ATTACHMENT B-4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FINAL
Environmental Impact Report
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022040440
MAY 2023
EIR (EIR22-002); Specific Plan (SP21 -0003); General Plan Amendment (GP21 -0007); Rezone (R21 -0003); Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP21-0001); Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM21-0003) Prepared for
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Norm Pedersen
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Vanessa Scheidel
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-i
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures That Reduce or Avoid The Significant Effects ............................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Areas of Concern ................................................................................................................................ 1-2
1.4 Issues to be Resolved by the Decision-Making Body ....................................................................... 1-3
1.5 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 1-3
1.5.1 No Project Alternative ........................................................................................................... 1-4
1.5.2 Existing Land Use Designation Alternative .......................................................................... 1-4
1.5.3 Reduced Density Alternative ................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................................. 1-4 2 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting ............................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1 Discretionary Actions Required of the City .......................................................................... 2-2
2.2.2 Project Characteristics ......................................................................................................... 2-3
2.3 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................ 2-8
2.3.1 Existing Land Uses and Setting ............................................................................................ 2-8
2.3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations ....................................................................... 2-8
2.3.3 Regional Setting .................................................................................................................... 2-8
2.3.4 Public Services .................................................................................................................... 2-10
2.4 Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................................................................. 2-10
2.4.1 Scope of the EIR ................................................................................................................. 2-11
2.4.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping .................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.3 Draft EIR and Public Review ............................................................................................... 2-12
2.4.4 Final EIR Publication and Certification .............................................................................. 2-13
2.4.5 Project Approvals and Permits ........................................................................................... 2-16
2.5 Project Inconsistencies with Applicable Regional and General Plans ........................................... 2-17
2.6 List of Past, Present, and Reasonably Anticipated Future Projects in the Project Area .............. 2-17 3 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 3.1-1
3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................ 3.1-1
3.1.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.1-1
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.1-3
3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 3.1-5
3.1.4 Project Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3.1-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-ii
3.1.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .............................................................................................. 3.1-9
3.1.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.1-10
3.1.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.1-10
3.2 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 3.2-1
3.2.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.2-1
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.2-9
3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.2-14
3.2.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.2-20
3.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.2-27
3.2.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.2-28
3.2.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.2-28
3.3 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.3-1
3.3.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 3.3-2
3.3.3 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.3-7
3.3.4 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.3-12
3.3.5 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.3-13
3.3.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.3-15
3.3.7 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.3-17
3.3.8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.3-18
3.4 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.4.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.4-1
3.4.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.4-4
3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 3.4-8
3.4.4 Project Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3.4-8
3.4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .............................................................................................. 3.4-9
3.4.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.4-10
3.4.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.4-13
3.5 Energy .............................................................................................................................................. 3.5-1
3.5.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.5-1
3.5.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.5-3
3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.5-10
3.5.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.5-10
3.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.5-15
3.5.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.5-16
3.5.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.5-16
3.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................ 3.6-1
3.6.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.6-2
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.6-3
3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 3.6-6
3.6.4 Project Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3.6-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-iii
3.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis .............................................................................................. 3.6-9
3.6.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.6-10
3.6.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.6-10
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 3.7-1
3.7.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.7-1
3.7.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.7-5
3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.7-19
3.7.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.7-25
3.7.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.7-41
3.7.5 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.7-42
3.7.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.7-42
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................. 3.8-1
3.8.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.8-1
3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.8-6
3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.8-12
3.8.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.8-13
3.8.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.8-16
3.8.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.8-16
3.8.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.8-16
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 3.9-1
3.9.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................................................. 3.9-2
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 3.9-3
3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................ 3.9-8
3.9.4 Project Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3.9-9
3.9.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.9-13
3.9.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.9-13
3.9.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.9-13
3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................. 3.10-1
3.10.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.10-1
3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.10-2
3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.10-7
3.10.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.10-7
3.10.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.10-18
3.10.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 3.10-18
3.10.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.10-18
3.11 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 3.11-1
3.11.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.11-1
3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.11-3
3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.11-7
3.11.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.11-8
3.11.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.11-15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-iv
3.11.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 3.11-15
3.11.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.11-16
3.12 Population and Housing ................................................................................................................ 3.12-1
3.12.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.12-3
3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.12-6
3.12.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.12-7
3.12.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.12-9
3.12.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.12-9
3.12.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.12-10
3.13 Public Services .............................................................................................................................. 3.13-1
3.13.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.13-1
3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.13-3
3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.13-7
3.13.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.13-7
3.13.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.13-10
3.13.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 3.13-12
3.13.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.13-12
3.14 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 3.14-1
3.14.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.14-1
3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.14-3
3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.14-5
3.14.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.14-5
3.14.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 3.14-6
3.14.6 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................ 3.14-7
3.14.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 3.14-7
3.15 Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 3.15-1
3.15.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.15-1
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.15-8
3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 3.15-11
3.15.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................ 3.15-12
3.15.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.15-18
3.15.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 3.15-18
3.15.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.15-19
3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 3.16-1
3.16.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.16-1
3.16.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.16-4
3.16.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.16-9
3.16.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.16-9
3.16.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.16-10
3.16.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 3.16-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-v
3.16.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.16-10
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................................ 3.17-1
3.17.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................................... 3.17-1
3.17.2 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................... 3.17-4
3.17.3 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 3.17-9
3.17.4 Project Impact Analysis ................................................................................................... 3.17-9
3.17.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.17-14
3.17.6 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................... 3.17-16
3.17.7 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 3.17-16 4 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected .............................................................................................. 4-2
4.3.1 Alternative Location .............................................................................................................. 4-2
4.4 Project Alternatives Considered in this EIR ....................................................................................... 4-3
4.4.1 Description of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 4-3
4.4.2 Summary of Project Impacts ................................................................................................ 4-3
4.4.3 No Project Alternative ........................................................................................................... 4-3
4.4.4 Existing Land Use Designation Alternative .......................................................................... 4-8
4.4.5 Reduced Density Alternative .............................................................................................. 4-13
4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .............................................................................................. 4-17 5 Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.3 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................ 5-2 6 Other CEQA Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts ....................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Growth Inducement ............................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................................................... 6-3 7 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Chapter 1: Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Chapter 2: Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3 Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3.1 Section 3.1: Aesthetics ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3.2 Section 3.2: Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 7-1
7.3.3 Section 3.3: Biological Resources ....................................................................................... 7-4
7.3.4 Section 3.4: Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 7-5
7.3.5 Section 3.5: Energy ............................................................................................................... 7-5
7.3.6 Section 3.6: Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 7-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-vi
7.3.7 Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................ 7-7
7.3.8 Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................. 7-9
7.3.9 Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................... 7-10
7.3.10 Section 3.10: Land Use and Planning ............................................................................... 7-11
7.3.11 Section 3.11: Noise ............................................................................................................ 7-12
7.3.12 Section 3.12: Population and Housing .............................................................................. 7-13
7.3.13 Section 3.13: Public Services ............................................................................................ 7-13
7.3.14 Section 3.14: Recreation ................................................................................................... 7-14
7.3.15 Section 3.15: Transportation ............................................................................................. 7-15
7.3.16 Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 7-16
7.3.17 Section 3.17: Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................... 7-16
7.4 Chapter 4: Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 7-17
7.5 Chapter 5: Effects Found Not to Be Significant .............................................................................. 7-17
7.6 Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................................... 7-18 8 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 City of San Marcos .............................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Dudek .................................................................................................................................................. 8-1
8.3 Technical Preparers ........................................................................................................................... 8-1
APPENDICES
A Scoping Letter, NOP and NOP Comments
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report
C Biological Resources Technical Report
D Cultural Resources Inventory Report
E Geotechnical Investigation
F Phase I ESA
G Drainage Study
H Storm Water Quality Management Plan
I Noise Technical Report
J Fire Response Analysis
K-1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
K-2 Local Transportation Analysis Report
L Water Sewer Study
M Gran Vista Specific Plan
N Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR
FIGURES
2-1 Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 2-23 2-2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................................. 2-25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-vii
2-3 Project Site ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-27 2-4 Existing General Plan Land Use .................................................................................................................... 2-29 2-5 Proposed General Plan Land Use ................................................................................................................. 2-31 2-6 Existing Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 2-33 2-7 Proposed Zoning ............................................................................................................................................ 2-35 2-8 Cumulative Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 2-37
3.1-1A Project Elevations........................................................................................................................................ 3.1-11
3.1-1B Project Elevations........................................................................................................................................ 3.1-13
3.1-1C Project Elevations........................................................................................................................................ 3.1-15
3.1-1D Project Elevations........................................................................................................................................ 3.1-17
3.3-1 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types....................................................................................... 3.3-19
3.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations ............................................................................................................... 3.11-17 TABLES
1-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 1-2 1-2 Comparison of Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives ...................................................................... 1-5 2-1 Conceptual Floor Plan Summary ..................................................................................................................... 2-3 2-2 Cumulative Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 2-19
3.1-1 Aesthetics Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.2-1 Air Quality Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................... 3.2-1
3.2-2 San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification ............................................................................................ 3.2-3
3.2-3 Local Ambient Air Quality Data ..................................................................................................................... 3.2-3
3.2-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................................................... 3.2-10
3.2-5 San Diego Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Significance Thresholds .............................................. 3.2-15
3.2-6 Construction Scenario Parameters ............................................................................................................ 3.2-16
3.2-7 AERMOD Principal Parameters .................................................................................................................. 3.2-18
3.2-8 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions – Unmitigated ......................................................... 3.2-22
3.2-9 Estimated Project Maximum Daily Operational Emissions – Unmitigated .............................................. 3.2-23
3.2-10 Construction Activity Health Risk Assessment Results............................................................................. 3.2-24
3.3-1 Biological Resources Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................. 3.3-1
3.3-2 Existing Vegetation/Habitat Types ............................................................................................................... 3.3-4
3.4-1 Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.5-1 Energy Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 3.5-1
3.5-2 Project Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment .......................................................................... 3.5-12
3.5-3 Project Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ...................................................................................... 3.5-13
3.5-4 Project Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand .......................................................................... 3.5-13
3.5-5 Project Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand .................................................................................. 3.5-13
3.5-6 Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Operation ......................................................................................... 3.5-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 TOC-viii
3.6-1 Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................................... 3.6-1
3.7-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7-2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California ...................................................................................... 3.7-4
3.7-3 Construction Scenario Assumptions – Existing Land Use Designation ................................................... 3.7-21
3.7-4 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions – Existing Land Use Designation ................................ 3.7-25
3.7-5 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions – Existing Land Use Designation .................................. 3.7-26
3.7-6 Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions – Proposed Project ...................................................... 3.7-26
3.7-7 Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions – Proposed Project ........................................................ 3.7-27
3.7-8 Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations ...................................................................... 3.7-28
3.8-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts ........................................................................... 3.8-1
3.8-2 Environmental Database .............................................................................................................................. 3.8-3
3.9-1 Hydrology and Water Quality Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................... 3.9-1
3.10-1 Land Use Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................................. 3.10-1
3.10-2 General Plan Consistency ........................................................................................................................... 3.10-8
3.11-1 Noise Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 3.11-1
3.11-2 Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................................. 3.11-3
3.11-3 Exterior Noise Standards by Zone .............................................................................................................. 3.11-5
3.11-4 Typical Construction Equipment................................................................................................................. 3.11-8
3.11-5 Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors ..... 3.11-9
3.11-6 Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase........................................................................ 3.11-10
3.11-7 Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results ............................................................................................... 3.11-11
3.11-8 Future Ambient Noise Levels at Residential Facades ........................................................................... 3.11-12
3.11-9 Predicted Net Sound Transmission Class of Occupied Room façade .................................................. 3.11-13
3.12-1 Population and Housing Summary of Impacts .......................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12-2 Forecasted Growth for the San Diego Region and the City of San Marcos ................................................ 3.12-5
3.13-1 Public Services Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................... 3.13-1
3.14-1 Recreation Summary of Impacts ................................................................................................................ 3.14-1
3.15-1 Transportation Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................................... 3.15-1
3.15-2 Existing Intersection Operations ................................................................................................................ 3.15-5
3.15-3 Existing Street Segment Operations .......................................................................................................... 3.15-6
3.15-4 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................ 3.15-12
3.15-5 VMT Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 3.15-16
3.16-1 Tribal Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................ 3.16-1
3.17-1 Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Impacts .................................................................................. 3.17-1
3.17-2 MWD Total Water Demands (AFY) .............................................................................................................. 3.17-2 4-1 Comparison of Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives .................................................................... 4-18
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 ACR-i
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
AERMOD American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model APE area of potential effect
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species
CFC California Fire Code
CH4 methane
City City of San Marcos
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County San Diego County
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EIR environmental impact report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EO Executive Order
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 ACR-ii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GPA General Plan Amendment
GWP global warming potential
HA Hydrologic Area
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HRA health risk assessment
HSA Hydrologic Subarea
HU Hydrologic Unit
I Interstate
IBC International Building Code
IFC International Fire Code
ips inches per second
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 kWh kilowatt-hours
Ldn day–night average noise level
Leq equivalent noise level over a given period
LID low impact development
LOS level of service
LTPP Long-Term Procurement Plan
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MGD million gallons per day
MHCP multiple habitat conservation program
MM Mitigation Measure
MMT million metric tons
MRF Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MT metric tons
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCTD North County Transit District
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 ACR-iii
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
NOP notice of preparation
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
PDF Project Design Feature
PFC perfluorocarbon
PFF Public Facility Fee
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
project proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RHNA Regional Housing Need Allocation
RHNP Regional Housing Needs Plan
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAB San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System
sf square feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SIP state implementation plan
SMFD San Marcos Fire Department
SMFPD San Marcos Fire Protection District
SMMC San Marcos Municipal Code
SMUSD San Marcos Unified School District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 ACR-iv
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
SoCalGas Southern California Gas
SOx sulfur oxides
SP/yr service population per year
SPL sound pressure level
SR State Route
STC sound transmission class
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWQMP stormwater quality management plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR tribal cultural resource
TDM transportation demand management
TIA transportation impact analysis
TMDL total maximum daily load
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VWD Vallecitos Water District
WQIP water quality improvement plan
ZEV zero-emission vehicle
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 13-1
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Project Summary
The Gran Vista Specific Plan Project ( project) proposes to develop 120 three-story townhomes and associated amenities on an approximately 7.6-acre project site in the City of San Marcos (City) . The project would include approximately 92,645 square feet of common recreation area and an average of approximately 130146 square feet of private open space per unit. Amenities on site would include tot lots and recreational areas, a dog park, a community garden, and a landscaped pedestrian path along the N Las Posas Road frontage. The proposed project also includes landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The proposed project would have a density of approximately 15.7 dwelling units per acre.
The adjacent CVS parcel includes 99 existing parking spaces that would remain for the exclusive and ongoing use of CVS, which only requires 53 spaces to meet the City’s Parking Ordinance fo r commercial uses. The project site currently contains an additional 38 parking spaces that would be shared between the project site and CVS. The project would introduce an additional 20 guest spaces to meet the City’s requirement for multifamily dwelling guest parking of 1 space per 3 units (120 units/3 = 40 spaces total). As required, 2 of the 20 additional guest parking spaces would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. The project also includes 240 garage spaces, which would provide 2 garage spaces per unit and therefore would comply with the City’s Parking Ordinance.
The project site is surrounded by existing development and located in the northwestern portion of the City, at the northwest corner of N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road , comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-121-15-00 and 219 -121-16-00. The project site is bounded by N Las Posas Road along the eastern boundary, W Mission Road along the southwest boundary, an existing CVS store to the south, and existing single - family residential development to the north and west, as well as to the east across N Las Posas Road . Nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site include industrial and commercial uses, the Santa Fe Hills residential community to the north, and Palomar College approximately 0.2 miles east. The project location and project site boundary are shown on Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan, Tentative Map, and Site Development Plan. The General Plan Amendm ent and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan serves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan (the Specific Plan is included as Appendix M to this environmental impact report [ EIR]). The Tentative Map presents specific lot configuration for the site. The Site Development Plan will configure the site for townhome dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space.
1.2 Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation
Measures That Reduce or Avoid The Significant Effects
Table 1 -1 provides a summary of significant env ironmental impacts resulting from the project , mitigation measures identified to reduce and/or avoid the environmental effects , and a determination of the level of significance of each impact following implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Detailed analyses of significant environmental effects and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3 of this EIR. 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 13-2
The mitigation measures listed in Table 1 -1 w ould reduce impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources to below a level of significance. Impacts related to traffic would remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of proposed mitigation.
Table 1-1. Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After Mitigation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: There is potential for project
construction activities to cause disturbances that
would result in impacts to adjacent habitats.
Implementation of MM-BIO-1, refer to
Section 3.3.6
Less than significant
Impact BIO-2: There is potential for construction
activities to result in indirect impacts to
nesting birds.
Implementation of MM-BIO-2, refer to
Section 3.3.6
Less than significant
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: Unknown archaeological resources
may occur on the project site, and the proposed
project has the potential to disturb such
unidentified resources during project grading.
Implementation of MM-CR-1 through
MM-CR-4, refer to Section 3.4.6
Less than significant
Impact CR-2: There is a potential for project
construction activities to disturb previously
unidentified human remains on the project site.
Implementation of MM-CR-1 through
MM-CR-4, refer to Section 3.4.6
Less than significant
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: There is potential for impacts to
previously unidentified tribal cultural resources
Implementation of MM-CR-1 through
MM-CR-4, refer to Section 3.4.6
Less than significant
Traffic
Impact TRA-1: The project VMT per resident
would exceed 16.07 VMT per resident (15%
below regional average) threshold.
Implementation of MM-TRA-1
through MM-TRA-3, refer to
Section 3.15.6
Significant and
Unavoidable
In addition to the measures outlined in Table 1 -1, Project Design Feature (PDF) NOI-1 and PDF -NOI-2 outlined in Section 3.11, Noise, of this EIR are proposed to ensure noise during project construction remains less than significant.
1.3 Areas of Concern
A notice of preparation (NOP) was distributed on April 20, 2022, for a 30-day public review and comment period.
Additionally, a public information meeting was held on May 12th, 2022, at 6:00 p.m. at the San Marcos City Hall in the Valley of Discovery Room located at 1 Civic Center Drive in San Marcos. 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 13-3
Public comments were received on the NOP for this EIR and reflect concern over a number of environmental issues (refer to Appendix A for the NOP and NOP comment letters). A total of 11 letters were received. Issues and concerns raised in the NOP comment letters include the following:
▪ Transportation: Scope of the study area, existing roadway congestion, trip generation and distribution, means of alternative transportation, project access , parking, cumulative trip generation from other projects, reducing vehicle miles traveled, pedestrian and friendly development design, pedestrian safety ▪ Noise: Existing noise from high traffic volumes
▪ Air quality: Air pollution from traffic
▪ Biological resources: Conversion of sensitive habitat, potential direct and indirect impacts to special - status species, and inclusion of appropriate mitigation ▪ Cultural and tribal cultural resources : Compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 , direct or indirect impacts to cultural resources, appropriate and adequate mitigation ▪ Greenhouse gas: Greenhouse gas emission reduction
▪ Land Use: Rezoning of the site, cumulative conversion of commercial zoning, compatibility with surround land uses/development, commercial uses that would be walkable/bikeable from surrounding residences, cumulative residential projects
▪ Population/housing: Cumulative residential projects
▪ Public utilities: Adequate water supply, cumulative water supply, general concern for utility capacity ▪ Public services: Potential impact to schools, impacts to police services ▪ Recreation: Cumulative impacts to recreational areas
1.4 Issues to be Resolved by the Decision-Making Body
An EIR is an informational document intended to inform the public agency dec ision makers and the public of the significant effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.
The lead agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making “Findings” for each significant effect. The issues to be resolved by the decision makers for the project include whether or how to mitigate the associated significant effects, including whether to implement a project alternative. The decision makers must determine whether any of the project alternatives would substantially reduce significant effects while still meeting key objectives of the project (see Section 2.1, Project Objectives).
1.5 Project Alternatives
Three alternatives are proposed to provide an understanding of how environmental effects could be reduced by varying the design and scope of the project. Table 1 -2 provides a comparison of the impacts of project alternatives to the impacts of the proposed project . The alternatives outli ned below are more fully discussed in Chapter 4 of this EIR.
1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 13-4
1.5.1 No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented and the project site would remain undeveloped in its existing condition. This alternat ive would eliminate all the significant impacts identified for the proposed project. Since the No Project Alternative would not provide any development, overall impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project. However, certain benefits would not be realized under this alternative, including the provision of housing units as identified in the General Plan in an infill and transit area.
As the No Project Alternative would not develop the site or allow for housing, t his alternative would not fulfill any of the project objectives. This alternative is further described in Section 4.4.3 in Chapter 4 of this EIR.
1.5.2 Existing Land Use Designation Alternative
Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative, the project site would be developed per th e City’s General Plan as a Commercial (C) land use. The project site would be developed as previously processed with the existing CVS Conditional Use Permit. The Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would include 69,000 square feet of grocery store an d gas station uses and 23,000 square feet of office space. This alternative would include 276 parking spaces. This alternative could be processed with a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Plan and would not require a General Plan Amendment or Rezone of the site.
Other improvements, such as circulation, landscaping , and utility connections would occur as required. Off -site improvements beyond those required by mitigation measures would not occur under this alternative. No open space uses would occur on site.
1.5.3 Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the density on site in comparison to the project by changing the General Plan land use designation to Low Density Residential (LDR) and changing the zoning to Residential 1 (R-1-7.5), which “provides for low -density, single family detached homes that are suitable in massing and character or inclusion in single -family detached neighborhoods.” Under this alternative, the site would accommodate approximately 33 single-family homes for a total residential density of 4.34 dwelling units per acre.
The Reduced Density Alternative would not incorporate private useable open space area within the residential community since each single -family home would have a backyard. Th e access points and internal streets would be configured to fit the 33 single-family home layout. This alternative would utilize the entire 7.6-acre site.
1.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 1-2 provides a qualitative comparison of the impacts for each alternative compared to the proposed project. As shown in Table 1-2, the No Project Alternative would eliminate all of the significant impacts identified for the project.
However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then an environmentally superior alternative should be identified among the other alternatives.
Among the other alternatives, not including the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would potentially provide a reduced level of impact in some enviro nmental analysis areas including air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise. However, such impacts under this alternative would still remain less than significant, similar to the proposed project. The Reduced Density Alternative would cover the same developmen t footprint as the proposed project, but would result in 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 13-5
decreased unit count and population count on site. Because the Reduced Density Alternative would cover the same development footprint as the project, impacts to biological resources, cultural resourc es, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources would remain the same as the proposed project, and mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to these environmental resources. The Reduced Density Alternative would not meet project objectives 1, 2, and 4. Furthermore, due to the project site being located in an urban setting and the limited options available to mitigate vehicle miles traveled impacts for residential projects, the Reduced Density Alternative would still result in a significant and unavoidable transportation impact due to vehicle miles traveled.
For the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative, although this alternative would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designation for the site and would promot e infill development on site, it would not fulfill any of the project objectives, would not reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts, would not aid the City in achieving its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, and may result in new or mo re severe impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazards.
Table 1-2. Comparison of Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives Environmental
Topic
Proposed
Project No Project Alternative
Existing Land Use
Designation
Alternative
Reduced Density
Alternative
Aesthetics LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) LTS (Same) Air Quality LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Greater) LTS (Same/Reduced)
Biological
Resources
LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same/Greater) LTSM
(Same/Reduced)
Cultural Resources LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same) LTSM (Same/Reduced)
Energy LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Greater) LTS (Same) Geology and Soils LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) LTS (Same/Reduced)
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Greater) LTS
(Same/Reduced)
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Greater) LTS (Same)
Hydrology and
Water Quality
LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) LTS
(Same/Reduced)
Land Use LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced) LTS (Same) Noise LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) LTS
(Same/Reduced)
Population and
Housing
LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced) LTS (Same)
Public Services LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced) LTS (Same) Recreation LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced) LTS (Same) Transportation SU No Impact (Reduced) SU (Same) LTSM (Same) Tribal Cultural
Resources
LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same) LTSM
(Same/Reduced)
Utilities and Service
Systems
LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (same) LTS (Same)
Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant Impact; LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation; SU = Significant and Unavoidable 1 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 13-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-1
2 Project Description, Location, and
Environmental Setting
As required by Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this section describes the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project) and includes a statement of the project objectives; a general description of the prop osed project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics ; and a summary of the discretionary actions required to approve the proposed project. The proposed project provide s guidelines and standards for the implementation of future development of the project site.
2.1 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a statement of the project objectives. The project objectives include the following:
Maximize residential densities, to the extent feasible, within proximity to major transit, education facilities, commercial uses, and trails to reduce reliance on automobiles and potentially minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
Create a highly connected and efficient system of sidewalks and pathways supported by pedestrian friendly architecture and landscaping to promote walkability and connect people to surrounding transit and destinations.
Design a vehicular circulation system that adequately accommodates traffic and minimizes traffic impacts in and around the project site.
Support the housing needs of the City of San Marcos (City) and the region by developing high -quality workforce housing that balances density with price-points and long-term maintenance costs, such that new homes remain financially attainable to entry-level home buyers.
Establish development standards and design guidelines that ensure distinctive architecture, landscaping, and recreational amenities that complement and enhance the existing surrounding neighborhood while providing a desirable living environment.
Identify a program for the long -term maintenance of the community to ensure all facilities are adequately maintained to City standards.
Finance or contribute a fair share of funding to all community services and infrastructure needed to support development proposed by the project to promote economic stability.
2.2 Project Description
The approximately 7.6 -acre project site is located in the undeveloped northwest corner of the N Las Posas Road/ W Mission Road intersection in the City of San Marcos, California. The project site is bound ed by N Las Posas Road along the eastern boundary, W Mission Road along the southwest boundary, an existing CVS Pharmacy to the south, and existing single -family residential development to the north and west, as well as to the east across N Las Posas Road .
The project pro poses development of 120 multifamily residential dwelling units on 7.6 acres for an approximate total density of 15.8 dwelling units per acre. The project would include approximately 92,645 square feet of recreation area and an average of approximately 13046 square feet of private open space per unit. Amenities on 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-2
site would include tot lots and recreational areas, a dog park, a community garden, and a landscaped pedestrian path along the N Las Posas Road frontage. The proposed project also includes landsca ping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The project would include two points of entry, the first located off N Las Posas Road and the second located off W Mission Road (please refer to Figure 2-1, Conceptual Site Plan).
The project would i nclude a variety of floorplans for the proposed townhomes. Floorplans include two - and three- bedroom units that vary in size from approximately 1,200 square feet to 1, 800 square feet and include differing garage configurations. All townhomes would be three stories high. The number of townhomes per building would vary from 4 to 10. Proposed residential units are designed as entry -level market-rate housing with a range of unit sizes and price points in order to create opportunities for home ownership that would be attractive to varying income levels. The proposed townhomes would also provide for a transition between single-family homes to the north and high-density apartments to the south east across W Mission Road. All proposed buildings would be equipped with photovoltaic panels (solar panels) on the rooftops to provide solar energy to the proposed homes , in accordance with current California Building Code.
Nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site include industrial and commercial uses to the west and south on the other side of W Mission Road, the Santa Fe Hills residential community to the north, and Palomar College approximately 0.2 miles to the east. The project site is comprised of Ass essor’s Parcel Numbers 219 -121-15-00 and 219-121-16-00. The project location and project site boundary are shown on Figures 2-2 and 2-3.
The project site is currently zoned for Commercial (C) use with an existing General Plan designation of Commercial.
The project site is within the General Plan ’s College Area Neighborhood. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the land use designation to Specific Plan Area (SPA) (refer to Figures 2-4 through 2-7). Design of the project would be required to follow the design guidelines outlined in the Gran Vista Specific Plan, prepared for the project site (Appendix M). The design guidelines propose transitional architectural styles for the project to allow the project to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. Landscape screening would be provided along the top of the drainage channel slope to preserve the privacy of adjacent neighbors.
The project site is designated as a High -Quality Transit Area due to its proximity to transit and o ther facilities and services that support alternatives to vehicle use. Palomar College, a public community college consisting of a 200-acre campus, is located east of the project site. Palomar College Transit Center, a North County Transit District hub, is located less than 0.25 miles from the project site. Palomar College Transit Center consists of a bus depot on the north side of W Mission Road, near the main entrance to Palomar College, and a train station on the south side of W Mission Road that serves the SPRINTER hybrid rail train. Rail service and bus transit service offered at the Transit Center provide local and regional connections to schools, employment, shopping, and entertainment options within the City, as well as San Diego and Riverside Count ies. An existing bus turnout and stop are also located on W Mission Road in front of CVS. The Inland Rail Trail, a proposed 21-mile Class I bikeway, runs along the south side of W Mission Road and connects the Cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Es condido, as well us areas of unincorporated San Diego County.
2.2.1 Discretionary Actions Required of the City
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment , Specific Plan, Tentative Map, and Site Development Plan. The General Plan Amendm ent and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan (Appendix M to this EIR) serves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-3
General Plan. The Tentative Map presents specific lot configuration for the site. The Site Development Plan will configure the site for townhome dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space.
The requested project entitlements/discretionary actions by the City include the following:
▪ General Plan Amendment
▪ Zoning Amendment (Rezone)
▪ Specific Plan
▪ Tentative Subdivision Map
▪ Multi-Family Site Development Plan
2.2.2 Project Characteristics
Residential Uses
As described above, the project consists of a residential development of 120 townhomes and associated amenities on a currently vacant site. The townhomes are proposed to be located throughout the project site. The disturbance area associated with project construction would encompass most of the project site.
The number of townhomes per building would vary from 4 to 10. Floorplans include two- and three-bedroom units that vary in size from approximately 1,200 square feet to 1,800 square feet and include differing garage configurations as shown in Table 2 -1. Each home would include private open space averaging 146 square feet per unit in the form of a patio and/or deck.
Amenities on the project site would include a community garden, dog park , tot lot/exercise station, central recreation area, children’s play area, turf play area, and barbecue areas. A total of 92,645 square feet of common open space would be provided throughout the project site through these amenities.
Table 2-1. Conceptual Floor Plan Summary
Square Footage Bedroom Count Garage Configuration Unit Count 1,213 2 2- Car, Side-by-Side 30
1,505 3 2- Car, Tandem 45
1,802 3 2- Car, Side-by-Side 45
Total 120
Circulation and Access
The proposed project is located on a vacant parcel adjacent to W Mission Road to the south. W Mission Road is classified as an arterial four-lane roadway in the City of San Marcos General Plan Mobility Element (City of San Marcos 2012). W Mission Road is a four-lane roadway for its entire length from N Rancho Santa Fe Road to east of W San Marcos Boulevard. W Mission Road transitions to S Santa Fe Ave approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the project site. S Santa Fe Avenue transitions from a four-lane to a two-lane road after Bosstick Boulevard. The Inland Rail Trail Class I Bicycle trail runs along W Mission Road along the project site; additionally, W Mission Road 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-4
provides pedestrian facilities. N Las Posas Road borders the northeastern boundary of the project site. N Las Posas Road is currently classified as a six-lane roadway between the State Route 78 westbound ramps and Avenida Azul and a four-lane roadway between Avenida Azul and Avenida Leon. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. On -street parking is prohibited. Class II bike lanes are provided.
The proposed project would be accessible from two points, as shown on Figure 2 -1, that are shared with the neighboring CVS parcel. The primary entry to the project site is via a driveway at the signalized intersection of N Las Posas Road and Palm Road and the secondary access point is from a driveway on W Mission Road that includes a left-turn in and right-in/right-out traffic movements. Both driveways have been improved with enhanced paving and landscaping. Shared use of these driveways is controlled through covenants, conditions, and restrictions that cover the project site and the CVS parcel.
Three external public roadways provide access to the project site. N Las Posas Road forms the project site’s eastern boundary. Palm Road intersects with N Las Posas Road at the project’s main entrance, which is si gnalized.
W Mission Road forms a portion of the project site’s southern boundary and provides additional access to the site.
The internal circulation system for the proposed development would consist of a combination of private drives and private drive ai sles. Private drives are low -speed streets designed with a minimum curb -to-curb width of 24 feet.
This width is adequate to accommodate vehicles, emergency vehicles, and other service vehicles. This cross section allows for two lanes of travel (one in each direction), as well as adequate back-up space where parking spaces are provided. Private drive aisles provide access to private garages, and are designed with a minimum width of 24 feet.
A minimum dimension of 30 feet is required between garages to provid e adequate back up for vehicles exiting private garages. Parking would be prohibited in private drive aisles.
The California Fire Code, along with the San Marcos Fire Department, administers the rules and regulations on fire access design. The proposed project would be designed to provide fire and emergency responders with suitable fire access roads, dimensions, and surfaces (Chapter 5, Sections 503.1 through 503.4 of the California Fire Code) and an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D, Section D106 of the California Fire Code).
Please refer to Section 3.15, Transportation, of this EIR for a detailed description and analysis of proposed access and circulation.
Parking
As described above, the adjacent CVS parcel includes 99 existing parking spaces that would remain for the exclusive and ongoing use of CVS, which only requires 53 spaces to meet the City’s Parking Ordinance for commercial uses.
The project site currently contains an additional 38 parking spaces that would be shared between the project site and CVS. The project would introduce an additional 20 guest spaces to meet the City’s requirement for multifamily dwelling guest parking of 1 space per 3 units (120 units/3 = 40 spaces total). As required, 2 of the 20 additional guest parking spaces would include electric vehicle charging stations. The project also includes 240 garage spaces which would provide 2 garage spaces per unit and therefore would comply with the City’s Parking Ordinance.
Guest parking would be eve nly distributed throughout the project site, designed to occur along private drives, or divided into small landscaped parking courts to avoid the creation of large parking lots. The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Section 4.106.4.2.1, requires the installation of at least one electric vehicle space in common use parking. The project would install two electric vehicle charging stations in the common use parking.
Additionally, bicycle racks would be provided throughout the pr oject site . The project would comply with the Gran Vista Specific Plan required vehicle and bicycle parking ratios for development within the project site. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-5
Pedestrian Circulation
The project design would incorporate a pedestrian circulation plan that establishes a connected circulation system of pathways supported by pedestrian friendly architecture and landscaping. Buildings on site would be arranged to create direct and frequent walkway connections throughout the site and to adjacent public sidewalks along N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road. Walkways would be designed to provide access in accordance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and to promote walkability and connect people to surrounding transit and places.
Bicycle Connectivity
The project would provide shared use access for bicycles within the project’s private drives that would connect to existing Class II bike lanes on N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road. These facilities also connect to the nearby Inland Rail Trail, located along the south side of W Mission Road. The Inland Rail Trail is a proposed 21-mile Class I bikeway that connects the Cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido, as well as a portion of the unincorporated County of San Diego.
Transit Connection
Exiting public transit facilities are readily available within walking distance to the project site. An existing bus stop is located on W Mission Road, immediately in front of the CVS. Additionally, the Palomar College Transit Center is located less than 0.25 miles from the project site on W Mission Road, at the entrance to Palomar College.
Open Space
Total open space within the project site is approximately 152,7484,743 square feet (3.515 acres), which includes private open space, common open space, and open space with grades of greater than 10%. As described above, each home would include private open space in the form of a patio and/or deck. Approximately 13046 square feet of private open space would be provided per unit. Private open space would be directly accessible from the primary interior living space of the unit. Common open space on site includes usable open space areas with grades of less than 10%, which are dispersed throughout the project site amongst the proposed buildings. Common open space would provide for recreational spaces, consisting of approximately 92,645 square feet of open space designed with urban -style amenities such as tot lots, an off-leash dog space, outdoor exercise equipment, a community garden, barbecue areas, and space for a variety of outdoor games. Open space on site with grades of 10% or greater would make up approximately 44,548 square feet and would be located along the western boundary of the project site; this space would act as a buffer between the proposed development and existing single-family homes. This open space is not counted towards useable open space on site and includes slopes along the channel and adjacent to public roadways.
These spaces would be landscaped, commonly owned, and maintained by the homeowners association.
All open space areas would be landscaped in accordance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Standards.
The proposed landscape p alette for the project utilizes drought tolerant and California native plant palettes. No invasive plant species would be incorporated into site landscaping. All landscaping on site would be required to comply with the landscape plan provided in the Gran Vista Specific Plan (Appendix M).
Archite cture
Architecture and landscaping would reflect the urban setting of the area. Buildings would be designed to engage and enhance an interconnected series of internal landscaped pathways and sidewalks along N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road to support convenient, safe, and efficient pedestrian movements that promote walkability and transit use.
Development of the site would be designed to minimize walls and fences to support an open and walkable community. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-6
Floorplans include two - and three -bedroom units t hat vary in size from approximately 1,200 square feet to 1,800 square feet and include differing garage configurations. All townhomes would be three stories high. The number of townhomes per building would vary from 4 to 10. The proposed townhomes would va ry by building , incorporating different neutral colors and materials. Please refer to Figure s 3-1A through 3-1D in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, for conceptual elevations of the proposed townhomes.
The project would provide a transition between the traditional architectural styles found in the single-family homes to the north, east, and west and the contemporary styles found in urban uses to the south. The architectural style proposed for the project would be selected based on historic and current popularity with homeowners in California.
Architectural styles that may be incorporated into project design would be those such as Transitional Craftsman and Transitional Farmhouse, as outlined in Chapter 3 of the Gran Vista Specific Plan (Appendix M).
All proposed ligh ting on site would be designed to meet City standards and comply with design guidelines in the Gran Vista Specific Plan (Appendix M), while also enhancing the aesthetic of the community.
Public Utilities
Water Facilities
The property is within the Vallecitos Water District for both water and sewer service. Townhome residential sites in the Vallecitos Water District are typically served by on -site private water systems. Private systems consist of separate fire and domestic systems on site. Private fire systems typically supply on -site fire hydrants and building fire sprinkler systems and require a backflow preventer at the connection to the public water system.
The distribution of potable water to each home would be provide d by a series of 8 -inch public pipes and related infrastructure. The proposed water system would connect to an existing 8-inch pipe in N Las Posas Road. Pipes would be located within private drives and private drive aisles to create a loop system that serv es the entire project site.
Individual services to homes would be provided by a lateral from the main pipe to the water meter for each home.
A dedicated fire main would provide fire service to a series of new and existing fire hydrants and to the individual units for firefighting purposes. There are two existing fire hydrants on the project site that are already in service and would remain in place.
In accordance with current California Building Code, all buildings would be equipped with fire sprinklers and water conservation features such as water efficient faucets and shower heads and high -performance toilets. Homes would be Water Sense Certified to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards.
Irrigation for the site would tie into the proposed loop system. Irrigation of landscaping throughout the project site would be required to comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the City’s Landscape Manual.
Sewer Facilities
There are currently no existing gravity sewer lines on the project site. Wastewater service to the project site would be provided by the Vallecitos Water District. A wastewater system would be incorporated into the project site design, which would include an 8 -inch PVC sewer main to adequately service individual home s and community areas discharging wastewater. Pipes would be located underneath internal private drives and private drive aisles. The on- site system would collect wastewater and direct flows into an existing 15-inch pipe in N Las Posas Road. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-7
Site Drainage
Water arrives on site via natural rainfall only. Rainfall runoff from the site typically only occurs during a significant storm event. Water that does accumulate on site generally drains in a southwestern direction to an existing 12-inch corrugated metal piperiser to a 12-inch corrugated metal pipe to meet up with the commercial site to the south of the project site. The total flow eventually discharges into Las Posas Creek south. Per Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System requirements, stormwater flows on site would be conveyed to biofiltration systems through storm drains throughout the project site, where water would be treated prior to being discharged. All surface runoff would be directed to catch basins in private drives and private drive aisles. Once captured, water would be conveyed through a series of 18- to 24-inch pipes to two underground vaults located below common open space areas. Within the underground vaults, water would be passed through a series of mechanical filters to remove pollutants prior to being discharged. Treated water would be conveyed through an existing outfall into the adjacent channel that forms the northwestern edge of the project site.
Storm drainage components would properly handle runoff to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure that post- development runoff quantifies and rates are similar to or less than predevelopment conditions. The project would incorporate a ppropriate design of on - and off -site drainage facilities and would prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan , stormwater quality management plan , and best management practices .
Please refer to Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR, which describes and analyzes project utilities and service systems in detail.
Electrical , Gas, and Telecommunication
Electricity and natural gas would be provided by San Diego Gas & Electric. Electrical facilities throughout the City include a combination of aboveground and belowground electrical distribution lines and utilities structures. The City fiber-optic network is facilitated by a 72 -strand fiber-optic line that runs on various streets throughout the City. All major arterials in the City have implemented fiber optics. The project would connect to an existing 12 -kilovolt line in a vault on N Las Posas Road.
San Diego Gas & Electric maintains a 4 -inch gas distribution system within N Las Posas Road and a 3-inch gas distribution system within W Mission Road. The gas lines would be extended to and through the project site through the same joint trench alignment as electric and telecommunication facilities. Use of gas for the project would be limited to gas cooktops and dryers.
Telecommunication would be provided through Cox Communications and AT&T. Telephone, cable , and internet connections would be available to each home.
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and recycling services to the project would be provided by EDCO Waste & Recycling. Non - recyclable waste, including general trash and green materials, is collected and transported to the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill in Santee. Recyclable materials are transferred to the Escondido Resources Recovery Transfer Station for further processing. Residents of the City can dispose of household hazardous waste free of charge at the Vista Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility at 1145 E Tayl or Street or the Poway Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility at 12325 Crosthwaite Circle. Service and facility fees for solid waste collection and recycling would be paid monthly by each resident.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-8
Grading
The project site was previously graded for commercial uses and currently consists of two development pads. The project proposes to clear and grub remaining vegetation on site and alter grading to further define drainage courses and crate pads for each residential building. Proposed grading would generate a total volume of 9,335 cubic yards of cut and 9,335 cubic yards of fill, resulting in balanced earthwork that does not require any import or export of dirt. The proposed grading plan has been designed to maintain the current drainage pattern of the project site, with a high point at the north end of the site and a low point near the southwest corner of the site.
2.3 Environmental Setting
2.3.1 Existing Land Uses and Setting
The site is within the northwestern portion of the Cit y of San Marcos, in the College Area Neighborhood. The project site is currently vacant and has no existing impervious areas. Topography within the project boundary is relatively flat with disturbed vegetation communities throughout. The site was previousl y graded into two separate development pads. Elevation of the site is approximately 575 feet above mean sea level with terrain sloping downward towards the southwe st. Adjacent land uses include mixed commercial development to the south and southwest , residential uses to the north east and northwest , and an undeveloped parcel located adjacent to the southwestern project boundary . The closest freeway is State Route 78 located approximately
0.4 miles south of the project site.
2.3.2 Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
As described above, the existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial. Development allowed under this land use designation must be consistent with those uses outlined in the City’s Municipal Code and zoning ordinance, as well as the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan.
Existing Zoning Designation
The existing zoning of the project site is Commercial (C). The purpose of the Commercial land use designation is to “provide a business district for the full range of retail goods, services, and commercial centers that stabilize, maintain, and enhance the vitality of San Marcos in a supportive commercial setting adjacent to thorough fares.
Appropriate C Zone commercial uses will contribute to the range of service and destination retail, shopping centers, entertainment, and restaurant uses that generate a strong tax base” (City of San Marcos 20 22). The Commercial zone is intended to implement and be consistent with the Commercial land use designation of the General Plan.
2.3.3 Regional Setting
The following provides a general description of various aspects of the proposed project’s environmental setting.
Additional descriptions of the proposed project’s environmental setting as it relate s to environmental issue areas can be found throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-9
Climate
The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average summertime high temperature in the region is approximately 74°F. The average wintertime low temperature is approximately 49°F. Average precip itation in the local area is approximately 10 inches per year, with the bulk of precipitation falling between December and March.
Air Basin
The City and project site are within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District. The SDAB is 1 of 15 air basins that geographically divide the State of California. The SDAB lies in the southwest corner of California and comprises the entire San Diego region, covering 4,260 square miles; it is an area of high air pollution potential. The SDAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological patt ern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
The SDAB is currently classified as a federal nonattainment area for ozone and a state nonattainment area for particulate matter less with a diameter than or equal to 10 microns , particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns, and ozone.
Soils
Two soil series are mapped in the project boundary: Huerhuero loam (HrC), 2% to 9% slopes, and Placentia sandy loam (PeC), 2% to 9% slopes (US DA 2022). Soils within the project site have been degraded over time from disturbances such as grading and disking. As a result, the soils no longer maintain their native soil characteristics.
Terrain and Topography
The project site is characterized by und eveloped terrain and has no existing impervious areas , with the exception of a portion of the CVS parking lot. As previously described, topography within the project boundary is relatively flat with sparse vegetation throughout.
Watersheds and Hydrology
The project site occurs within the central portion of the San Marcos Creek Watershed ( Hydrologic Unit Code 180703030503), within the greater boundaries of the San Marcos Creek -Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Parent Watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 1807030305). The San Marcos Creek Watershed is approximately 53 square miles (34,246 acres) and consists of two major tributaries: San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek. These tributaries converge prior to discharging into the Pacific Ocean at Batiquitos Lagoon. Th e San Marcos Creek subwatershed consists of two tributaries: Las Posas Branch and Twin Oaks Branch of San Marcos Creek. These tributaries converge prior to discharging into Lake San Marcos south of the project site. The Las Posas Branch tributary to San Marcos Creek runs directly along the border of the western side of the project site. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-10
Habitat
Within the project boundary, three vegetation communities and/or land covers were identified and categorized into non-native g rassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub –Baccharis-dominated, and u rban/developed. Please refer to Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of this EIR for a detailed analysis of biological resources.
2.3.4 Public Services
The following provides a general description of public services within the City that would serve the proposed project.
Additional detail on public services can be found in Section 3.13, Public Services, of this EIR.
Fire Protection
The project site is located within the San Marcos Fire Protection District. The City of San Marcos Fire Department would provide fire protection and emergency medical services to development at the project. The City of San Marcos Fire Department provides structural fire protection and advanced life support -level emergency medical services within the City limits; unincorporated territory adjacent to the City’s northern boundary; discontinuous, unincorporated areas between the City of San Marcos and the City of Escondido; and the community of Lake San Marcos. The City of San Marcos Fire Department operates four stations, the closest of which is located at 180 W Mission Road, approximately 1.7 miles from the project site.
Police Protection
Police protection services for the proposed project would be provided by the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department under contract with the City. The project site would be served by the Sheriff’s San Marcos Station, located at 182 Santar Place in the northeast quadrant of the City, approximately 3.2 miles from the project site.
Schools
The San Marcos Unified School District provides educational instruction for children residing within the City.
Residents of the project would be served by the following schools:
▪ Paloma Elementary School, located at 660 Camino Magnifico, approximately 1 mile north of the project site ▪ San Marcos Middle School, located at 650 W Mission Road, approximately 1 mile east of the project site ▪ Mission Hills High School, located at 1 Mission Hills Court, approximately 3 miles from the project site
2.4 Intended Uses of the EIR
This EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), and the City’s Environmental Review Procedures.
The EIR is an informational document that will provide the City’s decision makers, public agencies, responsible and trustee agencies, and members of the public with information about (1) the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts th at would result from the development of the proposed project, (2) possible ways to minimize any significant environmental impacts, and (3) feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid significant impacts associated with the prop osed project (California Public Resources Code, 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-11
Section 21002.1[a]; 14 CCR 15121[a]). Responsible and trustee agencies may use this EIR to fulfill their legal authority to issue permits for the proposed project. The analysis and findings in this EIR reflec t the independent judgment of the City.
Lead Agency
As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, a lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City is the lead agency for the proposed project because it will perform the entitlement processing of the proposed project. As the designated lead agency, the City has assumed responsibility for preparing this EIR, and the analysis and findings in this EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment. When deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City will use the information in this EIR to consider potential impacts to the physical environment associated with the proposed project.
Responsible Agencies
As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, a responsible agency includes all public agencies other than the lead agency that have discretionary approval power over the project, such as the Vallecitos Water District .
Subsequent to certification of the final EIR, agencies with permitting authority over all or por tions of the proposed project will use the final EIR as the basis for their evaluation of environmental effects related to the proposed project that will culminate with the approval or denial of applicable permits.
Trustee Agencies
As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15386, a trustee agency is a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. For example, trustee agencies include the California Departme nt of Fish and Wildlife with regard to the fish and wildlife of the state, designated rare or endangered native plants, and game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2.4.1 Scope of the EIR
For the proposed project, the City determined that a project EIR, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, was required. The City made this determination based on the development proposed for the project site and the discretionary actions requested. This EIR evaluates all subject areas listed in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines with the exception of those subject areas determined to have no impact on the environment, which are addressed in Chapter 4 of this EIR. Chapter 3 of this EIR evaluates the following subject areas in detail: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas em issions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts, and growth-inducing impacts. Chapter 5 analyzes alternatives to the proposed project.
As a project EIR, this EIR is “focused primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the project” (14 CCR 15161). In addition, as a project EIR, this EIR ex amines all phases of the proposed project including planning, construction, and operation (14 CCR 15161). Where environmental impacts have been determined to be significant, this EIR recommends mitigation measures directed at reducing or avoiding those sig nificant environmental impacts. Alternatives to the proposed project are identified to evaluate whether there are ways to minimize or avoid significant impacts associated with the proposed project. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-12
2.4.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
CEQA establishes mechanisms to inform the public and decision makers about the nature of the proposed project and the extent and types of impacts that the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project would have on the environment should the proposed project or alternatives be implemented. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a notice of preparation (NOP) dated April 20, 2022 , to interested agencies, organizations, and parties. The NOP was also sent to the State Clearinghouse at the California Office of Planning and Research. The State Clearinghouse assigned a state identification number (SCH No. 2022040440) to this EIR.
The NOP is intended to encourage interagency and public communication regarding the proposed action so that agencies, organizations, and individuals are afforded an opportunity to respond with specific comments and/ or questions regarding the scope and content of the EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on May 12, 2022 , at San Marcos City Hall (1 Civic Center Drive) to gather additional public input. The 30-day public scoping period ended on May 20, 2022. Comments received during the NOP public scoping period were considered part of the preparation of this EIR. The NOP and written comments are included in Appendix A to this EIR. Comments covered numerous topics, including transportation, noise, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, land use, population and housing, utilities, and public services . Public scoping comments regarding the proposed project’s potential impact on the environment have been incorporated into the analysis in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this EIR.
2.4.3 Draft EIR and Public Review
This draft EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. The draft EIR will be made available to members of the public, responsible agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public review period in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105.
Public review of the Draft EIR is intended to focus “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (14 CCR 15204). The notice of completion of the draft EIR will be filed with the State Clearinghouse as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15085. In addition, the notice of availa bility of the draft EIR will be distributed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. Interested parties may provide comments on the draft EIR in written form. This EIR and related technical appendices are available for review during the 45 -day public review period at the following locations:
City of San Marcos Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
San Diego County Library
San Marcos Branch
2 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
City of San Marcos website: https://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/planning/ environmental-review-sustainability/environmental-documents Interested agencies and members of the public may submit written comments on the adequacy of the draft EIR to the City’s Development Services Department at the address above, addressed to Norm Pedersen , Associate Planner, or emailed at [email protected]. Comments on the draft EIR must be received by the close of business on the last day of the 45-day review period. Electronic filing and posting of the EIR would be in compliance with Assembly Bill 819, as applicable.
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-13
2.4.4 Final EIR Publication and Certification
Once the 45-day public review period has concluded, the City will review all public co mments on the draft EIR and provide a written response to all written comments pertaining to environmental issues as part of the final EIR. The final EIR will include all written comments received during the public review period; responses to comments; and , if applicable, edits and errata made to the draft EIR. The City will then consider certification of the final EIR (14 CCR 15090). If the EIR is certified, the City may consider project approval (14 CCR 15092).
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was circulated for public review from April 3, 2023, through May 18, 2023, in accordance with Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. A total of thirteen (13) written comment letters were received on the Draft EIR from agencies and organizations, as shown in Table 2-1. Appendix N, which includes both public comment letters and responses to each comment letter received, has been included as part of the Final EIR.
Each of the written comment letters have been assigned an alphanumeric label, and the individual comments within each written comment letter are bracketed and numbered. For example, Comment Letter A1 contains one comment that is numbered A1-1.
The responses to each comment on the Draft EIR represent a good -faith, reasoned effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the City, as lead agency, is not required to respond to all comments on the Draft EIR, but only those comments that raise environmental issues. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has independently evaluated the comments and prepared the attached written responses describin g the disposition of any significant environmental issues raised (see Appendix N to the Final EIR). CEQA does not require the City to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters.
Rather, CEQA requires the lead agency to provide a good faith, reasoned analysis supported by factual information. To fulfill these requirements, the City’s experts in planning and environmental sciences consulted with, and independently reviewed, the analysis responding to the Draft EIR comments prepared by Dudek and other experts, each of whom has years of educational and field experience in these categories of environmental sciences; is familiar with the project and the environmental conditions in the City; and is familiar with the federal, state, and local rules and regulations (including CEQA) applicable to the proposed project. Accordingly, the final analysis provided in the responses to comments are supported by substantial evidence.
Table 2-1. Comment Letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter
Agencies
A1 Vallecitos Water District
A2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Organizations
O1 San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
Individuals
I1 Dale Armiyage
I2 Kerianne Wilson
I3 Mike Hazelton
I4 Thomas J. Bryne
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-14
Table 2-1. Comment Letters and Commenters
Comment Letter Commenter
I5 Kevin Wilson
I6 Brent Mardian
I7 Marie Marcinko
I8 Dave Gazzano
I9 Lorraine Terrell
I10 C. Mardian
Changes have been made to the Final EIR in strikeout/underline format in response to comments and to provide updates and clarifications to information provided herein. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), these revisions have been made to clarify text for consistency or revise punctuation as appropriate throughout the document, and these revisions do not result in what constitutes new significant information that would require recirculation of the document. Table 2-2 summarizes changes made to the EIR , by EIR chapter and section, and shows original text included and proposed changes to the text.
Table 2-2. Summary of Changes to the Draft EIR
Section Original Text Proposed Change(s)
Executive Summary
Section 1.1,
The project would include approximately
92,645 square feet of common recreation
area and an average of 146 square feet
of private open space per unit.
The project would include approximately
92,645 square feet of common recreation
area and an average of approximately 130
square feet of private open space per unit.
Project Description
Section 2.2,
The project would include approximately
92,645 square feet of common recreation
area and an average of 146 square feet
of private open space per unit.
The project would include approximately
92,645 square feet of common recreation
area and an average of approximately 130
square feet of private open space per unit.
Section 2.2.2,
Total open space within the project site is
approximately 154,743 square feet (3.55
acres), which includes private open space,
common open space, and open space
with grades of greater than 10%. As
described above, each home would
include private open space in the form of
a patio and/or deck. Approximately 146
square feet of private open space would
be provided per unit.
Total open space within the project site is
approximately 152,748 square feet (3.51
acres), which includes private open space,
common open space, and open space with
grades of greater than 10%. As described
above, each home would include private open
space in the form of a patio and/or deck.
Approximately 130 square feet of private open
space would be provided per unit.
Section 2.4.4,
Pages 2-13 –
2.14 The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was circulated for public review from April 3,
2023, through May 18, 2023, in accordance
with Section 15105(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.
A total of thirteen (13) written comment letters
were received on the Draft EIR from agencies
and organizations, as shown in Table 1-1.
Appendix N, which includes both public
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-15
Table 2-2. Summary of Changes to the Draft EIR
Section Original Text Proposed Change(s)
comment letters and responses to each
comment letter received, has been included
as part of the Final EIR. Each of the written
comment letters have been assigned an
alphanumeric label, and the individual
comments within each written comment letter
are bracketed and numbered. For example,
Comment Letter A1 contains one comment
that is numbered A1-1.
The responses to each comment on the Draft
EIR represent a good-faith, reasoned effort to
address the environmental issues identified by
the comments. Under the CEQA Guidelines,
the City, as lead agency, is not required to
respond to all comments on the Draft EIR, but
only those comments that raise environmental
issues. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15088 and 15204, the City has
independently evaluated the comments and
prepared the attached written responses
describing the disposition of any significant
environmental issues raised (see Appendix N
to the Final EIR). CEQA does not require the
City to conduct every test or perform all
research, study, and experimentation
recommended or demanded by commenters.
Rather, CEQA requires the lead agency to
provide a good faith, reasoned analysis
supported by factual information. To fulfill
these requirements, the City’s experts in
planning and environmental sciences
consulted with, and independently reviewed,
the analysis responding to the Draft EIR
comments prepared by Dudek and other
experts, each of whom has years of
educational and field experience in these
categories of environmental sciences; is
familiar with the project and the
environmental conditions in the City; and is
familiar with the federal, state, and local rules
and regulations (including CEQA) applicable to
the proposed project. Accordingly, the final
analysis provided in the responses to
comments are supported by substantial
evidence.
(Table 2-1)
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-16
When deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City will use the information provided in the final EIR to consider potential impacts to the physical environment. The City will also consider all written comments received on the draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period in making its decision to certify the final EIR as complete and compliant with CEQA and in making its determination whether to approve or deny the proposed project.
Environmental considerations, as well as economic and social factors, will be weighed by the City to determine the most appropriate course of action.
Prior to approving t he proposed project, the City must make written findings and adopt a statement of overriding considerations with respect to any significant and unavoidable environmental effect identified in the draft EIR (14 CCR 15091, 15093). If the proposed project is a pproved, the City will file a notice of determination with the State Clearinghouse and San Diego County Clerk within 5 working days after project approval (14 CCR 15094.) Subsequent to certification of the final EIR, agencies with permitting authority over all or portions of the proposed project may use the final EIR’s evaluation of the proposed project’s environmental effects in considering whether to approve or deny applicable permits.
2.4.5 Project Approvals and Permits
Consistent with the City’s General Plan and San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20, the proposed project requires certain entitlements be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City. The requested entitlements include a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA); a Tentative Subdivision Map, which will present specific lot configurations for the site; a Multi-Family Site Development Pla n, will c onfigure the site for townhome dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space; and a Specific Plan, which will be required to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new residential community within the Specific Plan Table 2-2. Summary of Changes to the Draft EIR
Section Original Text Proposed Change(s)
Changes have been made to the Final EIR in
strikeout/underline format in response to
comments and to provide updates and
clarifications to information provided herein.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5(b), these revisions have been made
to clarify text for consistency or revise
punctuation as appropriate throughout the
document, and these revisions do not result in
what constitutes new significant information
that would require recirculation of the
document. Table 1-2 summarizes changes
made to the EIR, by EIR chapter and section,
and shows original text included and proposed
changes to the text.
(Table 2-2)
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-17
Area. The City will use this EIR and associated documentation in its decision to approve or deny the required discretionary permits. The City may also use this EIR in its consideration of any future development proposal, together with any additional or supplemen tal information or CEQA analysis as may be required. Other responsible and/or trustee agencies can use this EIR and supporting documentation in their decision-making process to issue additional approvals. These additional approvals may include, but are not limited to, approval of sewer and water connections, approval of signage permits, and approval of biological resources mitigation.
2.5 Project Inconsistencies with Applicable Regional and General Plans
Throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR, the proposed project has been evaluated in relation to the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the City’s General Plan and San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20 (Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning); San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Section 3.10); Regional Air Quality Strategy (Section 3.2, Air Quality); San Diego Air Pollution Control District policies (Section 3.2); City’s Climate Action Plan (Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions); Regional W ater Quality Control Board plans and permits (Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality); the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (Section 3.3, Biological Resources); Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (Sections 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Section 3.10; and Section 3.11, Noise); and various other applicable regional and local plans and policies.
As described previously, a General Plan Amendment and Rezone is proposed in order to change the designated land use and zoning for the s ite from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA), to allow for the proposed residential development of the project site. As discussed in Section 3.10 of the EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals of the various elements and overall vision of the City’s General Plan, including the General Plan Housing Element.
2.6 List of Past, Present, and Reasonably Anticipated
Future Projects in the Project Area
CEQA requires an EIR to analyze cumulative impacts. Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for analyzing significant cumulative impacts in an EIR. The discussion of cumulative impacts “need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone,” but instead is to be “be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness” (14 CCR 15130[b]). The discussion should also focus only on significant effects resulting from the project’s incremental effects and the effects of other projects. According to Section 15130(a)(1), “an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.” Cumulative impacts can result from the combined effect of past, present, and future projects located in proximity to the project under review. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review.
According to Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guideli nes, a cumulative impact analysis may be conducted and presented by either of two methods:
(A) a list of past, present, and probable activities producing related or cumulative impacts; or 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-18
(B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area- wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.
With the exception of the air quality and greenhou se gas emissions impact analyses, the cumulative list approach has been used in this cumulative analysis, as discussed below. The cumulative impacts of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions have been evaluated using the summary of projections method because the geographic scope of such impacts are on an air basin and global scale.
An inventory of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the project site is presented in Table 2-2 and Figure 2-8, Cumulative Projects. 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-19
Table 2-2. Cumulative Projects
No. Status
Project Name/
Developer Location Description
City of San Marcos
1 Under
Construction
Block 3 Student Housing NW corner of Campus Way and
Barham Drive
342-bed student housing development, with a buildout year of 2022
2 Approved Carmel Street
Apartments
SW corner of Industrial St. and
Carmel Street
170-unit multifamily affordable housing development, with a buildout year of 2023
3 Under
Construction
Kaiser Permanente Plan Craven Rd. 206-bed hospital, with a buildout year of 2023 4 Approved Discovery Village North Craven Rd. Office/Commercial/Residential on 41 acres 5 Proposed Main Square SE corner of San Marcos Blvd.
and McMahr Rd.
Mixed-use development with a 468-unit apartment complex and 44,007 sf of commercial space
6 Approved San Elijo Hills San Elijo Rd. 11,711 sf Commercial development with a buildout year of 2022 7 Approved Pacific Commercial NE corner of Grand Ave. and Pacific St.
122-room hotel, with a buildout year of 2022
8 Under
Construction
Brookfield Residential S Twin Oaks Valley Rd. 220-unit multifamily residential development, with a buildout year of 2021
9 Under
Construction
San Marcos Highlands North end of N Las Posas Rd. 187-unit single-family residential development, with a buildout year of 2023
10 Approved Villa Serena Richmar Ave. and Marcos St. Demolishes 136 units and builds a 148-unit apartment complex, with a buildout year of 2023
11 Approved Montiel Rd Partners Montiel Rd. 8-unit single-family residential development, with a buildout year of 2022
12 Approved Meadowlark Canyon LLC San Marcos Blvd. 33-unit single-family residential development 13 Under
Construction
Mariposa- Phase 1 Richmar Ave. and Los Olivos Dr. Demolition of 40 units and construction of a 100-unit apartment development, with a buildout year of 2022
14 Approved Mariposa- Phase 2 Richmar Ave. and Los Olivos Dr. Demolition of 30 units and building of a 96-unit apartment development
15 Under
Construction
Murai-Sab N Las Posas Rd. 89-unit single-family residential with a buildout year of 2022 16 Approved Pacifica San Marcos S Rancho Santa Fe Rd. and Creek St.
Mixed-use development of 31-unit apartment complex and
4,375 sf commercial space with a buildout year of 2022
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-20
Table 2-2. Cumulative Projects
No. Status
Project Name/
Developer Location Description
17 Under
Construction
Discovery Village South Future Discovery St. 220-unit single-family residential, with a buildout year of 2022 18 Approved Breaker Real Estate SE corner of Twin Oaks Valley Rd and Richmar Ave.
174-bed assisted living facility
19 Approved Hall Land Company Barham Dr., east of Woodland Pkwy.
151-unit multifamily condominium development
20 Under
Construction
Carkel SM- Starbucks SE corner of San Marcos Blvd.
and Bent Ave.
Drive-thru restaurant with a buildout year of 2023
21 Approved Southlake Park Phase 1 Twin Oaks Valley Rd., South of Village Dr.
Parking lot, fishing dock
22 Approved MacDonald Group San Marcos Blvd. (former Sears site)
Mixed-use development with 82-unit apartment complex and 5,000 sf of commercial space
23 Under
Construction
Mission 316 West Mission Rd. at Woodward St.
(east side)
67-dwelling-unit multifamily condominium development with a buildout year of 2021
24 Proposed Lanikai Mission Rd. at Woodward St.
(west side)
115-unit senior living complex
25 Approved Artis Senior Housing San Elijo Rd. at Paseo Plomo 64-bed assisted living facility 26 Under
Construction
Sunrise Barham Dr. (near east city limit) 192-dwelling-unit multi-family condominiums 27 Under
Construction
Jump Ball LLC W San Marcos Blvd. at Bent Ave. Drive-thru restaurant 28 Proposed Montiel Commercial 2355/2357 Montiel Rd. 32,971 sf office building 29 Under
Construction
California Allstars East side of Twin Oaks Valley
Rd.
28,137 sf industrial building to be completed in 2022
30 Proposed Budhi Hill
Buddhist Center
Poinsettia Ave. south of Linda
Vista Dr.
Development of a 36,501 sf. Fellowship Hall and 7,612 sf monk dormitory
31 Proposed Mercy Hill and
Marian Center
Borden Rd. 31,105 sf Christian center
32 Under
Construction
Karl Strauss Brewery Las Posas Rd. and
Los Vallecitos Blvd.
10,528 sf tasting room, commercial kitchen, entertainment room within existing commercial building with a buildout year of 2023 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-21
Table 2-2. Cumulative Projects
No. Status
Project Name/
Developer Location Description
33 Proposed Kiddie Academy Twin Oaks Valley Rd., northeast of Windy Way
11,430 sf preschool
34 Proposed Edenpark 1601 San Elijo Rd. Adaptive reuse of existing structures for recreation, sports, and related personal services, and related commercial uses with a buildout year of 2022
35 Under
Construction
San Marcos Creek
Phase 1
CIP - various numbers
Discovery St. (east–west
segment), Bent Ave. to
Discovery St. (north–south
segment)
San Marcos Creek Phase 1 Infrastructure, Via Vera Cruz Bridge, Bent Avenue Bridge, Discovery
Street widening, Levee construction, Promenade, and Creek Channel Wetland Restoration
36 Funded CIP 88179 Smilax Rd./South Santa Fe Ave.
intersection
Smilax Road/South Santa Fe Avenue intersection re-alignment 37 Under
Construction
CIP 86002 San Marcos Blvd. at Discovery
St. intersection
Intersection improvement 300 ft west and 920 ft east of intersection
38 Funded PARK CIP Rancho Tesoro Park
Improvements – 2 acres of
41-acre park
City Park – Phase 2 Multi-Use Field and Parking Lot
Improvements
39 Programmed ST006 South side of San Marcos Blvd.,
500 ft east of Acacia Dr.
San Marcos Blvd. Slope Stabilization Project
40 Approved Pacific Grand Ventures 1.49-acre lot east of S Pacific at Seminole St.
26,156 sf industrial building
41 Proposed Twin Oaks Valley Winery 1451 Mulberry Dr. 3,121 sf two-story winery and tasting room on a 4.23-acre lot 42 Proposed Pacific Specific Plan Northwest corner of S Las Posas Rd. and Linda Vista Dr.
449-unit multifamily residential development on 33.2 acres 43 Proposed Paul Mayer-Santa Fe Las
Floras LP
Northwest corner of S Santa Fe
Ave. and Las Flores Dr.
50-unit residential apartment building and 117 parking spaces on 2.23 acres
44 Proposed Water Mill Homes, Inc.
(Manning Homes)
SW corner of Mulberry Dr. and
Cox Rd.
9 single-family residential lots on a 10-acre property
45 Proposed San Marcos Hospitality SW corner of Montiel Rd. and Leora Ln.
Hotel with 107 rooms
46 Proposed Lonnie Tavvaa – Arco 200 Las Posas Rd. Gas station, convenience store, car wash 2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-22
Table 2-2. Cumulative Projects
No. Status
Project Name/
Developer Location Description
47 Proposed Bennet Manning South of Woodward St. at
Killarney Terrace.
3 single-family residential lots
48 Proposed SH North City, LLC Discovery St. west of S Twin Oaks Valley Rd.
532 attached and 94 detached condo units (626 total units), master association community rec center, public and private trail systems that connect to future Knoll Park
49 Proposed University District
Specific Plan
Amendment – UVSM,
LLC
Generally between North City
Dr., Carmel St., Campus Way,
and S. Twin Oaks Valley Rd.
Mixed-use development with 557 residential units and
associated commercial and office space
50 Approved Hollandia Dairy 620 E Mission Rd. Partial demolition and reconstruction of dairy facilities; 48,755 sf 51 Proposed American Rentals 1030 Linda Vista Dr. Equipment rental facility 52 Proposed Hunter Industries West terminus of Opal Dr. 67,657 sf office building 53 Proposed Hughes SMCC, LLC NE corner of Pacific St.,
approximately 750 ft south of
Linda Vista Dr.
67,410 sf industrial building
54 Proposed Marcos Specific Plan SW corner of Grand Ave. and Linda Vista Dr.
Horizontal mixed-use project with 102 residential units and 63,641 sf of commercial space and 8 live/work units.
Notes: NW = northwest; SW = southwest; Rd. = Road; SE = southeast; Blvd. = Boulevard; sf = square feet; NE = northeast; Ave. = Avenue; St. = Street; Dr. = Drive ; Pkwy = Parkway; Ln. = Lane.
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-7 Conceptual Site Plan.mxd
PALMAC ST
GRANITE RD
PALM RD
PALOMARCOS AVE
N
LASPOSA
S
RD
N PACIFIC ST
WMISSION
RD
Conceptual Site Plan
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; GMP 2021
01 5075
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2-1
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-24
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-1 Project Location.mxd
BUENA CREEK
MISSION
MISSION
SAN MARCOS
RANCHO SANTA FE
SR-78 WB
ROBELINI
TWIN OAKS VALLEY
LAS POSAS
MISSION
SYCAMORE
SR-78 EB
DISCOVERY
SANTA FE
CRAVEN
SR-78 WB
BORDEN
GRAND
SR-78 WB
SR-78 EB
78 Project Location
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SanGIS 2020
02 ,0001,000
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2-2
San Clemente
Dana
Point Temecula
Murrieta
Chula
Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San
Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
Del Mar
Coronado
Riverside
County
San Diego
County
905
52 54
163
188125
274
195
56 86
78 74
67 76
94 79
8 15
215
8 805
5 Project Site
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-2 Project Site.mxd
PALMAC ST
GRANITE RD
PALM RD
PALOMARCOS AVE
N
LASPOSA
S
RD
N PACIFIC ST
WMISSION
RD
Project Site
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; GMP 2021
01 5075
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2-
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-3 Existing Land Use.mxd NLAS
POSASRD
PALMAC ST
HALTER PL
BALBOA ST
W MISSION RD
PRIVATE RD
COMET CIR
ARMORLITE DR
PALOMARCOS AVE
SILVER SPUR WAY
GRANITE RD
PALM RD
N PACIFIC ST
APN: 21912116
APN: 21912115
LDR
PI
SPA
I
MU3
MU1
PI
C
OS
VLDR
Existing General Plan Land Use
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; City of San Marcos 2022
02 00100
Feet
Project Boundary
Parcels
Existing General Plan Land Use
C- Commercial
LDR- Low Density Residential
VLDR- Very Low Density Residential
MU1- Mixed Use 1
MU3- Mixed Use 3
OS- Open Space
PI- Public/Institutional
I - Industrial
SPA - Specific Plan Area
FIGURE 2-
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-30
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-4 Proposed Land Use.mxd NLAS
POSASRD
PALMAC ST
HALTER PL
BALBOA ST
W MISSION RD
PRIVATE RD
COMET CIR
ARMORLITE DR
PALOMARCOS AVE
SILVER SPUR WAY
GRANITE RD
PALM RD
N PACIFIC ST
LDR
PI
I
MU3
MU1
PI
C
SPA
OS
VLDR
Proposed General Plan Land Use
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; City of San Marcos 2022
02 00100
Feet
Project Boundary
Parcels
Proposed General Plan Land Use
C- Commercial
LDR- Low Density Residential
VLDR- Very Low Density Residential
MU1- Mixed Use 1
MU3- Mixed Use 3
OS- Open Space
PI- Public/Institutional
I - Industrial
SPA- Specific Plan Area
FIGURE 2-
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-32
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-5 Existing Zoning.mxd
GRANITE RD
PALMAC ST
HALTER PL
ARMORLITE DR
COMET CIR
PRIVATE RD
PALOMARCOS AVE
SILVER SPUR WAY
PALM RD
N PACIFIC ST
NLASPOSASRD
W MISSION RD
R-1-7.5
PI
SPA CO/MO
MU3
I
PI
SR
C
OS
R-1-10
Existing Zoning
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; City of San Marcos 2022
02 00100
Feet
Project Boundary
Parcels
Existing Zoning
C- Commercial
R-1-10- Residential Low
R-1-7.5- Residential-1
SR- Senior Residential
MU3- Mixed Use 3
OS- Open Space
PI- Public-Institutional
I- Industrial
SPA CO/MO- Specific Area Plan, CO/MO
FIGURE 2-6
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-34
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-6 Proposed Zoning.mxd
GRANITE RD
PALMAC ST
HALTER PL
ARMORLITE DR
COMET CIR
PRIVATE RD
PALOMARCOS AVE
SILVER SPUR WAY
PALM RD
NLASPOSASRD
N PACIFIC ST
W MISSION RD
R-1-7.5
PI
SPA CO/MOC
MU3
I
PI
SR
SPA
OS
R-1-10
Proposed Zoning
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; City of San Marcos 2022
02 00100
Feet
Project Boundary
Parcels
Proposed Zoning
C- Commercial
R-1-10- Residential Low
R-1-7.5- Residential-1
SR- Senior Residential
MU3- Mixed Use 3
OS- Open Space
PI- Public-Institutional
I- Industrial
SPA CO/MO- Specific Area Plan, CO/MO
SPA- Specific Area Plan
FIGURE 2-
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-36
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 2-8 Cumulative Projects.mxd Cumulative Projects
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2021; City of San Marcos 2022
05 ,9002,950
Feet
City of San Marcos
Project Site
Other San Marcos Development Project Locations
FIGURE 2-8
Project Site
2 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 2-38
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-1
3 Environmental Analysis
3.1 Aesthetics
This section describes the existing visual setting of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project) and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the proposed project.
Table 3.1-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level aesthetics impacts, by threshold.
Table 3.1-1. Aesthetics Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista. Less than Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3: 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 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
Scenic Highways
According to the California Department of Transportation’s California Scenic Highway System Map, the project site is not located adjacent to, or in the vicinity of , a designated state scenic highway (Caltrans 2018). The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is State Route (SR) 78. SR-78 is a designated state scenic highway from the west boundary to the east boundary of Anza -Borrego Desert State Park. SR -78 is located approximately
0.4 miles southwest of the project site ; however, the portion designated as a state scenic highway begins approximately 43 miles east of the project site. The project site is located approximately 35 miles west of the closest point of this eligible state scenic highway. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Interstate (I) 5. I-5 is located approximately 7.7 miles west of the project site.
At a local level, the City of San Marcos (City) has designated SR -78 as a view corridor for its unobstructed visual passageway. The highway corridor provides views of the Merriam Mountains, Mt . Whitney (located in San Diego County), Double Peak, California State University San Marcos, and Palomar Community College. Views of the project site from SR -78 are obscured from the view of motorists due to exi sting commercial development s and tall vegetation north of the highway.
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-2
Scenic Vista
A scenic vista is typically defined as a panoramic view or vista from an identified view/vista point, public road, public trail, public recreational area, or scenic highway. Potential scenic views from private properties are not under consideration in this analysis, as it i s not required by the City. The City of San Marcos General Plan (General Plan) does not identify any designated scenic vistas; however, the General Plan more generally aims to protect the City’s scenic resources such as the San Marcos, Merriam, and Double Peak Mountains; creek corridors; mature trees; rock outcroppings; and ocean views (City of San Marcos 201 2). The project site is in an urban part of the City, surrounded by existing development. Potential vantage points in the City include Double Peak, Mt. Whitney (located in San Diego County), and Franks Peak. There is a potential for the project site to be visible from the Mt. Whitney peak; however, this peak is accessible only by a private road and peak access is prohibited to the public. The Franks Peak summit is accessible by various public recreational trails, which could serve as potential vantage points of the project site. Double Peak is a prominent landform with long and broa d views located approximately 3 miles southeast of the project site that will also have potential views of the project site.
Visual Character
The following is a description of the existing visual characteristics and quality of the project site and surroundings.
Project Site
The 7.6-acre project site is an undeveloped lot located in the northwestern portion of the City at the northwest corner of N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road. A CVS Pharmacy is located directly adjacent to the project site to the southeast. Commercial uses are adjacent to the site’s southern and western boundaries. Single-family residences are located to the north and west and to the east across N Las Posas Road . The project location and project site boundary are shown on Figures 2 -1 and 2 -2 in Chapter 2, Project Description . The project site is immediately visible from adjacent streets and surrounding land uses.
The undeveloped project site reflects a history of disturbance. The project site was previously rough graded during construction of the adjacent CVS. Additionally, the p roject site has been previously used as overflow parking for Palomar College. Existing vegetation on site is disturbed by an abundance of invasive and weedy plant species, and unpaved roads crossing the project site are visible on historic aerials since 19 80 (Appendix F , Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment). Vegetation on the project site consists of a few trees along the drainage channel and N Las Posas Road ; grasses and small shrubs are disbursed throughout the site. The project site is relatively flat and the elevation is approximately 575 feet above mean sea level. As described in the Biological Technical Report (Appendix C), three vegetation communities or habitat types occur within the project site, including wild oats grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and urban/developed land.
Surrounding Area
The project site is immediately bordered by N Las Posas Road to the north/northeast and W Mission Road to the south/southwest. The project site is surrounded by a CVS Pharmacy located directly south of the project site, a vacant lot and single -family residences to the west, single-family residences along the northwest project site boundary, single-family residences and a vacant lot to the east across N Las Posas Road, and light industrial and commercial uses further southwest and southeast across W Mission Road and N Las Posas Road. The project site is located in an urban setting and is surrounded by existing development on all sides . As shown in Figure 2 -3, existing land use designations surrounding the project site include Commercial (C) to the west, south, and east
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-3
across N Las Posas Road. Open Space (OS) land use designations are located to the north, Low Density Residential (LDR) is located to the northwest, Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) is located further to the northeast, Specific Plan Area (SPA) is located to the southeast, and Industrial (I) uses are located to the southwest across W Mission Road. The closest freeway is SR-78 located approximately 0.4 miles south of the project site.
Existing Light and Glare Conditions
The project site is currently undeveloped and lighting on the project site is limited to parking lot and building façade lighting from the adjacent CVS building. Additionally, the project site does not contain any reflective surfaces that would act as sources of glare. Commercial, industrial, and residential developments surrounding the project site contain sources of light ing typical of these land uses. Sources of nighttime lighting in this area could occur from exterior building lighting, street lighting, lighting in parking lots, and vehicles traveling along the adjacent roadways.
No sources of substantial glare are present in this area.
3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal codes, policies, or regulations regarding aesthetics that would apply to the proposed project.
State
California Public Resources Code Section 20199
California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 20199(d)(1), stipulates that “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” The proposed project would qualify as a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area. This is further addressed in Section 3.1.4, Project Impact Analysis.
California Scenic Highway Program
The California State Legislature created the California Scenic Highway Program in 1963 with the intent “to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment.” The state laws that govern the Scenic Highway Program are Sections 260 through 263 of the California Streets and Highways Code. A highway may be designated scenic based on the natural landscape visible by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the views of the highway. The Scenic Highway Program includes both officially designated scenic highways and highways that are eligible for designation. A highway may be designated as scenic based on aesthetic quality of viewable landscape, extent of views upon the natural landscape, and the degree to which development impedes these views. It is the responsibility of local jurisdictions to apply for scenic highway approval, which requires the adoption of a Corridor Protection Program. There are no state-designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site.
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-4
Local
City of San Marcos General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan identifies one goal and associated policies to protect natural resources that have scenic value. Landforms such as the mountain ranges in the northern and southern portions of the City contribute to its scenic corridors. The following goal and policies pertain to aesthetics and visual quality (City of San Marcos 2012):
Goal COS-3: Protect natural topography to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of San Marcos.
Policy COS-3.1: Preserve scenic resources, including prominent landforms such as Double Peak, Owens Peak, San Marcos Mountains, Merriam Mountains, Cerro de Las Posas, Franks Peak, and canyon areas through conservation and management policies.
Policy COS-3.2: Encourage and maintain high-quality architectural and landscaping designs that enhance or complement the hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors that comprise the visual character in San Marcos.
Policy COS -3.3: Continue to work with new development and redevelopment project applicants in designing land use plans that respect the topography, landforms, view corridors, wildlife corridors, and open space that exists.
Policy COS-3.4: Evaluate potential impacts to visual and aesthetic resources, including the potential to create new light sources, while still maintaining and being sensitive to rural lighting standards.
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.1.4, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to aesthetics.
San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20 , Zoning Ordinance
The provisions of Title 20 of the San Marcos Municipal Code are referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. The San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance is the primary implementation tool for the policies of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance provides more detailed direction related to design and development standards; permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses; and other regulations such as lighting and sign regulations.
The land uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance are based upon and consistent with the land use policies set forth in the General Plan. Specifically, the ordinance contains building design, setbacks, lighting, and signage standards, as well as open space requirements , for development to protect open space and ambient light level s in the City.
Lighting standards in the ordinance require energy-efficient lighting that limits light and glare for private projects, with exceptions for specialized streetscape lighting. Private developments are required to submit lighting plans to ensure consistency with the dark sky needs of the region (City of San Marcos 2022).
Title 20, Section 20.300.080, Site Planning and General Development Standards The City’s Street Lighting Standards and Specifications describes the lighting and glare standards for the City. These standards require lighting to be directed downward and limit the type and spacing of lighting to maintain reasonable lighting levels that do not contribute to light pollution. The City uses International Dark Sky Association threshold s to inform its own testing, leading to a policy that allows for the use of energy-efficient lighting sources that include, but are not limited to, LED and induction lighting technologies (City of San Marcos 2022).
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-5
Title 20, Chapter 20.260, Ridgeline Prote ction and Management Overlay Zone The City adopted a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone in November 2008, set forth in Ordinance 2008-1314, to minimize visual impacts to important ridgelines. These guiding principles are in place to protect natural viewsheds, minimize physical impacts to ridgelines, and establish innovative site and architectural design standards. The ordinance identifies primary and secondary ridgelines within the City, plus buffer zones, or Ridgeline Overlay Zones, surrounding these ridgelines (City of San Marcos 20 22). No primary or secondary ridgelines are located within or adjacent to the project site; the nearest ridgeline is a secondary ridgeline located approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site. The nearest primary ridgeline is located approximately 1.15 miles northeast of the project site.
3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to aesthetics are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to aesthetics would occur if the project would:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. ▪ Threshold No. 2: Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. ▪ Threshold No. 3: 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 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?
▪ Threshold No. 4: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
3.1.4 Project Impact Analysis
As described in Chapter 2 of this environmental impact report, the proposed project consists of the development of 120 three-story townhomes and associated amenities within the 7.6-acre project site. The number of townhomes per building would vary from 4 to 10.
Design of the project would follow the design guidelines outlined in the Gran Vista Specific Plan (Appendix M) .
The design guidelines propose transitional architectural styles for the project to allow it to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. The project would include a variety of floorplans for the proposed townhomes.
Floorplans include two- and three -bedroom units that vary in size from approximately 1,200 square feet to 1,800 square feet and include differing garage configurations. All townhomes would be three stories high. The project would be designed to provide transition massing between the single-family residences to the north and west and the CVS along the southern border of the project si te. Building materials, accents and color s would be used to help compliment neighborhood character , compliment the architectural style and project , define individual units, and create visual interest .
The project would incorporate landscaping and circulat ion improvements, and would provide 260 new parking spaces, including 20 guest spaces , in addition to 37 existing on site spaces . The project would include approximately 92,645 square feet of common recreation area on site and an average of 130 square feet of private open space per unit. The proposed project would have a density of approximately 15.8 dwelling units per acre.
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-6
The project vicinity is designated as a High Quality Transit Area due to its proximity to transit and other facilities and services that support alternatives to vehicle use. Palomar College, a public community college consisting of a 200-acre campus, is located east of the project site. Palomar College Transit Center, a North County Transit District hub, is located less than 0.25 miles from the project site. Palomar College Transit Center consists of a bus depot on the north side of W Mission Road, near the main entrance to Palomar College, and a train station on the south side of W Mission Road that serves the SPRINTER hybrid rail train. Rail service and bus transit service offered at the transit center provide local and regional connections to schools, employment, shopping, and entertainment options within the City, as well as San Diego and Riverside Counties. An existing bus turnout and stop are also located on W Mission Road in front of CVS. The Inland Rail Trail, a proposed 21-mile Class I bikeway, runs along the south side of W Mission Road and connects the Cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido as well us areas of unincorporated San Diego County.
The project site is considered an infill site within an urbanized area under CEQA, and is located within a transit priority area such that aesthetic impacts are conclusively not significant under PRC Sec tion 20199(d)(1). As described in Section 3.1.2, PRC Section 20199(d)(1) states that “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” According to Section 21099(d)(1), an “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right -of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” The project site is located on a vacant lot and more than 7 5% of the project boundary is adjacent to “qualified urban uses” (i.e., residential and commercial) per PRC Section 21072, such that the site is an “infill site.”
PRC Section 21071 defines an “urbanized area” as “(a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.” As of 2020, the City has an estimated population of 94,833 (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing). While this is less than 100,000 persons, the City of San Marcos is contiguous with the City of Escondido, which has an estimated population of 151,038 persons as of 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 20 20). The combined estimated population of these two contiguous cities is 245,871 persons, which is well over the 100,000 persons threshold. Thus, the City would be considered an urbanized area per CEQA.
As outlined in California Public Resources Code , Section 20199, a “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned.” The project site is located approximately
0.25 miles from the North County Transit District Palomar College Station, and therefore inside of the transit priority area. Accordingly, the proposed project is a residential project in close proximity to transit and is located in an urbanized area on an infill site.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Chapter 20.260 of the San Marcos Municipal Code defines Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zones, which are intended to preserve primary ridgelines in their natural state and minimize visual impacts to secondary ridgelines through Ridgeline Development Permit s. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect natural viewsheds and unique natural resources, minimize the physical impacts to ridgelines, and establish innovative site and architectural design standards. This ordinance identifies primary and secondary ridgelines located in North City Area #1, Southeast City Area #2, and Southern City Area #3 within the City limits. North City Area #1 is located in the College Area Community Plan and Twin Oaks Valley Community Plan, which includes portions of “P” Mountain
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-7
and Owens Peak. Southeast City Area #2 is located in the Questhaven/La Costa Meadows Community Plan, which includes Franks Peak and Mount Whitney (located in San Diego County). This area also includes Double Peak and Cerro de Las Posas as defined by the San Elijo Hills Specific Plan. Southern City Area #3 is located in the Questhaven/La Costa Meadows Community Plan, which includes a southerly primary ridgeline extending from east to west near the San Marcos abandoned landfill. The project site is located on an infill site in an urban part of the City and is not located within a ridgeline overlay zone.
The City’s General Plan does not identify any designated scenic vistas ; however, the General Plan more generally aims to protect the City’s scenic resources such as the San Marcos, Merriam, and Double Peak Mountains ; creek corridors; mature trees; rock outcroppings; and ocean views. The project site and surrounding valley terrain are encompassed by mountains to the east and south that provide opportunities for elevated vantage points offering long and broad views, which may include views of the project site. However, due to the relatively flat terrain of the project site and surrounding area, development of the proposed project is not expected to impede views of existing scenic vistas. Additionally, as described above, the townhomes would be designed to help provide a visual transition between the single-family residences to the north and west and the commercial and industrial uses to the south and high-density residential uses to the south east. Due to the relatively flat terrain of the project site and surrounding area and the project site’s location on an infill site in an urbanized area, development of the proposed project is not expected to impede views of existing scenic vistas, nor is the project site considered a scenic vista.
Given the limited views of the project site, the distance of the project site from scenic vistas, and the transitional architectural design, impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As described above, SR-78 is located 0.4 miles south of the project site. However, as previously discussed, the section of SR-78 proximate to the project site is not identified as a scenic highway per the State Scenic Highways Program. A portion of SR-78 is identified as an eligible state scenic highway; however, this eligible segment begins 35 miles east of the project site in Santa Ysabel. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is I -5. I-5 is located approximately 7.7 miles west of the project site and is not visible due to distance. Therefore, the project site is not located within a viewshed of a state scenic highway.
While the project site is not in proximity to a designated state scenic highway, the City has designated SR-78 as a view corridor to surrounding ridgelines. As described above, views of the project site from SR -78 are generally limited due to the existing commercial, industrial, and residential developments and vegetation within an urban area of the City. Additionally, the project would provide transitional massing, scale, and architectural style between the industrial uses to the south and single -family development to the north. Therefore, the project would not substantially obstruct views from SR-78.
Further, the project site is currently undeveloped and does not support any historic buildings. There are no rock outcroppings or trees on site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and impacts would be less than significant.
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-8
Threshold No. 3: Would the project, 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 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?
As previously discussed, the City (which includes the project site) is considered an urbanized area pursuant to PRC Section 21071. Therefore, the first question of Threshold No. 3 does not apply to the proposed project, as it is directed at non-urbanized areas.
The visual character of the site would b e altered by the proposed project, from vacant and undeveloped land to residential development. While the proposed project would change the existing visual character on the site, it is not characterized as a substantial degradation since few public vantage points of the project site exist and the site is mainly surrounded by adjacent development in a highly urbanized area . Although the proposed residential uses would differ in land use designation and visual character in comparison to the currently designated land use of Commercial (C) for the project site , the proposed townhomes are designed to provide transitional development between the commercial and industrial land uses to the south and low density residential to the north and west.
Generally, the project would conform to the existing urbanized character of the surrounding area and residential uses to the north and west, and would not substantially change the views from any public viewpoint. Renderings of the proposed townhomes are shown in Figures 3.1-1A through 3.1-1D, Project Elevations. Additionally, a landscape plan would be implemented to soften the visual impact of the proposed residential development from adjacent roadways and residences. As the proposed project’s location on an infill site would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 4: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Lighting
Lighting in the project vicinity is associated with roadway lighting and with the existing commercial and industrial uses that surround the project site. Development of the proposed project would result in new sources of light from the residential units, landscaping lighting, security lighting, and internal circulation and pedestrian lighting. These proposed land uses would introduce lighting to a site that is currently undeveloped and has no existing source of lighting.
All lighting associated with the project would be required to comply with San Marcos Municipal Code Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards. Additionally, the project would conform to lighting regulations outlined in the Gran Vista Specific Plan (Appendix M), which include the following:
A. Parking area shall be illuminated to levels that achieve a uniform ratio of three to one (3:1) (average to minimum) and maintain an average of one (1) foot candle, with a minimum of one-half (1/2) foot candle.
B. Perimeter lighting, not affiliated with the lighting of parking lots, shall not exceed one -half (1/2) foot candle at any point along the property line of the subject or adjacent parcel.
Although the proposed project would result in new sources of light in the area, the project site is in a n urbanized area and is surrounded by existing development with existing sources of day and nighttime lighting. Compliance with the Municipal Code would minimize and restrict nighttime light pollution and light trespass on adjacent properties. Light fixtures on site would be shielded downward as to not spill onto adjacent properties. Therefore, new sources of day or nighttime lighting associated with the project would not be considered substantial , and impacts related to lighting would be less than significant.
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-9
Glare
Implementation of the proposed project could potentially include sources of glare from architectural finishes or amenities on site. The project developer would be required by Municipal Code Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards, to minimize use of reflective building materials and finishes, as well as reflective lighting structures and metallic surfaces, to the extent feasible to impede any potential generated glare. As shown in the project renderings (Figures 3.1-1A through 3.1-1D), the proposed development would incorporate materials and finishes that would minimize the potential for glare, including recessed windows, window awnings, and neutral colors for building facades.
The proposed project would not propose any features that would be characterized as creating a substantial new source of glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, project impacts related to glare would be less than significant.
3.1.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Projects contributing to a cumulative aesthetic impact include those within the project viewshed. The viewshed encompasses the geographic area within which the viewer is most likely to observe the proposed project and surrounding uses. Typically, this is delineated based on topography, as elevated vantage points , such as scenic vistas, offer unobstructed views of expansive visible landscapes.
Cumulative aesthetic impacts would occur if projects combine to result in substantial adverse impacts to the visual quality of the environment and increase sources of lighting an d glare. As discussed above, the proposed project would have no substantial impact on a scenic vista or City-protected scenic resource, would not adversely impact the visual character of the area, and would not introduce a substantial new source of lighting or glare.
Although not technically designated scenic vistas, Mt. Whitney (located in San Diego County), Franks Peak, and the adjacent prominent ridgelines are scenic resources that the City’s General Plan aims to protect and preserve for their natural visual quality. As previously discussed, the summit of Mt. Whitney (located in San Diego County) is off limits to the public, but Franks Peak and its surrounding recreational trails are publicly accessible. From Franks Peak, viewers would be able to see cumulative residential projects in the same viewshed, and potentially portions of the project site. The proposed residential development would be three stories tall and the industrial uses to the south consist of one - and two-story buildings of varying height. Due to the light industrial uses to the south, the project would not substantially contrast with the visual patterns of the area , as height and density would be consistent with the existing surrounding development; the project would appear as an ex tension of the already urbanized landscape. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to a cumulative change in visual character of the surrounding area.
As discussed, the closest designated state scenic highway is SR-78; however, the segment designated as a state scenic highway is located in Anza Borrego State Park, approximately 43 miles east of the project site . Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative impact to the designated state scenic highway segment of SR-78. Nor would the proposed project result in a cumulative impact to the eligible designated state scenic highway I-5, as it is located beyond intervening topography approximately 7.7 miles west of the project site.
As previously described, the project site is surrounded by existing developments that contain sources of lighting typical of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The proposed project would introduce new sources of lighting to the project site as the proposed project would allow for the development of residential uses. The project site is currently undeveloped and contains no sources of light. The project and cumulative projects would have to comply with the Municipal Code, which would restrict light trespass into adjacent properties and ensure that new sources
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-10
of lighting would not result in significant impacts. Concerning glare, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new sources of glare. The project developer, and the developers of any proposed cumulative projects, would be required to minimize use of reflective building materials and finishes, as well as reflective lighting structures and metallic surfaces , to the extent feasible to impede any potential glare effects to comply w ith the Municipal Code. Impacts pertaining to light and glare from the project and cumulative projects would be minimized through compliance with applicable regulations related to light and glare and design requirements. For the reasons outlined above, cumulative impacts related to aesthetics would be less than significant.
3.1.6 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to aesthetics were identified and therefore no mitigation measures are required.
3.1.7 Conclusion
In summary, development of the project would not be built upon any primary or secondary ridgelines, nor would the project substantially affect a scenic vista. The project site is not located in close proximity to a designated state scenic highway per the State Scenic Highway Program. Although the City has designated SR -78 as a view corridor to surrounding ridgelines, the project would not significantly change views from SR -78 and the project would not impede views to any primary or secondary ridgelines from SR-78.
The project site is located in an urbanized area on an infill site and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including the scenic resource protection policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan (refer to Section 3.10) . Implementation of the proposed project would reasonably result in changes to the visual character of the site by allowing residential development; however, impacts would be minimal due to a general lack of public vantage points and visual conformance with adjacent development.
Landscaping associated with the project would also soften views of the project site from adjacent uses.
Concerning lighting and glare, the proposed project would not include highly reflective finishes or excessive lighting.
Further, any exterior nighttime lighting associated with the project would be required to comply with the City’s Street Lighting Standards and Specifications, Municipal Code , and design guidelines in the Gran Vista Specific Plan prepared for the project site.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics, and no mitigation is required.
Project Elevations
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
FIGURE 3.1-1ASOURCE: Kevin L. Crook Architect Inc. 2021 Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\_PDF
Conceptual Architecture - 4-Plex Building Elevation
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Elevations
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
FIGURE 3.1-1BSOURCE: Kevin L. Crook Architect Inc. 2021 Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\_PDF
Conceptual Architecture - 6-Plex Building Elevation
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Elevations
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
FIGURE 3.1-1CSOURCE: Kevin L. Crook Architect Inc. 2021 Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\_PDF
Conceptual Architecture - 8-Plex Building Elevation “A”
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-16
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Project Elevations
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
FIGURE 3.1-1DSOURCE: Kevin L. Crook Architect Inc. 2021 Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\_PDF
Conceptual Architecture - 8-Plex Building Elevation “B”
3.1 – AESTHETICS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.1-18
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-1
3.2 Air Quality
This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project) on air quality and its contribution to regional air quality conditions and identifies associated regulatory requirements .
This section is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report for the Gran Vista Specific Plan Project prepared by Dudek in February 2023 . The complete Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report is included as Appendix B of this environmental impact report (EIR).
Table 3.2 -1 summarizes the project - and cumulative -level air quality impacts under each applicable threshold of significance.
Table 3.2-1. Air Quality Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -Level
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4: Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
This section introduces the environmental setting of the project site, including the meteorological/climate conditions for the project area, current physical setting, and pollutant levels in proximity to the proposed project.
The City of San Marcos (City) is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District ( SDAPCD). The project site is bounded by N Las Posas Road along the eastern boundary, W Mission Road along the southwest boundary , an existing CVS store to the south, and existing single -family residential development to the west/northwest. Nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site include industrial and commercial uses to the west on the other side of W Mission Road, the Santa Fe Hills residential community to the north, and Palomar College approximately 0.2 miles to the east.
Baseline Air Quality
The SDAB is one of 15 air basins that geographically divide the State of California. The SDAB is currently classified as a fed eral nonattainment area for ozone (O 3) and a state nonattainment area for particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM 10), particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to
2.5 microns (PM2.5), and O3.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-2
The SDAB lies in the southwest corner of California and comprises the entire San Diego region, covering 4,260 square miles ; it is an area of high air pollution potential. The SDAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity . This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.
The SDAB experiences frequent temperature inversions. Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer months as descending air associated with the Pacific High Pressure Zone meets cool marine air. The boundary between the two layers of air creates a temperature inversion that traps pollutants. Another type of inversion, a radiation inversion, develops on winter nights when air near the ground cools by heat radiation and the air aloft remains warm. The shallow inversion layer formed between these two air masses also can trap pollutants. As the pollutants become more concentrated in the atmosphere, photochemical reactions occur that produce O 3, commonly known as smog (CARB 2014).
Light daytime winds, predominantly from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving air pollutants inland, toward the mountains. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are creat ed due to carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) emissions. CO concentrations are generally higher in the morning and late evening. In the morning, CO levels are elevated due to cold temperatures and the large number of motor vehicles traveling.
Higher CO levels during the late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area.
Since CO is produced almost entirely from automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the SDAB are associated with heavy traffic. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels are also generally higher during fall and winter days.
Under certain conditions, atmospheric oscillation results in the offshore transport of air from the Los Angeles region to San Diego County (County). This often produces high O 3 concentrations, as measured at air pollutant monitoring stations within the County. The transport of air pollutants from Los Angeles to San Diego has also occurred within the stable layer of the elevated subsidence inversion, where high levels of O3 are transported.
Pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the National A mbient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been achieved. Generally, if the recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant.
If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classifie d as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. As previously discussed, these standards are set by EPA or the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) and represent the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable ef fects on human health or the public welfare. If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated as “unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the standard or is expected to meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data.
Areas that achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation are re -designated as maintenance areas and must have approved maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards. The California Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, calls for the designation of areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment,” but based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) rather than t he NAAQS. Current attainment designations for the SDAB for the criteria pollutants are presented in Table 3.2 -2. In summary, the SDAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the 2008 8 -hour O3 NAAQS. The SDAB is designated as a nonattainment area for O 3, PM10, and PM 2.5 CAAQS. The portion of the SDAB where the project site is located is designated as attainment or unclassifiable/unclassified for all other criteria pollutants under the NAAQS and CAAQS.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-3
Table 3.2-2. San Diego Air Basin Attainment Classification Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation
O3 (1-hour) Attainmenta Nonattainment
O3 (8-hour–1997)
(8-hour–2008)
Attainment (maintenance)
Nonattainment (moderate)
Nonattainment
NO2 Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment
CO Attainment (maintenance) Attainment
SO2 Not designatedb Attainment
PM10 Unclassifiable/attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Unclassifiable/attainment Nonattainment
Lead Unclassifiable/attainment Attainment
Sulfates No federal standard Attainment
Hydrogen sulfide No federal standard Unclassified
Visibility-reducing particles No federal standard Unclassified Vinyl chloride No federal standard No designation
Sources: EPA 2020 (federal); CARB 2021a (state).
Notes: O3 = ozone; NO 2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; SO 2 = sulfur dioxide; PM 10 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns.
Attainment = meets the standards; attainment/ maintenance = achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation; nonattainment = does not meet the standards; unclassified or unclassifiable = insufficient data to classify; unclassifiable/ attainment = meets the standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. a The federal 1-hour standard of 0.12 parts per million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans.
b Federal designations for SO2 are on hold by EPA; EPA expects to make the designations by December 2017 (EPA 2016).
The SDAPCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stat ions throughout San Diego County that measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets the CAAQS and NAAQS.
The SDAPCD monitors air quality conditions at 11 locations throughout the SDAB. Camp Pendleton monit oring station is the closest to the project site for O 3 and NO 2. The Escondido –East Valley Parkway monitoring station ceased to collect data after 2015; thus, due to proximity to the site and similar geographic and climactic characteristics, the San Diego–11403 Rancho Carmel Drive monitoring station concentrations are considered most representative for the project site. Data at this station was also available for CO. The El Cajon –609 S 1st Street monitoring station was used for SO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Ambient concentrations of pollutants from 2018 through 2020 are presented in Table 3.2 -3. Air quality within the project region was in compliance with the CAAQS and NAAQS for NO2, CO, SO2, and PM10 (NAAQS only) during this monitoring period.
Table 3.2-3. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Averaging
Time Unit
Agency/
Method
Ambient
Air Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration
by Year
Exceedances
by Year
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Ozone (O3) – Camp Pendleton
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.09 0.084 0.075 0.094 0 0 0
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-4
Table 3.2-3. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Averaging
Time Unit
Agency/
Method
Ambient
Air Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration
by Year
Exceedances
by Year
2018 2019 2020 2018 2019 2020
Maximum
8-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.070 0.069 0.065 0.074 0 0 3
Federal 0.070 0.068 0.064 0.074 0 0 3
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2) – Camp Pendleton
Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm State 0.18 0.048 0.053 0.058 0 0 0
Federal 0.100 0.048 0.053 0.058 0 0 0
Annual
concentration
ppm State 0.030 — 0.005 0.006 — — —
Federal 0.053 0.006 0.005 0.006 — — —
Carbon Monoxide (CO) – San Diego –11403 Rancho Carmel Drive Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm State 20 1.9 4.1 3.3 0 0 0
Federal 35 1.9 4.1 3.3 0 0 0
Maximum
8-hour
concentration
ppm State 9.0 1.4 2.5 1.7 0 0 0
Federal 9 1.4 2.5 1.7 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2) – El Cajon –Lexington Elementary School Maximum
1-hour
concentration
ppm Federal 0.075 0.003 0.0008 0.002 0 0 0
Maximum
24-hour
concentration
ppm Federal 0.14 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0 0 0
Annual
concentration
ppm Federal 0.030 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 — — —
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM 10)a – El Cajon –Lexington Elementary School Maximum
24-hour
concentration
g/m3 State 50 44.7 37.4 55.0 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
Federal 150 43.0 38.7 55.0 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)
Annual
concentration
g/m3 State 20 ND ND ND — — —
Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 )a – El Cajon –Lexington Elementary School Maximum
24-hour
concentration
g/m3 Federal 35 36.2 23.8 38.2 — — —
Annual
concentration
g/m3 State 12 9.6 8.6 10.3 — — —
Federal 12.0 9.6 8.6 10.3 — — —
Sources: CARB 2021b; EPA 2021.
Notes: ppm = parts per million by volume; — = not available; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ND = insufficient data available to determine the value.
Data taken from CARB iADAM (http://www.CARB.ca.gov/adam) and EPA AirData (http ://www.epa.gov/airdata/) represent the highest concentrations experienced over a given year.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-5
Daily exceedances for particulate matter are estimated days because PM 10 and PM 2.5 are not monitored daily. All other criteria pollutants did not exceed federal or state standards during the years shown. There is no federal standard for 1 -hour ozone, annual PM10, or 24-hour SO2, nor is there a state 24-hour standard for PM2.5.
Camp Pendleton monitoring station is located at 21441 West B Street, Camp Pendleton, California.
San Diego monitoring station is located at 11403 Rancho Carmel Drive, San Diego, California.
The El Cajon–Lexington Elementary School monitoring station is located at 533 First Street, El Cajon, California. a Measurements of PM 10 and PM 2.5 are usu ally collected every 6 days and every 1 to 3 days, respectively. Number of days exceeding the standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are the measured number of samples that exceeded the standard.
Climate and Topography
The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average summertime high tempera ture in the region is approximately 74°F. The average wintertime low temperature is approximately 49°F. Average precipitation in the local area is approximately 10 inches per year, with the bulk of precipitation falling between December and March (WRCC 201 7). The topography in the San Diego region varies greatly, from beaches on the west to mountains and desert on the east. Along with local meteorology, topography influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the air basin. The mountains to the east prevent dispersal of pollutants in that direction and help trap them in inversion layers. The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and influences the direction of prevailing winds (western to northwestern). Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB, include children, the elderly, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long -term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The closest existing sensitive receptors include single -family residents bordering the western boundary of the project site.
Pollutants and Effects
Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to hum an health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include O 3, NO 2, CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM 10, PM 2.5, and lead. These pollutants, as well as toxic air contaminants (TACs), are discussed in the following text. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility -reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants (Appendix B).
Ozone. O3 is a strong -smelling, pale blue, r eactive, toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a photochemical process involving the sun’s energy and O 3 precursors, such as hydrocarbons and NO x. These precursors are mainly NO x and volatile organic compounds
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-6
(VOCs). The maximum effects of precursor emissions on O 3 concentrations usually occur several hours after they are emitted and many miles from the source. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O 3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. O 3 exists in the upper atmosphere ozone layer (stratospheric ozone) and at the Earth’s surface in the troposphere (ozone). O 3 in the troposphere causes numerous adverse health effects; short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibil ity to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. These health problems are particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children.
Nitrogen Dioxide . NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. The major mechanism for the formation of NO 2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide, which is a colorless, odorless gas. NO x plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O 3. NO x is formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. In addition, NOx is an important precursor to acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The two major emissions sources are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources such as electric utility and industrial boilers.
NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections.
Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon, or fossil, fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicl es, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas such as the project location, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a non -reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions; primarily, wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from m otor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface -based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas from November to February. The highest levels of CO typically occur dur ing the colder months of the year, when inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.
Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of sulfur -containing fossil fuels. The main sources of SO 2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO 2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO 2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationar y source emissions of SO 2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels. SO 2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished lung function in children. When combined with particulate matter, SO 2 can injure lung tissue and reduce visibility and the level of sunlight. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals, floating in the air. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM 2.5 and PM 10 represent fractions of particulate matter. PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) is roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair. PM 2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., from motor vehicles and power generation and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM 2.5 can be formed in the at mosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOx), NOx, and VOCs. PM10 (respirable particulate matter or coarse particulate matter) is about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair. Major sources of PM 10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-7
traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions.
PM2.5 and PM 10 pose a greater health risk than larger -size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity o f asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the blood stream, causing damage elsewhere in the body.
Additionally, these substances can transport adsorbed gases such as chlorides or ammonium into the lungs, also causing injury. Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM 2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissue. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as producing haze and reducing regional visibility.
People with influenza, people with c hronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death as a result of breathing particulate matter. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in particulate matter. Childr en may experience a decline in lung function due to breathing in PM 10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive are smokers, people who cannot breathe well through their noses, and exercising athletes (because many breathe through their mouths).
Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming l ead-emissions sources of greater concern.
Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low -level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient (IQ) performance, psych omotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.
Volatile Organic Compounds. Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon, and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs.
Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil -fueled power plants are sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry-cleaning solutions, and paint.
The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O 3 and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-8
Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants. A substance is considered toxic if it ha s the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic noncancer health effects.
A toxic substance released into the air is considered a TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two - step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 25 88, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an as sessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years.
Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobil e sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer -causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more t arget organ systems and may be experienced on either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.
CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (i.e., diesel particulate matter [DPM]) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on -road diesel engines of trucks, buses, a nd cars and off -road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy -duty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM (CARB 2000). To reduce the cancer risk associ ated with diesel particulate matter, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000).
Valley Fever. Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as valley fever, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United States. When fungal spores are present, any activity that disturbs the soil, such as digging, grading, or other earth -moving operations, can cause the spores to become airborne and thereby increase the risk of exposure. The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline sandy soils.
Valley fever is not considered highly endemic to San Diego. Per the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, the 10 -year average (2008 –2017) for Coccidioidomycosis cases in the County is 4.5 cases per 100,000 people per year. The project site is within the 92069 zip code. For the 92069 zip code, there were 16 cases of Coccidioidomycosis between 2008 and 2017, which is equivalent to a rate of 3.4 cases per 100,000 people (Nelson, pers. comm., 2018). Statewide incidences in 2016 were 13.7 per 100,000 people (CDPH 2017).
Even if present at a site, earth-moving activities may not result in increased incidence of valley fever. Propagation of Coccidioides immitis is dependent on climatic conditions, with the potential for growth and surface exposure highest following early seasonal rains and long dry spells. Coccidioides immitis spores can be released when filaments are disturbed by earth -moving activities, although receptors must be exposed to and inhale the spores
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-9
to be at increased risk of developing valley fever. Moreover, exposure to Coccidioides immitis does not guarantee that an individual will become ill —approximately 60% of people exposed to the fungal spores are asymptomatic and show no signs of an infection (USGS 2000).
3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to air quality, including federal, state, and local guidelines.
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act, passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including setting NAAQS for major air pollutants, sett ing hazardous air pollutant standards, approving state attainment plans, setting motor vehicle emission standards, issuing stationary source emission standards and permits, and establishing acid rain control measures, stratospheric O 3 protection measures, and enforcement provisions. Under the Clean Air Act, NAAQS are established for the criteria pollutants O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead.
The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The NAAQS (other than for O 3, NO 2, SO 2, PM 10, PM 2.5, and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. NAAQS for O 3, NO 2, SO 2, PM 10, and PM 2.5 are based on statistical calculations over 1 - to 3 -year periods, depending on the pollutant. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare state implementation plan s (SIPs) that demonstrate how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames.
State
Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states. In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to CARB, with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.
CARB has established CAAQS, which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standa rds before a basin can attain the standard. Air quality is considered “in attainment” if pollutant levels are continuously below the CAAQS and violate the standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O 3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All other criteria air pollutants regulated in California (e.g., sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility -reducing particles) are not to be equaled or exceeded. The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 3.2-4.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-10
Table 3.2-4. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
CAAQS a NAAQS b
Concentration c Primary c,d Secondary c,e
O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 g/m3) — Same as primary
standardf 8 hours 0.070 ppm (137 g/m3) 0.070 ppm
(137 g/m3)f
NO2g 1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 g/m3) 0.100 ppm
(188 g/m3)
Same as primary
standard
Annual arithmetic
mean
0.030 ppm (57 g/m3) 0.053 ppm
(100 g/m3)
CO 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) None
8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
SO2h 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 g/m3) 0.075 ppm
(196 g/m3)
—
3 hours — — 0.5 ppm
(1,300 g/m3)
24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 g/m3) 0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
Annual — 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)g
—
PM10i 24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 Same as primary
standard Annual arithmetic
mean
20 g/m3 —
PM2.5i 24 hours — 35 g/m3 Same as primary
standard
Annual arithmetic
mean
12 g/m3 12.0 g/m3 15.0 g/m3
Leadj,k 30-day average 1.5 g/m3 — —
Calendar quarter — 1.5 g/m3
(for certain areas)k
Same as primary
standard
Rolling 3-month
average
— 0.15 g/m3
Hydrogen sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) — —
Vinyl chloridej 24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) — —
Sulfates 24- hours 25 µg/m3 — —
Visibility reducing
particles
8 hour
(10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. PST)
Insufficient amount to
produce an extinction
coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to particles
when the relative
humidity is less than 70%
— —
Source: Appendix B
Notes: CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; O 3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million by volume; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NO 2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3= milligrams per cubic meter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter. a California standards for O 3, CO, SO 2 (1-hour and 24 -hour), NO 2, suspended particulate matter —PM10, PM 2.5, and visibility - reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-11
b National standards (other than O 3, NO 2, SO 2, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O 3 standard is attained when the fourth-highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard . For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24 -hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than 1. For PM 2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentration s, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 to rr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
d National primary standards: the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f On October 1, 2015, the primary and secondary NAAQS for O3 were lowered from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm. g To attain the 1 -hour national standard, the 3 -year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). Note that the national 1 -hour standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1 -hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. h On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked.
To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment of the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. i On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM 2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 g/m3 to 12.0 g/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 g/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m 3. The existing 24 -hour PM 10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 g/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. j CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as TACs with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. k The na tional standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling 3 -month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act, signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. Air pollution from commercial and industrial facilities is regulated by local air quality management districts, whereas mobile sources of air pollution are regulated by CARB an d the EPA. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each state air quality standard, as shown in Table 3.2 -2. Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state standard are considered to be in nonattainment status for that pollutant. Nonattainment designations are categorized into three levels of severity: (1) moderate, (2) serious, and (3) severe. If there are inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, districts are considered “unclassified.” Toxic Air Contaminants
The state Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under AB 1807. The California TAC list identifies more than 700 pollutants, of which carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic toxicity criteria have been established for a subset of these pollutants pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code. In accordance with AB 2728, the state list includes the (federal) hazardous air pollutants. In 1987, the legislature enacted the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) to address publi c concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. AB 2588 requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air t oxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-12
effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years. TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized. “High-priority” facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, the facility operator is required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings.
In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines (CARB 2000). Additional regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel, including the On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation, the On-Road Heavy Duty (New) Vehicle Program, the In -Use Off -Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation, and the New Off -Road Compression -Ignition (Diesel) Engines and Equipment Program. These regulations and programs have time tables by which manufacturers must comply and existing operators must upgrade their diesel -powered equipment. There are several airborne toxic control measures that reduce diesel emissions, including In -Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et . seq.) and In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025).
California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code states that a person must not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contami nants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public; that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public; or that cause, or have a natura l tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.
Local
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Although CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within th e state, local air quality management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The project site is located within the SDAB and is subject to SDAPCD guidelines and regulations.
SDAPCD and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. The Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for t he SDAB was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated every 3 years ( last updated in 2016, with the 2022 RAQs pending adoption ) (SDAPCD 2023) . The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS for O3. The RAQS relies on info rmation from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County and the cities in the County, to project future emissions and then determine from that the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of development of their general plans.
The 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County indicate d that local controls and state programs would allow the region to reach attainment of the federal 8 -hour O 3 standard by 2018 (SDAPCD 2016). In this plan, SDAPCD relied on the RAQS to demonstrate how the region will comply with the federal O 3 standard. The RAQS details how the region will manage and reduce O 3 precursors (NO x and VOCs) by identifying measures and regulations intended to reduce these contaminants. The control measures identified in the RAQS generally focus on stationary sources; however, the emissions inventories and projections in the RAQS address all potential
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-13
sources, including those under the authority of CARB and EPA. Incentive programs for reduction of emissions from heavy-duty diesel vehicles, off-road equipment, and school buses are also established in the RAQS. In response to court decisions, some elements in the 8 -hour Ozone Attainment Plan for San Diego County required updates.
CARB staff prepared the 2018 Updates to the California SIP to update SIP elements for nonattainment areas throughout the state. The applicable ozone attainment date for San Diego County is in 2032. The 2020 Ozone Attainment Plan complies with the Severe Nonattainment Area classification planning requirements and includes demonstrations for attainment of the 75 parts per billion and 70 parts per billion O3 standards by 2026 and 2032, respectively. The 2020 plan includes a regionwide inventory of O 3 forming emissions, a reasonably further progress demonstration showing emissions reductions during the years leading to the attainment dates , an assessment of Reasonably Available Control Technology and Rea sonably Available Control Measures , and contingency measures in the event the emissions controls fall short of achieving the needed reductions.
In December 2005, the SDAPCD also prepared a report titled Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County to address implementation of Senate Bill 656 in San Diego County (S enate Bill 656 required additional controls to reduce ambient concentrations of PM 10 and PM 2.5). In the report, the SDAPCD evaluates implementation of source -control measures that woul d reduce particulate matter emissions associated with residential wood combustion (SDAPCD 2005).
In addition to SDAPCD’s regional planning efforts, t he following SDAPCD rules and regulations also would apply to the project:
▪ SDAPCD Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review Non -Major Stationary Sources. Requires new or modified stationary source units (that are not major stationary sources) with the potential to emit 10 pounds per day or more of VOC, NO x, SO x, or PM 10 to be equipped with best avai lable control technology. For those units with a potential to emit above Air Quality Impact Assessments Trigger Levels, the units must demonstrate that such emissions would not violate or interfere with the attainment of any national air quality standard (SDAPCD 1998).
▪ SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions . Prohibits discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emissions whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any period of 60 consecutive minutes that is darker in shade than that designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the U .S. Bureau of Mines, or of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a degree greater than does smoke of a shade designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart (SDAPCD 1997).
▪ SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 51: Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge, from any source, of such quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any business or property (SDAPCD 1976).
▪ SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. Regulates fugitive dust emissions from any commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating fugitive dust emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed areas, as well as track -out and carry-out onto paved roads beyond a project site (SDAPCD 2009).
▪ SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings . Requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories (SDAPCD 2015).
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-14
City of San Marco s General Plan
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 201 2) includes various policies related to re ducing air pollutant emissions. Applicable policies include the following:
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal LU -2: Promote development standards and land use patterns that encourage long -term environmental sustainability.
Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Goal LU-3: Develop land use patterns that are compatible with and support a variety of mobility opportunities and choices.
Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.
Mobility Element
Policy M -2.1: Work with new development to de sign roadways that minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate within residential neighborhoods; while maintaining the City’s desire to provide connectivity on the roadway network.
Goal M -3: Promote and encourage use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, bicycles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and walking, within the City.
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, and throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR.
3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to air quality are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CE QA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality would occur if the project would:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. ▪ Threshold No. 2: Result in a cumulatively considerable new increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. ▪ Threshold No. 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ▪ Threshold No. 4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines ( 14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or pollution control district may be relied upon to determine whether the project would have a significant impact on air quality. For purposes of this EIR, reference has been made to thresholds established by SDAPCD in Rule 20. 2 for permitted stationary sources.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-15
SDAPCD sets forth quantitative emission thresholds in Rule 20.2 below which a stationary source would not have a significant impact on ambient air quality. For CEQA purposes, these thresholds can be used to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions (e.g. , stationary and fugitive emissions, as well as emissions from mobile sources) would not result in a significant impact to air quality. While the proposed project is a land use development project (and not a stationary source project), the Rule 20.2 thresholds provide a representative and relevant proxy for purposes of assessing project impacts. Therefore, p roject-related air quality impacts assessed in this EIR would be considered significant if any of the applicable si gnificance thresholds developed by SDAPCD for Rule 20.2, as presented in Table 3.2-5, are exceeded. Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. For nonattainment pollutants, if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 3.2-5, a project could have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants and thus could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality.
Table 3.2-5. San Diego Air Pollution Control District Air Quality Significance Thresholds Construction Emissions
Pollutant Total Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 100
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 55
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 250
Sulfur oxides (SOx) 250
Carbon monoxide (CO) 550
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 137a
Operational Emissions
Pollutant
Total Emissions
Pounds per Hour Pounds per Day Tons per Year
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) — 100 15
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) — 55 10
Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 25 250 40
Sulfur oxides (SOx) 25 250 40
Carbon monoxide (CO) 100 550 100
Lead and lead compounds — 3.2 0.6
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) — 137a 13.7
Source: SDAPCD Rules 1501 and 20.2(d)(2).
Note:
a VOC threshold based on South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) levels per the SCAQMD and the Monterey Bay Air Pollution Control District, which have similar federal and state attainment status to San Diego.
Methodology
Construction
Construction assumptions, including timing, phasing, and equipment type and quantity, as well as worker and vendor truck trips, were based on information provided by the applicant. Default values provided by the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) were used where detailed project information was not available. For purposes of most conservatively estimating project air quality emissions, it is assumed that construction would
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-16
commence in December 20231 and would end in March 2025. Construction is anticipated to occur in five phases consisting of site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. The analysis contained herein is based on the following assumptions (the duration of phases is approximate):
▪ Site preparation – 6 days (December 2023)
▪ Grading – 24 days (December 2023–January 2024)
▪ Paving – 20 days (January 2024–February 2024)
▪ Building construction – 262 days (February 2024–February 2025) ▪ Architectural coating – 20 days (February 2025–March 2025) The construction equipment mix used for estimating construction emissions herein is based on CalEEMo d defaults and is shown in Table 3.2-6. For this analysis, it was estimated that heavy construction equipment would operate 5 days a week during project construction. The equipment used in each phase as shown in Table 3.2-6 was based on the CalEEMod defaul t equipment mix for each phase of construction. Construction worker and vendor estimates by construction phase were generated by CalEEMod. Based on the project’s grading plans, the project would be balanced on site. The applicant has committed to using offroad construction equipment with EPA Tier 4 Interim certification or better for equipment over 50 horsepower and electric equipment less than 50 horsepower2 (Appendix B).
Table 3.2-6. Construction Scenario Parameters
Construction
Phase
One -Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily Worker
Trips
Average Daily
Vendor Truck
Trips
Total Haul
Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Site preparation 12 4 0 Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3 8
Grading 16 4 0 Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 4 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 8
Paving 16 4 0 Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 3 8
1 The analysis assumes a construction start date of December 2023, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate (although unlikely). Assuming the earliest start date for construction represents the worst -case scenario for criteria air pollutant emissions because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more string ent standards for in-use off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years.
2 In the case that a piece of equipment is not available in Tier 4 Interim, the applicant may upgrade anothe r piece of equipment to better than Tier 4 Interim (i.e., Tier 4 Final) to compensate for the piece of equipment with a lower tier.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-17
Table 3.2-6. Construction Scenario Parameters
Construction
Phase
One -Way Vehicle Trips Equipment
Average
Daily Worker
Trips
Average Daily
Vendor Truck
Trips
Total Haul
Truck Trips Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
Building
Construction
192 54 0 Welders 1 8
Air Compressors 2 8
Cranes 1 4
Forklifts 2 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Skid Steer Loaders 1 4
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 4
Architectural
coating
38 4 0 Air Compressors 1 6
Source: Appendix B.
Health Risk Assessment
As a precautionary measure, a health risk assessment (HRA) was performed to assess the impact of construction on sensitive receptors proximate to the project. Appendix B to this EIR includes an HRA associated with emissions from construction of the project based on the methodologies prescribed in the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA 2015). To implement the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Guidelines based on project information, the SDAPCD has developed a three -tiered approach where each successive tier is progressively more refined, with fewer conservative assumptions. The SDAPCD Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessments provides guidance with which to perform HRAs within the SDAB (SDAPCD 2022).
Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SDAPCD recommends a carcinogenic (cancer) risk threshold of 10 in a million. Additionally, some TACs increase non - cancer health risk due to long -term (chronic) exposures. The Chronic Hazard Index is the sum of the individual substance chronic hazard indices for all TA Cs affecting the same target organ system. The SDAPCD recommends a Chronic Hazard Index significance threshold of 1.0 (project increment). The exhaust from diesel engines is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and particles, many of which are known human c arcinogens. DPM has established cancer risk factors and relative exposure values for long -term chronic health hazard impacts. No short-term, acute relative exposure level has been established for DPM; therefore, acute impacts of DPM are not addressed in th is assessment. The HRA evaluated the risk to future residents from diesel emissions from exhaust from on-site construction equipment and diesel haul and vendor trucks.
The dispersion modeling of DPM was performed using the American Meteorological Society/E PA Regulatory Model (AERMOD), which is the model SDAPCD requires for atmospheric dispersion of emissions. AERMOD is a steady-state Gaussian plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling conc epts, including treatment of surface and elevated sources, building downwash, and simple and complex terrain (EPA 20 22). For the project, AERMOD was run with all sources emitting unit emissions (1 gram per second ) to obtain the “Χ/Q” values. Χ/Q is a dispe rsion factor that is the
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-18
average effluent concentration normalized by source strength and is used as a way to simplify the representation of emissions from many sources. The Χ/Q values of ground-level concentrations were determined for construction emissions using AERMOD and the maximum concentrations determined for the 1 -hour and Period averaging periods. Principal parameters of this modeling are presented in Table 3.2-7.
Table 3.2-7. AERMOD Principal Parameters
Parameter Details
Meteorological
Data
The latest 3-year meteorological data (2010–2012) for the Escondido Station (Station ID 3177) from SDAPCD were downloaded and then input to AERMOD. For cancer or chronic noncancer risk assessments, the average cancer risk of all years modeled was used.
Urban versus Rural
Option
Urban areas typically have more surface roughness, as well as structures and low-albedo surfaces that absorb more sunlight—and thus more heat—relative to rural areas. However, based on the SDAPCD guidelines, the rural dispersion option was selected due to the project’s proximity to the ocean.
Terrain
Characteristics
The terrain in the vicinity of the modeled project site is generally flat. The elevation of the modeled site is about 575 feet above sea level. Digital elevation model files were imported into AERMOD so that complex terrain features were evaluated as appropriate.
Elevation Data Digital elevation data were imported into AERMOD and elevations were assigned to the emission sources and receptors. Digital elevation data were obtained through AERMOD View in the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Elevation Dataset format with a 10-meter resolution.
Emission Sources
and Release
Parameters
Air dispersion modeling of DPM from construction equipment was conducted using emissions estimated using the CalEEMod, assuming emissions would occur 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. The project area was modeled as a series of volume sources.
Source Release
Characterizations
Based on EPA methodology, the modeled line volume sources would result in a release height of 3.4 meters, a plume height of 6.8 meters, and a plume width of 8.6 meters for off- road equipment and diesel trucks (EPA 2015).
Discrete Receptors A uniform Cartesian grid overlaying residential receptors in close proximity to the project with 20-meter resolution was placed. Additional discrete receptors were placed over residences not within the uniform Cartesian grid.
Source: Appendix B.
Note: SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District; AERMOD = American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model; DPM = diesel particulate matter; CalEEMod = California Emissions Estimator Model; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Dispersion model plotfiles from AERMOD were then imported into CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 to determine health risk, which requires peak 1 -hour emission rates and annual -averaged emission rates for all pollutants for each modeling source. For the residential health risk, the HRA assumed exposure would start in the third trimester of pregnancy. The results of the HRA are provided in Appendix B to this EIR.
Operation
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with natural gas usage in space heating were calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text.
Area Sources
Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. Other paint
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-19
products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings are not considered consumer products (CAP COA 2021).
Consumer product VOC emissions are estimated in CalEEMod based on the floor area of residential buildings and on the default factor of pounds of VOC per building square foot per day. The CalEEMod default values for consumer products were modeled.
VOC off-gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings, such as in paints and primers used during building maintenance. CalEEMod calculates the VOC evaporative emissions from application of surface coatings based on t he VOC emission factor, the building square footage, the assumed fraction of surface area, and the reapplication rate. The VOC emission factor is based on the VOC content of the surface coatings; SDAPCD’s Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings) governs the VO C content for interior and exterior coatings (SDAPCD 2015). The model default reapplication rate of 10% of area per year was assumed. Consistent with CalEEMod defaults, it was assumed that the surface area for painting equals 2.7 times the floor square footage, with 75% assumed for interior coating and 25% assumed for exterior surface coating (CAPCOA 2021).
Consistent with the architectural coatings used during the construction phase, the applicant will use architectural coatings with a VOC content of 50 gr ams per liter for internal reapplication, and exterior architectural coatings would have a VOC content of 100 grams per liter for any reapplication during operation.
Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated from landscape equipment use are estimated based on Cal EEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of nonresidential building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days. Emissions associated with potential landscape ma intenance equipment were included to conservatively capture potential project operational emission sources. As a project design feature, the project would not include wood burning stoves or fireplaces.
Energy Sources
As represented in CalEEMod, energy sour ces would include emissions associated with building electricity and natural gas usage. Electricity use would contribute indirectly to criteria air pollutant emissions; however, the emissions from electricity use are only quantified for greenhouse gases in CalEEMod, since criteria pollutant emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is typically off site.
Operational criteria air pollutant emissions from energy sources include natural gas combustion for appliances and space heating. The current T itle 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. CalEEMod defaults were assumed for electricity and natural gas. The project is also designed to include energy star appliances.
Mobile Sources
The project would generate air quality emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) as a result of the residents of the project. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from proposed vehicular sources (refer to Appendix B). The trip generation rates for the project residential land use were adjusted in CalEEMod to match the overall weekday daily trip rate and trip length based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis and Local Transportation Analysis (Appendices K -1 and K -2 to this EIR, respectively ). CalEEMod default data, trip modes, fleet mix, and emissions factors were used for the model inputs. CalEEMod default vehicle emission factors and vehicle fleet mix for 2025, as based on the CARB EMFAC2017 model, were used to estimate em issions associated with vehicular sources. In accordance with 2019 California Green Building Standards Code requirements, the project would install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-20
in each residential garage for future installation of an electric vehicle charger. No quantitative credit was taken for this requirement. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code Section 4.106.4.2.1 requires the installation of at least one electric vehicle space in common use parking. The project will install two electric vehicle charging stations in the common use parking. According to Table 25 of Appendix B of the City’s Climate Action Plan, every electric vehicle charging station in a multifamily development is assumed to reduce 1.65 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (City of San Marcos 2013).
Due to the project’s location and design, the following reduction measures were accounted for in CalEEMod:
▪ Increase Density (LUT-1): 120 dwelling units/7.6 acres = 15.8 dwelling units/acre ▪ Increase Diversity (LUT -3): Nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site include industrial and commercial uses to the west on the other side of W Mission Road, the Santa Fe Hills residential community to the north, and Palomar College approximately 0.2 miles to the east ▪ Increase Transit Accessibility (LUT-5): The project would be 0.3 miles from the Palomar College SPRINTER station.
3.2.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As mentioned in Section 3.2.2, the SDAPCD is responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB —specifically, t he SIP and RAQS.3 SANDAG is responsible for developing growth projection forecasts and data that are used by the SDAPCD in preparing the SIP and RAQS. The federal O 3 maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in 2012.
The SIP includes a demonstration that current strategies and tactics will maintain acceptable air quality in the basin based on the NAAQS. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated every 3 years (most recently in 2020). The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for O 3. The SIP and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the County as a whole and the cities in San Diego County, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile sour ce emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of development of their general plans.
Although the SDAPCD and City do not provid e guidance regarding the analysis of impacts associated with air quality plan conformance, the Cou nty’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality does discuss conformance with the RAQS (County of S an Diego 2007). The guidance indicates that, if the project, in conjunction with other projects, contributes to growth projections that would not exceed SANDAG’s growth projections for a city, the project would not be in conflict with the RAQS. If a project includes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality (County of San Diego 2007).
The project site is currently zoned for Commercial (C) use with an existing General Plan designation of Commercial and is within the City’s General Plan College Area Neighborhood. The project proposes a General Plan and Zoning Amendment to change the land use designation to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The SANDAG Series 13 forecast
3 For the purpose of this discussion, the relevant federal air quality plan is the Ozone Attainment Plan (SDAPCD 2020). The RAQS is the applicable plan for purposes of state air quality planning. Both plans reflect growth projections in the SDAB.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-21
projects that t he City will see an increase of 3,170 housing units between 2020 and 2035 (SANDAG 2013) ; the project would only account for 3.8% of that increase in City housing. The project’s proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be within the growth projections for the City; thus, the project would result in regional growth that is accounted for within the RAQS . Furthermore, at a regional level, the growth is consistent with the underlying growth forecasts in the SIP and RAQS. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the RAQS or SIP , and potential future development would be consistent with the growth in the region. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable ne t increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? In analyzing cumulative impacts from a project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contr ibution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the air basin is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. If a project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less -than-significant project-specific impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the emissions from the project, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, a project would only be considered to have a significant cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (i.e., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact).
Additionally, for the SDAB, the RAQS serves as the long -term regional air quality planning document for the purpose of assessing cumulative operational emissions to ensure that the SDAB continues to make progress toward NAAQS and CAAQS attainmen t status. As such, cumulative projects located in the San Diego region would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to air quality if, in combination, they would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Similarly, individual projects that are inconsistent with the regional planning documents upon which the RAQS is based would have the potential to result in cumulative operational impacts if they represent development and population increases beyond regional projections.
The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O 3 and a state nonattainment area for O 3, PM10, and PM 2.5. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated with construction generally result in “near-field” impacts.
The nonattainment status is the result of cumul ative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB. As discussed previously, the emissions of all criteria pollutants would be below the significance levels. Construction would be short term and temporary , and o nce construction is completed, construction-related emissions would cease. Operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SO x, PM10, or PM 2.5, and would not cause a significant impact. As such, the project would result in less-than-significant impacts to air quality relative to operational emissions.
Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on -site construction equipment, as well as from off -site trucks hauling construction materials. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific t ype of operation, and , for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emissions levels can only be estimated, with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. Fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM2.5) emissions would primarily result from grading and site preparation activities. NO x and CO emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-22
Construction emissions were calculated using CalEEMod for the estimated worst -case day over the construction period associated with each phase and reported as the maximum daily emissions estimated during each year of construction ( 2023 and 2024). Construction schedule assumptions, including phase type, duration, and sequencing, were based on information provided by the applican t, and are intended to represent a reasonable scenario based on the best information available. A detailed depiction of the construction schedule —including information regarding phasing, equipment used during each phase, haul trucks, vendor trucks, and wor ker vehicles—is included in Section 2.4.2.1, Construction, of Appendix B to this EIR.
Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary air pollutant emissions from entrained dust, off-road equipment, vehicle emissions, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions. The proposed project would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. This rule requires that a project take steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM 2.5) that may be generated during grading and construction activities. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the active sites would be watered at least two times daily, resulting in an approximately 55% reduction of particulate matter. Compliance with Rule 55 would be required as a standard condition of project approval or for issuance of a grading permit.
Exhaust from internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, hauling trucks (dump trucks), vendor trucks (delivery trucks), and worker vehicles would result in temporary emissions of NO x, VOC, CO, SO x, PM10, and PM2.5. Application of architectural coatings, such as exterior/interior paint and other finishes, would also produce VOC emissions; however, the contractor is required to procure architectural coatings fr om a supplier in compliance with the requirements of SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1, Architectural Coatings (SDAPCD 2021) . This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from t he use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories (SDAPCD 2015). The proposed project would comply with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 through the incorporation of low-VOC architectural coatings. The VOC content assumed for the analysis was 50 grams per liter for interior coatings and 100 grams per liter for exterior coatings.
Table 3.2-8 shows the estimated maximum daily construction emissions associated with the construction of the proposed residential use. Details of the emissions calculations are provided in Appendix B of this EIR.
Table 3.2-8. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions – Unmitigated Year
VOC NO x CO SO x PM 10 PM 2.5
Pounds per Day
2023 1.36 21.59 43.15 0.08 5.39 1.92
2024 1.36 21.59 43.12 0.08 5.39 1.92
2025 48.50 11.21 19.58 0.05 2.02 0.08
Maximum daily emissions 48.50 21.59 43.15 0.08 5.39 1.92 Emission threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NO x = oxides of nitrogen ; CO = carbon monoxide; SO x = sulfur oxides ; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns ; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns.
See Appendix B for output files and modeling details.
The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod and provided in Appendix B. The maximum emissions assumes compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1, Architectural Coatings, and SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-23
As shown in Table 3.2-8, daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5.
Following completion of construction activities, the proposed residential use would generate VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicular traffic generated by residents; area sources, including the use of landscaping equipment and consumer products; and architectural coatings.
Table 3.2-9 presents the maximum daily emissions associated with operation of the proposed residential use. The values shown for mobile sources ( motor vehicles), energy sources, and area sources are the maximum of either the summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod, whichever is greater.
Table 3.2-9. Estimated Project Maximum Daily Operational Emissions – Unmitigated Emission Source
VOC NO x CO SO x PM 10 PM 2.5
Pounds per Day
Area 3.17 0.11 9.89 0.00 0.06 0.06
Energy 0.03 0.22 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile 2.03 1.77 15.18 0.03 3.02 0.82
Total 5.23 2.10 25.16 0.03 3.10 0.90
Emission threshold 55 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B
Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NO x = oxides of nitrogen ; CO = carbon monoxide; SO x = sulfur oxides ; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns ; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns.
See Appendix B for output files and modeling details.
As shown in Table 3.2-9, the daily operational emissions from implementation of the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5.
Regarding long-term cumulative operational emissions in relation to consistency with local ai r quality plans, the SIP and RAQS serve as the primary air quality planning documents for the state and SDAB, respectively. The SIP and RAQS rely on SANDAG growth projections based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the cities a nd the County as part of the development of their general plans. Development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by local plans would be consistent with the SIP and RAQS and would result in emissions that are accounted for. Projects that conform to the permitted land use or result in a less emissions - intensive use and are therefore accounted for in the SIP and RAQS would not be considered to result in cumulatively considerable impacts from operational emissions. As stated previously, the project would result in fewer emissions than buildout of the existing permitted land use that was anticipated by the RAQS and therefore would not result in significant regional emissions that are not accounted for within the RAQS. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional O 3 concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 3: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Air quality varies as a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems ari se when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-24
impacts on those persons termed sensitive receptors are the most serious hazards of existing air quality conditions in the area. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB, include children, older adults , a thletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases; however, for the purposes of this analysis, residents are also considered sensitive receptors.
As such, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare center s, athletic facilities, long - term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.
Health Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or hazardous air pollutants. State law has established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program and aimed at TACs that ar e a problem in California. The s tate has formally identified more than 200 substances as TACs, including the federal hazardous air pollutants, and is adopting appropriate control measures for sources of these TACs. The grea test potential for TAC emissions during construction would be DPM from heavy -duty equipment operations and heavy -duty trucks , and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. The following measures are required by state law to reduce diesel particulate emissions:
▪ Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In -use Off -road Diesel Vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from in-use (existing) off-road diesel-fueled vehicles. ▪ All commercial diesel vehicles are subject to Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations, limiting engine idling time. Idling of heavy-duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to 5 minutes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.
The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be DPM emissions from heavy-duty equipment operations and heavy -duty trucks during construction of t he project and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors.
However, as a precautionary measure, a n HRA was performed to evaluate the risk from diesel exhaust emissions on existing sensitive receptors and future on -site receptors from construction activities. The HRA methodology was described in Section 3.2.3, and the detailed assessment is provided in Appendix B. Table 3.2-10 summarizes the results of the HRA for proposed project construction.
Table 3.2-10. Construction Activity Health Risk Assessment Results Impact Parameter Units Project Impact CEQA Threshold Level of Significance Cancer Risk Per Million 5.9 10.0 Less than Significant
HIC Not Applicable 0.005 1.0 Less than Significant
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act; HIC = Chronic Hazard Index.
The results of the HRA demonstrate that the TAC exposure from construction diesel exhaust emissions would result in cancer risk on site below the 10 in 1 million threshold, as well as Chronic Hazard In dex less than 1.0.
Therefore, TAC emissions from construction of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and would result in a less than significant impact. Upon completion of construction, the proj ect would not generate substantial TAC emissions . As such, impacts would be less than significant during construction and operation.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-25
Health Impacts of Carbon Monoxide
As described previously, exposure to high concentrations of CO can result in dizziness, f atigue, chest pain, headaches, and impairment of central nervous system functions. Mobile -source impacts, including those related to CO, occur on two scales. Regionally, project -related construction travel would add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local airshed and the SDAB. Locally, construction traffic would be added to the roadway system in the vicinity of the project site. Although the SDAB is currently an attainment area for CO, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO “hotspots” to occur immediately around points of congested traffic. Hotspots can form if such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is composed of a large number of vehicles cold -started and operating a t pollution -inefficient speeds, and/or is operating on roadways already crowded with non -project traffic. Because of continued improvement in vehicular emissions at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion, the potential for CO hotsp ots in the SDAB is steadily decreasing. The SDAB is a CO maintenance area (western and central part of the SDAB only).
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the California 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. Vehicle miles traveled measures the distances vehicles will travel to and from a project, rather than congestion levels at intersections ( level of service, graded on a scale of A –F). To account for this shift from LOS to vehicle miles traveled—such that vehicle congestion is no longer modeled and available —but to nonetheless evaluate the potential for CO hotspots for the hypothetical development scenario , this EIR utilizes CO modeling analyses performed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) relative to 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations as follows.
The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (Appendix V of SCAQMD 2003) for the four worst -case intersections in the South Coast Air Basin: (1) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue, (2) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue, (3) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard, and (4) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. At the time the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan was prepared, the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Ave nue was the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day. Using CO emission factors for 2002, the peak modeled CO 1 -hour concentration was estimated to be 4.6 parts per million ( ppm) at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.
A daily traffic volume of 100,000 vehicles (as considered in the SCAQMD modeling) as a result of the proposed project would be at least double the traffic volumes of nearby intersections ( Appendix K ). However, if “peak” modeled 1 -hour concentration from SCAQMD’s analysis of 100,000 vehicle traffic volumes of 4.6 ppm were added to the maximum 1 -hour CO concentration from 2018 through 2020 at the San Diego –11403 Rancho Carmel Drive monitoring station (see Table 3, Local Ambient Air Quality Data, in Appendix B to this EIR) of 4.1 ppm (in 2019), the 1 -hour CO concentration in the project area would total 8.7 ppm. This worst case scenario — modeling at least double the traffic experienced in the pro ject area—would still result in 1-hour CO concentrations well below the CAAQS 1-hour CO threshold of 20 ppm.
Concerning 8 -hour concentrations, SCAQMD modeled future year 8 -hour CO concentrations at the Central Los Angeles monitoring site of 4.6 ppm in 202 0. Adding 4.6 ppm to the maximum 8 -hour CO concentration from 2018 through 2020 at the San Diego –11403 Rancho Carmel Drive monitoring station of 2.5 ppm (in 2019) would result in a total 8 -hour CO concentration of 7.1 ppm. Again, this worst case scenario 8 -hour CO concentration, assuming traffic counts far above that experienced in the project area, would still be well below the CAAQS 8-hour threshold of 9.0 ppm.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-26
Therefore, CO concentrations at congested intersections would not exceed the 1 -hour or 8-hour CO CAAQS unless projected daily traffic would cause area traffic volumes to exceed 100,000 vehicles per day. The proposed project would not increase daily traffic volumes at any study intersection to more than 100,000 vehicles per day (Appendix K ). Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to create a CO hotspot. As such, impacts to sensitive receptors with regard to potential CO hotspots resulting from the project and hypothetical development scenario’s contribution to cumulative traffic-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.
Health Impacts of Criteria Air Pollutants
Construction and operation of the project would not result in emissions that exceed the SDAPCD significance thresholds for any criteria air pollutants including VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Regarding VOCs, some VOCs would be associated with motor vehicles and construction equipment, while others are associated with architectural coatings, the emissions of which would not result in the ex ceedances of the SDAPCD significance thresholds. Generally, the VOCs in architectural coatings are of relatively low toxicity. Additionally, the project would use low -VOC architectural coatings that would comply with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1, which restricts the VOC content of coatings for both construction and operational applications (SDAPCD 2015).
In addition, VOCs and NO x are precursors to O 3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS (the SDAB is designated by EPA as an attainment area for the 1 -hour O3 NAAQS). The health effects associated with O 3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of VOCs and NO x to regional ambient O 3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The i ncreases in O 3 concentrations in the SDAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source location to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive O 3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur because exceedances of the O3 ambient air quality standards tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest.
The holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O 3 precursors is speculative due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this impact. Nonetheless, the VOC and NO x emissions associated with project construction could minimally contribute to regional O 3 concentrations and the associated health impacts. Due to the minimal contribution during construction and operation, health impacts would be considered less than significant.
Similar to O 3, construction of the project would not exceed the SDAPCD significance thresholds for PM 10 or PM2.5 and would not co ntribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter. Due to the minimal contribution of particulate matter during construction and operation, health impacts would be considered less than significant.
Regarding NO2, according to the construction emissions analysis, construction of the project would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO 2. NO 2 and NO x health impacts are associated with respiratory irritation, which may be experienced by nearby receptors during the perio ds of heaviest use of off -road construction equipment. Off -road construction equipment would be operating at various portions of the site and would not be concentrated in one portion of the site at any one time. Construction of the project would not require any stationary emission sources that would create substantial, localized NO x impacts. Therefore, health impacts would be considered less than significant.
In summary, construction and operation of the project would not result in exceedances of SDAPCD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants. The VOC and NOx emissions, as described previously, would minimally contribute to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health effects. In addition to O3, NOx emissions would not contribute
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-27
to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO 2. The existing NO 2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS. Thus, the project’s operational NO x emissions are not expected to result in exceedances of the NO 2 standards or contribut e to the associated health effects. PM 10 and PM 2.5 would not contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS , would not obstruct the SDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants, and would not contribute to significant health effects associated with particulates.
Therefore, health impacts associated with criteria air pollutants would be considered less than significant.
Valley Fever Exposure
Valley fever is not highly endemic to San Diego County, and within the County, the incidence rate in the project area is below the County average and the statewide average. Construction of the project would comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. Strategies the project would implement to comp ly with SDAPCD Rule 55 and control dust include watering two times per day and limiting speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Based on the low incidence rate of Coccidioidomycosis in San Diego County and the project’s implementation of dust control strategies, it is not anticipated that earth -moving activities during project construction would result in exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to valley fever. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to valley fever exposure for sensitive receptors.
Threshold No. 4: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Odors would be generated from vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and from architectural coatings. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be less than significant.
Land uses and industrial operations associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding (CARB 2005). The proposed project would not allow for any of these activities. Moreover, typical odors generated from operation of the proposed project residential land uses would primarily include vehicle exhaust generated by residents and through the periodic use of landscaping and maintenance equipment. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an odor impact that is less than significant.
3.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The project’s cumulative air quality impacts were previously addressed above under Threshold No. 2 in Section 3.2.4. In analyzing cumulative impacts from the project, the analysis must specifically evaluate a project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the basin is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS.
The project would include a 120-unit residential development on undeveloped land. The residential development would result in fewer emissions than buildout of the existing permitted commercial land use that was anticipated by the RAQS and therefore would not result in significant regional emissions that are not accounted for within the RAQS. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable co ntribution to regional O 3 concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions.
3.2 – AIR QUALITY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.2-28
Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a construction project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. As it is unknown whether the cumulative projects under review will be approved or not, and, if approved, when actual construction would begin, it would be speculative to estimate any potential overlap of the proposed project. Construction schedules for potential future projects near the project site are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be speculative. However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require an air quality analysis and, where necessary, mitigation if the project would exceed the SDAPCD significance thresholds. Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by SDAPCD. Cumulative PM10 and PM 2.5 emissions would be reduced because all future projects would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 55 , Fugitive Dust, which sets forth general and specific requirements for all construction sites in the SDAPCD.
As construction and operation of the project would be typical of townhome development uses, implementation of the project is not expected to contribute to any cumulative health risks. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
3.2.6 Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in significant impacts; therefore, no mitigation is required.
3.2.7 Conclusion
The proposed project would change the allowable land use and zoning designation of Commercial (C) to allow for residential uses under a proposed Specific Plan Area (SPA). However, the project’s proposed growth would be within the growth projections for the City and, a t a regional level, the proposed project is consistent with the underlying growth forecasts in the SIP and RAQS. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the RAQS or SIP and proposed development would be consistent with the growth in the region.
Implementation of the proposed project also would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected a ir quality violation during construction with mitigation or operation. Additionally, the proposed project would not expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors.
As construction and operations of the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants, the potential for the proposed project to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant (here, O3) for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable nationa l or California ambient air quality standard is less than significant.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-1
3.3 Biological Resources
This section describes the existing biological resources of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project) , identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. This section is based on the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared by Dudek in July 2022, which is included as Appendix C to this environmental impact report.
Table 3.3-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level biological resource impacts by threshold.
Table 3.3-1. Biological Resources Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
with MM-BIO-1
and MM-BIO-2
Less than
Significant with
MM-BIO-1 and
MM-BIO-2
No. 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
with MM-BIO-1
and MM-BIO-2
Less than
Significant with
MM-BIO-1 and
MM-BIO-2
No. 3: Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
No impact No impact No impact
No. 4: 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.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
The 7.6-acre project site consists of undeveloped land in the northwestern portion of the City of San Marcos (City).
Although undeveloped, the project site reflects a history of disturbance. Vegetation is disturbed from previous grading and disking. Based on historical aerial imagery, the project site was graded and disked in the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s; between 2005 and 2009 the site was graded and used as a staging area for construction of the CVS store located just south of the site . In addition, in 2017 the site was utilized by Palomar Community College District for temporary parking. Once the parking was no longer needed, the area was restored by removing parking fill and applying a hyrdroseed to the disturbed areas (Appendix C).
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-2
The project site is immediately adjacent to roadways . The site is located at the northwest corner of N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road. Existing development occurs on all sides of the site. An existing CVS Pharmacy abuts the project site to the south. Nearby land uses in the vicinity of the project site include industrial and commercial uses to the west on the other side of W Mission Road, a residential community to the north and west, and Palomar College approximately 0.2 miles to the east.
The project site is gently sloping from north to south, ranging in elevation from approximately 582 to 568 feet above mean sea level. Two soil types have been mapped on the project site: Huerhuero loam (HrC), 2% to 9% slopes, and Placentia sandy loam (PeC), 2% to 9% slo pes. Soils within the project site have been degraded over time from disturbances such as grading and disking. As a result, the soils no longer maintain their native soil characteristics and therefore have no particular significance to biological resources of the project site (Appendix C).
The biological study area for the project includes the entire project site. Prior to conducting the field surveys, Dudek performed a review of relevant maps, databases, and literature pertaining to biological resources known to occur within the project vicinity. In addition, a query of sensitive species and habitats within vicinity of the project site was conducted, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species records; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); San Diego Natural History Museum’s Plant Atlas, Mammal Atlas, and Bird Atlas (Unitt 2004) ; the San Diego Geographic Information Source , and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Appendix C).
The project site is generally located within the boundaries of the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) Plan area (Appendix C), specifically within the area of the City of San Marcos Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan). The Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan has not been completed, approved, or adopted (City of San Marcos 2001). However, it is the City of San Marcos General Plan (General Plan) policy to comply with the conservation policies identified in the MHCP through use of the Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan as an implementation tool.
3.3.2 Methodology
Literature Review
Prior to conducting the field surveys, Dudek conducted a review of the existing biological resources and species within the vicinity of the survey area using the CDFW CNDDB; the CNPS Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California; the San Diego Natural History Museum’s Plant Atlas, Mammal Atlas, and Bird Atlas; and the San Diego Geographic Information Source. Dudek obtained special-status species occurrence data from the above sources by querying records within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle map for the project site and the nine quadrangle maps surrounding the project site, including the Valley Center, Morro Hill, Bonsall, Pala, Encinitas, Escondido, Rancho Santa Fe, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos USGS quadrangle maps (Appendix C).
For this analysis, special-status plant and wildlife species are defined as those that are (1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as thre atened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); (2) listed or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act; (3) designated as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code; (4) designated as a California Species of Special Concern by CDFW; and/or (5) assigned a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B or 2B by the CNPS.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-3
In addition, Dudek reviewed the following available resources to assess the potential for biological and wetland resources within the project site and vicinity:
▪ List of potentially occurring listed species generated from a review of the USFWS’s Information for Planning and Consultation Trust Resources Report list of federal and threatened species (USFWS 2022a) ▪ USGS National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2022)
▪ USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2022b)
▪ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey (USDA 2022) Prior environmental documents prepared for the project provided informa tion on biological resources and constraints previously identified. The documents reviewed include the following:
▪ Biological Site Assessment for the Meritage Homes Project in San Marcos, California (Dudek 2021) ▪ Directed Surveys for Thread-Leaved and Orcutt’s Brodiaea, Mission Pointe (EAEC 2017) ▪ Potential Biological Constraints to Development for the Property Located at the Corner of N Las Posas and W Mission Road, City of San Marcos (BCG 2008)
Fie ld Surveys
Vegetation Community and Land Cover Mapping
Dudek conducted vegetation mapping to characterize natural vegetation communities, including habitats for special-status species, within the project site. Vegetation communities and land covers were mapped using the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestr ial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) as modified by the County of San Diego and noted in Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer 2008).
Vegetation mapping was conducted within the project site in June 2021 in conjunction with the initial reconnaissance-level surveys for sensitive resources. Mapping was performed in the field through interpretation of field maps with a high-quality aerial photographic base map.
Focused Surveys for Thread -Leaved and Orcutt’s Brodiaea Everett and Associates Environmental Consultants conducted a focused survey for thread -leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) and Orcutt’s brodiaea (B. orcutti) in 2017 within the project site. A reference site approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the project site with a known population of thread-leaved brodiaea was visited the morning of the survey to verify the species was in bloom. The project site was surveyed using transects to achieve complete visual coverage of the site (EAEC 2017).
Jurisdictional Delineation
In 2008, Blue Consulting Group performed a jurisdictional delineation to classify waters of the United States and state, including wetlands, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CDFW (BCG 2008).
The USACE jurisdictional wet lands delineation was conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). Hydrology, vegetation, and soils were examined at potential wetland sites and were recorded on wetland determination data forms. Additionally, a directed survey for potential vernal pool basins and vernal pool plant species was completed on site.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-4
Dudek field verified the findings of previous jurisdictional delineations within the project site in June 2021 in conjunction with the initial reconnaissance-level surveys for sensitive resources. Methods followed those described for the 2008 delineation above.
Survey Limitations
The reconnaissance survey, vegetation mapping, and jurisdictional delineation were done during daylight hours under weather conditions that allowed for quality biological observations (e.g., surveys were not conducted during rain). Because surveys were conducted during the day, the likelihood of detecting nocturnal and crepuscular species, such as many mammal species, was relatively low.
Vegetation Communities and Land Covers
Three vegetation communities or habitat types occur within the project site: non-native grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated, and urban/developed (see Table 3.3-2). Vegetation community locations on the project site can be seen on Figure 3.3-1, Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types.
Table 3.3-2. Existing Vegetation/Habitat Types
Vegetation Community/Habitat Type Area ( Acr es)1
Non-native grassland 5.95
Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated 0.6
Urban/developed 0.9
Total 7.6
Source: Appendix C.
Note:
1 Acres rounded to the nearest 0.01 acres for wetland habitat and 0.1 acres for upland habitat.
Non-Native Grassland
Non-native grassland consists of dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms between 0.5 to 3 feet in height (Oberbauer 2008). In San Diego County, the presence of wild oat ( Avena spp.), bromes (Bromus spp.), redstem stork’s bill ( Erodium cicutarium ), and shortpod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana ) are common indicators. In some areas, depending on past disturbance and annual rainfall, annual forbs may be the dominant species; however, it is presumed tha t grasses will dominate. Non -native grassland makes up the majority of the project site and is dominated by oats and brome grasses in the open to continuous herbaceous layer. Other common herbs observed in the grassland include shortpod mustard, prickly Ru ssian thistle ( Salsola tragus ), redstem stork’s bill, and Menzies’s golden bush (Isocoma menziesii). There are 5.95 acres of non-native grassland on site (Appendix C). The vegetation community is the result of hydroseed placement over the graded portions of the site. The current owner actively mows the area, thus limiting the potential for the area to regenerate to its fullest potential. Typically, this vegetation community is considered sensitive and impacts would require mitigation.
Diegan Coas tal Sage Scrub : Baccharis -dominated
Diegan coastal sage scrub: Baccharis-dominated is a subcategory of coastal scrub plant community as described in Oberbauer (2008) . The community is typically dominated by low, soft woody drought-deciduous shrubs with shallow root systems and open canopies and associated herbaceous species. The community typically occupies xeric sites with shallow soils. Characteristic species include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-5
buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), black sage ( Salvia mellifera), and white sage ( Salvia apiana). The western slope of the project site contains approximately 0.6 acres of disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, dominated by coyote brush ( Baccharis pilularis ) and ladies’ tobacco ( Pseudognaphalium californicum ) (Appendix C). This vegetation community is considered sensitive and impacts would require mitigation.
Urban/ Developed
The urban/developed land cover refers to areas that have been constructed on or otherwise physically altered to the point where vegetation is no longer present. Urban or developed areas are characterized by permanent or semi- permanent structures, hardscapes, and landscaped areas that require irrigation.
Within the project site, this mapping unit identifies the developed area in the southern portion of the site containing the CVS parking lot, Peruvian peppertree ( Schinus mole), Brazilian peppertree ( Schinus terebinthifolius), and a couple small palm trees. There are 0.9 acres of urban/developed land on site. This land cover is not sensitive and does not require habitat compensation (Appendix C).
Plants
A total of 21 plant species were observed within the project site during the biological surveys, of which 7 (33%) are native species and 14 (67%) are non-native species. Please refer to Appendix C for a list and details regarding the 21 plant species observed within the project site.
Animals
Wildlife was recorded on site during the initial reconnaissance-level survey in 2021. Common species observed on the project site in cluded California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus [Otospermophilus] beecheyi), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani), Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Special -Status/Regulated Resources
Special -Status Vegetation Communities
Sensitive natural communities are vegetation communities that (1) support concentrations of special -status plant or wildlife species, (2) are of particular value to wildlife, and/or (3) are of limited distribution stat ewide or within a county or region. The MHCP organizes vegetation into habitat group types: Wetland Communities, Rare Upland, Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Annual Grassland, and Other Lands (SANDAG 2003). Vegetation communities listed under each of those groups, except for Other Lands, are considered sensitive and impacts to these communities would require mitigation. The City typically requires habitat compensation for impacts to non-native grassland at a 0.5:1 ratio and for impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub at a 1:1 ratio. No habitat compensation is required for impacts to urban/developed.
Special -Status Plant Species
Results of the CNDDB, CNPS, and Information for Planning and Consultation database searches identified 65 special-status plant species as occurring or potentially occurring within the USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle map and the nine quadrangle maps surrounding the project site—Valley Center, Morro Hill, Bonsall, Pala, Encinitas, Escondido, Rancho Santa Fe, San Luis Rey , and San Marcos (CDFW 2022a; CNPS 2022)—and within the vicinity (USFWS 2022a). All 65 were eliminated from further consideration due to a lack of suitable habitat or edaphic
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-6
conditions, extent of habitat degradation within the project site (e.g., regular mowing, previous disturbance), or the location of the project site being outside a species’ known range. No special -status plant species were observed during the initial site reconnaissance survey. Everett and Associates Environmental Consulting did not observe any special-status plant species on site during the focused survey for thread -leaved brodiaea and Orcutt’s brodiaea, and reported that appropriate soils for these species were not on site (EAEC 2017). Therefore, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened plant species.
Special -Status Wildlife Species
Results of the CNDDB and Information for Planning and Consultation database searches identified 52 special - status wildlife species as occurring or potentially occurring wi thin the USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle map and the nine quadrangle maps surrounding the project site—Valley Center, Morro Hill, Bonsall, Pala, Encinitas, Escondido, Rancho Santa Fe, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos USGS quadrangle maps (CDFW 2022a)—and within the vicinity (USFWS 2022a). Of these, 51 species were eliminated from consideration due to the absence of suitable habitat within the project site or the project site being outside of their known range (Appendix C). The remaining species, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), was determined to have a moderate potential to occur on the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat.
Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. It requires habitat with three basic attributes: open, well- drained terrain; short, sparse vegetation; and underground burrows or burrow surrogates, such as culverts, concrete debris piles, or riprap (Klute et al. 2003). This species occupies grasslands, deserts, sagebrush scrub, agricultural areas (including pastures and untilled margins of cropland), earthen levees and berms, coastal uplands, and urban vacant lots, as well as the margins of airport s, golf courses, and roads. This species also prefers sandy soils with higher bulk density and less silt, clay, and gravel (Lenihan 2007).
Although habitat within the project site is moderately suitable to support burrowing owl foraging and breeding, this species is not known to breed and forage within proximity of the project site. Suitable habitat for this species exists within the non-native grassland and disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation communities located within the project site. California ground squirrel burrows, which can be utilized by burrowing owls for breeding and shelter, were observed within the project site during the reconnaissance survey ; however, no burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owl presence (i.e., whitewash, pellets, f eathers) w as observed within the project site during the reconnaissance survey or previous surveys . The nearest CNDDB documented occurrence for this species is a historical occurrence approximately 6.86 miles southeast of the project site (Occ. No. 567) (CDFW 2022b). In addition, the project site is surrounded by development and has been disturbed multiple times throughout the years. Therefore, although there is suitable habitat available for this species, it is not expected to occur.
Nesting Birds
Habitats within the project site could provide suitable nesting habitat for bird species, including raptors, known to occur in the region. In California, all native birds and active bird nests (with eggs or young) are protected by Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. The trees and shrubs within and adjacent to the project site provide suitable nesting habitat for several native resident and migratory bird species.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-7
Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
In 2008, Blue Consulting Group conducted a delineation at the site and observed mulefat ( Baccharis salicifolia) and deer weed ( Acmispon glaber) growing in the southwest portion of the site. Wetland sampling points were taken beside the mulefat and concluded that no jurisdictional wetlands were located on the project site. Dudek analyzed the project site in 2021 and confirmed that no jurisdiction al aquatic resources occur on site (Appendix C).
Wildlife Corridors/Core Wildlife Areas
Wildlife corridors are linear features that connect large patches of natural open space and provide avenues for the migration of animals. Wildlife corridors contribute to population viability by ensuring continual exchange of genes between populations, providing access to adjacent habitat areas for foraging and mating, and providing routes for recolonization of habitat after local extirpation or ecological catastrophes (e.g., fires).
Habitat linkages are small patches that join larger blocks of habitat and help reduce the adverse effects of habitat fragmentation. Habitat linkages provide a potential route for gene flow and long -term dispersal of plants and animals. They m ay also serve as primary habitat for smaller animals, such as reptiles and amphibians. Habitat linkages may be continuous habitat or discrete habitat islands that function as stepping stones for dispersal.
To function effectively, a wildlife corridor must link two or more patches of habitat for which connectivity is desired, and it must be suitable for the focal target species to achieve the desired demographic and genetic exchange between populations. Habitat areas are identified by the City as areas of open space natural habitats located in patches spread throughout the City. The largest patches of open space occur in the northern and southern portions of the City (City of San Marcos 2012).
The approximately 7.6-acre project site is not expected to provid e for wildlife movement or serve as an important habitat linkage because it is surrounded by residential neighborhoods and commercial and industrial development.
Because of regular human activity and considerable vehicle traffic in and surrounding the site, predominantly urban- adapted wildlife species are expected to occur in this area, such as raccoons ( Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and brush rabbits (Sylvilagus spp.).
3.3.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act
FESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), as amended, is administered by USFWS for most plant and animal species and by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service for certain mari ne species. This legislation is intended to provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and provide programs for the conservation of those species, thus preventing extinction of plants and wildlife. FESA defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under FESA, it is unlawful to take any listed species, and “take” is defined as, “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-8
FESA allows for the issuance of incidental take permits for listed species under Section 7, which is generally available for projects that also require other federal agency permits or other approvals, and under Section 10, which provides for the approval of habitat conservation plans on private property without any other federal agency involvement. Upon development of a habitat conservation plan, USFWS can issue incidental take permits for listed species.
Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term “wetlands” (a subset of waters of the United States) is defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 328.3(b), as “ those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” In the absence of wetlands, the limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the ordinary high water mark, which is defined in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 328.3(e).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) was originally passed in 1918 as four bilateral treaties, or conventions, for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. The primary motivation for the international negotiations was to stop the “indiscriminate slaughter” of migratory birds by market hunters and others. Each of the treaties protects selected species of birds and provides for closed and open seasons for hunting g ame birds. The MBTA protects more than 800 species of birds and prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to do so (16 USC 703 et seq.). Additionally, Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). The executive order requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding. USFWS reviews actions that might affect these species.
Two species of eagles that are native to the United States, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), were granted additional protection within the United States under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668–668d) to prevent the species from becoming extinct.
State
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) require identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on biological resources and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that could avoid or reduce significant impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(1) defines endangered animals or plants as species or subspecies whose “survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors.” A rare animal or plant is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(b)(2) as a species that, although not currently threatened with extinction, exists “in such small numbers throughout all or a si gnificant portion of its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or … [t]he species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-9
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered ‘threatened’ as that term is used in the federal Endangered Species Act.” Additionally, an animal or plant may be presumed to be endangered, rare, or threatened if it meets the criteria for listing, as defined further in CEQA Guidelines Section 15380(c). CEQA also requires identification of a project’s potentially significant impacts on riparian habitats (such as wetlands, bays, estuaries, and marshes) and other sensitive natural communities, including habitats occupied by endangered, rare, and threatened species.
In Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1.72, CDFW defines a “stream” (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.”
In Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1.56, CDFW’s definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs.” Diversion, obstruction, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife requires authorization from CDFW by means of entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
CDFW recognizes that all plants with a California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, or 2, and some ranked 3, of the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California (CNPS 2022) may meet the criteria for listing as threatened or endangered and should be considered under CEQA (CDFW 2021). Some of the California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 plants meet the criteria for determination as “rare” or “endangered” as defined in Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act), Division 2, of the California Fish and Game Code, as well as Section 2062 and Section 2067, Chapter 1.5 (CESA), Division 3. Therefore, consideration under CEQA for these California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 species is strongly recommended by the CNPS (CNPS 2022).
For purposes of this report, animals considered “rare” under CEQA include endangered or threatened species, Birds of Conservation Concern (USFWS 2021), California Species of Special Concern (CDFW 2022b), and fully protected species.
Section IV, Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of impacts to “any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts to biological resources under CEQA are provided under Section 3.3.4, Thresholds of Significance, and in Chapter 5 of the Biological Resources Technical Report (Appendix C).
California Endangered Species Act
CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which prohibits the “take” of plant and animal species designated by the California Fish and Game Commission as endangered or threatened in the state of California. Under CESA Section 86, take is defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CESA Section 2053 stipulates that state agencies may not approve projects that will “jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species, if there are reasonable and prudent alternatives available consistent with conserving the species or its habitat which would prevent jeopardy.” CESA defines an endangered species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct thr oughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-10
disease.” CESA defines a threatened species as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter.
Any animal determined by the [California Fish and Game] Commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985, is a threatened species.” A candidate species is defined as “a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the Commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the Commission has published a notice of proposed regulation t o add the species to either list.” CESA does not list invertebrate species.
CESA authorizes the taking of threatened, endangered, or candidate species if take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. These provisions also require CDFW to coordinate consultations with USFWS for actions involving federally listed species that are also state -listed species. In certain circumstances, CESA allows CDFW to adopt a CESA incidental take authorization as satisfactory for CEQA purposes based on finding that the federal permit adequately protects the species and is consistent with state law.
A CESA permit may not authorize the take of “fully protected” species that are protected in other provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, as discussed further below.
California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (repti les and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code provide that designated fully protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit.
Incidental take of these species is not authorized by law.
Pursuant to Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy any nest or eggs of such birds. Birds of prey refer to species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes.
Nests of all other birds (except English sparrow [Passer domesticus] and European starling [Sturnus vulgaris]) are protected under Sections 3503 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulate s all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife.
Diversion, obstruction, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or l ake that supports fish or wildlife requires authorization from CDFW by means of entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) protects water quality and the beneficial uses of water. It applies to surface water and groundwater. Under this law, the State Water Resources Control Board develops statewide water quality plans, and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards develop regional basin plans that identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation plans. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards have the primary responsibility to implement the provisions of statewide plans and basin plan s. Waters regulated under the Porter -Cologne Act include isolated waters that are not regulated by USACE. Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-11
affect waters of the state (California Water Code, Section 13260[a]). Waters of the state are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13050[e]). Developments with impacts on juris dictional waters must demonstrate compliance with the goals of the Porter -Cologne Act by developing stormwater pollution prevention plans, standard urban stormwater mitigation plans, and other measures to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification. If a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is not required for a project, the Regional Water Quality Control Board may still require a permit (i.e., Waste Discharge Requirement) for impacts to waters of the state under the Porter-Cologne Act.
Local
City of San Marcos General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan contains several policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources (City of San Marcos 2012). The following goals and policies apply to the project:
Goal COS-1: Identify, protect, and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within San Marcos and its adaptive Sphere of Influence.
Policy COS-1.1: Support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high-quality habitat areas.
Policy COS -1.2: Ensure that new development, including Capital Improvement Projects, maintain the biotic habitat value of riparian areas, oak woodlands, habitat linkages, and other sensitive biological habitats.
Policy COS-1.3: Continue to work with other federal, State, regional, and local agencies to implement, SANDAG’s MHCP.
Goal COS-2: The City is committed to conserving, protecting, and maintaining open space, agricultural, and limited resources for fu ture generations. By working with property owners, local organizations, and state and federal agencies, the City can limit the conversion of resource lands to urban uses.
Policy COS-2.1: Provide and protect open space areas throughout the City for its recreational, agricultural, safety, and environmental value.
Policy COS-2.2: Limit, to the extent feasible, the conversion of open space to urban uses and place a high priority on acquiring and preserving open space lands for recreation, habitat protection and enhancement, flood hazard management, water and agricultural resources protection, and overall community benefit.
Policy COS-2.6: Preserve healthy mature trees where feasible; where removal is necessary, trees shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.
Goal COS-3: Protect natural topography to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of San Marcos.
Policy COS -3.3: Continue to work with new development and redevelopment project applicants in designing land use plans that respect the topography, landforms, view corridors, wildlife corridors, and open space that exists.
Policy COS-3.4: Evaluate potential impacts to visual and aesthetics resources, including the potential to create new light sources, while still maintaining and being sensitive to rural lighting standards.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-12
Goal COS-8: Focus watershed protection, surface and groundwater quality management on sources and practices that the City has the ability to affect.
Policy COS -8.4: Require new development and redevelopment to protect the quality of water bodies and natural drainage systems through site design, source controls, storm water treatment, runoff reduction measures, Best Management Practices (BMPs), low impact development hydromodification strategies consistent with the current San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, and all future municipal stormwater permits.
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3. 10, Land Use and Planning. As shown in Section 3. 10.4, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies related to biological resources.
North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
The North County MHCP is a long -term regional conservation plan established to protect sensitive species and habitats in northern San Diego County. The MHCP is divided into seven subarea plans—one for each jurisdiction within the MHCP—that are permitted and implemented separately from one another. The City of Carlsbad is the only city under the MHCP that has an approved and permitted subarea plan. The Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan has not been finalized or implemented, and the City is no longer an active partic ipant in the Natural Community Conservation Plan program or the subregional MHCP conservation planning effort. However, it is the City’s policy to comply with the conservation policies identified in the Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, including an assessment of any designated Biological Core and Linkage Area or MHCP Focused Planning Area in the context of a proposed project and the preservation of sensitive biological resources.
3.3.4 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to biological resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to biological resources would occur if the project would:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ▪ Threshold No. 2: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
▪ Threshold No. 3: 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. ▪ Threshold No. 4: 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.
▪ Threshold No. 5: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
▪ Threshold No. 6: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-13
3.3.5 Project Impact Analysis
The project consists of 120 townhomes on an approximately 7.6-acre project site The proposed project would have a density of approximately 15.8 dwelling units per acre.
The significance of impacts to biological resources present, or with potential to occur on the project site, was determined based upon the sensitivity of each resource and the extent of the anticipated impact. For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g., a federally listed species), any impact would be considered significant. Conversely, other resources that are of low sensitivity (e.g., species with a large, locally stable population in the County of San Diego but declining elsewhere) could sustain some impact with a less-than-significant effect.
The issues addressed in this section are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements to eliminate or reduce project impacts to a less-than-significant level are also provided herein.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a ca ndidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Direct impacts could occur during construction if activities inadvertently encroach into areas outside the authorized limits of work. However, the project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened plant species. No special-status plants have moderate or high potential to occur on the project site due to lack of suitable vegetation, soil, or microhabitats or the project site being outside of their known range (Appendix C). In addition, the site does not support any known populations of special-status wildlife. The project site has been disturbed several times in the past and is also located within a developed portion of the City. Therefore, any suitable habitat on site would be considered isolated, and the past disturbance would preclude special-status species from utilizing the site.
Raptors and/or any migratory birds are protected under the MBTA (16 USC 703 et seq.) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503 and 3503.5). The MBTA provides protection for birds by prohibiting the d estruction of active nests for most native birds. The MBTA protects more than 800 species of birds, including species such as house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus ), mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura ), and California towhee ( Melozone crissalis), which could nest in the grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, or urban/developed areas within the project site. Impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant (Impact BIO-1). The project would include a mitigation measure requiring nesting bird surveys be completed if clearing and grubbing occur during the nesting season (typically February 15 through August 31) (Mitigation Measure [MM] BIO-2). Local governments have the land use authority to protect bird nests during clearing and grubbing activities; therefore, nesting bird surveys are a common and typical mitigation measure for any property in the state and western region due to the wide range of the Pacific Flyway. Impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Development of the proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to special-status vegetation communities on site. The majority of the non-native grassland would be directly impacted, resulting i n the loss of 5.95 acres of this vegetation community. Impacts to non-native grassland are typically considered significant, requiring mitigation for impacts. However, the portions of the project site that contain non -native grassland have been subject to repeated disturbance , as discussed in Appendix C . The current conditions are the result of erosion control
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-14
hydroseed installation following the removal of the temporary parking lot. The non -native grassland is regularly maintained by the current owner, thus reducing the ability for the grassland to function as habitat for wildlife species. Therefore, any impacts to this vegetation community resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Potentially significant direct impacts could also occur if construction work inadvertently extends beyond the authorized work limits where impacts to sensitive natural communities, specifically Diegan coastal sage scrub, are not anticipated (Impact BIO-2). The proposed project would be required to install temporary fencing to ensure that impacts stay within the project limits ( MM-BIO-1). Therefore, potential direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Potential indirect impacts as a result of increased human presence, noise, domestic animals, the spread of non - native species, and artificial lighting are not anticipated due to the urban nature of the project location. Therefore, indirect impacts to sensitive natural communities as a result of the proposed project would not occur.
Threshold No. 3: Would the project 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?
As described in Appendix C, in 2008, Blue Consulting Group conducted a delineation at the site and observed mulefat and deer weed growing in the southwest portion o f the site. Wetland sampling points were taken beside the mulefat and it was concluded that no jurisdictional wetlands were located on the project site. Dudek analyzed the project site in 2021 and confirmed that no jurisdictional aquatic resources occur on site. Based on the analysis above, no substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands would occur as a result of project implementation; no impact would occur.
Threshold No. 4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movemen t 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?
The project site does not support fish habitat, as the site is entirely bounded by existing development, is not contiguous with native habitats, and is outside of areas where wildlife movement opportunities do occur (along undeveloped open space habitat corridors). Development on the project site would not interfere with wild life movement or nursery functions. Areas may be used by smaller urban -adapted mammal species and bird species, but such areas are not considered refuge as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage. Further, the project site is located in an urban and developed area that does not support wildlife movement or nursery functions. As outlined in Appendix C, there are no wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on site. Based on the analysis above, development of the project site would not interfere or impede with wildlife movement, corridors, or nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Section 14.12.200 of the San Marcos Municipal Code provides that where a permit is required for excavation, fill, or obstruction for installation or repair of utilities under any public street, sidewalk, trail, or public place, such construction should be located away from trees. The proposed project would likely require some utility work within adjacent public streets , including sewer and water connections, storm drainage facilities, and circulation
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-15
improvements. However, as a requirement to obtain an excavation permit under the San Marcos Municipal Code, such construction would be located away from trees and would not otherwise require the removal of trees within the public right -of-way. In the case that construction near trees is unavoidab le, the applicant will confer with the Director of Development Services, or their designee, to determine how best to avoid conflicts with mature trees and their root systems. The project would be required to demonstrate compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Director to obtain an excavation permit.
Per General Plan Policy COS -2.6, healthy mature trees are to be preserved , where feasible ; where removal is necessary, trees shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1. The project does not propose any tree removal at this time, and thus would not require the removal of any healthy mature trees. The project would plant approximately 288 trees.
The proposed project would incorporate a conceptual landscape plan that would detail tree planting plans and would be drafted to be aligned with all relevant General Plan policies, including this tree preservation policy.
Further, as discussed in Section 3.10 , the project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Development of a commercial use on site, which the project site is currently zoned for, would likely result in greater impacts to biological resources in compar ison to the proposed residential use due to increased impervious areas, no required open space uses, and hazards associated with commercial development.
Therefore, it is determined that the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances p rotecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project is not located within a designated Biological Core Linkage Area or Focused Planning Area, and therefore it is consistent with the conservation policies of the Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan. In addition, the project would be required to conform to the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) related to the protection of biological resources. Following implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the project is expected to be found to be in conformance with the Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan and the General Plan.
Therefore, impacts related to regional resource planning would be less than significant.
3.3.6 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Sensitive Natural Communities
The project would directly contribute to the cumulative loss of 5.95 acres of non-native grassland. These impacts would typically be considered significant prior to mitigation; however, due to the previous years of disturbance on the site and the active mowing, impacts to non-native grassland would be considered less than significant. With the implementation of MM-BIO-2, as identified below, the project would reduce cumulative impacts to a level below significance.
Cumulative projects would be required to mitigate their individual impacts to sensitive vegetation communities through either on -site preservation/restoration or off -site habitat acquisition. Therefore, because the proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to mitigate for habitat loss, impacts related to the loss of sensitive vegetation communities would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-16
Special -Status Plant and Animal Species
Cumulative impacts consider the potential regional effects of a project and how a project may affect an ecosystem or one of its members beyond the project limits and on a regional scale. As discussed, the project would have potentially significant impacts associated nesting birds; however, implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 would reduce these impacts to a level below significance.
Similar to the project, cumulative projects would be required to mitigate impacts by avoiding the grading or clearing of suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife during breeding season, or by conducting pre-construction surveys to avoid sensitive species if construction would occur during breeding season. Through the implementation of required mitigation, impacts to present and potentially present sensitive wil dlife species would be reduced to a level below significance for the proposed project and for cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts with regard to special-status wildlife species would not be cumulatively considerable.
Jurisdictional Waters an d Wetlands
As analyzed above, the project site does not contain any jurisdictional waters or wetlands and no impact would occur. Like the proposed project, it is presumed that all reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would be required to conform to existing regulations with respect to avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts to sensitive habitat, achieving no-net-loss of wetlands and like/kind replacement for impacts to sensitive habitat that cannot be avoided. The regulatory per mitting process ensures that every project with unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional resources implements required avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation measures and obtains the appropriate permits. Projects in the region are required to meet a no-net-loss standard for both function and spatial area of wetland and non-wetland resources. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
Wildlife Corridors and Habitat Linkages
The project site does not support fish habitat, as the site is entirely bounded by existing development, is not contiguous with native habitats, and is outside of areas where wildlife movement opportunities do occur (along undeveloped open space habitat corridors). Development on the project site would not interfere with wildlife movement or nursery functions. The project site and many cumulative projects are located in an urban and developed area that does not support wildlife movement or nursery functions. However, cumulative projects would be required to analyze wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on their respective sites and mitigate their individual impacts. Therefore, because the proposed project does not contain any wildlife corridors or habitat linkages on site, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Conflict with Local Ordinances/Tree Preservation Policies Like the proposed project, it is presumed that all reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would be required to conform to the San Marcos Municipal Code requirements and General Plan policies for tree replacement. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact related to a conflict with tree preservation policies.
Conflict with Adopted Habitat Management Plan
The Draft San M arcos Subarea Plan has not been adopted and remains in draft form since 2001; therefore, the project would not be in conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. The project is not located within a designated Biological Core Linkage Area or Focused Planning Area, and therefore it is consistent with the
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-17
conservation policies of the Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan. In addition, the project would be required to conform to the goal s and policies in the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) related to the protection of biological resources. Following implementation of proposed mitigation measures, the project is expected to be found to be in conformance with the Draft San Marcos Sub area Plan and the General Plan. Therefore, no impacts related to regional resource planning are anticipated.
All reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would be required to conform to existing regulations with respect to avoidance, minimization, and m itigation of impacts to sensitive habitat, achieving no -net-loss of wetlands and like/kind replacement for impacts to sensitive habitat that cannot be avoided. Impacts would be assessed on a regional basis and mitigated pursuant to CEQA, and those projects within the City’s jurisdiction would be reviewed by the City during the project review and approval process. For these reasons, project impacts to biological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.
3.3.7 Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 outlined below would address Impact BIO -1 and Impact BIO -2 and would ensure consistency with the MHCP and Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, reduce potential impacts related to special status animals and nesting birds, and reduce potential impacts to sensitive natural communities. With implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, impacts to biological resources as a result of project implementat ion would be reduced to less than significant.
MM-BIO-1 Temporary Construction Fencing. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, t he project applicant shall provide the limits of grading, including staging areas, and plans shall be provided to the City of San Marcos (City) and a qualified biologist for review and approval. Temporary fencing shall be installed in accordance with the approved grading plan and inspected by a qualified biologist.
The project applicant shall temporarily fence the limits of project impacts and install appropriate sediment-trapping devices to prevent additional impacts to, and the spread of silt from, the construction zone into adjacent habitats to be avoided. Fencing and sediment trapping devices shall be installed in a manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided.
If work occurs beyond the fenced limits of impacts, all work shall cease until the problem has been remedied to the satisfaction of the City. Any habitat impacts that occur beyond the authorized work area shall be offset at ratios approved by the City. Temporary construction fencing and sediment trapping devices shall be removed upon project completion.
MM-BIO-2 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys. To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 et seq.) and California Fish and Game Code (3503 and 3503.5), removal of habitat shall occur outside of the nesting season for these species (i.e., outside of February 15 through August 31, annually). If, however, removal of habitat must occur during the nesting period, the proposed project applicant or its designee shall retain a biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds in the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 72 hours prior to the start of constructi on and shall be repeated if construction activities discontinue for more than 3 consecutive days.
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-18
Impacts to active nests are typically avoided as follows. Clearing and construction shall be postponed or halted within the following buffers to be establish ed by the biologist: (1) no work within 50 feet of a non -listed and non -raptor avifauna nest and (2) no work within 500 feet of a raptor nest. Raptor nests are not anticipated within the immediate project site due to lack of suitable nesting habitat ; however, trees within 500 feet of the project boundary could support raptor nesting. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. To the extent possible, the no-construction buffer zones shall be avoided until the nesting cycle is complete. However, it may be reasonable for the City of San Marcos to reduce these buffer widths depending on site conditio ns. If construction -related activities must take place within an active nest buffer area, the proposed project applicant or its designee shall present a plan to the City of San Marcos with measures to monitor and minimize impacts to nesting birds. No groun d-disturbance activities shall occur within the avoidance buffer zone until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active and the young are not dependent on the nest.
3.3.8 Conclusion
As described throughout Section 3.3.5 , Project Impact Analysis , implementation of the proposed project would result in potential ly significant impacts to biological resources (Impact BIO -1 and Impact BIO -2). However, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 outlined in Section 3.3.7 , Mitigation Measures, would ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, special-status species, or nesting birds. Implementation of proposed mitigation and City review of proposed project plans for the site would ensure impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
Date: 2/13/2023 - Last saved by: hmcomber - Path: Z:\Projects\j1352801\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\EIR\Figure 3.3-1 Vegetation Communit ies.mxd
PALMAC ST
GRANITE RD
PALM RD
PALOMARCOS AVE
N PACIFIC ST
N LAS POSAS RD
W MISSION RD
NNG
DEV
dCSSB
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Gran Vista Specific Plan Project EIR
SOURCE: SanGIS 2019
01 5075
Feet
Project Boundary
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
DEV, Urban/Developed (0.87 acres)
NNG, Non-Native Grassland (6.14 acres)
dCSSB, disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub: Baccharis-dominated (0.58 acres) FIGURE 3.3-1
3.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.3-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-1
3.4 Cultural Resources
This section describes the existing cultural resources of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources are analyzed in Section 3.16 of this environmental impact report (EIR).
The analysis in this section relies on the Archaeological Resource Inventory Negative Findings Report for the Gran Vista Project (Cultural Resources Report) prepared by Dudek in February 2023. The Cultural Resources Report included a record search, literature review, correspondence with Native American contacts, and a field survey. The analysis also considers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G and applicable state and local regulations, including the City of San Marcos General Plan (General Plan). The Cultural Resources Report is included as Appendix D to this EIR.
Table 3.4-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level cultural resources impacts, by threshold.
Table 3.4-1. Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.
No Impact No Impact No Impact
No. 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant with
MM-CR-1 through
MM-CR-4
No. 3: Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant with
MM-CR-1 through
MM-CR-4
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
This section provides information on the cultural setting of the project site, as well as information on the research methodology used to prepare the Cultural Resources Report for the proposed project. Additional detail can be found in Appendix D of this EIR.
The project ’s area of potential effect (APE), as analyzed in the Cultural Resources Report, includes the entire
7.6-acre project site, which is located in the City of San Marcos (City), County of San Diego , and is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-121-15-00 and 219-121-16-00. The project APE is located at the northwest corner of N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road and is surrounded by commercial, residential, and light industrial uses.
The project site is u ndeveloped and reflects a history of disturbance. Vegetation is disturbed by an abundance of invasive and weedy plant species (Appendix C, Biological Resources Technical Report).
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-2
Methodology
South Coastal Information Center Records Search
Dudek previously completed a cultural resources constraints analysis for the project (Appendix D). The purpose of the records search is to identify any previously recorded cultural resources that may be located within the project site . In addition to a review of previously prepared EIRs, permit application packages, site records, and reports, the rec ords search also reviewed historical maps of the project APE and vicinity, ethnographies, the National Register of Historic Places ( NRHP), the California Register of Historic Resources ( CRHR), the Built Environment Resources Directory, and the lists of Cal ifornia State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. Dudek received the results of the records search on June 17, 2021 (Appendix D).
Dudek review ed the Built Environment Resources D irectory on June 16, 2021. No previously recorded built environment resources are located within the project APE or along the blocks of N Las Posas Road and W Mission Road that border the project APE.
The South Coastal Information Center records search results identified 40 cultural resources within 1 mile of the project APE, none of which intersect the current project APE. One resource, P -37-005584/CA-SDI-5584, was identified immediately adjacent to the project APE and is discussed below. Table 1 in Appendix D summarizes the cultural resources within 1 mile of the project APE.
P-37-005584/CA -SDI -5584
This site was originally recorded by Randy Franklin in 1977 as a single grinding slick in a boulder outcrop on a small knoll. Franklin (1977) stated that there was no midden but that lithic flakes, core fragments, and a hammerstone were present near the adjacent road, and suggested that they may have been intrusive. This resource was located immediately east of the project APE within the current path of N Las Posas Road. This resource was destroyed during the road’s construction in 1986 and its expansion by 1990.
The records search also identified 55 previous studies that have been performed within 1 mile of the project APE.
Four of these studies addressed at least a portion of the project APE, one of which (SD-18210) addressed the entire project APE. SD-18210, however, was a constraints study and did not include a full pedestrian survey. The findings of SD-18210 are similar to the findings of this inventory and so will not be summarized here. These previous 55 studies were conducted between 1974 and 2020. No survey of the project APE has been conducted within the past 6 years.
A complete list of the previous studies conducted within 1 mile of the project APE is included in Appendix D.
Built Environment Historical Resources
There are no built environment resources on the project APE. The project APE is surrounded by numerous residential and commercial buildings, all of which were constructed after 1973. No previously identified historical resources are in the vicinity. The commercial building to the south of the project APE (currently CVS) was constructed in 2010.
The width of streets and topography surrounding the project APE creates a geographic and visual separation between the project APE and all nearby development. There are no built environment historical resources that require avoidance or evaluation prior to construction.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-3
Archival Research
The previous constraints analysis included a review of historic topographic maps and aerial photographs of the project APE and the general vicinity, to help determine the possible development and land use of the project APE in the past. The historic aerial imagery available from Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC includes historic photographs available since 1953 (NETR 2021). The 1953 aerial photograph shows that the property was undeveloped but still bordered W Mission Road to the south. The knoll and rock outcrop on which archaeological resource P-37-005584 was located is vaguely visible on the 1953 aerial photograph. By 1964, a natural drainage that was located west of the project APE was channelized and demarc ates the western boundary of the current project APE. The project APE itself was still undisturbed but a residential development was constructed to the northeast. By 1978, the project APE and the adjacent P -37-005584 knoll were undisturbed, though a new residential development was constructed west of the project boundary. The 1984 aerial photograph shows that the southeastern corner of the project APE was graded but the rest of the project APE and the adjacent P-37-005584 knoll was undisturbed. The 1986 aerial photograph shows the grading of the current N Las Posas Road alignment.
This grading disturbed the eastern border of the project APE and destroyed part of the adjacent P-37-005584 knoll.
In 1989, the grading of the eastern project APE boundary was expa nded and substantial earth movement was required to support the current alignment of the six -laned N Las Posas Road. This expansion destroyed the P-37-005584 knoll adjacent to the project APE. By 1991, the entire project APE had been graded. By 2009, the entire project APE was graded again, leaving the property with a northern terrace that overlooked the southern 75% of the project APE. The current commercial building and parking lot that bound the southern portion of the project APE were also constructed in 2009. The historic aerial photographs show that the project APE has been undeveloped but completely disturbed.
Intensive Pedestri an Survey
Dudek archaeologist conducted a survey of the proposed project APE on April 22, 2022. Native American monitor Logovii Sialoi from Saving Sacred Sites Inc., a Luiseño owned company, participated in the pedestrian survey. The project consists of a vacant lot bordering existing residential and commercial developments. The project APE has been previously disturbed , as evidenced by graded terraces. There was an elevation difference of approximately 10 feet between the northern and the southern half of the parcel, showing complete disturbance of the natural landscape. Ground visibility was low throughout the project APE due to heavy vegetation, with some modern trash and debris scattered throughout the area. Though currently undeveloped, the project APE is immediately adjacent to residential and commercial development and has been subjected to illicit dumping activities. The pedestrian survey was conducted utilizing formal transects at 15 -meter intervals. Deviations from transects also occurred to inspect animal burrows and other locations of exposed sediments and boulders. No remnants of adjacent resource P-37-005584 or other cultural resources were identified within the project APE (Appendix D).
Native American Heritage Commission and Native American Outreach Letters Dudek requested a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) search of the Sacred Lands File on April 15, 2022 for the project APE and a 1 -mile buffer. The Sacred Lands File consists of a database of known Native American resources. These resources may not be included in the South Coastal Information Center database. The NAHC replied on May 19, 2022, and reported that the Sacred Lands File did not identify any known Native American cultural resources within the project APE or the surrounding 1-mile buffer (Appendix D). The NAHC additionally provided a list of Native American tribes and individuals/organizations with traditional geographic associations that might have knowledge of cultural resources in this area.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-4
Outreach letters were mailed on May 27, 2022, to all Native American group representatives included on the NAHC contact list (Appendix D). These letters attempted to solicit additional information relating to Native Ame rican resources that may be impacted by the project. Native American representatives were requested to define a general area where known resources intersect the project APE. To date, Dudek has received responses to these outreach letters from three tribal representatives. On June 17, 2022, San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians responded to the letter stating that the Project APE is within the boundary of the tribe’s Traditional Use Area. San Pasqual stated that they would like to engage in “formal government to government consultation”. On June 21, 2022, Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians stated that the Project APE is within their Ancestral Territory and that they are interested in participating in the Project Area. Pechanga added that the Project APE i s within 1.75 miles of two Ancestral Placenames and nine other previously recorded sites within 0.5 miles, one of which is within the Project APE.
Unfortunately, no other information about the intersecting resource was included but Pechanga is likely referring to the destroyed Project Area adjacent P -37-005584 knoll. On June 28, 2022 Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians responded to the outreach letter and stated that the Project APE was within the band’s specific Area of Historic Interest. Rincon added that they were concerned that the project may impact Tribal Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Landscapes, or potential Traditional Cultural Properties. Rincon recommended that an archaeological/ cultural resources inventory and that a Tribal monitor from the Rincon Band should accompany the survey. On July 12, 2022, Dudek archaeologist Mattthew DeCarlo met Cheryl Madrigal, the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for Rincon Band, at the Project APE for a site visit. They discussed the previous disturbance of the area and visited the location of former prehistoric bedrock milling site P -37-005584. Ms. Madrigal stated that she would contact the City about her concerns after she had some time to research the Project Area. On September 8, 2022, Rincon sent a letter to the City critiquing an earlier version of this report. Rincon requested an ethno-historic research and further analysis of adjacent sites P-37-005584 and P-37-005633.
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, the City, as lead agency, is responsible for conducting government to government consultation with pertinent tribal entities. Rincon Band responded to City outreach for Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 on February 16 and April 13 requesting consultation on the Project.
The City had a consultation meeting with representatives of Rincon Band on August 16, 2022.
3.4.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to cultural resources, including federal, state, and local guidelines.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) established the NRHP program under the Secretary of the Interior.
The act authorized funding for state programs with provision for pass -through funding and participation by local governments, created an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and established the Section 106 review process for protecting historic resources. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer protection to sites that are determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The National Historic Preservation Act provides the legal framework for most state and local preservation laws.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-5
Traditional Cultural Properties (Native American Heritage Va lues) Federal and state laws mandate that consideration be given to the concerns of contemporary Native Americans with regard to potentially ancestral human remains , associated funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony.
Consequently, an important e lement in assessing the significance of the study site has been to evaluate the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Also, potentially relevant to prehistoric archaeological sites is th e category termed Traditional Cultural Properties in discussions of cultural resource management performed under federal auspices. According to Parker and King (1998), “Traditional” in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.
State
California Register of Historic Resources ( California Public Resources Code , Section 5020 et. seq.) In California, the term “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code, Section 5020.1[j]). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code , Section 5024.1[a]). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it is a significant resource and that it meets any of the following NRHP criteria (California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[c]):
Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
Associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Resources less than 50 years old are not considered for listing in the CRHR unless it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand the historical importance of the resource (see 14 CCR 4852 [d][2]). The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources.
The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. The State Historic Preservation Officer maintains the CRHR.
California Points of Historic Interest
California Points of Historical Interest are buildings, structures, site or features of local (city and county) significance that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific/technical, religious,
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-6
experimental, or other value. Points of Historical Interest designated after December 1997 are r ecommended by the State Historical Resources Commission to also be listed in the CRHR. The criteria for designation of Points of Historical Interest are the same as those that govern the California Historic Landmarks program.
Native American Historic Cultu ral Sites (California Public Resources Code , Section 5097 et. seq.) State law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes proced ures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protectio n Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy Native American historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (California Public Resources Code , Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[b]). If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1[q]), it is a “historical resour ce” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code , Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]).
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demoli tion, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” ( 14 CCR 15064.5 [b][1]; California Public Resources Code , Section 5020.1 [q]).
Cali fornia Health and Safety Code , Section 7050.5
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the county coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5b). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5c). The NAHC will notify the most likely descendant. With the permission of the landowner, the most likely descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 24 hours of notification of the most likely descendant by the NAHC. The most likely descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.
California Health and Safety Code , Section 8010 -8011 This code is intended to provide consistent state policy to ensure that all California Native American human remains and cultural material are treated with dignity and respect. The code extends policy coverage to non -federally recognized tribes and federally recognized groups.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-7
Assembly Bill 2461
The bill provides procedures for private landowners to follow upo n discovering Native American human remains.
Landowners are encouraged to consider culturally appropriate measures if they discover Native American human remains as set forth in California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.
Senate Bill 18
SB 18, approved in 2004, amends the California Civil Code and the California Government Code, requiring cities and counties to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to adopting or amending any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space in order to preserve or mitigate impacts to specified Native American places, features, and objects that are located within the city’s or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 also requires cities and counties to hold in strict confidence any infor mation about the specific identity, location, character or use of these resources. In 2005, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research published Tribal Consultation Guidelines to guide cities and counties on the process of engaging in consultation in accordance with SB 18. The NAHC maintains a list of California Native American tribes with whom cities and counties must consult pursuant to SB 18.
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 was approved in 2014 and adds new requirements regarding consultation with California Native American tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources. The law went into effect on July 1, 2015 , and after that date, if requested by a California Native American tribe, lead agencies must consult prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration , or draft EIR. City consultation efforts in accordance with SB 18 and AB 52 are discussed in the Section 3.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
Local
City of San Marcos General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan contains several policies pertaining to the protection of archaeological and historic resources. The following goals and policies apply to the project (City of San Marcos 2012):
Policy COS -2.5: Continue to review future development proposals to ensure that cultural resources (including prehistoric, historic, paleontological, and SB 18 Tribal resources) are analyzed and conserved in compliance with CEQA requirements.
Goal COS-11: Continue to identify and evaluate cultural, historic, archaeological, paleontological and architectural resources for protection from demolition and inappropriate actions.
Policy COS -11.1: Identify and protect historic and cultural resources including individual prope rties, districts and sites (e.g., archaeological sites) in compliance with CEQA.
Policy COS-11.2: Prohibit the demolition or removal of a historic structure without evaluation of the condition of the structure, the cost of rehabilitation, and the feasibility of alternatives to preservation in place including but not limited to relocation, or reconstruction off-site, and/or photo-preservation.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-8
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and poli cies is discussed in Section 3.10 , Land Use and Planning, of this EIR. As detailed in Section 3.10.4 , the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to cultural resources.
3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
The determination of significance for cultural resources is based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Impacts to cultural resources would be significant if the proposed project would:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
▪ Threshold No. 2: Cause a substantial adverse change in t he significance of a n archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
▪ Threshold No. 3: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
3.4.4 Project Impact Analysis
Impacts to cultural resources that may result from ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project are analyzed below.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as one that meets one or more of the following criteria:
Is listed in , or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR; or
Is included in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or Is determined to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.
As described in Appendix D to this EIR, there are no built environment resources on the project APE. The project APE is surrounded by numerous residential and commercial buildings, all of which were constructed after 1973. No previously identified historical resources are in the vicinity. The commercial building to the south of the project APE (currently CVS) was constructed in 2010. The width of streets and topography surrounding the project APE creates a geographic and visual separation between the project APE and all nearby development. There are no built environment historical resources that require avoidance or evaluation prior to construction. After reviewing the list of historic structures and sites in San Marcos (list provided by the City), none were found to overlap the project APE. Therefore, it is determined that no impact related to historical resources would occur as a result of project implementation.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
As identified in Section 3.4.1, Existing Conditions, no cultural resources were found at the project site during the field survey for South Coastal Information Center records search. As described in the Cultural Resources Report (Appendix D), the NAHC Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, and intensive-pedestrian survey
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-9
suggest that no known cultural resources w ould be impacted by the proposed project, pending the results of the Native American outreach and AB 52 and SB 18 consultation. However, construction activities associated with the project could result in potentially significant impacts to undocumented archaeological resources. I n the unlikely event that archaeological resources are identified during earth moving activities associated with the project , mitigation is proposed that would r equire work be temporar ily halted in the vicinity of the discovery . The project developer would then be required to notify a qualified archaeologist, who would review the unanticipated find and evaluate the resource for CRHR listing. Accordingly, although unlikely, ground-disturbing activities on the project site associated with the project could result in a potentially significant impact (Impact CR-1), and mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) CR -1 through MM-CR-4 would mitigate potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources (Impact CR-1). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Threshold No. 3: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred o utside of dedicated cemeteries ?
The cultural resources intensive pedestrian survey conducted for the proposed project did not identify any human remains or find any indications that they would be expected to be found on the project site. However, although unlikely, there is the possibility of human remains being discovered during ground disturbing activities on the project site. If remains are discovered during project construction activities , mitigation is proposed that would require work in the vicinity of the discovery be halt ed and procedures set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Section 5097.98) and California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) be followed. Therefore, potential discovery of undocumented human rem ains on the project site could result in a potentially significant impact (Impact CR -2) and mitigation would be required. Implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 would also mitigate potentially significant impacts to human remains ( Impact CR-2). Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated .
3.4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
According to CEQA, the importance of cultural resources comes from the research value and the information they contain, as well as the loss of recognized cultural landmarks and vestiges of our community cultural history . The cumulative study area includes the project APE and cumulative project sites.
As identified in Section 3.4.4, no historic resources exist at the project site. Thus, no impact to historic resour ces would occur with implementation of the proposed project. It is expected that cultural resources studies would be prepared for all cumulative projects to assess potential impacts , and that these projects would avoid or mitigate impacts to historic resources, as required by local jurisdictions and state law.
As identified in Section 3.4.4, no cultural resources were found at the project site during the field survey. However, the potential to unearth a cultural resource during project construction would be potentially significant (Impact CR-1). MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 would be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
It is expected that cultural resources studies would be prepared for all other cumulative projects to assess potential impacts, and that these projects would similarly avoid or mitigate impacts to cultural resources, as required by local jurisdictions and state law.
Similar to the project, the presence of human remains on cumulative project sites would typically remain unknown until earthwork activities commence for project construction. As identified in Section 3.4.4, the cultural resources field survey conducted for the project did not identify any human remains or find any indications that they would be expected to be found on the project site. If human remains are encountered during project construction, there is a
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-10
potential for a significant impact (Impact CR-2). However, MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 would ensure any impacts to human remains would be less than significant. It is expected that all cumulative projects would similarly assess potential impacts to human remains, and that these cumulative projects would avoid or mitigate these impacts, as required by local jurisdictions and state law.
Because the project and those projects identified within the cumulative study area would be required to mitigate cultural impacts through the collection and curation of information, construction monitoring, and the preservation of the most important resources, cumulative cultural impacts would be less than significant.
3.4.6 Mitigation Measures
MM-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 of San Marcos . 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 gath ering 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 studie s, excavations, geotechnical investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground disturbing activities. Any project -specific monitoring plans an d/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 competent j urisdiction. 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.
MM-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 of San Marcos (City) Planning Division stating that a Qualified Archaeologist and Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated (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 Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Repatriation 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
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-11
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 6 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 materia ls being utilized at the site are either from existing commercial (previously permitted) sources of materials or 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 pr ogram shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including demolition plans and grading plans. The Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor shall provide written notice to the Planning Division and the TCA Tribe, preferably through email, 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 that 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 Assembly Bill 52 consultation, to Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, 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 of San Marcos.
MM-CR-3 Unanticipated Discovery Procedures: Both the Qualified Archaeologist and the Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated (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 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 Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Repat riation Agreement (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 of San Marcos (City) and the TCA Tribe shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant/Owner and the Qualified Archaeologist, the culturally appro priate treatment of those resources.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-12
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 , Sections 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 resources 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 mitigati on 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 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 arch aeological 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.
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 shal l 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 t he 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 facility, whichever is most app licable, that the repatriation and/or curation have been completed.
MM-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 grou nd 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 distu rbance of the discovery or any nearby area
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-13
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated [TCA] Native American monitor) shall occur until the Medical Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98.
If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zon e 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 furth er defined by state law, the Medical Examiner will determine within 2 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.
If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in place until after the Medical Examiner makes their 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 s 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 Native American Heritage Commission . In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a location free from future disturbance (see California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097.98[e] and 5097.94[k]).
3.4.7 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not impact any identified archaeological resources, historical resources, or any known human remains interred outside a formal cemetery. However, based on the analysis presented in Section 3.4.4, the potential exists for impacts to unknown cultural resources resulting from construction of the proposed project.
These potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4. With incorporation of these mitigation measures, potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed project would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
3.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.4-14
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-1
3.5 Energy
This section describes the existing setting of the project site with respect to energy use and conservation , identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project).
Appendices F and G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that an environmental impact report (EIR) discuss es the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with partic ular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy , to ensure that energy implications are considered in project -related decision -making processes. As such, this section analyzes the energy impacts of the pro ject. Specifically, this section summarizes the existing conditions in the project area, discusses the regulatory framework, and discloses estimated energy use during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. This analysis considers the electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel (petroleum) demand of the proposed project.
Information in this section is based on the proposed project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (February 2023), prepared by Dudek, which is included as Appendix B of this EIR.
Table 3.5-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level energy impacts by threshold.
Table 3.5-1. Energy Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
The environmental setting for the project related to electricity, natural gas, and petroleum, including associated service providers, supply sources, and estimated consumption, is discussed below. In summary, in 2019 (the latest calendar year for which data are uniformly available for all three types of energy sources), California’s estimated annual energy use included the following:
▪ Approximately 250,379 gigawatt hours of electricity (EIA 2020a) ▪ Approximately 21.5 billion therms of natural gas (EIA 2021) ▪ Approximately 28.7 billion gallons of petroleum (EIA 2020b) Electricity
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), California used approximately 250,379 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2019 (EIA 2020a). Electricity usage in California for di fferent land uses varies substantially by the types of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-2
electricity-consuming devices within a building. By sector in 2017, commercial uses utilized 46% of the state’s electricity, followed by 35% for residential uses, and 19% for industrial uses (EIA 2019). Due to the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s electricity use per capita in the residential sector is lower than any other state except Hawaii (EIA 2020b).
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) provides electric services to 3.6 million customers through 1.4 million electric meters located in a 4,100-square-mile service area that includes San Diego County (County) and southern Orange County (SDG&E 2018). SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy and would provide electricity to the proposed project. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), SDG&E customers consumed approximately 19,169 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity in 2015 (CPUC 2016).
SDG&E receives electric power from a variety of sources. According to the California Energy Commission ( CEC) Biennial Renewable Portfolio Standard Program Update, 39% of SDG&E’s power came from eligible renewable energy sources in 2020, including biomass/waste, geothermal, small hydroelectric, solar, and wind sources (CPUC 2021).
Based on recent energy supply and demand projections in California, statewide annual peak electricity demand is projected to grow an average of 3,333 gigawatt-hours per year through 2030, or 1.2% annually (CEC 2020).
In the County, CEC reported an annual electrical consumption of approximately 19.0 billion kWh in 2019, with
12.4 billion kWh for non-residential use and 6.7 billion kWh for residential use (CEC 2020).
Natural Gas
CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 10.8 million customers who receive natural gas from Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas (SoCalGas), SDG&E, Southwest Gas, and several smaller natural gas utilities. CPUC also regulates independent storage operators Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose Storage, Central Valley Storage, and Gill Ranch Storage (CPUC 2021). SDG&E provides natural gas serv ice to the counties of San Diego and Orange and would provide natural gas to the proposed project. SDG&E is a wholesale customer of SoCalGas and currently receives all of its natural gas from the SoCalGas system (CPUC 2021).
CPUC regulates California natur al gas rates and natural gas services, including in -state transportation over transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing. Most of the natural gas used in California comes from out -of-state natural gas basins . California gas utilities may soon also begin receiving biogas into their pipeline systems (CPUC 2021).
In 2017, California customers received 38% of their natural gas supply from basins located in the Southwest, 27% from Canada, 27% from the Rocky Mountains, and 8% from basins located within California (CPUC 2021).
Natural gas from out -of-state production basins is delivered into California throug h the interstate natural gas pipeline system. The major interstate pipelines that deliver out -of-state natural gas to California are the Gas Transmission Northwest Pipeline, Kern River Pipeline, Transwestern Pipeline, El Paso Pipeline, Ruby Pipeline, Southern Trails, and Mojave Pipeline. The North Baja–Baja Norte Pipeline takes gas off the El Paso Pipeline at the California/Arizona border and delivers it through California into Mexico. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the transportation of natural gas on interstate pipelines, and CPUC often participates in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulatory proceedings to represent the interests of California natural gas consumers (CPUC 2021).
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-3
Most of the natural gas transported through interstate pipelines, as well as some California-produced natural gas, is delivered through the Pacific Gas & Electric and SoCalGas intrastate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (commonly referred to as California’s “backbone” natural gas pipeline system). Natural gas on the backbone pipeline system typically is then delivered into local transmission and distribution pipeline systems or to natural gas storage fields. CPUC has regulatory jurisdiction over 100,000 miles of utility ‐owned natural gas pipelines, which transported 82% of the natural gas delivered to California’s gas consumers in 2017 (CPUC 2021).
Petroleum
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration , California used approximately 681 million barrels of petroleum in 2018, with the major ity (584 million barrels) used for the transportation sector (EIA 2020 b). This total annual consumption equates to a daily use of approximately 1.9 million barrels of petroleum. There are 42 U.S. gallons in a barrel, so California consumes approximately 78 .4 million gallons of petroleum per day, adding up to an annual consumption of 28.7 billion gallons of petroleum. By sector, transportation sources utilize approximately 85.5% of the state’s petroleum, followed by 11.1% from industrial, 2.5% from commercia l, 0.9% from residential, and 0.01% from electric power uses (EIA 2018). Petroleum usage in California includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied petroleum gases, and jet fuel. California has implemented policies to impr ove vehicle efficiency and to support use of alternative transportation, which are described in Section 3. 5.2, Regulatory Setting, below. As such, CEC anticipates an overall decrease of gasoline demand in the state over the next decade.
Existing Infrastruc ture
Electricity and natural gas would be provided by SDG&E. Electrical facilities throughout the City of San Marcos (City) include a combination of aboveground and belowground electrical distribution lines and utilities structures.
The City’s fiber-optic network is facilitated by a 72 -strand fiber-optic line that runs on various streets throughout the City. All major arterials in the City have implemented fiber optics. There are existing electrical lines and a natural gas pipeline adjacent to the project site within N Las Posas Road.
3.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs.
On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are three federal agencies with substantial influence over energy policies and programs. On the state level, CPUC and CEC are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy.
Relevant federal, state, and local energy -related regulations are summarized below. This information helps to place the impact analysis within its proper regulatory context.
Federal
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
On November 6, 2021, Congress passed t he Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), a once -in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness. This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and rails; expand access to clean drinking water ; ensure every American has access to high -speed internet; tackle the climate crisis ; advance environmental justice ; and invest in communities that have too often been left behind. The legislation will help ease inflationary pressures
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-4
and strengthen supply chains by making long -overdue improvements for our nation’s ports, airports, rail, and roads. It will drive the creation of good-paying union jobs and grow the economy sustainably and equitably so that everyone gets ahead for decades to come. Combined with the President’s Build Back Framework, it will add on average 1.5 million jobs per year for the next 10 years. It w ill improve transportation options for millions of Americans to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It will also increase investment in electric vehicle chargers and renewable energy production.
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
In 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on -road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is respons ible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2012, new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 FR 62624–63200). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is proposing to amend the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards set in 2020 for passenger cars and light trucks manufactured in model years 2024–2026, so that standards would increase in stringency at a rate of 8% per year rather than the 1.5% per year set previous ly (49 CFR Part 531). Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 The Intermodal Surface Transporta tion Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) promoted the development of intermodal transportation systems to maximize mobility and address national and local interests in air quality and energy.
ISTEA contained factors that metropolitan planning organizations were to address in developing transportation plans and programs, including some energy ‐related factors. To meet the new ISTEA requirements, metropolitan planning organizations adopted policies defining the social, economic, energy, and environmental values gui ding transportation decisions.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century was signed into law in 1998 and builds on the initiatives established in the ISTEA legislation, discussed above. The act author izes highway, highway safety, transit, and other efficient surface transportation programs. The act continues the program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA, such as flexibility in the use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve t he environment, and focus on a strong planning process as the foundation of transportation decisions. The act also provides for investment in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system through, for example, deploy ment of intelligent transportation systems to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) wa s signed into law. In addition to setting increased fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, the EISA includes the following other provisions related to energy efficiency:
▪ Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Section 202)
▪ Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301–325) ▪ Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441)
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-5
This federal legislation requires ever -increasing levels of renewable fuels (the RFS) to replace petroleum (EPA 2013). EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a mi nimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.
The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the act, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that lay the foundation for achieving significant reductions in GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the renewable fuels sector in the United States. The updated program is referred to as “RFS2” and includes the following:
▪ EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel in addition to gasoline. ▪ EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
▪ EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one. ▪ EISA required EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green” jobs.
State
The discussion below focuses primarily on those policies, regulations, and laws that directly pertain to energy - related resources. Refer to Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, which addresses various policie s, regulations, and laws targeted to the reduction of GHG emissions that are expected to achieve co -benefits in the form of reduced demand for energy -related resources and enhanced efficiencies in the consumption of energy - related resources.
Warren -Alquist Act
The California Legislature passed the Warren -Alquist Act in 1974. The Warren -Alquist Act created the CEC. The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address the demand side of the energy equation:
▪ It directed CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for both buildings constructed and appliances sold in California.
▪ The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial interes t in high demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC. ▪ CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular focus on fostering what were characterized as non-conventional energy sources.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-6
State of California Energy Action Plan
CEC and CPUC approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided, and identified policies, strategies, and actions that are cost -effective and environmentally sound for California's consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, a second energy action plan was adopted by CEC and CPUC to reflect various policy changes and actions of the prior 2 years.
At the beginning of 2008, CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new energy action plan. This determination was based in part on a finding that the state’s energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, CEC and CPUC prepared an “update” that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Senate Bill 1078 (2002)
This bill established the California Renewable Portfolio Standard Program and required that a retail seller of electricity purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity gene rated by eligible renewable energy resources as defined in any given year, culminating in a 20% standard by December 31, 2017. These retail sellers include electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers. The bill relatedly required CEC to certify eligible renewable energy resources, design and implement an accounting system to verify compliance with the Renewable Portfolio Standard by retail sellers, and allocate and award supplemental energy payments to cover above-market costs of renewable energy.
Senate Bill ( SB) 350 (2015) requires retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.
SB 100 (2018) accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030 , be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 also states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achiev ement of 100% zero -carbon electricity resources does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be attained through resource shuffling.
Assembly Bill 1007 (2005)
AB 1007 (2005) required CEC to prepare a st atewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California (State Alternative Fuels Plan). CEC prepared the plan in partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and in consultation with the other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in -state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016)
In 2006, the California Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 required California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the California Legislature enacted SB 32, which extended the horizon year of the state’s codified GHG reduction planning targets from
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-7
2020 to 2030, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, CARB prepares scoping plans to guide the development of statewide policies and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Many of the policy and regulatory concepts id entified in the scoping plans focused on increasing energy efficiencies and the use of renewable resources , and on reducing the consumption of petroleum -based fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framew ork creates co -benefits for energy -related resources. Additional information on AB 32 and SB 32 is provided in Section 3.7 of this EIR.
California Building Standards
Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serve s to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non - residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Notably, Title 24 categorizes residential buildings that are four or more habitable levels as high -rise residential rather than mid - rise. High -rise residential buildings are included in the nonresidential section of Title 24 and subject to the nonresidential (not residential) code. Part 6 is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies.
The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. In g eneral, single -family residences built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, single -family residences built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018).
Nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). The 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards become effective on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards encourage electric heat pump technology and use , establish electric-ready requirements when natural gas is instal led, expand solar photovoltaic system and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation requirements to improve indoor air quality (CEC 2021).
Title 24 also includes Part 11, the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). CALGreen establishes minimum mandatory standards and voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The 2019 CALGreen standards are the current applicable standards. For nonresidential projects (which the project is subject to), some of the key mandatory 2019 CALGreen standards involve requirements related to bicycle parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, electric vehicle charging stations, shade trees, water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, outdoor potable water use in la ndscaped areas, recycled water supply systems, construction waste management, excavated soil and land clearing debris, and commissioning (24 CCR Part 11).
Integrated Energy Policy Report
CEC is responsible for preparing integrated energy policy reports tha t identify emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, and conservation; public health and safety; and maintenance of a healthy economy. CEC’s 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report discusses the state’s policy goals of decarbonizing buildings, doublin g energy efficiency savings, and increasing flexibility in the electricity grid system to integrate more renewable energy (CEC 2021). Specifically for the decarbonizing of building energy, the goal would be achieved by designing future commercial and residential buildings to have their energy sourced almost entirely from electricity in place of natural gas. Regarding the increase in renewable energy flexibility, the goal would be achieved through increases in energy
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-8
storage capacity within the state, increases in energy efficiency, and adjusting energy use to the time of day when the most amount of renewable energy is being generated. Over time , these policies and trends would serve to beneficially reduce the project’s GHG emissions profile and energy consumption as they are implemented.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new emissions -control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog - and soot -causing polluta nts and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. The package includes elements to reduce smog -forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB 2011). To improve air quality, CARB established emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that in 2025 cars will emit 75% less smog -forming pollution than the average new car sold today. To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with E PA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The zero -emission vehicle (ZEV) program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of ZEVs and plug -in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years. The Clean Fuels Outlet regulation will ensure that fuels such as ele ctricity and hydrogen are available to meet the fueling needs of the new advanced-technology vehicles as they come to the market.
Executive Order N-79-20
Executive Order N-79-20 (2020) sets the goal for the state that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero emission by 2035 . Executive Order N-79-20 also sets goals for transition to 100 % zero emission for all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045, zero emission for drayage trucks by 2035, and zero emission for off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. Among other directives to further this executive order, for passenger cars and trucks, the governor directed CARB to develop and propose regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles sold in the state toward the target of 100% of in-state sales by 2035. The governor also directed the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to develop a Zero -Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which was completed in February 20 211. The executive order also directs updates and assessments to ensure zero-emission vehicle infrastructure is in place to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required by the order.
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction mandates. As codified in California Government Code, Section 65080, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (San Diego Association of Governments) to include a sustainable communities strategy in their regional transportation plan. The main focus of the sustainable communities strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also a part of a bigger effort to address other development issues within the general vicinity, including transit and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which influence the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
1 https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ZEV_Strategy_Feb2021.pdf
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-9
Local
SDG&E Long -Term Procurement Plan
In 2009, CPUC approved SDG&E’s Long-Term Procurement Plan (LTPP), which identifies how SDG&E will meet the future energy needs of customers in SDG&E’s service area (SDG&E 2009). The LTPP identifies several energy demand reduction targets (i.e., conservation) and goals for increasing renewable energy supplies, new local power generation, and increased transmission capacity.
The LTPP sets a standard for acquiring 20% of SDG&E’s energy mix from renewables by 2010 and 33% by 2020.
The LTPP also calls for greater use of in -region energy supplies, including renewable energy installations. The LTPP states that, by 2020, SDG&E intends to achieve and maintain the capacity to generate 75% of summer peak demand energy with in -County generation. The LTPP also identifies 44% of its renewables to be generated and distributed in-region by 2020.
San Diego Associati on of Governments Regional Plan
The 2021 Regional Plan provides a long -term blueprint for the San Diego region that seeks to meet regulatory requirements, address traffic congestion, and create equal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other community resources (SANDAG 2021). The plan is the result of years of planning, data analysis, and community engagement to reimagine the San Diego region with a transformative transportation system, a sustainable pattern of growth and development, and innovative demand and management strategies.
The 2021 Regional Plan includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy, as required by California SB 375, for the San Diego region. This Sustainable Communities Strategy describes coordinated transportation and land use planning that exceeds the state’s target for reducing per capita GHG emissions set by CARB. The state -mandated target is a 19% reduction —compared with 2005 —in per-capita GHG emissions from cars and light -duty trucks by 2035. The 2021 Regional Plan achieves a 20% reduction by then.
The 2021 Regional Plan also puts forth a forecasted development pattern that is driven by regional goals for sustainability, mobility, housing affordability, and economic prosperity.
City of San Marcos General Plan
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 201 2) includes various policies related to reducing GHG emissions and the co -benefit of reducing energy consumption . The project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan is provided in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. Applicable policies include the following:
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Policy LU -2.3: Require the incorporation of green building practices, technologies, and strategies into development projects per code standards.
Policy LU -2.5: Promote landscaping (e.g., native, drought tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-10
Policy LU -2.7: Promote the instillation of trees to reduce the urban heat -island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.
Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COS -4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
Policy COS -4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment .
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) on December 8, 2020 (City of San Marcos 2020). The CAP acts as a roadmap to address challenges of climate change within the City. The CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP, and establishes GHG emission reduction target s and identifies achievable, locally based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. The City has included energy-reducing measures in the CAP Consistency Review Checklist , such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle infrastructure, transportation demand management, reduced parking, electric water heaters, photovoltaic systems, landscaping water use, and urban tree canopy.
3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the proposed project’s impact on energy are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). According to Appendix G, a significant impact would occur if development of the project would do any of the following:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. ▪ Threshold No. 2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
3.5.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Electricity
Construction Use
Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment (such as computers inside temporary construction trailers and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) would be provided by SDG&E. The amount of electricity used during project construction would be minimal because typical demand stems from the use of electronic equipment, in addition to electrically powered hand tools.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-11
As the electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and minimal , impacts related to electri city consumption during project construction are determined to be less than significant.
Operational Use
The operation of the project would require electricity for multiple purposes , including cooling, lighting, appliances, and various equipment. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in electricity usage.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, default values for electricity consumption for the residential land use were applied , which account for the 2019 Title 24 building code (CAPCOA 2021). The electricity use for residential buildings is calculated in CalEEMod using energy intensity value (electricity use per square foot per year) assumptions, which were based on the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (CEC 2010). Per CEC’s Impact Analysis for the 2019 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non -Residential Buildings, single -family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards. Once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, homes built under the 2019 standards will use about 53 % less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2019).
The proposed project ’s residential use s are estimated to have a total electrical demand of approximately
0.7 million kWh of electricity per year, including indirect electricity for water and wastewater use.
The project would also implement applicable City’s CAP measure s that would reduce operational ele ctricity consumption, including installing electric water heaters. While this would increase electricity use, it would result in less natural gas use and is more efficient than heating water with natural gas as 15% of the energy is lost in the exhaust.
In summary, although electricity consumption would increase at the project site due to project implementation, the project would be required to comply with Title 24 and the City’s CAP by implementing energy -efficiency measures. Furthermore, the pr oject would be subject to the Title 24 building code that is adopted at the time building permits are obtained and thus may be subject to a more stringent energy standard than what was assumed herein. For these reasons, electricity consumption of the project would not be considered inefficient , wasteful, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Construction Use
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed project . Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the subsection titled “Petroleum.” Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect on the environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Use
The operation of residential units would require natural gas for space heating and to power appliances. Default natural gas usage rates in CalEEMod for the proposed land use and climate zone were used based on compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, which are assumed within CalEEMod 2020.4.0.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-12
The operation of the project is estimated to use approximately 870 million British thermal units of natural gas per year, which is equivalent to 8,731 therms of natural gas per year.
As previously discussed, the project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Prior to building permit application , the applicant would ensure that project plans would meet Title 24 requirements applica ble at that time, as required by state regulations, through their plan review process. Additionally, the project would implement the City’s CAP measure that reduces operational natural gas consumption, which requires the installation of electric water heaters.
In summary, although natural gas usage would increase due to project implementation, project design feature s would be implemented, and usage would be decreased through green building standards. For these reasons, the natural gas consumption of the project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
Petroleum
Construction Use
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the proposed project . Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities would rely on diesel fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction.
It is assumed that construction workers would travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered vehicles.
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of construction. CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage, and results are included in Appendix B. Ba sed on that analysis, over all phases of construction, diesel -fueled construction equipment would operate for an estimated 18,496 hours, as summarized in Table 3.5-2.
Table 3.5-2. Project Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment Phase Hours of Equipment Use
Site Preparation 192
Grading 1,344
Paving 15,720
Building Construction 1,120
Architectural Coating 120
Total 18,496
Source: Appendix B.
Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Construction is estimated to occur over an 18-month period ( 2023 through 2025) based on the construction phasing schedule. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2021).
The estimated diesel fuel use from construction equipment is shown in Table 3.5-3.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-13
Table 3.5-3. Project Construction Equipment Diesel Demand Phase Equipment CO 2 (MT) kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 4.11 10.21 402.58
Grading 83.26 10.21 8,154.88
Building Construction 261.47 10.21 25,609.69
Paving 22.33 10.21 2,187.28
Architectural Coating 2.55 10.21 250.08
Total 36,604.50
Sources: Appendix B (pieces of equipment and equipment CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Fuel consumption from worker and vendor trips is estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline fueled , and vendor vehicles are assumed to be diesel fueled. Calculations for total worker and vendor fuel consumption are provided in Tables 3.5-4 and 3.5-5.
Table 3.5-4. Project Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand Phase Vehicle CO 2 (MT) kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 0.23 8.78 26.01
Grading 1.20 8.78 137.06
Building Construction 153.80 8.78 17,516.67
Paving 0.98 8.78 111.86
Architectural Coating 2.25 8.78 256.61
Total 18,048.21
Sources: Appendix B (construction worker CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Table 3.5-5. Project Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand Phase Vehicle CO 2 (MT) kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 0.24 10.21 23.58
Grading 0.96 10.21 93.72
Building Construction 139.17 10.21 13,631.10
Paving 0.79 10.21 77.24
Architectural Coating 0.77 10.21 75.77
Total 13,901.41
Sources: Appendix B (vendor truck CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
As shown in Tables 3.5-3 through 3.5-5, implementation of the project is estimated to consume a total of 68,554 gallons of petroleum from off-road equipment and worker vehicle and vendor truck trips during the construction phase. Within the County, the estimated petroleum use in 2023 would be 1.7 billion gallons per year (CARB 2022).
The project would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy -duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes. While construction activities would consume petroleum -based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-14
Further, the petroleum consumed related to construction would be typical of construction projects of similar types and sizes and would not necessitate new petroleum resources beyond what are typically c onsumed in California.
Therefore, because petroleum use during project construction would be temporary and minimal and would not be wasteful or inefficient, impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Use
The majority of fuel consumption resulting from the operational phase of the project would be attributable to the use of resident motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site, as well as fuels used for alternative modes of transportation that may be used by residents. There is also gasoli ne use that could be associated with landscaping equipment.
Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site is a function of VMT as a result of operation. As shown in Appendix B , the VMT attributable to the project is expected to be approximately 1,422,938 VMT per year.
Similar to construction worker and vendor trips, fuel consumption was estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from each land use type to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel.
Based on the annual fleet mix provided in CalEEMod, 80% of the fleet range from light -duty to medium -duty vehicles and motorcycles was assumed to run on gasoline. The remaining 20% of vehicles represent s medium- heavy duty to heavy-duty vehicles and buses/recreational vehicles, which were assumed to run on diesel.
Calculations for annual mobile-source fuel consumption are provided in Table 3.5-6.
Table 3.5-6. Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Operation Fuel Vehicle MT CO 2 kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Gasoline 367.82 8.78 41,893.04
Diesel 89.49 10.21 8,764.83
Total 50,657.87
Sources: Appendix B (mobile source CO2); The Climate Registry 2020 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes:
CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram; MT = metric ton
As shown in Table 3.5-6, mobile sources associated with the project would result in approximately 41,893 gallons of gasoline per year and 8,765 gallons of diesel consumed per year beginning in 2025. This is a conservative estimate because it does not account for usage of electric vehicles.
By comparison, California as a w hole consumes approximately 28.7 billion gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2017). Within the County, the estimated petroleum use in 2024 is 1.5 billion gallons per year (CARB 2022).
Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by residents is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. As discussed under Section 3.5.2, there are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog -causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug -in hybrids and ZEVs in California (CARB 2017). Additionally, in response to SB 375, CARB has adopted the goal of reducing per -
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-15
capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 15% by the year 2020 and 19% by the year 2035 for light -duty passenger vehicles in the San Diego Association of Governments planning area. This reduction would occur by reducing vehicle miles traveled through the integr ation of land use planning and transportation (CARB 2019). As such, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time due to advances in fuel economy.
Bus service is located in front of the project site . The project site is located approximately 0.3 miles from the SPRINTER station, which provides light rail access into the nearby cities of Escondido, Vista, and Oceanside.
Additionally, the SPRINTER connects to the Surfliner and Coaster routes, which provide north –south access to Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the City of San Diego. Furthermore, the project would implement applicable measures in Title 24 and the City’s 2020 CAP, including installing electric vehicle charging stations, installing bicycle infrastructure, implementing a Transportation D emand Management plan, and reducing parking near transit. These measures would further reduce VMT and petroleum consumption from operation , increase access to transit, and encourage alternative modes of transportation.
In summary, although the project would increase petroleum use during operation, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use and, due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy e fficiency standards for residential and non - residential buildings constructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption . The project would also be subject to Part 11 of Title 24, also known as the CalGreen building standards. These standards were adopted into the City’s building design criteria. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP measures through its implementation of installing electric vehicle charging station s, bicycle infrastructure, and electric water heater s; reducing landscaping water use ; and plant ing trees that would further reduce operational energy use. The project would be built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations at the time of construction. For these reasons stated, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the potential to conflict with energy standards and regulations.
3.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Potential cumulative impacts on energy would result if the proposed pr oject, in combination with past, present, and future projects, would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This could result from development that would not incorporate sufficient building energy efficiency features, would not achieve buildi ng energy efficiency standards, or would result in the unnecessary use of energy during construction and/or operation. The cumulative projects within the areas serviced by the energy service providers would be applicable to this analysis; this includes exi sting aging structures that are energy inefficient. Projects that include development of large buildings or other structures that would have the potential to consume energy in an inefficient manner would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative imp act. Projects that would mostly include construction, such as transportation infrastructure, could also contribute to a cumulative impact; however, the impact of these projects would be limited because they would typically not involve substantial ongoing energy use.
3.5 – ENERGY
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.5-16
As described previously, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to various design features, including installing electric vehicle charging stations, installing electric water heaters, reducing landscaping water use, and planting trees that would be required of the proposed project. Like the project, cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial a nd residential buildings. Over time, CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require the project, and the cumulative projects, to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative pr ojects would be required—at a minimum —to meet Title 24 building standards, further avoiding the inefficient use of energy.
Furthermore, various federal and state regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Pavley Clean Car Standards, and Low Emiss ion Vehicle Program, would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. Project impacts to energy are not determined to be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
3.5.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
3.5.7 Conclusion
The project would comply with regulatory requirements and would implement project design features in the City’s CAP that would reduce operational energy consumption. For example, the project would be required to install electric vehicle charging station s, install electric water heaters, incorporate solar panels, reduce landscaping water use, and plant trees. Furthermore, the project’s location as an infill deve lopment and its close proximity to resident services and transit would inherently result in less VMT and petroleum use compared to a sprawling project. As such, the project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity. Additionally, the project would not conflict with an y applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy consumption, including the City’s General Plan policies and City’s CAP. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-1
3.6 Geology and Soils
This section describes the existing geological setting of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the project, including seismic activity, liquefaction, landslides, loss of topsoil, soil erosion, soil stability , and soil expansion. Preparation of this environmental impact report ( EIR) section relied on information provided in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project by LGC Geotechnical Inc. dated July 15, 2021. The Geotechnical Evaluation is included as Appendix E to this EIR.
A summary of the project- and cumulative-level geology and soils analysis by threshold is provided in Table 3.6-1.
Table 3.6-1. Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 5: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Less than Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 6: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 7: 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.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 8: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 9: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-2
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
Soils
A brief description of the earth materials encountered during subsurface exploration is presented in the following sections. Based on field observations and review of published geologic maps, the project site is locally underlain by older artificial fill overly Quaternary older alluvium.
A field study was conducted on June 7, 202 1, and consisted of a site reconnaissance and excavation of nine geotechnical hollow stem auger borings . Borings HS-1 through HS-6 were excavated to depths ranging from approximately 5 to 15.5 feet, and Borings I-1 through I-3 were excavated to approximately 10 feet below grade. The borings were drilled and included collection of bulk and relatively undisturbed driven soil samples for subsequent laboratory testing.
Older Artificial Fill (Map Symbol afo )
Older artificial fill as depicted on the Geotechnical Map (Appendix E) generally indicates material that has been placed over native on -site soils as part of prior rough grading activities. The materials encountered consisted of light to medium brown clayey sands and sandy clays that are slightly moist to moist and dense and/or stiff . The artificial fill materials encountered during the subsurface evaluation ranged from approximately existing grade to 8 feet in depth (Appendix E).
Quaternary Older Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal)
Quaternary older alluvium was encountered in the exploratory test pits and borings on the project site. These soils consisted of light to dark brown, slightly moist, dense to very dense clayey sands and stiff to hard sand clays with gravel and lesser amounts of cobbles. The alluvial materials encountered during the subsurface evaluation ranged from approximately 2 feet to a maximum of 15.5 feet in depth.
Surface Water and Groundwater
Surface Water
Surface water was not observed during the project site visit. If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site is likely the result of precipitation. Overall site area drainage is in a southeast direction.
Groundwater
Shallow groun dwater conditions were not encountered during the field visit, which included excavations up to
15.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons and local zones of perched groundwater may be present within the near -surface deposits due to local seepage or during rainy seasons (Appendix E).
Earthquake Hazards
California and the project site are located between the Pacific and North American Tectonic Plates. Several major fault zones are found in Southern California including the San Andreas Fault Zone, with sub parallel faults including the Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, Rose Canyon , and Coronado Banks Faults. No faults are shown in the immediate project site vicinity (Appendix E).
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-3
Surface Fault Rupture
The geologic structure of the entire Southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The project site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist a t the project site nor is the project site situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone (Appendix E). The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault located about 11.7 miles west of the project site.
Liquefacti on/Seismic Settlement
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral movement, sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils , and other damaging deformations. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Based on the lack of shallow groundwater, the dense nature of the on-site soils, and the presence of fine-grained soils, the potential for liquefaction or settlement to impact the site is considered very low (Appendix E).
Other Seismic Hazards
Due to the relatively flat nature of the project site, the potential for landslides and rockfall is considered negligible.
The project site is located in a zone with zero susceptibility to landslides (City of San Marcos 2012).
In addition, the potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water.
Paleontological Resources
The project site is underlain by older artificial fill ( afo) and Quaternary older alluvium (Qcol). The preliminary geotechnical evaluation prepared for the project did not identify any unique geologic features on the proje ct site.
Furthermore, as determined in the Cultural Resources Report prepared for the project site (Appendix D), no archaeological resources were identified within the project site’s area of potential effect. As such, the project site is unlikely to yield paleontological resources.
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations related to geology and soils.
Federal
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provides a set of mitigation plan requirements that encourage state and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. The act also encourages s tates to complete a natural mitigation plan. California’s relevant and updated State Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX in 2007. In accordance with this act, the County of San Diego prepared its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is discussed in more detail below.
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-4
Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1999 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies, including the American Red Cross, that provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address specific hazards.
The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.
U.S. Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Identification Program The U.S. Geological Survey, in fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113, created the National Landslide Hazards Program to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The Federal Emergency Management A gency is the responsible agency for the long-term management of natural hazards.
International Building Code
The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code developed by the International Code Council that provides the basis for the California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the IBC is to provide minimum standards for building construction to ensure public safety, health, and welfare. Prior to the creation of the IBC, several different building codes were used; however, by the year 2000, the IBC had replaced these previous codes. The IBC is updated every 3 years.
State
Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act mitigates the hazard of surface fault rupture by regulating structures designated for human occupancy near active faults. As required by the act, the California Geological Survey has delineated Earthquake Fault Zones along known active faults in California.
California Geologic Survey
The California Geologic Survey provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. The California Geologic Survey’s Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California ( CGS 2008), provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake -related hazards for projects located within certain designated zones.
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
Enacted to promote conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits, the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act requires cities address t he significant aggregate resources classified by the State Geologist and designated by the State Mining and Geology Board in their general plans. The act ensures that significant aggregate resources are recognized and considered before land use decisions are made that may compromise the availability of these resources.
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-5
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was enacted in 1997 to protect the public from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and from ot her hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to map areas subject to seismic hazard . Before a development permit may be granted for projects located in designated areas, a geotechnical evaluation of the site must be prepared and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. Additionally, the act requires a Standardized Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement form be completed by real estate sellers if a property is within one of the designated natural hazards areas.
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act (effective June 1, 1998), requires “sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a ‘Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement’ when the property being sold lie s within one or more state -mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone.” The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act , discussed above, specifies two ways this disclosure can be made:
▪ The Local Option Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code ▪ The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement can be substituted for the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement if it contains substan tially the same information and substantially the same warning as the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement. Both the Alquist -Priolo Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act require that real estate agents, or sellers of real estate acting without an agent, disclose to prospective buyers that the property is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Seismic Hazard Mapping Zone.
California Building Code
The CBC is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Part 2 of the CBC specifies standards for geologic and seismic hazards, other than surface faulting. Chapter 23 of the CBC addresses seismic safety and includes regulations for earthquake-resistant design and construction. The 2022 edition of the CBC went into effect January 1, 2023 (California Building Standards Commission 2021).
Local
County of San Diego Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the County of San Diego prepared the Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2004, revised in 2017. The plan serves as both a county-wide plan and a plan for local jurisdictions that identifies risks posed by natural and human -made disasters before a hazard event occurs. The plan includes overall goals and objectives shared by many jurisdictions, as well as specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items for each of the participating jurisdictions, including the City of San Marcos (City), developed to help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction (County of San Diego 2017).
San Marcos Grading Ordinance
The City’s Grading Ordinance (found in Chapter 17.32 of the San Marcos Municipal Code) contains regulations for the purpose of protecting public health and safety with respect to the design and construction of building sites and
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-6
the development of property by grading. The ordinance sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading and earthwork construction, engineering analysis of soil conditions, and the administrative procedure for issuance of grading permits, approval of grading plans, and site inspections.
City of San Marcos General Plan
The Safety Element of the City of San Marcos General Plan (General Plan) contains several policies pertaining to natural geologic hazards. The following goal and policies apply to the project (City of San Marcos 2012):
Goal S-1: Reduce risks to the community from earthquakes by regulating new development and redevelopment to prevent the creation of new geologic and seismic hazards.
Policy S-1.1: Reduce the risk of impacts from geologic and seismic hazards by applying current and proper land use planning, development engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements.
Policy S -1.2: Investigate specific groundwater levels and geologic conditions underlying all new development or redevelopment proposals in areas where potential fault rupture, liquefaction, or other geologic hazards are suspected.
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to geology and soils.
3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
As defined in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, project impacts to geological resources are considered significant if the project would:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of as known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ▪ Threshold No. 2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. ▪ Threshold No. 3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. ▪ Threshold No. 4: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
▪ Threshold No. 5: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. ▪ Threshold No. 6: 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.
▪ Threshold No. 7: 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.
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-7
▪ Threshold No. 8: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. ▪ Threshold No. 9: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
3.6.4 Project Impact Analysis
The project area of potential effect includes the entire 7.6-acre project site. Impacts to geology and soils that may result from ground disturbing activities associated with the project are analyzed below.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injur y, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of as known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? The project site is located in tectonically active Southern California. However, no Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones or other known active faults run through the project site. The closest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, located 11.7 miles southwest of the project site. Based on the lack of active or potentially active faults underlying the project area, the potential for surface rupture is low and the project site would not be subject to a greater seismic risk than other locations within the region. Additionally, per the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, because the project site is not located in an Alquist Priolo Fault Zone, the project would not place any prohibited uses (e.g., uses containing structures with a capacity of 300 people or more; uses with the potential to severely damage the environment or cause major loss of life; or specific civic uses including police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, rest homes, nursing homes, and emergency communication facilities) within an Alquist–Priolo Fault Zone.
Thus, the potential for loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered low.
The project would be required to comply with applicable CBC requirements and proposed plans would be subject to City review. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? There are no known active faults that run through the project site. The project would be designed in accordance with applicable CBC criteria, including those specific to resistance to seismic shaking. Furthermore, the project would be constructed in accordance with other applicable regulations, current seismic design specifications of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable requirements of the State of California Occupational Safety and Health Admini stration. These required seismic design considerations are used to minimize structural damage in the event of ground shaking.
Additionally, the project would implement all recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E ), as well a s any project -specific recommendations from any potential supplemental geotechnical evaluations in compliance with Section 17.32.040(d) of the San Marcos Municipal Code. Section 17.32.040(d) of the Municipal Code requires the incorporation of recommendations of geotechnical reports into grading plans prior to the approval of a grading permit. These recommendations include general provisions regarding compliance with grading ordinances, as well as recommendations related to property clearing and preparation, removal depths, remedial grading, engineered fill, excavation, shrinkage and bulking, trench compacting, and backfill. The Geotechnical Evaluation includes design recommendations, retaining wall design and construction recommendations, and post- construction considerations. The detailed recommendations are included in Section 5 of the Geotechnical Evaluation
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-8
(see Appendix E). The Development Services Department shall review and approve project design and construction to verify that the recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation have been incorporated. With adherence to all regulations and geotechnical recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation conducted for the project, impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be considered less than significant.
Threshold No. 3: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including t he risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? As described in Section 3.6.1, Existing Conditions, liquefaction occurs when site conditions include shallow groundwater, low density non -cohesive (granular) soils, and high -intensity ground motion. Based on the Geotechnical Evaluation mapping, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing, the project site is not identified as being susceptible to liquefaction (Appendix E). No shallow groundwater was identified on site, and soils on site consist of relatively dense material. The potential for liquefaction or dynamic settlement to occur on site is considered very low. Additionally, the project site is ide ntified in the City's Safety Element as having zero susceptibility to liquefaction (Figure 6-1 of the General Plan) (City of San Marcos 2012). As such, the project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction or significant amounts of seismic settlement.
Furthermore, the project would implement all remedial grading and drainage recommendati ons contained within the Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix E of this EIR) , which would ensure potential impacts would not be substantial. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 4: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site is relatively flat, ranging in elevation from approximately 570 to 580 feet above mean sea level.
The project site is identified in the City's Safety Element as having zero susceptibility to landslides (Figure 6-1 of the General Plan) (City of San Marcos 2012). Therefore, the project site is not considered susceptible to landslides and project impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 5: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The project would be required to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, which contains design standards and performance requirements that must be met to avoid or reduce, to an acceptable level, excessive erosion.
Furthermore, in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, the project would implement all recommendations pertaining to soil erosion or loss of topsoil as contained within the Geotechnical Evaluation (see Appendix E of this EIR), in addition to any additional recommendations from any supplemental geotechnical reports prepared for the project and the stormwater pollution prevention plan to be prepared for the project .
For these reasons, implementation of the project would not result in substantial soil erosion o r the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 6: Would the project 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?
As previously described under T hreshold Nos. 3 and 4, the potential for landslides and/or liquefaction on site is considered low. The project would be required to comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E). Site preparation, removals, and excavation associated with the project would be performed consistent
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-9
with Chapter 5 of the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E ) and any supplemental geotechnical evaluation . In addition, grading associated with the project would be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, the City, and the County of San Diego. Areas to receive fill would be required to be properly cut and/or benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice, CBC guidelines, and City requirements.
Therefore, compliance with applicable regulations and the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation would ensure that impacts from unstable conditions that cou ld result in on - or off -site lateral spread, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 7: Would the project 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? As described in the Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E), two of the nine borings yielded Expansion Index values of 32 and 55, which are classified as low and medium potential for expansion, respectively. The project would be required to implement CBC guidelines, regulations, and further recommendations to ensure that such soils are fully remediated and/or the project is designed appropriately to minimize impacts of expansive soils. The geotechnical evaluation also recommends concrete flatwork, use of sandy soils with a maximum of 35% fines and very low expansion potential for backfill materials, and the foundation design parameter implementation. With adherence to the Geotechnical Evaluation recommendations, as required for grading permit issuance , impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 8: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of se ptic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As described in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would construct private on-site sewer lines that would connect to existing City infrastructure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 9: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As discussed in Section 3.6.1, the potential for paleontological resources to be located on the project site is considered low. Although g round-disturbing activities associated with the project have the potential to unearth previously unidentified paleontological resources, the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project did not identify any unique geologic features on the project site, and therefore impacts would be less than significant.
3.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Due to the localized nature of geology and soils, c umulative projects would address potential impacts to geology and soils on a project -by-project basis, as potential geologic hazards and soil composition vary by site. Each cumulative project would be required to assess individual and site-specific geologic conditions, which would inform construction and development of each site. All cumulative development would be subject to similar r equirements to those imposed and implemented for the project and would be required to adhere to applicable regulatio ns, standards, and procedures.
3.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.6-10
Further, as discussed in Section 3.6.4, the project site is unlikely to yield paleontological resources. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources from implementation of the project would be less than significant. While some of the projects on the cumulative list are located in areas that may contain paleontological resources , the presence of these resources is typically unknown prior to construction, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be included with approval of cumulative projects to ensure that impacts to paleontological resources are minimized.
As implementation of the project would not result in any significant impacts to geology and soils on the project site, and all cumulative projects would be required to analyze site-specific conditions and implement recommendations or mitigation, cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.
3.6.6 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Sections 3.6.4 and 3.6.5, all project- and cumulative-level geology and soil related impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.6.7 Conclusion
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3.6. 4, impacts associated with seismicity, liquefaction, landslides, erosion/loss of topsoil, compressible soils, expansive soils , and paleontological resources were determined to be less than significant. The project would be required to adhere to all recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations outlined in Section 3.6.2.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-1
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This environmental impact report ( EIR) section describes the existing setting of the project site related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the proposed Gran Vista Specific Plan Project (project). Information for this section relies on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared for the project by Dudek in February 2023 . The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report is included as Appendix B to this EIR.
A summary of the project- and cumulative-level GHG analysis by threshold is provided in Table 3.7-1.
Table 3.7-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance
Project
Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
This section introduces the environmental setting as it relates to GHG emissions, providing a climate change overview; information on GHG and climate forcing substances, global warming potential, and sources of GHG emissions; and descriptions of potential effects of climate change in the region of the proposed project.
Climate Change Overview
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun’s energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere (EPA 2017a).
The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build -up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process: short -wave radiation emitted by the sun is absorbed by the Earth , the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long -wave radiation, and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long -wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth. The greenh ouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that ge ts absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-2
The scientific record of the Earth’s climate shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales and that, in general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in GHG concentrations.
Recent climate changes, in particular t he warming observed over the past century, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming since the mid-twentieth century and is the most significant driver of observed climate change (EPA 2017a; IPCC 2013). Human influence on the climate system is evident from the increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and improved understanding of the climate syst em (IPCC 2013). The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from emissions associated with land use changes (IPCC 2013). Continued emissions of GHGs will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
Greenhouse Gases and Other Climate Forcing Substances
A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), ozone ( O3), water vapor, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochloro fluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).1 Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO 2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs, and SF 6, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes.
A summary of the most common GHGs and their sources is included in the following text. 2 Also include d is a discussion of other climate-forcing substances.
Carbon Dioxide . CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a byproduct of human activities and is the principal anthropogenic GHG that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. Natural sources of CO2 include respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; volcanic out -gassing; and decomposition of dead organic matter. Human activities that generate CO 2 are the combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood and changes in land use.
Methane. CH4 is produced through both natural and human activities. CH 4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. CH4 is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal waste, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural biological processes, although fuel burning and other processes also create N 2O. Sources of N 2O include soil cultivation practices (microbial processes in soil and water), especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers; manure management; industrial processes (such as in nitric acid production, nylon production, and fossil-fuel-fired power plants); vehicle emissions; and using N2O as a propellant (such as in rockets, racecars, and aerosol sprays).
1 California Health and Safety Code, Section 38505, identifies seven GHGs that CARB is responsible for monitoring and regulating to reduce emissions: CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs, and nitrogen trifluoride. 2 The descriptions of GHGs are summarized from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (IPCC 1995), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007), CARB’s Glossary of Terms Used in GHG Inventories (CARB 2015), and EPA’s Glossary of Climate Change Terms (EPA 2016).
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-3
Fluorinated Gases. Fluorinated gases (also referred to as F-gases) are powerful synthetic GHGs emitted from many industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are commonly used as substitutes for stratospheric O3-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs, and halons). The most prevalent fluorinated gases are the following:
▪ Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs are synthetic chemicals used as alternatives to O3-depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as byproducts of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. ▪ Perfluorocarbons: PFCs are a group of human -made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only.
These chemicals were introduced as alternatives, with HFCs, to the O3-depleting substances. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Since PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical proce sses in the lower atmosphere, these chemicals have long lifetimes, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 years. ▪ Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6 is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, semiconductor manufacturing, the magnesium industry, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. ▪ Nitrogen Trifluoride: Nitrogen trifluoride is used in the manufacture of a variety of electronics, including semiconductors and flat panel displays.
Chlorofluorocarbons. Chlorofluorocarbons are synthetic chemicals that have been used as cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and aerosol propellants. They are chemically unreactive in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) . The production of chlorofluorocarbons was prohibited beginning in 1987 due to the chemical destruction of stratospheric O3.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. HCFCs are a large group of compounds whose structure is very close to that of chlorofluorocarbons—containing hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms —but that include one or more hydrogen atoms. Like HFCs, HCFCs are used in refrigerants and propellants. HCFCs were also used in place of chlorofluorocarbons for some applications; however, their use is being phased out.
Black Carbon . Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matt er, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and wildfires. Black carbon warms the atmosp here by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short -lived species that varies spatially, which makes it difficult to quantify its global warming potential. Diesel particulate matter emissions are a major source of black carbon and are toxic air contaminants that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect public health. In relation to declining diesel particulate matter from the California Air Resources Board ( CARB) regulations pertaining to diesel engines, diesel fuels, an d burning activities, CARB estimates that annual black carbon emissions in California have been reduced by 70% between 1990 and 2010, with 95% control expected by 2020 (CARB 2014).
Water Vapor. The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains a climate necessary for life.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-4
Ozone. Tropospheric O 3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from natural sources and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O 3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultrav iolet radiation and molecular oxygen (O 2), plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric O 3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation.
Aerosols. Aerosols are suspensions of particulate matter in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations o f the substance produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect s cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2017b). The Int ergovernmental Panel on Climate Change developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO 2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide in 2019 (the most recent year for which data is available) totaled approximately 52.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2e, excluding land use change and forestry (PBL 2020). Six countries—China, the United States, the Russian Federation, India, Japan, and Brazil—and the European community accounted for approximately 62% of the total global emissions, or approximately 32.5 MMT CO2e (PBL 2020).
Per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990– 2019, total United States GHG emissions were approximately 6,558.3 MMT CO 2e in 2019 (EPA 2021) . Overall, from 1990 to 2019, total emissions of CO 2 increased by 142.4 MMT CO 2e (2.8%), while total emissions of CH 4 decreased by 117.2 MMT CO2e (15.1%) and emissions of N2O increased by 4.5 MMT CO2e (1.0%). During the same period, aggregate weighted emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, and nitrogen trifluoride rose by 86.0 MMT CO2e (86.3%).
From 1990 to 2019, HFCs increased by 128.1 MMT CO 2e (275.4%), PFCs decreased by 19.8 MMT CO 2e (81.5%), SF6 decreased by 22.9 MMT CO2e (79.5%), and nitrogen trifluoride increased by 0.6 MMT CO2e (1,162.7%).
According to California’s 2000–2019 GHG emissions inventory (2021 edition), California emitted 418.2 MMT CO2e in 2019, including emissions resulting from out -of-state electrical generation (CARB 2021). The sources of GHG emissions in California include transportation, industrial uses, electric power production from both in-state and out- of-state sources, commercial and residential uses, agriculture, high-GWP substances, and recycling and waste. The California GHG emission source categories and their relative contributions in 2019 are shown in Table 3.7-2.
Table 3.7-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California Source Category Annual GHG Emissions (MMT CO 2e) Percent of Total a Transportation 166.1 40%
Industrial uses 88.2 21%
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-5
Table 3.7-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California Source Category Annual GHG Emissions (MMT CO 2e) Percent of Total a Electricity generationb 58.8 14%
Residential and commercial uses 43.8 10%
Agriculture 31.8 8%
High global warming potential substances 20.6 5%
Recycling and waste 8.9 2%
Totals 418.2 100%
Source: CARB 2021.
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Emissions reflect 2019 California GHG inventory.
a Percentage of total has been rounded and total may not sum due to rounding. b Includes emissions associated with imported electricity, which account for 21.7 MMT CO2e.
The City’s community-wide GHG emissions baseline inventory in 2012 was estimated to be 599,000 MT CO2e (City of San Marcos 2020). On -road transportation is the largest contributor to the emissions, accounting for 54% (or 322,000 MT CO2e) of the City’s 2012 total, followed by electricity at 27% (or 162,000 MT CO 2e) of the emissions.
Accounting for future population and economic growth, the City projects GHG emissions of 526,000 MT CO 2e in 2020 and 429,000 MT CO 2e in 2030. The projections assume population, housing, emp loyment, and transportation activity will continue to grow over time , and accounts for GHG emission reductions associated with implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and legislative reductions (City of San Marcos 2020).
Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report indicated that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented. Signs that global climate change has occurred include warming of the atmosphere and ocean, diminished amounts of snow and ice pack, and rising sea levels (IPCC 2014). In California, climate change impacts have the potential to affect sea-level rise, agriculture, snowpack and water supply, forestry, wildfire risk, public health, frequency of severe weather events, and electricity demand and supply. Potential effects of climate change are outlined in detail in Appendix B to this EIR.
3.7.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a summary of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to GHGs, including federal, state, and local guidelines; additional detail can be found in Appendix B.
Federal
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
On November 6, 2021, Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness. This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and rails; expand access to clean drinking water; ensure every American has access to high-speed internet; tackle the climate crisis; advance environmental justice; and invest in communities that have too often been left behind. The legislation will help ease inflationary pressures and strengthen supply chains
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-6
by making long overdue improvements for our nation’s ports, airports, rail, and roads. It will drive the creation of good- paying union jobs and grow the economy sustainably and equitably so that everyone gets ahead for decades to come.
Combined with the president’s Build Back Framework, it will add on av erage 1.5 million jobs per year for the next 10 years. It will improve transportation options for millions of Americans to reduce energy use and GHG emissions. It will increase investment in electric vehicle chargers and renewable energy production.
Massac husetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be an ticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In December 2009, the administrator signed a final rule with the following two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act:
▪ The Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the “endangerment finding.”
▪ The Administrator further found the combined emissions of GHGs —CO2, CH 4, N 2O, and HFCs —from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This is the “cause or contribute finding.” These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, among other key measures, did the following to aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In August 2016, EPA and NHTSA ann ounced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium - and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018–2027 for certain trailers and model years 2021 –2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans , and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO 2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion MT and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (EPA and NHTSA 2016).
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-7
On September 27, 2019, EPA and NHTSA also published their Safer Affordable Fuel -Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (84 FR 51,310), wh ich became effective November 26, 2019. The Part One Rule revoke d California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set ZEV mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, EPA and NHTSA issued Part Two of the SAFE Rule, which went into effect June 29, 2020 (85 FR 24174) . The Part Two Rule set CO 2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks for model years 2021 through 2026. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order titled Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which included review of the Part One Rule by April 2021 and review of the Part Two Rule by July 2021 (The White House 2021). On April 22, 2021 , NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would repeal those portions of the Part One Rule (including the regulatory text and interpretive statements in the preamble) that found California’s GHG and ZEV mandates pre - empted by EPA. One day after N HTSA issued its notice, EPA announced its parallel action on SAFE Part One. On December 21, 2021, after reviewing all the public comments submitted on NHTSA’s April 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA finalize d the SAFE pre-emption rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the SAFE Part One Rule.
State
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets, building energy, renewable energy and energy procurement, mobile so urces, solid waste, water, and other state regulations and goals. The following text describes executive orders, legislation, regulations, and other plans and policies that would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues.
State Climate Change Targets
Executive Order S -3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (2005) established the following statewide goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 3 2
In furtherance of the goals established in EO S -3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32. The bill is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 provided initial direction on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit C alifornia’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives.
Executive Order B -55-18
EO B-55-18 (2018) established a statewide policy for the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The goal is an addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing the state’s GHG emissions. CARB will work with relevant state agencies to ensure that future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.
California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan One specific requirement of AB 32 was for CARB to prepare a scoping plan for achieving the maxim um technologically feasible and cost -effective GHG emission reductions by 2020 ( California Health and Safety Code
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-8
Section 38561[a]) and to update the plan at least once every 5 years. In 2008, CARB approved the first scoping plan. The Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan) included a mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market -based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020 statewid e GHG emission s limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives. The key elements of the Scoping Plan included the following (CARB 2008):
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33%.
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California’s GHG emissions.
Establishing targets for transportation -related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets.
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (17 CCR 95480 et seq.).
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high GWP gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
The Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions because th ey have broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant direct and indirect GHG emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipa l operations. Specifically, the Scoping Plan encouraged local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations, and for community emissions to reduce GHGs by approximately 15% from then levels (2008) by 2020. Many local governments developed community-scale local GHG reduction plans based on this Scoping Plan recommendation.
In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
Building on the Framework (First Update) defined the state’s GHG emission reduction priorities for the next 5 years and laid the groundwork to start the transition to the post -2020 goals set forth in EO S -3-05 and EO B -16-2012.
The First Update concluded that California is on track to meet the 2020 target but recommended a 2030 mid-term GHG reduction target be established to ensure a continuum of action to reduce emissions. The First Update recommended a mix of technologies in key economic sectors to reduce emissions through 2050, including energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large-scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and the rapid market penetration of efficient and clean energy technologies. As p art of the First Update, CARB recalculated the state’s 1990 emissions level, using more recent GWPs identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , from 427 MMT CO 2e to 431MMT CO2e (CARB 2014).
In 2015, as directed by EO B -30-15 (discussed below), CARB began working on an update to the Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target of 40% below 1990 levels to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long -term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in EO S-3-05. The governor called on California to pursue a new and ambitious set of strategies, in line with the five climate change pillars from his inaugural address, to reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. In the summer of 2016, the legislature affirmed the importance of addressing climate change through passage of SB 32.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-9
In December 2017, CARB adopted California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) for public review and comment (CARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan builds on the successful framework established in the initial Scoping Plan and First Update while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies that will serve as the framework to achieve the 2030 GHG target as established by SB 32 and define the state’s climate change priorities to 2030 and beyond. The strategies’ commitments include implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies (including the mandates of SB 350), increas ing stringency of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, implementing measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, implementing measures identified in the proposed Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, and increasing stringency of SB 375 targets. To fill the gap in additional reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target, it recommends continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program.
For local governments, the 2017 Scoping Plan replaced the initial Scoping Plan’s 15% reduction goal with a recommendation to aim for a community-wide goal of no more than 6 MT CO2e per capita by 2030, and no more than 2 MT CO2e per capita by 2050, which are consistent with the state’s long-term goals. These goals are also consistent with the Under 2 Memorandum of Unde rstanding (Under 2 Coalition 2016) and the Paris Agreement, which are developed around the scientifically based levels necessary to limit global warming to below 2°C. The 2017 Scoping Plan recognized the benefits of local government GHG planning (e.g., through CAPs) and provided more information regarding tools CARB is working on to support those efforts. It also recognized the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining provisions for project-level review where there is a legally adequate CAP.
The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32, and the executive orders, and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. A project is considered consistent with the statutes and executive orders if it meets the general policies in reducing GHG emissions to facilitate the achievement of the state’s goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. A project would be consistent if it would further the objectives and not obstruct their attainment.
CARB is presently preparing the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which will assess progress towards achievement of the state’s 2030 reduction target and lay out a path for the state’s ach ievement of carbon neutrality by 2045. CARB has held a number of public workshops to provide information on the plan update and solicit feedback from stakeholders. A draft plan has not yet been released for public review and comment.
Executive Order B-30-15
EO B-30-15 (2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under EO S-3-05 and AB 32. EO B -30-15 specifically set an interim target goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in EO S -3-05. To facilitate achievement of this goal, EO B -30-15 called for an update to CARB’s Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e. The executive order also called for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emissions reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. Sector -specific agencies in transportation, energy, water, and forestry were required to prepare GHG reduction plans by September 2015, followed by a report on action taken in relation to these plans in June 2016. EO B-30-15 did not require local agencies to take any action to meet the new interim GHG reduction target.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-10
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills that set new statewide GHG reduction targets , made changes to CARB’s membership and increased legislative oversight of CARB’s climate change-based activities, and expanded dissemination of GHG and other air -quality-related emissions data to enhance transparency and accountability. More specifically, SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B -30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies.
AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to CARB as nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions reduction measures when updating the Scoping Plan.
Senate Bill 605 and Senate Bill 1383
SB 605 (2014) required CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short -lived climate pollutants in the state, and SB 1383 (2016) required CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018.
SB 1383 also established specific targets for the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for CH4 and HFCs and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon) and provided direction for reductions from dairy and livestock operations and landfills. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Strategy was approved by CARB in March 2017 and lays out a range of options to reduce short-lived climate pollutant emissions in California, including regulations, incentives, and other market-supporting activities.
Building Energy
Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Although not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically established Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency standards are reviewed every few years by the Building Sta ndards Commission and California Energy Commission (CEC) and revised if necessary (California Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 25402[b][1]). The regulations receive input from members of industry and the public, with the goal of “reducing of wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” (PRC Section 25402). These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (PRC Section 25402[d]) and cost effectiveness (PRC Sections 25402[b][2] and [b][3]). As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment.
The 2019 Title 24 standards are the currently applica ble building energy efficiency standards, and became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards will further reduce energy used and associated GHG emissions compared to prior standards. In general, single -family re sidences built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, single -family residences built unde r the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). Nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-11
energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). The project’s apartments and affordable flats are subject to the nonresidential standards due to the number of stories, while the rowhomes and villas are subject to the residential standards.
On August 11, 2021, CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December 2021, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric -ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
Title 24, California Code of Reg ulations, Part 11
In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) is commonly referred to as CALGreen, and establishes minimum mandatory standards and voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements) , water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground -up, new construction of commercial, low -rise resid ential and state -owned buildings, schools, and hospitals. The CALGreen 2019 standards, which are the current standards, became effective January 1, 2020.
Title 20 , California Code of Regulations
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manuf acturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. Performance of appliances must be certified through CEC to demonstrate compliance with standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, ref rigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air -conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; l amps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwa shers; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery ch arger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing for each type of appliance covered under the regulations, and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three type s of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.
Assembly Bill 1109
Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general-purpose lighting to reduce electricity consumption by 50% for indoor residential lighting and by 25% for indoor commercial lighting.
Senate Bill 1
SB 1 (2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar energy systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the PRC, including Chapter 8.8 (California Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for ratepayer -funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet minimum energy efficiency levels and performance requirements. Section 25780
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-12
established that it is a goal of the state to establish a self-sufficient solar industry. The goals included establishing solar energy systems as a viable mainstream option for homes and businesses within 10 years of adoption and placing solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption. SB 1, al so termed “Go Solar California,” was previously titled “Million Solar Roofs.” Assembly Bill 1470
This bill established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007. AB 1470 makes findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand. AB 1470 defines several terms for purposes of the act. The bill required a commission to evaluate the data available from a specified pilot program and to design and imp lement a program of incentives for the installation of 200,000 solar water heating systems in homes and businesses throughout the state by 2017.
Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement
SB 1078 (2002) established the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which requires an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities. Initially, the RPS required utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010. SB X1-2 (2011) subsequently expanded the RPS by establishing that 33% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 350 (2015) further expanded the RPS by establishing that 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. And SB 100 (2018) further accelerated the RPS, requiring achievement of a 50% RPS by December 31, 2026, and a 60% RPS by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a new state policy goal that calls for eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources to supply 100% of electricity retail sales and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.
Under the program, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal soli d waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location.
California Air Resources Board’s Mobile Source Strategy On May 16, 2016, CARB released the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy that demonstrates how the state can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next 15 years. The actions contained in the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy will deliver broad environmental and public health benefits, as well as support much needed efforts to modernize and upgrade transportation infrastructure, enhance system-wide efficiency and mobility options, and promote clean economic growth in the mobile sector. The 2016 Mobile Source Strategy would also result in a 45% reduction in GHG emissions and a 50% reduction in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels (CARB 2016).
On October 28, 2021, CARB received and heard the 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, which continues and builds upon the foundation established by the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. The 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, if implemented, would achieve a 76 % reduction in GHG emissions from 2020 lev els from mobile sources by 2045, as largely attributable to transitioning towards a zero -emissions fleet. Moving forward, CARB anticipates that the programs and concepts in the 2020 Mobile Source Strategy will be incorporated into other aspects of CARB’s regulatory and planning frameworks.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-13
State Vehicle Standards
AB 1493 (2002) was enacted in response to the transportation sector accounting for more than one-half of California’s CO2 emissions. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. AB 1493 required that CARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004.
As explained under the “Federal Vehicle Standards” subsection above, EPA and NHTSA approved the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and Two, which revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set ZEV mandates in California. Because the EPA rule is the subject of pending legal challenges, and because President Biden issued an executive order to review Part One and Part Two, this analysis used the best available information at this time, as set forth in EMFAC and assumed in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
The Advanced Clean Cars program (2012) is a n emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025.
The program combines the control of smog - and soot -causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. The package includes elements to reduce smog -forming pollution, reduce GHG e missions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars. To improve air quality, CARB implemented new emission standards to reduce smog -forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that by 2025, cars will emit 75% l ess smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold in 2012 . To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with EPA and NHTSA, adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The ZEV program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years.
Executive Order S-1-07
Issued on January 18, 2007, EO S -1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The initial target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard was to reduce the carbon intensity of C alifornia passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was subsequently amended in 2018 to require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. This new requirement aligns with the California’s overall 2030 target of reduci ng climate changing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, set by SB 32. CARB has adopted implementing regulations for both the 10% and 20% carbon intensity reduction targets.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375 (2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 required CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are then r esponsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The goal of the SCS is to establish a forecasted development pattern for the region that, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If an SCS is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, a metropolitan planning organization must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achie ved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-14
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(K), a n SCS does not regulate the use of land; supersede the land use authority of c ities and counties; or require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it. Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.
In 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the regional metropolitan planning organizations. The targets adopted for the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) in 2010 are a 7% reduction in per -capita passenger-vehicle GHG emissions by 2020 and a 13% reduction by 2035, measured relative to 2005 GHG emissions. In 2018, CARB adopted the second round of SB 375 reduction targ ets and increased SANDAG’s 2020 target to a 15% reduction in per-capita passenger-vehicle GHG emissions, and the 2035 target to a 19% reduction using the same 2005 baseline.
Senate Bill 350
In 2015, SB 350 —the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act —was enacted into law. As one of its elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector, recognizing that such electrification is required for achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction target s (see California Public Utilities Code, Section 740.12).
Assembly Bill 1236
AB 1236 (2015) required a city, county, or city and county to approve an application for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, as defined, through the issuance o f specified permits unless the city or county makes specified written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. AB 1236 provided for appeal of that decision to the planning commission, as specified. The bill provided that the implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost-effective installation of electric vehicle charging stations is a matter of statewide concern. The bill required electric vehicle charging stations to meet specified standards. AB 1236 required a city, county, or city and county with a population of 200,000 or more residents to adopt an ordinance, by September 30, 2016, that created an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. The bill also required a city, county, or city and county with a population of fewer than 200,000 residents to adopt this ordinance by September 30, 2017.
Executive Order B-16-12
EO B-16-12 (2012) directs state entities under the governor’s direction and control to support and facilitate the development and distribution of ZEVs. On a sta tewide basis, EO B -16-12 also establishes a GHG emissions reduction target from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of this executive order, the governor convened an Interagency Working Group on ZEVs that has published multiple reports regarding the progress. It ordered CARB, CEC, the California Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve goals by 2015, 2020, and 2025. This directive did not apply to vehicles that have special performance requirements necessary for the protection of the public safety and welfare.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-15
Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20 (2020) sets the goal for the state that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. EO-N-79-20 also sets goals for transition to 100 % zero emission medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045, zero emission drayage trucks by 2035, and zero emission off -road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. Among other directives to further this executive order, for passenger cars and trucks, the governor directed CARB to develop and propose regu lations requiring increasing volumes of new ZEVs sold in the state towards the target of 100 % of in-state sales by 2035. The governor also directed the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Develop ment to develop a Zero -Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which was completed in February 2021 .3 The executive order also directs updates and assessments to ensure ZEV infrastructure is in place to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required by the order.
Small Offroad Engines
CARB approved a measure on December 9, 2021, that will require most newly manufactured small off-road engines such as those found in leaf blowers, lawn mowers, and other equipment be zero emission starting in 2024. Portable generators, including those in recreational vehicles, would be required to meet more stringent standards in 2024 and meet zero-emission standards starting in 2028.
Assembly Bills 939 and 341
In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Ma nagement Act ( PRC Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal reporting system. AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed of, where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000.
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 ) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source -reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020 and annually thereaf ter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal. CalRecycle conducted several general stakeholder workshops and several focused workshops, and in August 2015 published a discussion document titled AB 341 Report to the Legislature, which identified five priority strategies that CalRecycle believed would assist the state in reaching the 75% goal by 2020, legislative and regulatory recommendations, and an evaluation of program effectiveness (CalRecycle 2015).
Senate Bill 1383
Beginning in 2022, SB 1383 required every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses. Jurisdictions can select from a variety of organic waste collection services to match their unique communities and local infrastructure, while producing clean streams of organic feedstock that can be recycled into high-quality, marketable recycled products, including compost, renewable natural gas, electricity, and paper.
Jurisdictions will educate all residents and businesses about collection requirements, inc luding what materials to put in curbside bins. Education to residents and businesses may vary by jurisdiction and educational content may be provided electronically, through hard copy materials, or through direct outreach.
3 https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ZEV_Strategy_Feb2021.pdf
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-16
Executive Order B-29-15
In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B -29-15 (2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the executive order extended through February 28, 2016, althoug h many of the directives have since become permanent water -efficiency standards and requirements. The executive order includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B -29-15, the California Department of W ater Resources modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increased the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broaden ed its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.
Executive Order B-37-16
Issued May 2016, EO B -37-16 directed the State Water Resources Control Board to adjust emergency water conservation regulations through the end of January 2017 to reflect differing wat er supply conditions across the state. The State Water Resources Control Board also developed a proposal to achieve a mandatory reduction of potable urban water usage that builds off the mandatory 25% reduction called for in EO B -29-15. The State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Water Resources develop ed new, permanent water use targets that build on the existing state law requirements that the state achieve 20% reduction in urban water usage by 2020.
EO B -37-16 also specifies that the State Water Resources Control Board permanently prohibit water -wasting practices such as hosing off sidewalks, driveways, and other hardscapes; washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut -off nozzle; using non -recirculated water in fountain s and other decorative water feature s; watering lawns in a manner that causes runoff or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians.
Senate Bill 97
SB 97 (2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning an d Research to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. The California Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010. The CEQA Guidelines were subsequently amended in 2018 and the changes became effective on December 28, 2018.
Under the amended CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The CEQA Guidelines provide that a lead agency should also consider the extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). The CEQA Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features; off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required; measures in an existing plan or mitigation program; and measures that sequester GHGs (14 CRR 15126.4[c]). The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emissions threshold, instead allowing a lead agency to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts (14 CCR 15064.7). The CEQA Guidelines also permit using environmental standards (i.e., an applicable and relevant quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in an ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, plan or other environmental requirement that has been adopted for the purpose of enviro nmental protection) as a threshold of significance to promote consistency in significance determinations (14 CCR 15064.7[d]).
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-17
With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make a good faith effor t, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency may identify emissions by either quantify ing the emissions resulting from a project or by relying on “quali tative analysis or other performance -based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency should focus on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. The a nalysis should consider a timeframe appropriate for the project, and must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes (14 CCR 15064.4[b]).
Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines allows agencies to tier from qualified GHG reduction plans developed in accordance with subsection (b). Specifically, the GHG reduction plan must quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project -by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions leve l; establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Executive Order S-13-08
EO S-13-08 (2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea-level rise. Therefore, the executive order directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009 (CNRA 2009a); an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014 (CNRA 2014), and another was published in 2018, Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA 2018). The draft 2021 California Climate Adaptation Strategy was released for public comment on October 18, 2021, and closed on November 17, 2021 . The 2021 California Climate Adaption Strategy has sinc e been adopted (State of California 2023). To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the state for the following areas: agriculture, biodiversity and habitat, emergency management, energy, forestry, ocean and coastal ecosystems and resources, public health, transportation, and water.
Local
San Diego Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SANDAG completed and adopted its 2050 RTP/SCS in October 2011. In Novembe r 2011, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.
In October 2015, SANDAG adopted San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015). Like the 2050 RTP/SCS, San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan meets CARB’s 2020 and 2035 reduction targets for the region (SANDAG 2015). In December 2015, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quant ification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-18
The 2021 Regional Plan , adopted by SANDAG on December 10, 2021 , provides a long -term blueprint for the San Diego region that seeks to meet regulatory requirements, address traffic congestion, and create equal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other community resources (SANDAG 2021). The plan is the result of years of planning, data analysis, and community engagement to reimagine the San Diego region with a transformative transportation system, a sustainable pattern of growth and development, and innovative demand and management strategies.
The 2021 Regional Pl an includes a n SCS, as required by California SB 375 (2008), for the San Diego region.
This SCS describes coordinated transportation and land use planning that exceeds the state’s target for reducing per capita GHG emissions set by CARB. The state-mandated target is a 19% reduction —compared with 2005—in per capita GHG emissions from cars and light -duty trucks by 2035. The 2021 Regional Plan achieves a 20% reduction by then.
The 2021 Regional Plan also puts forth a forecasted development pattern that is driv en by regional goals for sustainability, mobility, housing affordability, and economic prosperity.
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its currently applicable CAP on December 8, 2020 (City of San Marcos 2020). The CAP acts as a roadmap to address challenges of climate change within the City. The CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP and establishes GHG emission reduction targets and identifies achievable, locally based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. The CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory for 2012, GHG emissions forecasts for 2020 and 2030, local GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures to help the City achieve the 2030 target, climate adapt ation measures for the City, and implementation and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the City’s measures and targets are achieved. The CAP establishes GHG emissions reduction goals of 4% below 2012 levels by 2020 and 42% below 2012 levels by 2030 (City of San Marcos 2020).
The CAP was prepared in accordance with the requirements within CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and the CAP Consistency Checklist is used in this analysis to evaluate the proposed project’s significance with respect to GHG emissions. As provided in the checklist, projects that are consistent with the CAP “may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions” and “may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable” (City of San Marcos 2020)
City of San Marcos General Plan
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 201 2) includes various policies related to reducing GHG emissions.
Applicable policies include the following.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal LU-1: Achieve a balanced distribution and compatible mix of land uses to meet the present and future needs of all residents and the business community.
Policy LU-1.1: Ensure that adjacent land uses complement one another by considering compatibility of activities, development patterns and archite ctural character elements and access to various mobility choices.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-19
Goal LU-2: Promote development standards and land use patterns that encourage long-term environmental sustainability.
Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air poll ution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Policy LU -2.3: Require the incorporation of green building practices, technologies, and strategies into development projects per code standards.
Policy LU-2.5: Promote land scaping (e.g., native, drought tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.
Policy LU -2.7: Promote the instillation of trees to reduce the urban heat -island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.
Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.
Mobility Element
Policy M -1.3: Require new developments to prepare and implement Tran sportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to minimize vehicle trip generation and promote alternative modes of travel within the City.
Goal M -3: Promote and encourage use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, bicycles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and walking, within the City.
Policy M-3.1: Develop an integrated, multimodal circulation system that accommodates transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; provides opportunities to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions; and reinforces the role of the street as a public space that unites the City.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-4: Improve regional air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Policy COS-4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment.
3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance
California has developed guidelines to address the significance of GHG emissions impacts that are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Appendix G provides that a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
▪ Threshold No. 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
▪ Threshold No. 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-20
The CEQA Guidelines provide that in determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, an agency may consider the extent to which the project complies with a local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(b)(3) and 15183.5.) Relatedly, project specific GHG analyses can tier from plans adopted for the reductions of GHGs (14 CCR 15183.5.) As indicated above, the City has adopted such a plan when it adopted its CAP on December 8, 2020. Accordingly, for the purposes of GHG Threshold No. 1, the project’s GHG emissions are assessed by evaluating the project’s consistency with the City’s CAP, which is discussed below in detail. For purposes of GHG Threshold No. 2, the project is assessed based on its potential to conflict with the City’s CAP, as well as with statewide and regional plans for emissions reductions.
Analysis Approach and Methodology
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan Consistency
The City adopted an updated CAP on December 8, 2020. The CAP outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of state GHG emissions reduction targets. The CAP is a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of the CAP. The City has also developed a CAP Consistency Checklist, in conjunction with the CAP, to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new develop ment projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
A GHG screening threshold of 500 MT CO2e per year is established for new development projects to determine if a project would need to demonstrate con sistency 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 demo nstrate consistency with the CAP. For proposed projects at or above the screening threshold of 500 MT CO 2e, applicants are required to complete the CAP Consistency Checklist, which is meant to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and require environmental review pursuant to CEQA. A properly completed checklist documents how a project complies with the CAP and , in so doing, demonstrates that the project’s contribution to climate change impacts is not cumulatively considerable. The City also developed a service population threshold for the CAP to show that projects are consistent with GHG reduction measures. The City determined that a GHG threshold of 2.1 MT CO 2e per service population per year (SP/yr) would be consistent with GHG emissions within the CAP. Because of this, this EIR quantifies the projected GHG emissions of the project using the following methodology to compare them against the City’s service population threshold.
Construction
CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate potential project-generated GHG emissions during construction.
Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, on -road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. All construction-related details discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, of this EIR are also applicable for the estimation of construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed project.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-21
Existing Land Use Designation
To compare the GHG emissions intensity of the proposed project and the land use built under the existing land use designation, the following section summarizes the construction methodology for the existing land use designation.
Construction assumptions, including timing, phasing, equipment type and quantity, a nd worker and vendor truck trips, were based on the maximum allowed buildout of the existing land use designation for the site. The Commercial (C) zoning buildout, consistent with the existing land use alternative, would include 69,000 square feet of grocery store and gas station uses, as well as 23,000 square feet of office space. This alternative would include 276 parking spaces. An assumption of 10 fueling positions (5 pumps) was made for calculation purposes.
Default values provided by CalEEMod were used where zoning information was not available. For purposes of estimating GHG emissions, it was assumed that const ruction of the land use built under the existing land use designation would commence in December 20234 and would end in December 2024. Construction of the land use built under the existing land use designation would be anticipated to occur in five phases. Accordingly, five phases consisting of site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating were assumed. The analysis contained herein is based on the following assumptions (the duration of phases is approximate):
▪ Site Preparation: 1 week (December 2023)
▪ Grading: 1 week (December 2023)
▪ Building Construction: 11 months (December 2023–November 2024) ▪ Paving: 1 month (November 2024)
▪ Architectural Coating: 1 month (December 2024)
The construction equipment mix used for estimating the construction emissions of the existing land use designation is based on CalEEMod defaults and is shown in Table 3.7-3. For worker and vendor truck trips, the default CalEEMod assumptions for one-way trips were rounded up to the nearest even number to account for whole round trips. For this analysis, it was generally assumed that heavy construction equipment would operate 5 days a week (22 days per month) during project construction. Grading activities were anticipated to be minimal for the land use bui lt under the existing land use designation; therefore, no haul trucks would be required to import or export material.
Table 3.7-3. Construction Scenario Assumptions – Existing Land Use Designation Construction
Phase
One -Way Trips
Equipment Quantity
Hours
Per Day
Daily
Workers
Daily
Vendor
Trucks
Total
Haul
Trucks
Site Preparation 18 0 0 Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
4 8
Grading 16 0 0 Excavators 1 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3 8
4 The analysis assumes a construction start date of June 2023, which represents the earliest date construction would initiate (although unlikely). Assuming the earliest start date for construction represents the worst-case scenario for emissions because equipment and vehicle emission factors for later years would be slightly less due to more stringent standards for in -use off-road equipment and heavy-duty trucks, as well as fleet turnover replacing older equipment and vehicles in later years.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-22
Table 3.7-3. Construction Scenario Assumptions – Existing Land Use Designation Construction
Phase
One -Way Trips
Equipment Quantity
Hours
Per Day
Daily
Workers
Daily
Vendor
Trucks
Total
Haul
Trucks
Building Construction 76 34 0 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3 7
Welders 1 8
Paving 20 0 0 Cement and Mortar
Mixers
2 6
Pavers 1 8
Paving Equipment 2 6
Rollers 2 6
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
1 8
Architectural Coating 16 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6
Note: See Appendix B.
Operation
Existing Land Use Designation
Similar to construction, emissions from the operational phase of the existing land use designation and project were estimated using CalEEMod. Operational year 2030 was assumed consistent with Appendix D of the City’s CAP (City of San Marcos 2020).
Area Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with natural gas usage in space heating and water heating were calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text.
Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated with landscape equipment use were estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days. Based on CalEEMo d defaults for the County, the average annual number of summer days is estimated at 180 days (CAPCOA 2021).
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-23
Energy Sources
CalEEMod default values for electricity use and natural gas consumption for each land use type ( industrial park) were applied for th e existing land use designation . The energy use from commercial and industrial land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the Commercial End -Use Survey (CAPCOA 20 21). Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided by CalEEMod into end-use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associated with the building envelope, such as the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system; water heating system ; and integrated lighting) and those not subject to Title 24 requirement s (such as appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses).
Operational GHG emissions from energy sources include natural gas combustion for appliances and space and water heating. The current California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 sta ndards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. The current version of CalEEMod assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CAPCOA 2021).
CalEEMod default energy intensity factors (CO2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per kilowatt hour) for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) were based on the value for SDG&E’s energy mix in 2021. As explained in Section 3.7.2, SB X1-2 established a target of 33% from renewable energy sources for all electricity providers in California by 2020, and SB 350 calls for further development of renewable energy, with a target of 50% by 2030. SB 100 revised this target to 60% by 2030. Consistent with the City’s CAP, the GHG intensity for 2030 was assumed to be 44 pounds per megawatt-hour for SDG&E (City of San Marcos 2020). In accordance with the City’s CAP Measure E -2, the existing land use designation was assumed to install 2 watts of solar photovoltaics for every square foot of gross floor area.
This resulted in 184 kilowatts of solar. The production of the solar photovoltaic system was estimated using the National Renewable Energy Laboratories’s PVWatts calculator (Appendix B).
Mobile Sources
The land use built under the exi sting land use designation would generate GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) as a result of trucks , customers, and employee vehicles. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from proposed vehicular sources (refer to Appendix B). CalEEMod default data, including trip rates, trip modes, trip lengths, fleet mix, and emissions factors, were used for the model inputs. CalEEMod default vehicle emission factors and vehicle fleet mix for 20 30, as based on CARB ’s EMFAC2017 model, were used to esti mate emissions associated with vehicular sources. Consistent with Measure T -2 of the City’s CAP, 5% of the proposed parking spaces (14) were assumed to be EV charging stations.
Solid Waste
The land use built under the existing land use designation would generate solid waste and therefore would result in CO 2e emissions associated with landfill off -gassing. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the land use built under the existing land use designation would require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the land use built under the existing land use des ignation would require the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, and additional GHG emissions would be generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use relied on CalEEMod default assumptions.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-24
Proposed Project
CalEEMod Version 20 20.4.0 was used to estimate potential project -generated operational GHG emissions from vehicular sources, area sources (natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance), electrical generation (including electrical ge neration associated with water supply and wastewater treatment), and solid waste.
Emissions from each category —area sources, energy sources, mobile sources, solid waste, and water supply and wastewater treatment—are discussed in the following text with respect to the project. See Section 3.2 of this EIR for a discussion of operational emission calculation methodology and assumptions, specifically for area, energy (natural gas), and mobile sources. Consistent with Appendix D of the City’s CAP, operational year 2030 was assumed consistent with the CAP horizon year (City of San Marcos 2013) . The following additional methodologies beyond those described in Section 3.2 are included for evaluating GHG emissions.
Energy Sources
Consistent with the City’s CAP, the GHG intensity for 2030 was assu med to be 44 pounds per megawatt -hour for SDG&E (City of San Marcos 2020).
The project would include alternatively fueled water heaters in accordance with the City’s CAP Measure E-1. When using the CAP’s GHG reduction methodology as shown in Appendix B, the net GHG reduction (emissions avoided from natural gas minus emissions from electricity) would be 84 MT CO2e per year. However, this exceeds the total GHG emissions from natural gas from the project as estimated in CalEEMod. Therefore, using the Energy Information Administration’s estimate of 46% of residential natural gas use being attributed to water heating, this amount was applied to the CalEEMod GHG estimate to account for the reduction from alternatively fueled water heaters (Appendix B).
Mobile Sources (Motor Vehicles)
CalEEMod was used to estimate mobile source emissions from the project. See Section 3 .2 for a discussion of mobile source emissions calculations. The operational year was adjusted to 2030 consistent with the City’s CAP Guidance Appendix D (City of San Marcos 2020).
Solid Waste
The project would generate solid waste and therefore would result in CO2e emissions associated with landfill off-gassing.
CalEEMod default values for solid waste generation were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the project require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the project requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, and GHG emissions would be generated during wastewater treatment.
Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use and associated electricity consumption from water use and wastewater generation were estimated using CalEEMod default values. The project is designed to include low-flow fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems consistent with CAP Measure W-1.
Due to the project ’s location and design, the following reduction measures were estimated using a spreadsheet based model (see Appendix B for calculation details):
▪ California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Final Handbook: T-1 Increase Residential Density ▪ California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Final Handbook: T-18 Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-25
▪ City of San Marcos CAP: Measure T-2 Require Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in New Development ▪ City of San Marcos CAP: Measure E-1 Require New Residential Developments to Install Alternatively-Fueled Water Heaters
3.7.4 Project Impact Analysis
This section evaluates the GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed project. The significance criteria described in Section 3. 7.3, Thresholds of Significance, were used to evaluate impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
This section includes a comparison of the existing land use designation ’s GHG emissions to the project ’s GHG emissions. This section then evaluates the proposed project’s impacts to GHGs in accordance with the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist. The City’s numerical GHG thr eshold of 2.1 MT/SP/yr is used to evaluate the project ’s consistency with the City’s CAP and determine its impact with respect to GHG emissions. The project’s construction and operational GHG emissions are quantified below in accordance with the methodolog y presented in Section 3.7.3 and compared to the City’s threshold.
Existing Land Use Designation
Construction Emissions
Construction of the existing land use designation would result in GHG emissions that are primarily associated with use of off -road const ruction equipment, on -road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. CalEEMod was used to calculate the GHG emissions based on the construction scenario described in Section 3.7.3 and Appendix B.
Construction of the existing land use designation would be anticipated to commence in December 2023, lasting a total of approximately 11 months. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off -road equipment and off -site sources include on -road vehicles (haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles). Table 3.7-4 presents construction emissions for the existing land use designation from on-site and off-site emission sources.
Table 3.7-4. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions – Existing Land Use Designation
Year
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
2023 33.41 0.01 0.00 33.76
2024 402.57 0.07 0.01 407.95
Total 441.71
Emissions amortized over 30 years 14.72
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix B for complete results.
As shown in Table 3.7-4, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the existing land use designation would be approximately 442 MT CO2e. Construction GHG emissions of the existing land use designation amortized over 30 years would be approximately 15 MT CO 2e per year. Amortized construction emissions are added to operational emissions to be compared to the proposed project for this assessment.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-26
Operational Emissions
Operation of the existing land use designation would generate GHG emissions through area sources; motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the existing land use designation); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, tr eatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the operational assumptions described in Section 3.7.3. The estimated operational emissions of the existing land use designation are presented in Table 3.7-5.
Table 3.7-5. Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions – Existing Land Use Designation
Emission Source
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
Area 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Energy 167.08 0.00 0.00 167.78
Mobile1 3,181.44 0.31 0.19 3,245.70
Waste 84.43 4.99 0.00 209.18
Water 6.47 0.33 0.01 17.10
Total 3,639.77
Amortized construction emissions 14.72
Total with amortized construction emissions 3,654.49
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix B for complete results.
1 Mobile emissions include reductions from EV charging stations.
As shown in Table 3.7-5, estimated annual GHG emissions from the existing land use designation would be approximately 3,640 MT CO2e per year. With amortized construction emissions, the annual operational emissions would be approximately 3,655 MT CO2e per year.
Proposed Project
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in GHG e missions that are primarily associated with use of off -road construction equipment, on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. Table 3.7-6 presents construction emissions for the project from construction-related sources.
Table 3.7-6. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions – Proposed Project Year
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
2023 57.99 0.02 0.00 58.49
2024 549.96 0.06 0.02 558.00
2025 66.17 0.01 0.00 67.14
Total 683.63
Emissions amortized over 30 years 22.79
Source: Appendix B
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-27
As shown in Table 3.7-6, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the project would be approximately 684 MT CO2e. Construction GHG emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 23 MT CO2e per year.
Amortized construction emissions are added to operational emissions to be compared to the City’s threshold.
Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions through area sources; motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water s upply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. The estimated operational emissions of the project are presented in Table 3.7-7.
Table 3.7-7. Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions – Proposed Project Emission Source
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
Area 1.46 <0.01 0.00 1.49
Energy 36.62 <0.01 <0.01 36.77
Mobile1 517.81 0.04 0.03 526.46
Waste 11.26 0.67 0.00 27.91
Water 5.48 0.20 <0.01 12.01
Total 604.64
Amortized construction emissions 22.79
Total with amortized construction emissions 627.43
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.01.
1 Includes reduction from EV chargers as discussed in Section 3.2.3.
As shown in Table 3.7-7, estimated annual GHG emissions from the project would be approximately 605 MT CO2e per year. With amortized construction emissions, the annual operational emissions would be approximately 627 MT CO2e per year.
Using the land use in the Master Geographic Reference Area file obtained from the SANDAG activity -based regional travel demand model, the number of multifamily households and corresponding household population within the City was reviewed. The values for the base year (2016) of the 2021 Regional Plan and the Series 14 land use forecast were used. It was found that the average household size for multifamily households in San Marcos is approximately 3.4 (SANDAG 2022) . Using this household ratio of 3. 4, development of 120 residential dwelling units at the project site would generate approximately 408 people.
As outlined above, the project would result in an estimated 627 MT CO2e per year, including amortized construction GHG emissions. With an estimated service population of 408 persons, the project would result in
1.5 MT CO2e/SP/yr. The project would result in GHG emissions below the City’s significance threshold of
2.1 MT CO2e/SP/yr. Therefore, implementation of the project would be consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP and impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant . In addition, this analysis is based upon the project’s compliance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations as adopted in 2019. However, Title 24 will be updated effective January 2023. The project will be required to comply with the updated Title 24 regulations. These updated regulations likely will lead to a reduction in GHG emissions compared to what was analyzed in the September 2022 Air Quality and GHG Emissions Technical Report (Appendix B).
3.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GRAN VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CITY OF SAN MARCOS 13528 MAY 2023 3.7-28
Threshold No. 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Consistency with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies The proposed project’s consistency with statewide GHG reduction strategies is summarized in detail in Table 3.7-8 through consideration of the project’s various construction and operational components and their relationship to specified laws and regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions from such components .
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Building Components/Facility Operations
Roofs/Ceilings/Insulation CALGreen Code
(Title 24, Part 11)
California Energy Code
(Title 24, Part 6)
The project must comply with efficiency standards
regarding roofing, ceilings, and insulation. For
example: