project’s subsurface impacts. Project construction activities would not reach native soils and would be limited to previously deposited, engineered, fill soils. Grading for building footings would be a maximum of 5 feet deep, the storm drain would be installed a maximum of 9 feet deep, the water line would be a maximum of 4 feet deep and the sewer line a maximum of 8 feet deep. With these subsurface conditions Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 63 ends

considered and the tribal resources information provided by the tribes, the project would have a less than significant potential to impact a significant subsurface tribal resource.

Based on information provided by the SLR the project would not affect a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing on the local of California Registrar of Historical Resources, or a significant resource pursuant to the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1. The City of San Marcos has developed standard mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-7 via the tribal consultation process to reduce potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources . Implementation of mitigation measures CR -1 through CR -3 would require an archaeological monitor and a TCA Native American Tribe moni tor be present during earth moving and grading activities to assure that any resources found during project grading be protected. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental
effects?

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

c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provided
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?

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 64 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d. Generate solid waste in excess
of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

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

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less than Significant Impact
The VWD is responsible for disposal of treated wastewater. The RWQCB regulates the treatment of wastewater at treatment plants and the discharge of the treated wastewater into receiving waters. The VWD is responsible for adhering to RWQCB regulations as they apply to wastewater generated by the any project. The VWD facilities have been designed to treat typical wastewater flows from different land uses within their service area , and complies with all permits and state and federal water quality based standards.

The project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. All private water facilities on - site would be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the California Uniform Plumbing Code and would connect to existing water lines in adjacent roadways. All public water facilities including services and meters would be designed and constructed in accordance with current City Water Facility Design Guidelines and regulations. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Less than Significant Impact
The VWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) serves as the water resources planning document for the City’s residents, businesses, interest groups, and public officials.

The UWMP assess the current and future water supply and needs for the City.

Implementation of the project would not result in new or expanded water entitlements from the water service provider, as the project is consistent with existing demand projections contained in the UWMP (which are based on the allowed land uses for the project site, in this case, commercial). The VWD water supply is currently purchased from the San Diego County Water Authority, which makes up 100 percent of the water supply (VWD 2015). As identified in the 2015 UWMP, the VWD anticipates generating additional water supply from desalinated seawater through a Water Purchase Agreement with the San Diego County Water Authority, from existing reservoirs, and from recycled water from the Meadowlark Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 65 ends

Water Recycling Facility and/or the City of Escondido by the year 2020. Therefore, the project would not require new or expanded entitlements. Impacts would be less than significant. c. Less than Significant Impact
VWD utilizes two wastewater treatment facilities to treat wastewater collected within its sewer service area. The Meadowlark Reclamation Facility (MRF) has liquids treatment capacity of up to 5.0 million gallons per day (mgd) with a peak wet weather capacity of

8.0 mgd. MRF does not have solids treatment capacity and , therefore, all solids are treated at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF). EWPCF is located in the city of Carlsbad, and is a regional facility with treatment capacity of up to 40.51 mgd.

Due to the construction of the proposed administrative office building , the project would increase the demand for wastewater treatment as well as land outfall capacity. The project would pay Wastewater Capital Facility Fees per VWD Ordinance No. 176. These fees would be used by VWD to help fund the expansion and/or construction of wastewater treatment facilities to handle increased wastewater quantities and also the expansion of land outfal l facilities. VWD considers payment of these fees as mitigation for the increase in treatment need. Therefore, the project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Impacts would be less than significant.
d. Less than Significant Impact
The project would generate solid waste from the future office uses. Solid waste service in the city is provided by a private franchise hauler, EDCO Waste and Recycling (EDCO), which handles all residential, commercial, and industrial collections within the city. Waste collected by EDCO is hauled to the Escondido Resources Recovery Transfer Station w here it is then transported to the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill in Santee. According to CalRecycle, the Escondido Resources Recovery Transfer Station has a permitted throughput of 3,223 tons per day, with a permitted capacity of 8,743 tons/day (CalRecycle 2018a). According to CalRecycle, the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 5,000 tons/day of solid waste, with a remaining capacity of 113,972,637 cubic yards with an anticipated closure date of 2042 (CalRecycle 2018b).

CalRecycle provides solid waste generation rates for various types of land uses. Construction debris would be generated by the project. Construction debris recycling is available through EDCO. Negligible solid waste generation is anticipated during project construction. Based on the most current solid waste generation rate for office land uses from CalRecycle of 6 pounds/1000 square feet/day, the project is expected to generate approximately 198 pounds/day of solid waste during operation (CalRecycle 2018c ). This does not consider any waste diversion through recycling. The City is currently exceeding their waste reduction targets. According to CalRecycle, the City has a disposal rate target of 8.9 pounds/person/day.

If the City meets this target, the City is considered in compliance with the 50 percent diversion requirement of AB 939. The most recent data from CalRecycle identifies the annual per capita disposal rate is 8.9 pounds/person/day and 11.4 pounds/employee/day (CalRecycle 2016). Thus, the City is meeting their current targets for diversion. Assuming a 50 percent Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 66 ends

diversion rate, to be conservative, the anticipated solid waste generated by the proposed project during operation would be reduced to a pproximately 99 pounds /day. With consideration of the diversion rate , the proposed project’s solid waste generation during operation can be accommodated at the landfill based upon the available daily permitted capacity. Impacts would be less than significant.
e. Less than Significant Impact
All solid waste facilities, including landfills, require solid waste facility permits to operate in San Diego County. Public Resources Code (Sections 44001 ‐44018) and California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4 (Section 21440 et seq.) authorizes the County Department of Environmental Health, Local Enforcement Agency to issue solid waste facility permits. Sycamore Sanitary Landfill is a permitted facility and EDCO is a licensed hauler. Waste associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be disposed of properly via the Escondido Transfer Station managed by EDCO and the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill. The project would comply with existing regulations related to solid waste disposal. Additionally, the project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies designed to reduce impacts to solid waste facilities, including Policy COS-10.1, Policy COS-10.2, and Policy COS-10.3. As the project would comply with all federal, state, and City statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including proper handling of construction debris, impacts would be less than significant.

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

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

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

c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 67 ends

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Less than Significant Impact
Refer to Section 4.9(f). Impacts would be less than significant. b, c, d. Less than Significant Impact
As discussed in Section 4.9, Figure 6-4 in the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2013) shows that the project site is located within a “High” SMFPD Community Hazard Zone. In an effort to reduce the threat posed by wildland fire events, the SMFD completed a comprehensive assessment of WUI fire hazards and prepared a CWPP and HRA for the San Marcos community and unincorporated areas in the SMFPD.

In accordance with the CWPP and the City Zoning Ordinance, all new development in the identified community hazard areas requires a Fuel Management Plan. This includes clearing and maintaining defensible space of 100 to 150 feet around structures, depending on the structure and vegetation type. Brush management is required to be undertaken in these areas where urban development interfaces with open space so that fire fuel loads and potential fire hazards can be reduced. The CWPP meets the requirements of the federal HFRA of 2003 for community fire planning.

In addition, the project site is relatively flat, is currently developed and is surrounded by commercial and residential development. Implementation of required regulations in the CWPP and City Zoning Ordinance paired with the project site conditions would reduce any impacts involving wildfire to less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 68 ends

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Does the project:

Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have the potential to
substantially degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?

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

c. Have environmental effects,
which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or
indirectly?

EXPLANATIONS:
a. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Implementation of the project has the potential to result in significant impacts to biological resources and cultural resources. Given the implementation of the recommended mitigation Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 69 ends

measures, potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The project does not include a component with the potential to otherwise degrade the quality of the environment or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b. Less than Significant Impact
The project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Impacts from project construction would not contribute to cu mulatively considerable impacts due to the short-term nature of construction, the localized footprint of project construction, and the lack of other projects in the immediate vicinity of the project that would contribute cumulative impacts.
c. Less than Significant Impact
The project would be required to adhere to all applicable codes and regulations. Therefore, direct or indirect impacts on humans resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 70 ends

5.0 Determination and Preparers

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FEE DETERMINATION (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, Statutes of 2006 – SB 1535) [ X ] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individual or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a “Certificate of Fee Exemption” shall be prepared for this project.
[ ] It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively, and therefore, fees in accordance with Section 711.4(d) of the Fish and Game Code shall be paid to the County Clerk.

Report Preparers
RECON Environmental, Inc., 1927 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, CA 92101 Lee Sherwood, Report Reviewer, Principal
Morgan Weintraub, Primary Report Author
Jessica Fleming, Air Quality, Noise, and GHG Specialist Harry Price, Archaeologist
Stacey Higgins, Senior Production Specialist
Benjamin Arp, GIS Analyst

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 71 ends

6.0 Sources Consulted
California Department of Conservation
1996 Revised Mineral Land Classification Map, Plate 10. Accessed December 19 , 2018 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_153/SR-153_Plate-10.pdf.

2014 San Diego County Williamson Act 2013/2014. Accessed October 11, 2018 at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/San_Diego_w_13_14_WA.pdf.

2016 San Diego County Important Farmland 2016. Accessed October 11, 2018 at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2016/sdg16_w.pdf.

CalRecycle
2016 California’s 2016 Per Capita Disposal Rate Estimate. Accessed October 9, 2018 at:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/GoalMeasure/DisposalRate/MostRecent/.

2018a SWIS Facility Detail Escondido Resource Recovery (37-AA-0906). Accessed October 11, 2018 at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/37-AA-0906.

2018b SWIS Facility Detail Sycamore Landfill (37 -AA-0023). Accessed October 11, 2018 at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/37-AA-0023.

2018c Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed October 11, 2018 at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2011 Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA -HEP-10-025.

December 2011.

Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, Inc. (LLG)
2019 Transportation Impact Analysis for the Montiel Road Office. LLG Ref. 3 -18-3017.

January 17, 2019.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (Guidance Manual), February.

Partner
2018 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. May 22.

RECON Environmental, Inc.
2019a Air Quality Analysis for the Montiel Road Office Project, San Marcos, California.

August 21.

2019b Cultural Resources Survey for the North Coast Church Project. July 9.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

Page 72 ends

2019c Historic Building Evaluation of the House at 2355 Montiel Road , San Marcos, California. August 16.

2019d Noise Analysis for the Montiel Road Office Project, San Marcos, Califo rnia.

August 21.

San Diego, County of
2018 San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, San Marcos Station. Accessed October 11, 2018 at: https://www.sdsheriff.net/patrolstations/sanmarcos.html.

San Marcos, City of
2013 City of San Marcos General Plan . Accessed August 20, 2019 at: http://www.san- marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan

2018 San Marcos Fire Department Overview. Accessed October 10, 2018 at:
http://www.san-marcos.net/departments/public-safety/fire-department/ department-overview.

2020 Final Climate Action Plan. December 2020.

San Marcos Unified School District
2018 Residential and Commercial Development Fee Summary. Accessed December 19 , 2018 at: https://www.smusd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=157433&pageId=394313

University of California, Davis
1997 Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (UCD-ITS-RR-97-21).

Institute of Transportation Studies. December.

Vallecitos Water District (VWD)
2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed October 9, 2018 at:
http://www.vwd.org/departments/engineering/capital-facilities/urban-water- management-plan-uwmp-copy.

Initial Study/Checklist and Mitigated Negative Declaration Montiel Road Office Project

APPENDICES
Under Separate Cover

San Marcos City CouncilJanuary 24, 2023

San Marcos City Council
January 24, 2023