SP22-0003_Staff Report_Attach B4_Final ISMND — San Marcos City Council, October 24, 2023

ATTACHMENT B4
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
FINAL

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Marcos Specific Plan Project
AUGUST 2023
Prepared for:

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Chris Garcia
Prepared by:

605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Vanessa Scheidel

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

14763 i
AUGUST 2023
Table of Contents

SECTION PAGE
Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................ 2

1.3 Public Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 3 2 Initial Study Checklist........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 14

2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 15

2.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 24

2.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 33

2.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 41

2.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 45

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 49

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 52

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 58

2.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 64

2.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 67

2.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 68

2.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 74

2.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 76

2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 79

2.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 81

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 87

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 90

2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 96

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................... 98 3 References and Preparers .............................................................................................................................. 101

3.1 References Cited ............................................................................................................................... 101

3.2 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 105

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 ii
AUGUST 2023

APPENDICES
A Marcos Specific Plan
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report
C Biological Resources Memorandum
D Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report
E Geotechnical Evaluation
F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
G Noise and Vibration Analysis Technical Report
H-1 Local Transportation Analysis
H-2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Technical Memorandum I Preliminary Drainage Study
J Storm Water Quality Management Plan (West)
K Storm Water Quality Management Plan (East)
L Water and Sewer Study
M Public Comments and Responses to Comments
N Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

FIGURES
1 Project Location .............................................................................................................................................. 107 2 Project Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 109 3 Illustrative Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................ 111 4 Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 113 5a Conceptual Westend Planning Area Landscape Plan ................................................................................... 115 5b Conceptual Eastend Planning Area Landscape Plan .................................................................................... 117 TABLE

2.17-1 Project VMT Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................... 86

14763 iii
AUGUST 2023
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ADT average daily traffic
BMP best management practice
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of San Marcos
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
County County of San Diego
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
dBA A-weighted decibel
DEHQ Department of Environmental Health and Quality
EDCO EDCO Waste and Recycling
EIR environmental impact report
EO Executive Order
ESA environmental site assessment
EV electric vehicle
GHG greenhouse gas
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I Interstate
ips inches per second
IS initial study
kBtu kilo-British thermal unit
kWh kilowatt-hour
Leq energy equivalent level
LOS level of service
LTA Local Transportation Analysis
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MERV minimum efficiency reporting value
MGD million gallons per day
MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
MM Mitigation Measure
MND mitigated negative declaration
MRF Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 iv
AUGUST 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
OHWM ordinary high water mark
PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter PPV peak particle velocity
PV photovoltaic
project Marcos Specific Plan Project
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
sf square foot
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMFD San Marcos Fire Department
SMP soil management plan
SMUSD San Marcos Unified School District
SOx sulfur oxide
SR State Route
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCA Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TIAG Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VWD Vallecitos Water District
WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan

14763 1
AUGUST 2023
1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview
The proposed Marcos Specific Plan Project (project) includes a request for approval of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development P lan, Multi-Family Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Tentative Parcel Map for a residential mixed-use development project within the

12.06-acre Specific Plan Area . The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Marcos Specific Plan (Appendix A) has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a multi-land use development. 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 project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive in the City of San Marcos (City) (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-152-42, 219-152-44, 219-152-45, 219-152-51, 219-152-61, 219-152-70, 219-152-74, 219-152-75, 219-152-76, 219-152-77, 219-152-78, and 219 -152-79). Please refer to Figure 1, Project Location, and Figure 2, Project Site. The existing project site has been previously disturbed and developed.

Previous structures on-site have been demolished, and the site currently is vacant with remaining paved areas, billboards, and the bridge crossing over Las Posas Creek. Channel improvement work associated with the segment of Las Posas Creek that runs through the project site, and the associated bridge over the channel, was previously permitted by the City, and the channel is currently subject to restoration maintenanc e activities following channel improvements within the permitted conservation easement area. The project site is located in an urban area of the City surrounded by commercial and industrial uses to the north, east, and west, as well as undeveloped land to the south. The project site is located just south of State Route (SR) 78.

The project consists of construction of 102 multifamily residential units on 5.03 acres of the project site , and construction of 7,658 square feet (sf) of office space, 49,266 sf of specialty retail space and 7 live-work units on

6.05 acres of the project site (Figure 3, Illustrative Site Plan; Figure 4, Conceptual Site Plan). Residential units would be contained within 15 townhome buildings, and units would be a mix of six different unit types, ranging in size from two to three bedrooms. Additionally, the residential area would include a pool building, p ool and spa area, barbeque area, picnic area, and play area for residents. The residential buildings would be located on the northwestern portion of the site , and commercial uses would be placed along the southern and eastern project boundaries. Access to the residential area would be provided via Grand Avenue at a northern driveway, and access to the commercial area would be via Grand Avenue at a southern driveway and two driveways along Linda Vista Drive. The project would provide 204 garage parking spaces for residences, 34 residential guest parking spaces, and 278 commercial parking spaces. The project would install 1 level electric vehicle (EV) charger in each garage and 2 EV chargers in the guest parking area , totaling in 106 EV charging stations . Additionally, the commercial component of the project would include 6,200 sf of solar.

The project would also include circulation improvements, such as construction of a landscape buffer and a Class I bike path with a separate pedestrian path adjacent to it at its project frontage along the segments of Linda Vista Drive and Grand Avenue, installation of stop signs, and reconstruction of curb ramps loca ted along project driveways, including detectable surface warning tactiles (yellow truncated domes).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 2
AUGUST 2023

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The City is the lead California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) agency responsible for the review and approval of the proposed project. Based on the findings of the initial study (IS), the City has made the determination that a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is the appropriate environmental document to be prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). As stated in CEQA Section 21064 .5, an MND may be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when an IS has identified no potentially significant effects on the environment.

This draft IS/MND has been prepared by the City as lead agency and is in conformance with Section 15070(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). The purpose of the MND and the IS Checklist is to determine any potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed proj ect and to incorporate mitigation measures into the project design, as necessary, to reduce or eliminate the significant or potentially significant effects of the project.

1.3 Public Review Process
In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this IS/MND to contact affected agencies, organizations, and persons who may have an interest in this project.

In reviewing the IS/MND, affected public agencies and the interested public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the project’s possible impacts on the environment. The Draft IS/MND and related documents are available for review on City’s website (https://www.san -marcos.net/departments/development- services/planning/environmental-review-sustainability/environmental-documents).

Comments on the IS/MND may be made in writing before the end of the public review period. Following the close of the public comment period, the City will consider this IS/MND and comments thereto in determining whether to approve the proposed project.

Written comments on the IS/MND should be sent to the following address by August 14, 2023.

City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Chris Garcia
Email: [email protected]
The Draft MND was circulated for public review from July 14, 2023, through August 14, 2023, in accordance with Section 15105(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A total of two (2) written comment letters were r eceived on the Draft MND from agencies and organizations, including Caltrans and the San Diego County Archaeological Society. Each of the written comment letters have been responded to in a formal Response to Comments document, included as Appendix M to th is Final IS/MND. The final version of this IS/MND contains minor revisions to the text, specific to the Final IS/MND process. No text changes were made in response to the comments received as part of the public review period of the Draft MND. All revisions to this Final MND have been made in tracking mode (strikeout/underline), so that the original and revised text may be compared.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 3
AUGUST 2023

1.4 Initial Study Checklist
Dudek, under the City’s guidance, prepared the project’s Environmental Checklist (i.e., IS ) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063–15065. The CEQA Guidelines include a suggested checklist to indicate whether a project would have an adverse impact on the environment. The checklist is found in Section 2 of this document. Following the Environmental Checklist, Sections 2.1 through 2.21 include an explanation and discussion of each significance determination made in the checklist for the project.

For this IS/MND, the following four possible responses to each individual environmental issue area are included in the checklist:

Potentially Significant Impact
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact
No Impact
The checklist and accompanying explanation of checklist responses provide the information and analysis necessary to assess relative environmental impacts of the project. In doing so, the City will determine the extent of additional environmental review, if any, for the project.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 4
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

14763 5
AUGUST 2023
2 Initial Study Checklist

1. Project title:

Marcos Specific Plan Project

2. Lead agency name and address:

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

3. Contact person and phone number:

Chris Garcia, Senior Planner
760.744.1050, ext. 3237

4. Project location:

The project site is located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive in the City (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-152-42, 219-152-44, 219-152-45, 219-152-51, 219-152-61, 219-152-70, 219-152-74, 219-152-75, 219-152-76, 219-152-77, 219-152-78, 219-152-79). Please refer to Figures 1 and 2.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

AOA San Marcos LLC
709 Randolph Avenue
Costa Mesa, California 92629

6. General plan designation:

The existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Commercial (C). The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designation to Specific Plan Area (SPA).

7. Zoning:

The existing zoning for the project site is Commercial (C). The project proposes a Rezone to change the existing zoning to Specific Plan Area (SPA).

8. Description of project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary):

The proposed Marcos Specific Plan Area consists of 12.0 6 acres, which is separated into three distinct Planning Areas divided by the Las Posas Creek Planning Area, which is a 0.98-acre city-owned parcel within a Conservation Easement included in the Specific Plan Area. The East-End Planning Area (6.05 acres) and

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 6
AUGUST 2023
the West-End Planning Area (5.03 acres) make up the other two Planning Areas within the Specific Plan Area, and make up a combined 11. 07 acres of proposed development area. The 6.05-acre East-End Planning Area is located on the east portion of the Specific Plan Area and is considered an innovative arts- focused commercial, live-work, makerspace, and retail development area. This portion of the project would include 7 live-work units, 7,658 sf of office space, and 49,266 sf of specialty retail space.

The West-End Planning Area is approximately 5.03 acres and is located on the west portion of the Specific Plan Area and would include a multifamily land use of approximately 20.3 dwelling units per ac re. This portion of the Planning Area includes 102 multifamily dwelling units in 15 separate buildings ranging in composition from 4 units per building to 10 units per building. Floor plans within each building would consist of stacked flat, townhomes and carriage-style unit plans. All floor plans would have two-car direct access garages with 24 units providing tandem parking to maximi ze the site. A total of 34 guest parking spaces would be distributed throughout the site for the convenience of the residents. As part of this portion of the Planning Area, there would be approximately 80,767-sf of common open space area including recreational amenities such as a pool, BBQ area, walking path adjacent to Las Posas Creek, and other amenities spread throughout the Planning Area. Individual units would have the benefit of private open space ranging from 95-sf to 255-sf with a total of 14,899-sf of private open space provided throughout the West-End Planning Area dwelling units. Bui ldings would be oriented to increase open space with paseos serving as interior courtyards as well as facing Las Posas Creek to take advantage of the vegetation along the creek (Figures 3 and 4).

The project proposes contemporary and modern architectural and landscape styles to reflect the urban setting. The Planning Areas would be designed to engage users and residents via an interconnected series of landscaped spaces and walkways within each respective Planning Area. In conformance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, a variety of trees, shrubs, plants, and land covers would be planted in the landscaped areas proposed throughout the project site. Refer to Figures 5a and 5b for the conceptual landscaping plans. A bridge currently spans the restored creek, which would link the proposed retail, commercial, and residential Planning Areas as well as provide pedestrian and emergency vehicle access. There is no development proposed within the creek, which would remain protected by a conservation easement.

Access to the residential area would be provided via Grand Avenue at a northern driveway, and access to the commercial area would be via Grand Avenue at a southern driveway and two driveways along Linda Vista Drive. The project would provide 204 garage parking spaces for residences, 34 residential guest parking spaces, and 278 commercial parking sp aces. The project would also install 1 level EV charger in each garage, and 2 EV chargers in the guest parking area, totaling in 106 EV charging stations. The project would also include circulation improvements, such as construction of a landscape buffer and a Class I bike path with a separate pedestrian path adjacent to it at its project frontage along the segments of Linda Vista Drive and Grand Avenue, installation of stop signs, and reconstruction of curb ramps located along project driveways, including detectable surface warning tactiles (yellow truncated domes).

The proposed project includes a request for approval of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Site Development Plan, Multi-Family Site Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Tentative Parcel Map. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Marcos Specific Plan (Appendix A) has been prepared with the in tent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 7
AUGUST 2023
development of a multi-land use development. 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.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project’s surroundings:

The existing project site has been previously disturbed, developed, and demolished, and is currently vacant with remaining paved pad areas and billboards. The project site is located in an urban area of the City surrounded by developed areas, including commercial and industrial uses to the north, east, and west, as well as undeveloped land to the south.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):

Permits were previously obtained for the creek restoration, channel widening and associated site improvements back in 2010/2011, including Section 401 Water Quality Certi fication from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), an Operation of Law Letter for a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and a stacked Nationwide Permit 14, 27, and 33 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The project would also include Department of Environmental Health and Quality ( DEHQ) review, which is further detailed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials . The project would not include any develo pment within the creek area/conservation easement, and no additional agency permits are anticipated for the proposed project.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Yes, 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. Additional details are provided in Section 2.18, Tribal Cultural Resources.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 8
AUGUST 2023
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

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

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 9
AUGUST 2023
Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature

Date

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 10
AUGUST 2023
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

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

Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. “Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.

Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measur es. For effects that are “Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

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

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

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

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

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 11
AUGUST 2023

2.1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?

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

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less-than-Significant Impact. A scenic vista is typically defined as a public view of highly valued visual and scenic resources such as the ocean and distant mountain ranges, particularly from public vantage points. As discussed in the General Plan environmental impact report( EIR), hillside and ridgeline areas visible throughout the City, as viewed from the SR-78 corridor and other locations such as parks and scenic roads, are considered valuable. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is SR-78. SR-78 is a designated state scenic highway from the west boundary of the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park to the east boundary of the State Park. SR-78 is located approximately 0.03 miles north of the project site; however, the portion designated as a state scenic high way begins approximately 41 miles east of the project site.

The project site is located approximately 2 5 miles west of the closest portion of SR -78 identified as an eligible state scenic highway. The City’s General Plan does not identify any designated sce nic 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 west 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, and the project site’s location on a currently developed 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. Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 12
AUGUST 2023
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less-than-Significant Impact. Scenic highways and routes are a unique component of the circulation system, as they traverse areas of unusual scenic or aesthetic value. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Interstate (I) 5. I-5 is located approximately 8 miles west of the project site and is not visible due to distance. SR-78 is located approximately 100 feet north of the project site. However, the section of SR- 78 proximate to the project site is not identified as a Scenic Highway per the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) State Scenic Highways Program. Additionally, a portion of SR-78 is also identified as an eligible state scenic highway; however, this eligible segment begins approximately 25 miles east of the project site in Santa Ysabel.

Although the project site is not located within a viewshed of a state scenic highway, the City has designated SR-78 as a view corridor to surrounding ridgelines (City of San Marcos 2012 a). The project site is visible from SR-78; however, even with development of the proposed project, views of the surrounding hillsides and ridgelines are not expected to be substantially obstructed from SR-78 due to the flat nature of the site and similar surrounding development. Therefore, impacts associated with state scenic highways would be less than significant.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Publ ic 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 Impact. Section 21071 of the California Public Resources Code (i.e., CEQA) 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.” Therefore, the City is located within an urbanized area as defined by CEQA.

To ensure that both current and future development within the City is designed and constructed to conform to existing visual character and quality of the surrounding built environment, the City’s Municipal Code includes design standards, specific to each Zoning District, related to building height, parking, landscaping requirements, and other visual considerations. The purpose is to regulate and restrict the uses of buildings and structures, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. The project would be subject to design review by the City and would be required to meet the City’s conditions of approval, which will ensure that proposed structures and landscaping would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project consistent with the development standards in the City’s Municipal Code, as required by the City’s conditions of approval and as reviewed as part of the plan check process, would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings or result in significant visual impacts.

Additionally, development of the project would be consistent with surrounding development and would not degrade the existing visual character of the project site and its surroundings. The visual character of the site would be altered by the proposed project, as it would change the existing demolished and vacant site into a mixed-use residential development. While the proposed project would change the existing visual character on the site, it is not characterized as substantial degradation since few public vantage points of the project site exist

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 13
AUGUST 2023
and the site is surrounded by adjacent development, including commercial and industrial uses to the north, east, and west, as well as undeveloped land to the south in a highly urbanized area of the City. Although the proposed mixed-use residential uses would differ in land use designation and visual character in comparison to the previous commercial development on-site, the proposed mixed-use residential development would conform to the existing urbanized character of the surrounding area and would not substantially change the views from any public viewpoint. With City approval of the proposed land use and zoning change from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA), the proposed project would be required to comply with design standards of the approved Specific Plan for the project site. With approval of the proposed Specific Plan for the project site, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Lighting in the project vicinity is associated with roadway lighting and lighting associated 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, commercial uses, landscaping lighting, security lighting, and internal circulation and pedestrian lighting.

Although more light sources are anticipated from the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions, the increase in lighting is not expected to be substantial, seeing as the site was previously developed with commercial uses and is surrounded by lighting associated with adjacent development and roadways.

Additionally, all lighting associated with the project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards. Although the proposed project would result in new sources of light in the area, the project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing development with existing sources of day and nighttime lighting. The use of energy-efficient, architecturally appropriate fixtures created to alleviate glare, conflict, and light pollution would be incorporated to minimize and restrict nighttime light pollution and light trespass on adjacent properties in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and the proposed Marcos Specific Plan design and development standards.

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 the City’s 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. The 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, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 14
AUGUST 2023

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDC 2016). As a result, the prop osed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agricultural uses.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 15
AUGUST 2023
No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, nor Farmland of Statewide Importance exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The proposed project would not result in substantial changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use. The proposed project site is surrounded entirely by developed land, with the exception of one vacant lot adjacent to the southeastern portion of the site. This vacant lot is designated as “Urban and Built -Up Land” by the CDC FMMP. Surrounding development adjacent to the project site include industrial, mixed -use, and commercial uses. Given the extent of development surrounding the proposed project site, and considering the site was previously developed, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of any existing farmland, and no impact would occur. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use or designated as land under the Williamson Act, nor is the project site zoned for forest land or timberland production (CDC 2016). As stated in response to Threshold a) above, the project site has been previously disturbed and developed. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. No impact would occur regarding conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or forest land. c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact. Please see response to Threshold 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) above. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Please see response to Threshold 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) above. e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Please see response to Threshold 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) above.

2.3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY – Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 16
AUGUST 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report was prepared for the proposed project in December 2022 and is included as Appendix B to this IS/MND. Findings from Appendix B are summarized throughout this analysis.
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District ( SDAPCD) is responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the basin—specifically, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS).1 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for developing forecasts and data that are used by SDAPCD in preparing the SIP and RAQS. In November 2020, SDAPCD adopted the Air Quality Management Plan for attaining the federal 8-hour 75 parts per billion and 70 parts per billion ozone (O3) standards (2020 Attainment Plan), which is the air basin’s input to the SIP and required to demonstrate how SDACPD proposes to attain the federal O3 standards. The plan anticipates attainment of the 2008 and 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) standards by 2026 and 2032, respectively. The 2020 Attainment Plan includes planning requirements for attaining the O3 NAAQS including on-road motor vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity, a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) offset demonstration, Reasonably Available Control Measures, Reasonable Further Progress, an Attainment Demonstration, and contingency measures in the event of a failure to meet a milestone or to attain by the predicted attainment date (SDAPCD 2020). The SIP and RAQS rely on information from California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions as well as information regarding projected growth in the County of San Diego (County) as a whole and the cities in the County, to project future emissions and determine 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 the development of their General Plans.

1 For this discussion, the relevant federal air quality plan is 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (SDAPCD 2020). The RAQS is the applicable plan for purposes of State air quality planning. Both plans reflect growth projections in the basin .

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 17
AUGUST 2023
While SDAPCD and the City do not provide guidance regarding the analysis of impacts associated with air quality plan conformance, the County’s Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality does discuss conformance with the RAQS (County of San Diego 2007).

The guidance indicates that, if the project, in conjunction with other projects, contributes t o growth projections that would not exceed SANDAG’s growth projections for the City, the project would not be in conflict with the RAQS (County of San Diego 2007). If a project includes development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality.

The project site is designated as Commercial (C) in the City’s General Plan and is zoned Comm ercial (C).

The project proposes to redesignate the site to Specific Plan Area (SPA) and create a mixed -use development. The project would add a total of 102 townhomes and 7 live/work units along with specialty retail/commercial/office uses. The City’s Commercial designation and zoning allows for a several permitted uses. A mixture of commercial retail and office was selected to reflect potential development on the project site. Based on the City’s development code, the Commercial designation would allow fo r greater development intensity based on generation of more vehicle trips and VMT as shown in Table 9 (Development Intensity Comparison) of the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report (Appendix B to this EIR). As such, the project would result in less criteria air pollutant emissions, and thus less intensive uses, than development allowed under the existing Commercial designation.

SANDAG produces a Regional Growth Forecast, which is important for developing regional plans and strategies mandated by federal and state governments such as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the Program EIR for the RTP/SCS, the Air Quality Management Plan, the Federal Transportation Improvement Program, and the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. The most recent RTP/SCS was adopted in December 2021 with a planning horizon of 2016 through 2050. The growth forecasts are appended to the RTP/SCS. Appendix F of the 2021 Regional Plan describes the trends in population, housing, and employment. The San Diego region is expected to grow by nearly 437,000 people and the growth in population will add about 440,000 jobs and more than 280,000 housing units (SANDAG 2021).

The forecast process includes two main phases. The first phase of the forecast is produced using California Department of Finance population projections and rates developed by SANDAG based on historic economic and demographic trends. The size and makeup of the working age population in the region and high labor force participa tion is used to project future job growth. The projected higher values in working age population, coupled with older residents staying in the labor force longer results in more jobs in the region by the end of the forecast period. Housing units and househo lds in the region were forecasted based on rates developed from historical data as well as assumptions of housing unit development and household formation in the future. The second phase of the forecast allocates the forecasted growth down to the jurisdictions and smaller geographical areas. The subregional forecast distributes growth based on a variety of factors, including available capacity for housing and accessibility to jobs and transportation. SANDAG works with the region’s 18 cities, the County, and other agencies that manage land use to understand local land use plans, such as general plans, community plans, and specific plans, as well as constraints to development and already permitted projects to develop the subregional projections for housing and employment. Table 10 in Appendix B shows the population, housing units, and employment projections for the City and the San Diego region for the 2021 Regional Plan.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 18
AUGUST 2023
As shown in Table 10 of Appendix B, the project is expected to add 329 residents in 109 dwelling units and 115 employment opportunities. The added residents would represent approximately 1.2% of the anticipated population growth, 1% of the housing growth, and 0.6% of the employment growth over the RTP/SCS planning horizon. Based on the above in formation, the increase in population and employment would be well within the growth projections.

Per CEQA Guideline Section 15206(b), the project would not be considered regionally significant because it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, or population projections within the San Diego region, which are the basis of the RAQS projections. As such, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Furthermore, the project would not result in substantial construction or operational emissions that would conflict with the local Air Quality plan, which is discussed further in Section 2.3(b). Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with the RAQS or SIP and proposed development would be consistent with the growth in the region , resulting in less-than- significant impacts.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less-than-Significant Impact. Past, present, and future development projects may contribute to the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SD APCD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project -level Thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are used in the determination of whether a project’s individual emiss ions would have a cumulatively considerable contribution on air quality. If a project’s emissions would exceed the applied significance Thresholds, it would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Conversely, projects that do not exceed the project-specific Thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.

Construction and operation of the project would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants, which may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions of cr iteria air pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment under the NAAQS or the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3, particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The following discussion quantitatively evaluates potential short- term construction and long-term operational impacts that would result from implementation of the project.

Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on -site sources (i.e., off -road c onstruction equipment, soil disturbance, and volatile organic compound ( VOC) off-gassing from architectural coatings and asphalt pavement application) and off -site sources (i.e., on -road haul trucks, delivery trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type 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.

Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with construction activity were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Construction emissions were calculated for the estimated worst - case day over the construction period associated with each phase and reported as the maximum daily

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 19
AUGUST 2023
emissions estimated during each year of construction (2024–2025). Construction schedule assumptions, including phase type, duration, and sequencing, were based on information provided by the applicant or CalEEMod defaults and are intended to represent a reasonable scenario based on the best information available. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions would primarily result from the use of construction equipment and motor vehicles.

Fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions would primarily result from grading and site preparation activities.

The project would be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control. This rule requires that the project take steps to restrict visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line. Compliance with Rule 55 would limit fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) generated during grading and construction activities. To account for dust control measures in the calculations, it was assumed that the project would ensure that active sites be watered at least two times daily. The application of architectural c oatings, such as exterior application/interior paint and other finishes would produce VOC emissions. The contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of SDAPCD’s Rule 67.7, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt, which would limit VOC emissions from asphalt off-gassing.

Table 11 in Appendix B presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the project. As shown in Table 11 of Appendix B , maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the significa nce Thresholds for VOC, NO x, CO, sulfur oxide (SOx), PM10, or PM 2.5 during construction; and short-term construction air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Operation of the project would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicular traffic generated by residents, employees, customers, and visitors; energy sources from natural gas usage; area sources, including the use of landscaping equipment, consumer products, natural gas hearths, and from arc hitectural coatings. Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod using a combination of project-specific information and CalEEMod default values.

Table 12 in Appendix B presents the maximum area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with project operation (year 2026) in summer. Table 13 in Appendix B presents the maximum area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with project operation (year 2026) in winter. As shown in Table s 12 and 13 of Appendix B , maximum daily operational emissions from the project would not exceed the significance Thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5; long-term air quality impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Appendix B, the SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O 3 and a state nonattainment area for O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from various sources of air pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB, including motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and commercial and industrial facilities. Construction and operation of the project would generate VOC and NOx emissions (which are precursors to O3) and emissions of PM10 and PM2.5. However, as indicated in Tables 11, 12, and 13 of Appendix B, project-generated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the emission-based significance Thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5.

Cumulative localized impacts would potentially occur if a construction project were to occur concurrently with another off-site project. Construction schedules for potential future projects near the project area are currently unknown; therefore, potential construction impacts associated with two or more simultaneous projects would be considered speculative. However, future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require air quality analysis and, where necessary, mitigation if the project would exceed applied Thresholds. Criteria air pollutant

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 20
AUGUST 2023
emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by SDAPCD. For example, cumulative PM10 and PM2.5 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 SDAB. In addition, cumulative VOC emissions would be subject to SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 (Architectural Coatings).

Based on the project-generated construction and operational emissions of CO, SOx, VOC, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions of nonattainment pollutants.

Therefore, the project’s cumulative air quality impact would be less than significant. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less-than-Significant Impact. Notably, in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District case decided in 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might impact a project’s occupants, except where the project would significantly exacerbate an existing environmental condition. Accordingly, the significance criteria above related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations is relevant only to the extent that the project exacerbates existing air quality conditions.

Air quality varies as a direct function of the quantity of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems arise when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health 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, athletes, 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 centers, athletic facilities, long -term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The nearest existing sensitive receptors are the Little People Preschool and Daycare located 707 feet south of the project’s southern boundary. Other sensitive receptors include Mission Sports Park located 1,760 feet northeast of the project’s northeastern boundary, multifamil y residential uses located 2,020 feet southeast of the project’s southern boundary and Bradley Park located 3,400 feet west of the project’s western boundary.

Mobile source impacts occur on two scales of motion. Regionally, project-related travel would add to regional trip generation and increase the VMT within the local airshed and the SDAB. Locally, project generated traffic would be added to the roadway system near the project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is composed of many vehicles “cold -started” and op erating at pollution-inefficient speeds and is operating on roadways already crowded with non-project traffic, there is a potential for the formation of microscale CO hotspots in the area immediately around points of congested 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 hotspots in the SDAB is steadily decreasing.

CO transport is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the sou rce. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy levels, affecting sensitive receptors such as residents, school children, hospital patients,

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 21
AUGUST 2023
and the elderly. Typi cally, high CO concentrations are associated with urban roadways or intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS). Projects contributing to adverse traffic impacts may result in the formation of CO hotspots.

To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standards, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hotspots was conducted using the County screening threshold of 3,000 peak trips (County of San Diego 2007). Based on the Transportation Impact A nalysis prepared for the project (Appendix H), there would be approximately 126 trips during the AM peak-hour and 189 trips during the PM peak-hour, which would be minimal in comparison to the screening Threshold of 3,000 peak trips.

Therefore, the project would not result in a CO hotspot and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

As determined in Section 2.3(b) of this report, project construction and operation would not exceed significance Thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of VOCs and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the SDAB due to O 3 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 CAAQS/NAAQS 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 reliable and meaningful quantitative methods to assess this impact. T he project would not exceed the significance Thresholds for VOC or NO x; ther efore, implementation of the project would contribute minimally to regional O 3 concentrations and the associated health effects.

In addition to O3, NOx emissions contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for nitrogen dioxide ( NO2) (since NO2 is a constituent of NO x). Health effects that result from NO 2 and NO x include respiratory irritation, which could be experienced by nearby receptors during the periods of heaviest use of off-road construction equipment. However, project construction would be relatively short term, and 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. In addition, as shown in Table 4 of Appendix B, CARB air quality monitoring shows existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards.

Because project generated NOx emissions would not exceed the significance Threshold, the project would not result in potential health effects associated with NO2 and NOx.

CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The associated potential for CO hotspots were discussed previously and were determined to be a less-than-significant impact. Furthermore, as shown in Table 4 of Appendix B, CARB air quality monitoring shows the existing CO concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with this pollutant.

Construction and operation of the project would also not exceed Thresholds for PM10 or PM2.5 and would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter or would obstruct the SDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Additionally, the project would implement dust control strategies and be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. Due to the minimal contribution of particulate matter during construction and operation, the project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with PM10 or PM2.5.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 22
AUGUST 2023
In summary, the project would not result in any potentially significant contribution to local or regional concentrations of nonattainment pollutants and would not result in a significant contribution to the adverse health impacts associated with those pollutants. Impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, there are numerous scientific and technological complexities associated with correlating criteria air pollutant emissions from an individual project to specific health effects or potential additional nonattainment days, and there are currently no modeling tools that could provide reliable and meaningful additional information regarding health effects from criteria air pollutants generated by individual projects.

In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants.

State law has established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control program, wh ich is generally more stringent than the federal program and aimed at TACs that are a problem in California. The state 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 greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be diesel particulate emissions from heavy 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 matter 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 reduc e diesel particulate matter 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. I dling 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.

Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. SDAPCD recommends an incremental cancer risk Threshold of 10 in a million (SDAPCD 2015). “Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period will contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015).

As outlined in Appendix B, m aximum daily PM10 or PM2.5 emissions generated by construction equipment operation and haul-truck trips during construction, which is based on exhaust and fugitive dust generated by equipment operation and vehicle travel, would be well below the significance Thresholds. Moreover, total construction of the project would last approximately 15 months, after which project-construction TAC emissions would cease. Thus, the duration of the proposed construction activities would only constitute a small percentage of the total 30-year residential exposure period recommended by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment . Concentrations of mobile -source diesel particulate matter emissions are typically reduced by 70% at a distance of approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). The nearest exi sting sensitive receptors are multifamily residential uses located 2,020 feet southeast of the project site.

Therefore, construction would take place substantially farther than 500 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors. Due to the temporary nature of c onstruction activities and the dispersive properties of diesel particulate matter, the nearest residential receptors would not be impacted regarding construction health risks. Regarding long-term TAC emissions, the project would result in a minimal increase in daily truck traffic on the roadway network and would not require stationary sources (such as diesel emergency generators).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 23
AUGUST 2023
Therefore, the exposure of project-related TAC emission impacts to proximate sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

The project itself would create sensitive receptors in the form of the new residences. The CARB identified sources of air pollution that are of primary concern to the siting of new sensitive receptors. Those sources include freeways, high traffic roadways, distribution centers, large stationary sources, etc. (CARB 2005). As a mixed-use development, the project would not be a source of TACs. The project is located near SR-78, which is a source of air pollution; however, the project would not exacerbate the surrounding existing conditions. As such, an evaluation of the environment’s impact on the project is not required pursuant to CEQA. It should be noted that the Title 24 standards recognizing that indoor air pollution primarily from PM concentrations is a concern for development in California and have required the use of minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) 13 filters.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers reported that MERV 13 filters remove 90% of particles ranging from 1 to 3 microns, and less than 75% for particles ranging from 0.3 to 1 microns (ASHRAE 2019). The use of MERV 13 filters is a recognized best practice to reduce exposure to local air pollution (BAAQMD 2016).

In con clusion, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts are determined to be less than significant. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely af fecting a substantial number of people?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the project would result in various emissions; however, criteria air pollutants, fugitive dust, and TACs are addressed under Sections 2.3( b) and 2.3(c) above. As such, this impact analysis is focused on the potential for an odor impact to occur. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

Odors would be generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, an d asphalt pavement application. 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 considered 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. The project does not propose and would not engage in any of these activities or other potential activities that would generate operational odors. The project entails residential and commercial uses and would not create any new sources of substantial odors during operation. Therefore, impacts related to odors are determined to be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 24
AUGUST 2023

2.4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?

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

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

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

A Biological Resources Memorandum was prepared for the proposed project in December 2022 and revised in March 2023 and is included as Appendix C to this IS/MND. Findings from Appendix C are summarized throughout this analysis. For the purpose of the analysis herein, the biological study area (study area) covers the approximately 11.07-acre project site, plus an additional 0.99-acre portion of Linda Vista Drive. The 12.06-acre study area boundary was determined using the boundaries of all involved parcels for the proposed project.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 25
AUGUST 2023
a) Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Until buildings and infrastructure were demolished and removed from the study area in recent years, the majority of the study area was developed with the exception of biological resources associated with the Las Posas Creek. All structures were removed from the study area by 2018 ; however, large areas of pavement remain. Furthermore, prior to c hannel improvement and restoration work, when the site was almost entirely developed, the channel bisecting the study area was narrow and supported a much lower level of biodiversity than it supports currently (Appendix C). Outside of the channel area, the study area is a mosaic of urban/developed and disturbed habitat which supports limited vegetation. The study area, in general, is relatively flat with little topographic variation aside from the channel. The majority of sensitive vegetation communities mapped within the study area are encompassed within the Conservation Area, or immediately adjacent to it in areas that would not be directly impacted as a result of the proposed project. The Conservation Area is to remain under the City’s jurisdiction and is subject maintenance and monitoring per the terms of the associated Long Term Management Plan (Dudek 2018). As stated in the Long Term Management Plan , USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW have jurisdiction over the wetlands associated with the channel area, and the nec essary permits were obtained for the channel improvement project impacts.

Special -Status Plants
Six vegetation communities/land covers were identified in the biological study area including disturbed habitat (3.26 acres); disturbed wetland (0.03 acre s); urban/developed (7.9 8 acres); coastal and valley freshwater marsh (0.33 acre s); herbaceous wetland/so uthern willow scrub (0.42 acre s); and disturbed southern riparian woodland (0.04 acre s). These vegetation communities/land covers are outlined in Table 1 of Appendix C.

A total of 60 species of native or naturalized plants, 30 native (5 0%) and 30 non-native ( 50%), were recorded in the study area during the site visit. The majority of native plant cover occurs within the Conservation Area within and surrounding the channel. However, some native species occur scattered throughout the disturbed and developed areas, occupying a low cover overall in those areas.

Two plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) were observed during the survey: San Diego sagewort (CRPR 4.2), and San Diego marsh -elder (Iva hayesiana; CRPR 2B.2). Plant species with a CRPR of 4 (i.e., San Diego sagewort) are considered limited distribution or watchlist species and less sensitive/rare than plant species with a CRPR of 1 through 3 (CNPS 2022). San Diego sagewort currently has a tentative global ranking of G3, which correspond s to a moderate extinction risk “due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors” (Appendix C).

These plant species are located primarily within in the existing Conserv ation Area associated with the channel, and were planted as part of the channel restoration work. No special -status plant species were observed during a previous biological reconnaissance survey of the channel area conducted by Dudek in December of 2008, prior to channel restoration work in the area. San Diego marsh elder is located within the Conservation Area adjacent to the channel. While the majority of San Diego sagewort present in the study area is located within the existing Conservation Area, some San Diego sagewort is located outside of

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 26
AUGUST 2023
the Conservation Area, immediately to the southwest of the existing bridge near a storm drain, and within the small biofiltration basin to the east of the bridge on the northern side of the channel.

Based on histori c aerials and geotechnical investigations, the study area was graded and developed between 1964 and 1987 to its current configuration, and was previously almost entirely developed with pavement, buildings, and roads with the exception of the channel. Fill soil material is located over older alluvium throughout the proposed project area to a depth of 4 feet below surface. Undocumented fill was likely deposited throughout the entire project area as described in the geotechnical report (Geotek 2021).

Due to th e disturbed, previously developed context of the study area supporting little to no appropriate habitat and suitable substrate, no special-status plant species other than those which were planted during channel restoration are expected to occur within the study area, and thus focused rare plant surveys are not necessary. Additionally, the study area does not support vernal pools and therefore is not expected to support special-status plant species associated with vernal pools.

In summary, special-status plants observed in the study area during the site visit with a CRPR of 1 or 2 (San Diego marsh elder) are located entirely within the Conservation Area and would not be impacted by the proposed project. Plant species with a CRPR of 4 (i.e., San Diego sagewort) are considered limited distribution or watchlist species and less sensitive/rare than plant species with a CRPR of 1 through 3 (Appendix C). Some San Diego sagewort, a species which was not observed in the study area in 2008 but was planted during restoration activities (Dudek 2009 , 2011), is located adjacent to, but outside of, the Conservation Area near a storm drain and within a small biofiltration basin and may be impacted by the proposed project. Since the Conservati on Area would not be impacted, the proposed project would not result in direct impacts to plant species with a CRPR of 1 or 2, and therefore direct impacts to special-status plants would be less than significant.

Due to the disturbed, previously developed context of the study area outside of the channel area supporting little to no appropriate habitat and suitable substrate, no special -status plant species other than those which were planted during channel restoration are expected to occur within the study area. Potential short- term indirect impacts to special-status plants associated with dust and erosion, and potential short - and long-term indirect impacts associated with increased human presence, and would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-1. All proposed mitigation measures are outlined at the end of this section.

Special -Status Wildlife
A total of 12 wildlife species were observed during the site visit, including 10 bird species, one mammal (California ground squirrel [Otospermophilus beecheyi]), and one reptile (western fence lizard [Sceloporus occidentalis]). All wildlife species observed in the study area are relatively common, widely distributed, and adapted to living in close proximity to urban development.

While focused wildlife surveys were not conducted, no special-status wildlife species were observed during the 2022 reconnaissance survey. Due to the disturbed, previously developed context of the study area , which is situated in a highly urbanized area, and the relatively limited extent of native habitat present, there is a low potential for special -status wildlife species to occur in the study area, especially outside of the Conservation Area which will not be impacted as a result of the proposed project. Outside of the Conservation Area, the study area has limited potential to support nesting birds during the avian breeding season due to the disturbed nature of the majority of the area, lack of substantial vegetative cover, and

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 27
AUGUST 2023
surrounding development. Nesting in the study area would likely be limited to small, common bird species which are tolerant of disturbance from adjacent development and traffic. Vegetation within and adjacent to the channel provides denser cover for wildlife and primarily has the pot ential to support nesting of common, small riparian bird species such as common yellowthroat ( Geothlypis trichas), while disturbed and urban/developed open areas could support common species such as mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura) which sometimes nest on the ground. Mature willows ( Salix sp.) located in the disturbed southern riparian woodland and tall eucalyptus trees ( Eucalyptus sp.) located mostly adjacent to the western side of the study area have the potential to support nesting of common bird species in addition to raptors that are adapted to urban environments, such as Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii).

Some scattered small mammal burrows, California ground squirrel and/or rabbit burrows are present in the study area where pavement isn’t present. Due to the highly disturbed condition of the study area and the fact that a large amount of the area is paved and was historically almost entirely developed, the level of habitat suitability for special -status wildlife species such as burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is low, and there is a low potential for the study area to support special-status small mammals. No burrowing owl sign was observed within the study area during the survey.

The study area is not expected to support special -status listed ripar ian birds such as least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus ) or southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) because the riparian areas on site are too small and isolated to support these species. The area of the channel east of the bridge is not expected to support special -status riparian birds since it is comprised mostly of cattails in the channel with scatt ered small willows. West of the existing bridge, there is a denser cover of riparian vegetation including willows in the channel area, but the potential for the habitat to support least Bell’s vireo is still low due to the urbanized status of the surroundi ng area and the relatively narrow and limited amount of mature native habitat present in the study area. Southwestern willow flycatcher occurrences are increasingly rare in southern California and would be expected in wider and more extensive riparian habitat than is present in and adjacent to the study area. Additionally, the study area does not support vernal pools and therefore is not expected to support special -status wildlife species associated with vernal pools, such as listed large branchiopods.

According to the California Natural Diversity Database, two special-status wildlife occurrences with 1 mile accuracy overlap the study area: American badger (Taxidea taxus) from an unknown year and Townsend’s big-eared bat from 1930 (Corynorhinus townsendii) (Appendix C). The study area does not contain suitable roosting or foraging habitat for Townsend’s big -eared bat, and American badger is not expected to occur due to the disturbed and urbanized context of the study area. No designated or proposed critical habitat for special-status wildlife species occurs in the study area (Appendix C).

The highly disturbed condition of the majority of the study area, with limited vegetative cover and surrounded by development, is not suitable habitat for most special -status wildlife. However, the project area and adjacent vegetation have the potential to support nesting birds which are tolerant of disturbance during the avian breeding season. If clearing, grubbing, or other ground disturbance occurs during the nesting bird season, any impacts to active nests or the young of nesting bird species would be significant.

Indirect impacts to protected nesting birds that have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the study area could result from construction activities. Po tential temporary indirect impacts to nesting birds could occur as a result of excessive noise and increased human activity in close proximity to an active nest. Long- term indirect impacts could result from intense lighting adjacent to the Conservation Area, which could limit

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 28
AUGUST 2023
suitability of the native habitat for nesting birds, increased human activity in the vicinity of the Conservation Area, and an increase in the number of domestic pets (i.e., cats, which may hunt and kill native wildlife if allowed to roam outdoors, or off-leash dogs, which can also harm or kill wildlife). Impacts to nesting birds shall be mitigated to less than significant through nesting bird surveys and establishment of appropriate nest buffers, as described in MM-BIO-2, and lighting, increased human activity, and domestic pet impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1.

In summary, indirect impacts to special -status plants and wildlife would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Would th e 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The impact limits of the proposed project are shown in Figure 3 of Appendix C, over the vegetation mapping. As shown, the limits of work overlap approximately 11.01 acres of non-sensitive land covers which do not require mitigation for direct impacts.

Direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would be completely avoided, and impacts w ould be limited to urban/developed and disturbed habitat land covers. While the primary focus of th e biological survey was on areas outside of the channel and a formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted as a part of th e survey effort, vegetation communities observed in and adjacent to the channel area were mapped. Vegetation communities, including thos e classified as potential wetlands, were mapped within the study area and may be regulated by local, state, and federal agencies. These include disturbed wetland, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, herbaceous wetland/southern willow scrub, and disturbed southern riparian woodland. Communities below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) within the channel are likely regulated USACE, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; and the RWQCB, pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Communities located outside of the OHWM but adjacent to the channel, such as disturbed southern riparian woodland, may be regulated as riparian habitat by CDFW. Communities located above the OHWM up to the top of the channel bank may be regulated by both CDFW and RWQCB.

The proposed project would not impact the Conservation Area, and permanent fencing is to be installed around the Conservation Area. As a part of the channel improvement pro ject, native transitional species were planted along the widened channel slopes to serve as a native habitat buffer to the drainage channel.

Short-term indirect impacts associated with dust and erosion, and short- and long-term indirect impacts associated with increased human presence could occur as a result of project implementation. Such impacts could negatively affect viability of sensitive native vegetation adjacent to the project footprint through decreasing photosynthetic ability and degradation due to unauthorized access. Indirect impacts resulting from project implementation would be less than significant with implementation of MM-BIO-1 outlined below. In summary, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 29
AUGUST 2023
c) 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?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in response to Threshold 2.4-b), vegetation communities, including those classified as potential wetlands, were mapped within the study area and may be regulated by local, state, and federal agencies. These include disturbed wetland, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, herbaceous wetland/southern willow scrub, and disturbed southern riparian woodland. Communities below the OHWM within the channel are likely regulated by USACE, pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; CDFW, pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code; and RWQCB, pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act.

Communities located outside of the OHWM but adjacent to t he channel, such as disturbed southern riparian woodland, may be regulated as riparian habitat by CDFW. Communities located above the OHWM up to the top of the channel bank may be regulated by both CDFW and RWQCB.

A property located immediately south of Linda Vista Drive across from the study area is a managed vernal pool mitigation site known to contain vernal pools and sensitive species which are associated with vernal pool habitats. However, the study area has been graded and almost entirely developed with the exception of the channel, and extensively disturbed in the past, and no vernal pools were observed within the study area during the site visit. Although the survey was conducted outside of the usual wet season, no evidence of vernal pools or depress ions that could support ponding were observed. Additionally, as determined during the geotechnical study, fill soil material is located over older alluvium throughout the proposed project area to a depth of 4 feet below surface, and undocumented fill was likely deposited throughout the entire project area (Geotek 2021). The study area does not support vernal pools and therefore no impacts to vernal pools would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, are considered sensitive and thus are regulated by local, state, and federal agencies. The proposed project would not result in direct impacts to potential jurisdictional resources which are located within the Conservation Area, and thus no permits for impacts to jurisdictional resources are required. As a part of the channel improvement project, native transitional species were planted along the widened channel slopes to serve as a native habitat buffer to the drainage channel to further protect riparian and wetland habitats beyond the permanent fencing which shall be installed around the Conservation Area.

Potential short- and long-term indirect impacts to potential jurisdictional resources located adjacent to the impact area, such as off-site transport of sediment and pollutants, would be avoided through implementation of measure MM-BIO-1, and would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Would the project 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 Impact. The study area includes an approximately 770-foot-long (0.15-mile) segment of Las Posas Creek (encompassed within the Conservation Area). The Las Posas Creek is a north to southwest–trending urbanized channel originating in the foothills of San Marcos and flowing south through an urban corridor of the city before reaching its confluence with San Marcos Creek, approximately 1 mile downstream of the study area. The ability for this reach to provide a dispersal corridor for terrestrial wildlife and avifauna is restricted by road crossings, culverts, fences, buildings and other manmade structures that restrict wildlife use, fragment habitat, and impede movement. Terrestrial movement upstream is limited by

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 30
AUGUST 2023
culverts under Grand Avenue, which forms the northern boundary of the study area, and SR-78 beyond Grand Avenue, and the entire study area is fen ced with chain link fencing. Terrestrial movement downstream is limited by culverts under Via Vera Cruz, approximately 550 feet west of the study area.

A formal wildlife movement study has not been conducted; however, with wetland and riparian vegetation, stream bed, and perennial water supply, the Conservation Area likely facilitates limited wildlife movement.

Because the channel at this location is earthen bottomed, vegetated, and supports perennial stream flow (due to urban runoff), it provides cover an d aquatic resources for wildlife species in the area, and likely permits limited wildlife movement from Grand Avenue west to Via Vera Cruz, where the channel becomes contained within a closed channel conveyance system. Therefore, the study area likely provides resources primarily to birds. Other common urban wildlife such as coyote (Canis latrans), common raccoon (Procyon lotor), or striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) may also occasionally use the study area for foraging, but due to fencing as well as the culverts and roads surrounding and fragmenting available habitat, the study area likely does not facilitate substantial movement opportunities for terrestrial wildlife. This area has not been designated as a regional wildlife corridor in the City’s draft Subarea Plan to the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), and given the fragmented nature of Las Posas Creek, this area likely does not function as a regional wildlife corridor due to the constrained urban context of the study area and the fragmented nature of the channel. For these reasons, impacts to wildlife corridors are determined to be less than significant.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Section 14.12.200 of the City’s 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 project would not require the removal of trees within the public right -of-way. As described above, the project site has been heavily disturbed and previously developed with commerci al uses . The Conservation Area contains native habitat which has already been greatly enhanced through the recent restoration efforts, and sensitive habitat within the study area as well as any sensitive wildlife it supports would be protected through the measures of the proposed project, consistent with Goal COS -1 of the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2021). The proposed project would also be consistent with Policy 2.6 of Goal COS -2 of the General Plan, as project implementation would not be expected to result in the removal of healthy, mature trees (City of San Marcos 2021). Implementation of the project would introduce a landscape plan and more vegetation and trees than what currently exists in the study area, which would accomplish more than the 1:1 tree replacement rate required in the case that any trees within the study area are removed and are considered to be mature at the time clearing occurs for the proposed project . As such, the project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code and impacts would be less than significant. f) 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? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . 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 City of San Marcos Subarea Habitat

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 31
AUGUST 2023
Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (San Marcos Subarea Plan) (City of San Marcos 2001) has not been finalized or implemented, and the City is no longer an active participant 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 a 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. The study area is not within a designated Biological Core and Linkage Area or a MHCP Focused Planning Area.

As described above, the impact limits of the proposed project are shown in Figure 3 of Appendix C. As shown, the limits of work overlap approximately 11.01 acres of non -sensitive land covers which do not require mitigation for direct impacts. Direct impacts to sensitive vegetation communities shall be completely avoided, and impacts will be limited to urban/developed and disturbed habitat land covers.

Based on the results of the Biological Resources Letter Report, with implementation of proposed mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable plan related to biological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1 Sensitive Vegetation and Resources Protection. Indirect impacts to sensitive riparian and wetland vegetation communities, sensitive habitat, and jurisdictional aquatic resources located within the existing Conservation Area, which will remain under the City’s jurisdiction, shall be avoided through implementation of the following measures. a. All proposed lighting systems associated with proposed future development shall comply with City standards for shielded l ow sodium, low wattage lighting designed to cut glare and light scatter and to direct light away from the Conservation Area. b. Signage shall be installed by the project applicant or its designee along the development/open space interface and/or should be pro vided at existing buildings where determined appropriate by the City for the purpose of identifying sensitive habitats and educating visitors and residents of sensitive habitats and/or restoration efforts. Signage shall include information regarding the importance of not allowing pets to roam outdoors and off-leash, both for the safety of pets and to protect native wildlife. c. The Conservation Area shall be strategically fenced to ensure habitat protection and to minimize conflicts with adjacent neighborhood s. All necessary fencing shall be designed to allow for wildlife passage but deter human use of the Conservation Area.

The Conservation Area shall be fenced using permanent chain-link fencing. d. The limits of work shall be clearly defined and marked in the f ield and reviewed by a qualified biologist for consistency against the approved grading plan prior to initiation of project construction.
e. All site preparation and construction activities sh all incorporate standard erosional best management practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, straw bales, gravel bags, sand bags, the periodic watering of bare areas, and the direction of construction area drainage to existing storm drain facilities.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 32
AUGUST 2023
f. All equipment maintenance, staging areas, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or other toxicants shall occur in designated upland areas at least 50 feet from the Conservation Area. g. Install silt fencing and other silt containment devices where necessary to prevent off- site transport of sediment and pollutants. Install oil and grease traps at any storm drain inlets which are adjacent to or within work areas.
h. Any post-construction BMPs shall be described in a Stormwater Management Plan to illustrate how runoff from proposed developments will be treated prior to its discharge into the drainage.

MM-BIO-2 Nesting Bird Surveys. Construction-related ground -disturbing activities (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, and other intensive activities) that occur during the breeding season (February 15 through August 31 for most species, and from January 15 through August 31 for raptors,) shall require a one -time biological survey for nesting bird species to be conducted by a qualified biologist within the limits of work within 72 hours prior to construction. This survey is necessary to ensure avoidance of impacts to nesting raptors and/or birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3513. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans or a biological resources figure, and the information provided to the construction supervisor and any personnel working near the nest buffer. Active nests shall have “no work zone” buffers established around them (e.g., 250 feet for passerines to 500 feet for raptors) by the project biologist in the field with brightly colored flagging tape, conspicuous fencing, or other appropriate barriers or signage. The project biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to avoid inadvertent impacts to these nests. The project biologist may adjust the 250-foot or 500-foot setback at his or her discretion depending on the species and the location of the nest (e.g., if the nest is well protected in an area buffered by dense vegetation). However, if needed, additional qualified monitor(s) shall be provided in order to monitor active nest(s) or other project activities in order to ensure all of the project biologist’s duties are completed. Once the nest is no longer occupied for the season as determined by the project biologist , construction may proceed in the setback areas.

If construction activities , particularly clearing/grubbing, grading, and other intensive activities, stop for more than 3 days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted within the proposed impact area.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 33
AUGUST 2023

2.5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?

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

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

The following analysis is based, in part, on the Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report prepared by Dudek in December 2022, included as Appendix D.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As defined by the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), a “historical resource” is considered to be a resource that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), has been identified as significant in a historical resource survey, or is listed on a local register of historical resources. 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 listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or included in a loc al 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 resource and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for the purposes of CEQA ( California Public Resources Code , Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5[a]).

A California Historical Resources Information Systems records search of the project site and a 1-mile radius buffer was conducted by Dudek at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) on October 19 and November 2, 2022. The records search results indicate that 77 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within 1 mile of the project area. Of the 77 previous studies, four studies inte rsect the project area and are listed in Table 1 of Appendix D. These studies consist of one archaeological report for the City of San Marcos General Plan Amendment, a cultural resources monitoring report, a draft EIR, and an archaeological records search and literature review. A review of the four reports indicates that approximately 10% of the project area has been previously studied.

Report SD -18207, Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Los Posas and Grand Avenue Capital Improvement Project, Cit y of San Marcos, San Diego County, California (Clark and Duran 2019), details

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 34
AUGUST 2023
Rincon Consultants’ discovery and treatment of CA-SDI-22954. Rincon Consultants submitted an incident report to USACE, which described the resource and recommended it ineligible for listing on the NRHP due to a lack of integrity. USACE concurred with Rincon Consultants’ recommendation and determined the site is not eligible. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with USACE’s recommendation that the site not be included in the NRHP.

The SCIC records search identified one cultural resource (CA-SDI-22954), a historic-age trash scatter, within the project area. The records search also identified 47 cultural resources within the 1-mile search radius buffer outside of the project area. Of the total 47 resources identified in the 1-mile buffer, 30 are prehistoric sites, nine are historic sites, four are prehistoric isolates, three are multicomponent sites, and one resource lacks sufficient information to discern the age (Table 2 in Appendix D). No historic addresses are located within the project area; however, three are located within the 1-mile search radius.

CA-SDI-22954 consists of a historic -age trash scatter that was originally identified during cultural monitoring for the Los Posas Creek and Grand Avenue Capital Improvement Project in San Marcos in 2019 by Rincon Consultants. CA -SDI-22954 was recorded in the northern -central component of the current project area, just south of Grand Avenue along the eastern bank of Los P osas Creek. It measures approximately 50 feet long (N/S) by 10 feet wide (E/W). The site consisted of approximately 60 –70 artifacts, including bottle glass fragments (clear, brown, opaque, and blue), metal fragments, and a select few transfer print ceramics. Rincon Consultants’ preliminary analysis of the makers’ marks on several bottle bases suggested the artifacts likely dated to the 1920s and 1930s. Modern debris, such as a cassette tape and a few plastic bottles, were found intermixed with the historic trash scatter and suggested site disturbance. Rincon Consultants concluded that the site was probably an opportunistic dumping event.

Rincon Consultants was also unable to associate the artifacts with a particular event or person. Due to the site’s lack of integrity and disturbed nature, as well as the inability to directly associate the trash scatter with a particular eve nt or person, the Rincon Consultants also recommended the site did not meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the NRHP under any criteria.

Dudek conducted an online review of historic aerial photographs of the project area and general vicinity, to help determine the possible development and land use of the project area in the past. Thirty -six historic aerial photographs of the project area were available at various years from 1938 to 2020 (NETR 2022).

The historic aerial photograph from 1938 reveals the project area had a road intersecting the northwestern component of the project area. It also appears that Grand Avenue is at the northern end of the project boundary, and it was possibly paved. There also appears to be Las Posas Creek in the northern and central components of the project area. No structures or land modifications (other than the roads) are identifiable in the image. The 1947 and 1953 aerials do not reveal any changes to the project area. The 1964 aerial photo reveals approximately five small buildings, possibly residential buildings, adjacent to Grand Avenue at the northwest and northern sections of the project area. The photograph also shows two small buildings, again possibly residential buildings, near the southern section of the project area, and the development of what appears to be present day Linda Vista Drive. The 1967 aerial photograph does not reveal significant changes. The 1978 aerial photograph shows more development in the center and northwestern sections of the project area, as evidenced by a few more structures. The 1980 aerial photograph displays more distinct building development in the eastern section of the project area. The 1980 aerial photograph also displays the possible demolition (or renovation/expansion) of at least two or three structures that began being visible in the 1964 aerial photograph, near the northern and southern aspects of the project area.

The 1981 through 1986 aerial photographs do not depict significant changes within the project area. The

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 35
AUGUST 2023
1987 aerial photograph possibly exhibits more building development in the central aspect of the project area. The aerial photographs from 1988 through 1994 do not appear to reveal substantial changes within the project area. The 1995 aerial photograph reveals slightly more building development within the project area. The 1996 through 2010 historic aerial photographs do not indicate substantial changes to the project area. The 2012 aerial photograph reveals structural demolition. The buildings that were demolished were near or at the northern, northwest, central, and eastern aspects of the project area, which appear to be vacant pads in the 2012 aerial photograph. The buildings that were demolished generally begin appearing at the 1978 aerial photograph and continue increasing in number as the years progress, thus pointing to the likely destruction of modern structures by around 2012. The 2012 aerial photograph also displays the apparent demolition of the remaining structures from the 1964 photograph. The 2014 to 2 020 aerial photographs do not appear to display significant changes to the project area. The most recent 2020 aerial photograph does not display any structures within the project area.

Historic topographic (topo) maps of the project area also were reviewed. There are 18 topo maps available from various years from 1893 to 2018. The 1893 through 1965 topo maps do not show significant development within the project area. The 1970 and 1979 topo maps reveal three structures within the project area, and the stru ctures generally resemble residential houses. The structures’ locations on the 1970 and 1979 topographic maps appear to match the historical aerial photograph from 1964. The 1983 topographic map shows approximately ten new structures inside the project area, which vary in size and generally correspond to the 1978 aerial photographs. The 2000 to 2018 topographic maps do not show substantial new development. The most recent topographic map from 2018 does not display any structures within the project area.

Additionally, as discussed above, due to the site’s lack of integrity and disturbed nature, as well as the inability to directly associate the trash scatter with a particular event or person, Rincon also recommended the site (CA-SDI-22954) did not meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the NRHP under any criteria.

For the reasons stated above and detailed in Appendix D , the project would result in less-than-significant impacts to historical resources.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The intensive pedestrian survey was conducted by a Dudek archaeologist on October 28, 2022, using standard archaeological procedures and techniques that meet the Secretary of Interior’s standards and guidelines for cultural resources inventory.

Jessica Ale xander, a Luiseño monitor with Saving Sacred Sites, was also present during the entire pedestrian survey. The intensive level survey methods consisted of a walking 10 meter -wide transects across the project area. The ground surface was examined for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire -affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, features indicative of the current or former prese nce of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historic -age artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials). Ground disturbances such as burrows, cut banks, and drainages were also visually inspected for exposed subsurface materials.

The project area is significantly disturbed. Disturbances include several push piles, billboards, wood debris, drainage culverts, gravel piles, and restoration along Las Posas Creek. The western component of the project area shows evidence of being graded as evidenced by an elevated earthen berm adjacent to the

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 36
AUGUST 2023
bridge. The project area is generally flat with little to no topographic variation. Asphalt covers most of the eastern and southern portions of the project area. The western half of the project area is a vacant field. Las Posas Creek transects the project area from the north to the southwest corner near the southwest corner of the project area. There is a modern-looking bridge that spans over the creek as well. Visibility within the entire project area was excellent (80 %–100 %) in areas with no dense vegetation present. The only exception is near Las Posas Creek, which was low visibility (0 %–20%). The primary vegetation noted included tumbleweeds, low-lying dry grasses, and cat tails near Las Posas Creek.

Dudek revisited the location where CA-SDI-22954 was previously recorded and did not relocate the site. No artifacts or features were identified within the site boundary during the current survey. Modern culvert slope contouring were present near the mapped location of CA -SDI-22954, which is likely associated with restoration work along the banks of Los Posas Creek. It appears that CA-SDI-22954, which was originally observed during a monitoring program, was destroyed as a result of the restoration work associated with Los Posas Creek for the Los Posas Creek and Grand Avenue Capital Improvement. No cultural artifacts or features were observed during the pedestrian survey.

Dudek’s archaeological resources inventory of the project indicates that there is moderate sensitivity for identifying intact subsurface archaeological deposits during project implementation. The SCIC records search identified one cultural resource, CA-SDI-22954, a historic-age trash scatter, within the project area.

CA-SDI-22954 was previously evaluated and determined to not be eligible for listing on the NRHP; however, it was not evaluated under CEQA or CRHR. The current pedestrian survey did not relocate CA-SDI-22954 or any other cultural resources within the project area. Dudek determined that CA-SDI-22954 was destroyed by the restoration work associated with Los Posas Creek. Since CA -SDI-22954 was destroyed, it is not a historical resource as defined under CEQA. No further studies or mitigation is necessary for CA-SDI-22954.

In addition, the records search identified 47 cultural resources within 1 mile of the project area. The presence of cultural resources located within the vicinity of project area indicates that the surrounding area has been utilized extensively prehistorically and historically.

Based on historic aerials and Geotech investigations, the project area was graded and developed between 1964 and 1987 to its current configuration. Fill soil material is located over older alluvium throughout the project area to a depth of 4 feet below surface. No intact prehistoric or historic-age resources will be present within the fill sediment; however, because a previous resource was present within the project area (CA-SDI- 22954) and other cultural resources located within the 1-mile search buffer, there is a potential to encounter cultural resources within the older alluvium sediments below the fill. Dudek recommends cultural resources monitoring, consisting of a qualified arch aeological monitor and Luiseno Native American monitor, during all initial ground disturbing activities within the older alluvium sediments (below the fill).

Monitoring can be reduced or terminated if no discoveries are made or if documentation is provided which demonstrates that ground-disturbing activities will be occurring in sediments with no potential for cultural resources. Archaeological monitoring is not recommended for ground disturbing activities in the fill as there is no potential for intact cultural resources within that stratum.

In the event that unanticipated archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, impacts to these resources would be potentially significant. With the implementation of the City’s standard cultural mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Mitigation measures are outlined below.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 37
AUGUST 2023
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Inco rporated. No prehistoric or historic burials were identified within the proposed project site as a result of the California Historical Resources Information Systems records search, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search, or pedestrian survey. In the event that human remains are inadvertently encountered during construction activities, such resources would be treated in accordance with state and local regulations that provide requirements with regard to the accidental discovery of human re mains, including California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e). In accordance with these regulations, if human remains are found, the County Coroner must be immediately notified of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the project site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains can occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of n otification of the discovery, if the remains are potentially human in origin. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, he or she is required to notify the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant must then complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The most likely descendant would then determine, in consultation with the City, the disposition of the human remains. Compliance with these regulations and implementation of MM-CUL-4 outlined below would ensure that impacts related to human remains as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures
MM-CUL-1 Pre-Excavation Agreement . Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner shall enter into a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Repatriation Agreement (Pre -Excavation Agreement) with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American Tribe (TCA Tribe), identified in consultation with the City. The purpose of the Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be to formalize protocols and procedures between the Applicant/Owner and the TCA Tribe for the protection, treatment, and repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, cultural and/or religious landscapes, ceremonial items, traditional gathering areas, and other tribal cultural resources. Such resources may be located within and/or discovered during ground disturbing and/or construction activities for the proposed project, including any additional culturally appropriate archaeological studies, excavations, geotec hnical investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground disturbing activities.

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

The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all non-burial related tribal cultural resources collected during construction monitoring and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the TCA Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The requirement and timing of such release of ownership, and the recipient thereof, shall be reflected in the Pre -Excavation Agreement. If the TCA

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 38
AUGUST 2023
Tribe does not accept the return of the cultural resources, then the cultural resources will be subject to curation.

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

In the event that one or more TCA Tribe chooses not to enter into an agreement, or fails to respond to the offer, the City shall extend the opportuni ty for another tribe to provide a monitor. In the event that more than one TCA Tribe requests to provide a TCA Native American monitor for activities subject to these measures, the City will allow for either: 1) up to one monitor from each consulting tribe to be present simultaneously; or 2) for the tribes to develop a rotating schedule that alternates monitoring between the tribes on a daily or weekly basis. The monitors shall be provided at least 72 hours’ notice of the initiation of construction and be kept reasonably apprised of changes to the construction schedule. In the event that a monitor is not present at the scheduled time, work can continue without the monitor present, as long as the notice was given and documented.

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

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

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 39
AUGUST 2023
Prior to the release of any grading bonds, or prior to the issuance of any project Certificate of Occupancy, an archaeological monitoring report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the construction monitoring shall be su bmitted 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 (AB) 52 consultation, to San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians , 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.

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

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

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

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 mitigation 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 pl an, as determined by the City in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe. The TCA Tribe shall be

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 40
AUGUST 2023
notified and consulted regarding the determination and implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation and the drafting and finalization of any ethnographic study and/or data recovery plan, and/or other culturally appropriate mitigation. Any archaeological isolates or other cultural materials that cannot be avoided or preserved in place as the preferred mitigation shall be temporarily stored in a secure location on site (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will be inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American monitor.

If a data recovery plan is authorized as indicated above and the TCA Tribe does not object, then an adequate artifac t 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 shall be guided by California State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The City shall provide the Applicant/Owner final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the 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 applicable, that the repatriation and/or curation have been completed.

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

If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by State law, the Medical Examiner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Medical Examiner recognizes the remains to be

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 41
AUGUST 2023
Native American, and not under his or her jurisdiction, th en 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 gran ted to the discovery site to make recommendations regarding culturally appropriate treatment.

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

2.6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. Energy – Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

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

a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would result in an increase in energy consumption during construction and operation, which are addressed separately below.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 42
AUGUST 2023
Construction Emissions
Electricity Usage
Temporary electric power for as -necessary lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers, would be provided by SDG&E. The electricity used for such activities would be temporary, would be substantially less than that required for project operation and would therefore have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.

Natural Gas Usage
Natural gas is not expected to be required during project construction. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the subsection “Petroleum Usage,” below.

Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed because of project construction would be temporary and negligible, and would not have an adverse effect; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Petroleum Usage
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resour ce 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 and haul trucks involved in relocating dirt around the project site are assumed to use diesel fuel.

Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction (approximately 15 months). It is assumed tha t construction workers would travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered vehicles.

Heavy-duty construction equipment of several types would be used during project construction. CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage; result s are included in Appendix B. The estimated diesel fuel usage from construction equipment, haul trucks, and vendor trucks is estimated at 47,643 gallons of diesel fuel. The total fuel usage associated with worker vehicles is estimated at 10,959 gallons of gasoline. Project construction would represent a “single-event” petroleum demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of petroleum resources for this purpose. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Electricity Usage
The operational phase would require electricity for multiple purposes, including building heating and cooling, lighting, and electronics. CalEEMod was used to estimate project emissions from electricity uses (see Appendix B). Default electricity generation rates in CalEEMod were used based on the proposed land use and climate zone. Note that the project would include installing solar photovoltaic (PV) systems sized to generate about 5,200 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per residential unit for 530,400 kWh per year.

Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate California building standards.

The most recent amendments to Title 24, Part 6, referred to as the 2019 standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. According to CalEEMod estimates, the proposed project would consume 694,894 k Wh

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 43
AUGUST 2023
per year during operation. The project would include solar PV systems pursuant to the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) that generates a minimum of 2 kilowatts per sf of gross floor area. The project would generate a minimum of 283,164 kWh per year (NREL 2023). For context, in 202 1, California used approximately 281 billion kWh of electricity (CEC 2022a). Locally, in 2021, total electricity demand in San Diego County was approximately 19 billion kWh (CEC 2022a).

The project proposes residential and commercial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/ energy conserving designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the project are not inherently energy intensive, and the project electricity demands in total would be comparable to other projects of similar scale and configuration. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with the applicable Title 24 standards which would further ensure that the project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and impacts would be less than significant.

Natural Gas Usage
The operation would require natural gas for various purposes, including water heating and natural gas appliances. Natural gas consumption associated with operation is based on the CalEEMod outputs presented in Appendix B, CalEEMod default values for natural gas usage were assumed for the project ; however, based on the City’s policies in the CAP, the site may be conditioned to be all-electric. This analysis provides a conservative estimate of natural gas usage.

As explained above, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards and 2019 standards are the current standards. According to CalEEMod estimates, the proposed project would consume 2,699,982 kilo-British thermal units (kBtu) per year. For context, in 2021, California consumed appr oximately 1,191 trillion kBtus of natural gas ( CEC 2022b). Locally, in 202 1, residential and non-residential uses in San Diego County consumed about 52 trillion kBtu of natural gas (CEC 2022b). As supported by the preceding discussions, project natural gas consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and impacts would be less than significant.

Petroleum Usage
During operations, most of the project’s fuel consumption would involve the use of motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site by residents, customers, and employees.

Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site is a function of the VMT due to project operation. As shown in Appendix B, the annual VMT attributable to the proposed project were estimated based on project-specific trip generation information and CalEEMod default values for the proposed land use. Like the construction worker and t ruck trips, fuel consumption from residents, customers, and employees is estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from operation of the project to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel.

Based on the annual fleet mix provided in CalEEMod, approximately 96% of the fleet are assumed to run on gasoline, while the remaining 4% are assumed to run on diesel. In the first year of assumed operations (2026), the proposed project would consume approximately 137,440 gallons of gasoline, and 4,630 gallons of diesel from vehicle travel.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 44
AUGUST 2023
Trip generation and VMT generated by the project are consistent with other mixed uses of similar scale and configuration. That is, the project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption.

Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. The project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. In compliance with CALGreen, the project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative means of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access for employees would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. As supported by the preceding discussions, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and impacts would be less than significant.

Renewable Energy Potential
As part of the project’s design process, the project applicant considered how the project could potentially increase its reliance on renewable energy sources to meet the project’s energy demand. Renewable energy sources that were considered for their potential to be used to power the project, consistent with the California Energy Commission’s definition of eligible renewables, include biomass, geothermal, solar, wind, and small hydroelectric facilities.

Given the project’s location in an urban area and the nature of the project, there are considerable site constraints, including limited land availability, incompatibility with on -site and surrounding land uses for large scale power generation facilities, unknown interconnection feasibility, compatibility with utility provider systems, and no known water or geothermal resources to harness, that would eliminate the potential for biomass, geothermal, and hydroelectric renewable energy to be installed on site.

Regarding wind power, due to the urban nature of the site and surrounding land uses, wind turbines are not feasible as it represents an incompatible use. Specifically, a general rule of thumb is to instal l a wind turbine on a tower with the bottom of the rotor blades at least 30 feet above anything within a 500 -foot horizontal radius and to be sited upwind of buildings and trees (APA 2011; NREL 2015), which the project site cannot accommodate.

Regarding solar power, the project would install solar PV systems consistent with the CAP requirements on the 102 townhomes. Each system would be sized to generate about 5,200 kWh per residential unit for a total of 530,400 kWh per year. While the project does not propose battery storage at this time, the project does not preclude installation of battery storage in the future if determined to be a feasible and compatible land use of the site.

The City’s CAP includes measure E-2, which requires solar PV installation for non-residential projects. Given the programmatic nature of a specific plan, some of the commercial building layouts, design, and end uses, may still be refined, as such the feasibility of solar PV on the commercial portion is still being determined.

The final determination of feasibility will be made consistent with the City’s CAP.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 45
AUGUST 2023
In summary, the project includes the on -site renewable energy source (i.e., solar) that was determined to be feasible for the site and does not include the on-site renewable energy sources that were determined to be infeasible.

As explained above, the project would use renewable energy on site as determined to be feasible and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, including ele ctricity, natural gas, or petroleum during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less-than-Significant Impact. 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 efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. The proposed project would also be subject to Part 11 of Title 24, also known as the C ALGreen building standards. These were adopted into the City’s building design criteria.

Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist measures, such as through its implementation of EV charging stations and PV panels, which would further reduce operational energy use. The proposed project would be built and operated in acco rdance with all existing, applicable regulations at the time of construction. For these reasons stated, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact associated with the potential to conflict with energy standards and regulations.

2.7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 46
AUGUST 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

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

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

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

The following analysis is based, in part, on the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by GeoTek in June 2021, which is included as Appendix E to this EIR.
a) Would the project directly or indirectl y cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located in tectonically active southern California.

However, no active or potentially active fault is known to exist at the project site, nor is the site situated within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest fault, the Newport-Ingelwood Rose Canyon Fault is located approximately 11.6 miles west of the site (Appendix E). 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 proposed 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.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 47
AUGUST 2023
The proposed project would be designed in accordance with applicable CBC criteria, including those specific to resistance to seismic shaking. Furthermore, the proposed 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 California Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

These required seismic design considerations are used to minimize structural damage in the event of ground shaking. As such, for the reasons described above, the proposed project’s impacts associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault and strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less-than-Significant Impact. Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is subjected to strong seismic shaking, on-site soils are cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than approximatel y 70%. During a Geotechnical evaluation of the site, groundwater was encountered at a depth ranging from 16.5 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface; however, liquefaction and seismic settlement potential on the site are considered negligible due to the presence of shallow bedrock and the cohesive nature of the on -site older alluvium. Therefore, project impacts associated with liquefaction would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is flat and primarily consists of paved areas. 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 2012b). Additionally, the Geotechnical Evaluation determined that the potential for landslides to occur on-site is negligible. Therefore, the project site is not considered susceptible to landslides and no impacts would occur.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is flat and primarily consists of paved areas. During re- development, the proposed 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 proposed project would implement all recommendations pertaining to soil erosion or loss of topsoil as contained within the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project (Appendix E) . As such, impacts related to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant. c) 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?
No Impact. As described above, the project site is flat, currently consisting of existing development and paved parking. The Geotechnical Evaluation determined that the potential for landslides, liquefaction, or slope instabilities to occur is negligible (Appendix E). The proposed project would be required to comply with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project regarding earthwork activities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 48
AUGUST 2023
d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as de fined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less-than-Significant Impact. The Geotechnical Evaluation determined that the potential for on -site soil expansion ranges from “low” to “very high.” The proposed project, however, would be required to comply with the recommendations established in the Geotechnical Evaluation regarding earthwork activities (Appendix E). As such, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The proposed project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

As described in Section 2.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would construct private on- site sewer lines which would connect to existing City infrastructure. Therefore, no impacts would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities would disturb paleontological resources within the project site. The project site has been previously graded and consists of disturbed, paved land. Previous on -site development activities affected the entirety of the project site, and as such, it follows that any paleontological resources that may have once been located on the project site could have been previously disturbed. However, the possibility of a paleontological discovery cannot be discounted. Accordingly, destruction of paleontological resources or unique geologic features during site -disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project is considered a potential significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 is provided and would be implemented to ensure potential impacts during construction activities to paleontological resources or unique geologic features are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measures
MM-GEO-1 In the event that paleontological resources (fossil remains) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s 2010 guidelines, can assess the nature and importance of the find.

Depending on the significance of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue or recommend salvage and recovery of the resource. All recommendations will be made in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s 2010 guidelines and shall be subject to review and approval by the City of San Marcos. Work in the area of the find may only resume upon approval of a qualified paleontologist.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 49
AUGUST 2023

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

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

The section herein is based on findings from the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report prepared for the proposed project, included as Appendix B to this IS/MND. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Would the project generate conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less-than-Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, haul trucks, on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles.

Construction of the project is anticipated to commence in February 2024 and would last approximately 15 months, ending in May 2025. On -site sources of GHG emissions include off -road equipment and off -site sources including vendor trucks and worker vehicles. Table 16 in Appendix B presents construc tion emissions for the project in 2024 through 2025 from on-site and off-site emission sources. As shown in Table 16 of Appendix B , the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the project would be approximately 583 MT CO2e over the constructio n period. Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 19 MT CO2e per year. As with project-generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during construction of the project would be short -term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period, and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions.

Operational Emissions
Operation of the project would generate GHG emissions through vehicle trips by residents, employees, customers, and visitors to and from the project site; landscape maintenance equipment operation; energy

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 50
AUGUST 2023
use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity asso ciated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. The estimated operational project-generated GHG emissions are shown in Table 17 of Appendix B. As shown in Table 17 of Appendix B, estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions would be approximately 1,641 MT CO 2e per year as a result of project operation; with amortized construction emissions of approximately 19 MT CO2e per year, total project emissions would be approximately 1,660 MT CO2e per year.

City of San Marcos’ Climate Action Plan Consistency
This section evaluates the project’s impacts to GHG in accordance with the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist. A completed CAP Checklist is included as Appendix B. New discretionary development projects subject to CEQA review that are below the applicable screening size listed in the CAP Checklist would emit less than 500 MT CO 2e annually and would not contribute considerably to cumulative climate change impacts, and therefore, would be considered consistent with the CAP and associated emissions projections.

As shown in Table 17 of Appendix B, GHG emissions would exceed 500 MT CO 2e, therefore a CAP consistency review is required.

For projects that are subject to CAP consistency review, the next step in determining c onsistency is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in development of the CAP. This section allows the City to determine a project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP. As outlined in detail in Section 4.5 of Appendix B, the project was shown to implement all applicable checklist items within the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, and impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Consistency with Senate Bill 32, Assembly Bill 1279, and Executive Order S -3-05 Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 identified the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. SB 32 establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost -effective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40% below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030. AB 1279 establishes a policy of the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 and for statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions to be reduced to at least 85% below 1990 levels by 2045.

CARB is responsible fo r preparing a “Scoping Plan” for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions required by regulatory action and to update the plan at least once every 5 years. The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implemen tation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32, an d the EOs and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. Each Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the initial Scoping Plan and subsequent updates, while also identifying new, technologically feasible, and cost -effective strategies to ensure that California meets increasingly stringent GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovat ion, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Scoping Plan updates have continued to express optimism in meeting future year targets of 2050 and 2030, a s evaluated in the 2014 and 2017 Scoping Plans (respectively),

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 51
AUGUST 2023
and most recently, the 2045 goal addressed in the 2022 Scoping Plan under EO B-55-18, which AB 1279 codified and expanded on.

While there are no established protocols or Thresholds of significance for that future year analysis, CARB forecasted in the 2014 Scoping Plan that compliance with the current Scoping Plan would put the state on a trajectory of meeting the long -term 2050 GHG goals, although the specific path to compliance was unknown at the time (CARB 2014). The 2017 Scoping Plan outlined a strategy to achieve the 2030 GHG reduction target. The proposed scenario in the 2022 Scoping Plan lays out a path not just to carbon neutrality by 2045, but also to the 2030 GHG emissions reduction targ et (CARB 2022). The modeling indicates that, if the plan described in the proposed scenario is fully implemented, and done so on schedule, the state is on track to reduce its emissions to 260 MMT CO2e by 2030 (CARB 2022).

The City’s CAP outlines the measures for the City to achieve its share of state GHG reductions. The City’s GHG reduction targets are consistent with the CARB’s recommendations for community-wide targets. As discussed in the CAP, by meeting the 2030 target, the City will meet the 2030 state goal identified in SB 32 and maintain a trajectory to meet its proportional share of the 2050 target identified in EO S-3-05. Regarding, AB 1279, it is important to note that the state’s carbon neutrality goal does not preclude any individual project from emitting GHG emissions. AB 1279 codifies EO B-55-18; however, its enactment was linked to the concurrent enactment of SB 905, which requires CARB to create a Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program that, fundamentally, will sequester carbon emitted by other projects. Therefore, the state’s carbon neutrality goal does not preclude all individual projects from emitting GHG emissions.

As discussed above, the project would be consistent with the CAP and, therefore, would be consistent with state GHG reduction goals and progress towards achieving carbon neutrality.

Consistency with SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy At the regional level, the SANDAG’s RTP/SCS has been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions attributable to passenger vehicles in the San Diego region. In October 2015, SANDAG adopted its Regional Plan, which was subsequently updated in 2021. The RTP/SCS is not directly applicable to the project because the underlying purpose of the RTP/SCS is to provide direction and guidance on future regional growth (i.e., the location of new residential and nonresidential land uses) and transportation patterns throughout the City and greater San Diego County, as stipulated under SB 375. CARB has recognized that the approved RTP/SCS is consistent with SB 375. The SANDAG Regional Plan is generally consistent with the local government plans.

Since the project is within the scope of development that was anticipated in the General Plan (see Section 2.3[a]), it would not result in growth that would conflict with the Regional Plan.

Based on the preceding considerations, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions or generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, the project’s impacts on GHG emissions would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 52
AUGUST 2023

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?

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

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

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

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

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

The following analysis is based, in part, on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project by Dudek in December 2022, which is included as Appendix F to this EIR.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 53
AUGUST 2023
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Short -Term Construction Impacts
Less-than-Significant Impact. Potentially hazardous materials would likely be handled on the project site as part of project construction. These materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products required to operate and maintain construction equipment. Handling of these potentially hazardous materials would be temporary and would coincide with the short -term construction phase of the project.

Although these materials would likely be stored on the project site, storage would be required to comply with the guidelines set forth by each product’s manufacturer and with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the storage of hazardo us materials. Consistent with federal, state, and local requirements, the transport of hazardous materials to and from the project site would be conducted by a licensed contractor. Any handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would comply with all relevant federal, state, and local agencies and regulations, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Caltrans, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the SCAQMD, and the County Fire Department Hazardous Materials Division. Therefore, short -term construction impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Impacts
Less-than-Significant Impact. As a residential mixed -use land use, potentially hazardous materials associated with operation of the project would include those materials typically associated with cleaning and maintenance activities. Although these materials would vary, they would generally include household cleaning products, solvents, paints, fertilizers, and herbicides and pesticides. Many of these materials are considered household hazardous wastes, common wastes, and universal wastes by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which considers these types of wastes common to businesses and households and to pose a lower risk to people and the environment than other hazardous wastes when properly handled, transported, used, and disposed of (EPA 2022). Federal, state, and local regulations typically allow these types of wastes to be handled and disposed of under less-stringent standards than other hazardous wastes, and many of these wastes do not need to be managed as hazardous waste.

In addition, any potentially hazardous material handled on the project site would be limited in quantity and concentration, consistent with other similar residential uses located in the City, and any handling, transport, use, and disposal of such mat erial would comply with applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations. In addition, as mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, all hazardous materials stored on the project site would be accompanied by a Materials Safety Data Sheet, which would inform on-site personnel and residents of the necessary remediation procedures in the case of accidental release (OSHA 2012). Therefore, long -term operational impacts associated with the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 54
AUGUST 2023
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. In December 2022, a Phase I ESA (Appendix F) was prepared by Dudek in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials Standards and Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries. The Phase I ESA covered the entirety of the project site.

Historical uses of the project site included commercial and industrial uses. The site was partially developed with several commercial/industrial buildings by 1964. Las Posas Creek, which transects the project site, was improved by 1970, and several more industrial buildings were constructed, including the concrete and metal industrial buildings on the northwest corner of the project site. By the mid -1980s, the project site was mostly developed or paved with the exception of a small area east of the creek in the center of the project site. Businesses included construction and hardware suppliers, auto repair shops, a car dealership, and concrete and metal manufacturers. By 2011, most of the buildings were removed with the exception of the construction company building in the southern portion of the project site, which was dem olished in 2013. The creek was widened and improved with a bridge constructed across it in 2019.

Based on the results of the research, available data, and a site survey, the Phase I ESA (Appendix F) did not identify any recognized environmental conditions, but the Phase I ESA did identify historical recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, and a vapor encroachment condition. To ensure this contamination does not threaten the health of future occupants of the proj ect site, implementation of mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 shall be required. MM -HAZ-1 would require the preparation of a soil management plan (SMP) prior to construction of the project site. Implementation of MM-HAZ-1 would ensure that previous contamination would not result in adverse health and safety impacts to construction workers, future residents and visitors of the site, nor off-site land uses.

Furthermore, 1023 and 1031 Grand Avenue were neighboring businesses formerly on the western portion of the project site that conducted metal fabrication, auto repair, and manufacturing. Site features of concern included a former septic tank, former septic leach field, former parts washers, a wastewater trench drain, and former burial and forming pits. Site assess ment, remediation, and monitoring for fuel - related chemicals (petroleum hydrocarbons) and VOCs were conducted between 2006 and 2011. Soil and groundwater data indicated that the primary contaminant of concern was petroleum hydrocarbons.

A mitigation plan, based on the proposed commercial use of the site, was approved by the County of San Diego DEHQ in 2012. Mitigation activities included excavation and off -site disposal of contaminated soils and further evaluation of the trench drain, as well as soil excava tion, soil stockpile sampling, groundwater sampling, backfilling areas with clean fill, analysis of vapor risk, and dewatering and off -site disposal of extracted groundwater. The 2012 Closure Report by GeoEnviro Services, Inc. indicates that mitigation goa ls (established for the proposed commercial use of the site) were met. According to the data in the 2012 report, there are a couple locations where soil was just above the residential regulatory screening level for diesel. Case closure was granted by DEHQ in July 2012 following the completion of the site mitigation plan. The closure is based on commercial use of the site. DEHQ stated in the closure letter (DEHQ 2012) that “changes to this land use may require reassessment…to determine if the revised land use could result in a risk to public health.” If this portion of the project site is to be developed for residential use, concurrence would need to be obtained from DEHQ given the condition in their closure letter. DEHQ could require sampling in certain locations or they may be satisfied with the implementation

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 55
AUGUST 2023
of the SMP described in MM -HAZ-1. The project applicant would be required to comply with all DEHQ requirements prior to project construction.

With implementation of MM-HAZ-1, and required compliance with all applicable regulations, impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less-than-Significant Impact. Land uses and activities typically associated with hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste include manufacturing, research, and industrial uses. The project would not include any such uses or activities. During construction of the project, MM -HAZ-1, as discussed above, would ensure impacts due to contaminated soils on site would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The nearest school to the project site is the Little People Preschool and Daycare located 707 feet south of the project’s southern boundary. Although the project would be located within 0.25 miles of a school, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or inc lude handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. Therefore, impacts associated with the emitting or handling or hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school would be less than significant. d) Would the project be loca ted on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The following hazardous waste site lists, including the California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor database, the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker site, the Cortese list, or other lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Gover nment Code, were reviewed, and the project appeared on one of these lists (CalEPA 2022; DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022). Two former leaking underground storage tank ( LUST) cases were identified on the project site on the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker site (SWRCB 2022). The former LUST case on the eastern end of the project site was granted regulatory closure in 1988, and the former LUST case on the southern end of the project site was granted regulatory closure in 2017.

Cases are considered closed when the appropriate regulatory agency has determined that no further action is required for further land use because actions were taken to adequately remediate the release, or because the release was minor, presents no environmental risk, and no remedial action is necessary.

Though closed, they remain on the Cortese List for informational purposes.

Furthermore, as described in response to Threshold b) above , 102 3 and 1031 Grand Avenue were neighboring businesses formerly on the western portion of the project site that conducted metal fabrication, auto repair, and manufacturing. Site features of concern included a former septic tank, former septic leach field, former parts washers, a wastewater trench drain, and former burial and forming pits. Site assessment, remediation, and monitoring for fuel-related chemicals (petroleum hydrocarbons) and VOCs was conducted between 2006 and 2011. Soil and groundwater data indic ated that the primary contaminant of concern was petroleum hydrocarbons. A mitigation plan, based on the proposed commercial use of the site, was approved by the County of San Diego DEHQ in 2012. Mitigation activities included excavation and off -site

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 56
AUGUST 2023
disposal of contaminated soils and further evaluation of the trench drain, as well as soil excavation, soil stockpile sampling, groundwater sampling, backfilling areas with clean fill, analysis of vapor risk, and dewatering and off-site disposal of extracted groundwater. The 2012 Closure Report by GeoEnviro Services, Inc. indicates that mitigation goals (established for the proposed commercial use of the site) were met.

According to the data in the 2012 report, there are a couple locations where soil was just ab ove the residential regulatory screening level for diesel. Case closure was granted by DEHQ in July 2012 following the completion of the site mitigation plan. The closure is based on commercial use of the site. DEHQ stated in the closure letter (DEHQ 2012) that “changes to this land use may require reassessment…to determine if the revised land use could result in a risk to public health.” If this portion of the project site is to be developed for residential use, concurrence would need to be obtained from D EHQ given the condition in their closure letter. DEQH could require sampling in certain locations or they may be satisfied with the implementation of the SMP, as required by MM-HAZ-1. The project applicant would be required to comply with all DEQH requirements prior to project construction.

For the reasons outlined above , impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than significant .
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, with in two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Less-than-Significant Impact. The closest airport to the project site is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles west of the project site. The project site is not located within any of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Areas Safety Zones. The majority of the City, including the project site, is within Mc Clellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area Review Area 2 (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). Review Area 2 is within the airspace protection and/or overflight notification areas. There are limits on the heights of structures in areas of high terrain, which would not apply to the project (City of San Marcos 2012b). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan governs the operations of the City during a disaster. This plan addresses response to moderate evacuation scenarios, including the identification of evacuation points and general routes (City of San Marcos 2012b).

The proposed project would be required to abide by the standards set forth in the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to impact any roadway or staging areas that are identified in any emergency planning documents and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As required under the California Fire Code, the proposed project would be required to present development plans which afford fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Section 503.1 through Section 503.4 of the California Fire Code), an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D, Section D106 of the California Fire Code), and entryway gate access for first responders (Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code, Section 503.6). The proposed poin t of entry will be reviewed by the San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) and would be required to meet the

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 57
AUGUST 2023
qualifications for emergency access to and from the project site. Therefore, it is determined that impacts related to emergency response or emergency evacuation as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is not located in any fire hazard severity zones (CAL FIRE 2022), nor is the project site located near any local responsibility areas or state responsibility areas. The project site is a previously developed vacant lot that is relative ly flat and shows signs of previous disturbance. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire codes, including compliance with the California Fire Code and SMFD, which require a design that affords fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Sections 503.1 through Section 503.4 of the California Fire Code).

For the reasons stated above, and considering the project site is located in an urbanized area surrounded on all sides by existing development, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfires, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM-HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan. Prior to commencement of construction or excavation activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared for use during earthmoving activities to address potential residual impacts in soil from prior releases on the project site, as well as potential unknown impacts that could be encountered (e.g., USTs). Known areas of concern include very limited areas of diesel in soil at 1010 Linda Vista Drive and 1023/1031 Grand Avenue. There was also a former tank at 961 Grand Avenue; soil beneath the tank was reportedly clean, however, the location could be noted in the SMP in an abundance of caution. Details regarding the former impacts are discussed in the December 2022 Phase I ESA prepared by Dudek and other pertinent publicly available cleanup reports. The SMP shall identify these known areas of concern and include training procedures for identification of contamination, if present. The SMP shall describe procedures for assessment, characterization, management, and disposal of hazardous constituents, materials, and wastes, in accordance with all applicable state and local regulations. Contaminated soils shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with local and state regulations. The SMP shall include health and safety measures, which may include but are not limited to periodic work breathing zone monitoring and monitoring for volatile organic compounds using a handheld organic vapor analyzer in the event impacted soils are encountered during excavation activities.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 58
AUGUST 2023

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

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

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

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

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

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

The following analysis is based, in part, on the Preliminary Drainage Study and Storm Water Quality Management Plans (SWQMPs) prepared for the project by Fuscoe Engineering LLC in March 2023, and on the Water and Sewer Study prepared by the Vallecitos Water District (VWD) in May 2023, which are included as Appendices I, J, K, and L, respectively, to this EIR.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 59
AUGUST 2023
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirement s or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in potential impacts to water quality. In addition to sediment erosion from ground-disturbing activities on the project site, fuels, oils, lubricants, and other hazardous substances used during construction could be released and potentially impact water quality.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES State Water Resources Control Board Construction General Permit Order No. 2009 -0009-DWQ for stormwater dischar ges and general construction activities, and would incorporate standard construction best management practices (BMPs), such as regular cleaning or sweeping of construction areas and impervious areas, and various erosion and sediment control BMPs, such as filtration media screens, fiber rolls, and de-siltation basins. In compliance with the Construction General Permit, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared for the project that would specify erosion and sediment control BMPs that would be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to water quality. Furthermore, project implementation of permanent structural, source control, and site design BMPs would effectively treat post-construction stormwater runoff prior to discharge from the site in compliance with the requirements of the City’s BMP Design Manual and the project’s SWQMPs. As outlined in the “ West” and “East” SWQMPs (Appendices J and K), the existing site consists of development areas that were previously commercial pads but the buildings have been demolished. The channel that runs through the site was recently improved by the City. The develop ment area had a new storm drain added to collect runoff from the pads and discharge into the improved channel.

A bridge was constructed to link to the “West” and “East” sites.

In existing conditions, there are some subtle flow paths where the site drains to the storm drain outlets that were constructed as part of the channel improvements at nodes 200 and 400. The westerly third of the “West” site leads to a local depression near node 10 before spilling out onto the adjacent property to the west. The proposed development areas will be re-graded to ensure that the runoff is routed to the channel.

The site has a system of concrete swales and storm drains to collect runoff and convey it to water quality basins and/or underground detention structures for hydromodification storage before being discharged to the channel at nodes 200, 400, and 1,000.

The site has less defined flow paths on the “East” side. It appears that some of the site drains to the newly constructed storm drain at nodes 300, 700, and 900 while other parts may sheet flow over the side of the channel at nodes 600 and 800. The easternmost third of the proposed commercial site is very flat due to the concrete foundations that were left behind. While the flow paths are less definitive, it appears as though it generally flows out through the sheet flow onto Linda Vista Drive. There are storm drain inlets further south down Linda Vista Drive that discharge into the same channel that bisects the project, so any runoff that leaves the project site ultimately ends up in the same channel. The proposed development areas would be re-graded to ensure that the runoff is routed to the channel. Runoff would no longer be allowed to spill out onto the adjacent property to the south or out onto Linda Vista Drive. The proposed residential uses on the “West” site have a system of concrete swales and storm drains to collect runoff and convey it to water quality basins and/or underground detention structures for hydromodification storage being discharged to the channel at nodes 200, 400, and 1,000. The proposed commercial uses on the “East” site have a similar pattern, except that there would be no underground detention, and a storm drain system that outlets to the channel at nodes 300, 700, and 900 would be implemented.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 60
AUGUST 2023
The storm drain system for the proposed project has been designed for the 100-year storm event. Through the use of on-site detention systems, the site has been designed so that the channel would see no increase in flow for the proposed condition. The proposed project would benefit the adjacent properties by eliminating potential vector control issues with localized ponding and re -routing flows that currently lead off-site or add to runoff in the street. In the proposed condition, those off -site runoffs would be captured, treated, for water quality, and safely released to the channel.

The proposed biofiltration features on -site would be subject to regular inspection and maintenance. The property owner is required, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 14 .15 and the BMP Design Manual, to enter into a stormwater management and discharge control maintenance agreement for the installation and maintenance of permanent BMPs prior to issuance of permits. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade surface or ground water quality. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality, stormwater drainage, and stormwater runoff would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less-than-Significant Impact. As outlined in the Geotechnical Evaluation completed for the project, groundwater was encountered at borings 16.5 and 17 feet below grade (Appendix E). The use of dewatering techniques may be necessary if excavations below the groundwater elevation occur. As described in response to Section 2.10(a), the project would treat storm water runoff through the use of biofiltration basins. All storm water would be adequately treated by the biofiltration basins prior to being discharged to natural/undisturbed areas that could allow the runoff to infiltrate into the ground and eventually reach groundwater. As the project would use biofiltration and BMPs that would effectively treat stormwater runoff, it is not expected that project implementation would have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Additionally, in current conditions, the project site is almost entirely developed with impervious surfaces and would remain so following project implementation such that there would not a substantial net increase in impervious surfaces that would reduce groundwater recharge on the site.

A well may be drilled for the East -End Planning Area and West -End Planning Area to provide water for landscape irrigation. Wells shall be subject to approval by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. If utilized, wells and well equipment shall be properly screened using landscaping and/or a fence or structure. The irrigation water usage is estimated at 1 million gallons per year. The San Marcos Area Groundwater Basin is defined by DWR as a very low priority for groundwater overdraft pursuant to the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (San Diego County Water Authority 2023).

As such, there is currently no sustainable groundwater management plan applicable to th e project site.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. Although the project is considering well use for irrigation purposes; it is more likely to utilize irrigation water from VWD.

The project would receive potable water from VWD, who in turn, receives its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). MWD obtains water from local sources as well as the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, via the State Water Project (MWD 2021). Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 61
AUGUST 2023
basins through increasing water demand on-site or impede sustainable groundwater management of any groundwater basin. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less-than-Significant Impact. Under the existing conditions, the project site has been previously disturbed and is currently developed with paved areas and billboards. The project would involve grading activities that would bring the project site to a flat grade and the construction of new paved surfaces, residential buildings, commercial buildings and landscape areas. The project would also include a new eng ineered stormwater drainage system that would feature structural, water quality BMPs such as retention facilities to treat and manage stormwater flows.

As outlined in the SWQMPs prepared for the project (Appendices J and K), the receiving channel has been restored and is an actively managed conservation area, which would help with minimizing the potential for soil erosion. Additionally, the project would also include design features to reduce the potential for erosion.

The finish grade of the facility woul d be less than or equal to 2%, as flatter surfaces reduce erosion and channelization within the facility. It is recommended to have the ponding area side slopes be 3H:1V or shallower. The logic behind this is that gentle side slopes are safer, less prone t o erosion, establishes vegetation quickly, and is easier to maintain. The inflow velocities are going to be limited to 3 ft/s or less or energy dissipation methods are going to be used for concentrated inflows. Reducing these high inflow velocities will lower the amount of erosion, scouring, and channeling. Curb inlets are going to be at least 12 inches wide, have a 4 - to 6-inch drop and an apron and energy dissipation as needed. The energy dissipation would help reduce the potential erosion. If erosion due to concentrated stormwater runoff flow occurs, eroded areas would be repaired, re -seeded, or re-planted. Corrective measures would have to be made such as adding erosion control blankets, adding stones at flow -entry points, or minor grading to restore proper drainage according to the original plan. If the issue is not corrected by restoring the BMPs to the original plan and grade, the City engineer would be contacted prior to any additional repairs or reconstruction. There would be an inspection after every 0.5-inch or larger storm event, but if erosion due to storm water is observed, the inspection frequency would be changed to after every 0.1 -inch or larger storm event.

While the project’s future drainage conditions would be designed to mimic the existing on-site drainage conditions to the maximum extent practicable, construction activities would inevitably result in changes to the internal drainage patterns of the site. However, the project’s future storm drain system will be designed to conform with applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to drainage, hydrology, and water quality. In addition, the project’s structural water quality BMPs would be designed such that any potential sediments collected on site would be captured in retention facilities so that they would not be conveyed to downstream waters and result in siltation. As such, alteration of the on -site drainage pattern would be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater, such that it would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Therefore, impacts associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of the project site and erosion or siltation would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 62
AUGUST 2023
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed above, the project would inevitably result in changes to the internal drainage patterns of the proj ect site. However, the project’s future storm drain system would be designed to conform with applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to drainage, hydrology, and water quality. As such, alteration of the on -site drainage pattern would be c onducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.

As outlined in the “west” and “east” SWQMPs (Appendices J and K), the development area had a new storm drain added to collect runoff from the pads and discharge into the improved channel. Runoff would be collected in gutters, cross gutters, and shallow storm drains, which would direct the runoff to the biofiltration BMPs. The biofiltration BMPs have been sized for both pollutant control and hydromodification mitigation.

The landscaped parkway and street trees will provide retention and pollutant removal of runoff from the sidewalk and bike bath in accordance with Green Street guidance.

As outlined in the preliminary drainage study (Appendix I), the storm drain system for the proposed project’s residential and commercial development areas has been designed for the 100-year storm event. Using on- site detention systems, the site has been designed so that the channel would see no increase in flow for the proposed condition. The proposed project would benefit the adjacent properties by eliminating potential vector control issues with localized ponding and re-routing flows that currently lead off-site or add to runoff in the street. In the proposed c ondition, those off-site runoffs will be captured, treated for water quality, and safety released to the channel.

In addition, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Maps No. 06073C0789H and No. 06073C0793G for the project area, the project site is located within Zone X, which is defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as an area located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains (FEMA 2012).

Therefore, impacts associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of the project site and f looding would be less than significant.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously addressed, the project would inevitably alter the drainage patters of the project site; however, the project would include a new engineered stormwater drainage system that would be designed to conform with applicable federal, state, and local requirements related to drainage, hydrology, and water quality. As described above, through the use of on -site det ention systems, the site has been designed so that the channel would see no increase in flow for the proposed condition. The proposed project would benefit the adjacent properties by eliminating potential vector control issues with localized ponding and re -routing flows that currently lead off -site or add to runoff in the street. In the proposed condition, those off -site runoffs would be captured, treated, for water quality, and safely released to the channel. Alteration of the on -site drainage pattern woul d be conducted in a manner consistent with all applicable standards related to the collection and treatment of stormwater.

Therefore, impacts associated with altering the existing drainage pattern of the project site and stormwater would be less than signi ficant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 63
AUGUST 2023
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard per the Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM panels No. 06073C0789H and No. 06073C0793G effective May 16, 2012. Zone X is defined as an area located outside of the 100 -year and 500-year flood plains (FEMA 2012). In addition, as previously discussed, although internal drainage patterns would be somewhat altered as a result of project development, the project would maintain adequate stormwater conveyance as to not result in an increase of surface runoff that would result in flooding on - or off-site associated with the 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. As outlined in the “west” and “east ” SWQMPs (Appendices J and K), overflow is designed to safely convey to a downstream storm drain system or discharge point size overflow structure to pass 100-year peak flow for on-line infiltration basins and water quality peak flow for off-line basins. This design was put into place because planning for overflow lessons the risk of property damage due to flooding. Therefore, impacts associated with impeding or redirecting flood flows would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. The project site is approximately 8 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to inundation by tsunami. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area, and is not located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Given that the project site is not located near a large standing body of water, inundation by seiche (or standing wave) is considered negligible. The project site is generally flat with no steep slopes and does not contain slopes subject to mudflows; and therefore, no impacts related to inundation would occur.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The Carlsbad Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan ( WQIP) update was a ccepted in December 2021 for the Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies, which include the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista, and the County of San Diego. The purpose of the Carlsbad W QIP is to guide the Responsible Agenc ies’ Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plans towards improving water quality in Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System discharges (or storm water discharges) and receiving water bodies. Responsible Agencies’ Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plans contain the strategies, standards and protocols by which each Responsible Agency will implement their individual program in response to the priorities and goals established in the WQIP (Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies 2021). The City of San Marcos Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan update was approved in January 2017. The project would be required to com ply with the City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan construction and land use guidelines.

The proposed project is located within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area, which is the second largest within the Carlsbad Watershed Management Area. The Carlsbad Management Area Water WQIP outlines areas of priority water quality conditions and highest priority water quality conditions. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Carlsbad Management Area Water WQIP or any other water quality plan. Further, the site is not located within a sustainable groundwater management plan area. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 64
AUGUST 2023

2.11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in the construction of 102 multifamily residential units, 7 live -work units, 7,658 sf of office space, 49,266 sf of retail space, and associated recreational and parking improvements on 11.07 acres of the project site. Residential units would be contained within 15 townhome buildings, and the units would be a mix of six different types, ranging in size from two to three bedrooms. The residential buildings would be located on the northwestern portion of the project site, and commercial uses would be places along the southern and eastern project boundaries.

The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA) to allow for the proposed multifamily dwelling units, commercial space, associated amenities, and private open space. The Specific Plan has bee n prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a multi-land use development. Although development of the proposed residential land uses would be inconsistent with the existing land use and zoning designation, the project site is located in an urban part of the City within close proximity to a range of existing infrastructure and development including commercial uses, parks, single and multifamily residential, and schools/educational facilities. The proposed project would not incorporate new roads or require removal of roads that currently provide access to the area. Furthermore, because the project site is surrounded by existing roadways, no separation or disruption of surrounding uses would occur as a result of the project’s implementation. As such, the incorporation of the proposed project would not divide an established community, and impacts would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 65
AUGUST 2023
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA) to allow for the proposed multifamily dwelling units, commercial space, associated amenities, and private open space. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a multi-land use development. The Specific Plan serves as both a policy document an d a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan. The Site Development Plan will configure the site for multifamily dwelling units, commercial space, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space. The Tentative Subdivision Map presents specific lot configurations for the site. A Conditional Use Permit would be required for proposed uses associated with the commercial portion of the project.

Upon City approval of t he GPA/Rezone to Specific Plan Area, the proposed project would be required to comply with the allowable multifamily residential and commercial uses and development standards outlined in the Specific Plan prepared for the project site. Although the proposed project would amend the land use designation, the concurrent process of amending the General Plan designation does not necessarily equate to consistency with the document. The proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goals , and project implementation would not impede the City’s ability to achieve these goals. A General Plan Consistency Analysis was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix B to the Marcos Specific Plan (Appendix A to this IS/MND).

The project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, as further discussed below.
2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SANDAG’s 2050 RTP/SCS outlines projects for rail and bus services, highways, local streets, bicycling, and walking, movement of goods, as well as systems and demand management. The 2050 RTP/SCS presents a transportation system designed to maximize transit enhancements, integrate biking and walking elements, and promote programs to reduce demand and increase efficiency. As described in Section 2.17, Transportation, the proposed project would provide for residential land uses in an infill area, taking advantage of the site’s location near transit, retail, employment, schools, parks, and other uses. The proposed project would be consistent with p rograms, plans, ordinances and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Although the proposed project would not be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designations, the propos ed project would generate fewer GHG emissions at buildout than potential development permitted under the existing land use designations. Thus, the proposed project would not increase land use intensities as provided in the RTP/SCS and would therefore not result in environmental impacts due to inconsistency with this plan.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 66
AUGUST 2023
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 City of San Marcos Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (San Marcos Subarea Plan) (City of San Marcos 2001) has not been finalized or implemented, and the City is no longer an active participant in the Natural Community Conservation Plan program or the subregional MHCP conservation planning effort. However, it is the City’s poli cy to comply with the conservation policies identified in the draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, including an assessment of a 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.

As described above in Section 2.4, Biological Resources, proposed project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources. However, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1 and MM BIO-2 outlined in Section 2.4 would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the MHCP or draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, or other applicable regulations related to biological resources. Implementat ion of proposed mitigation, and City review of development plans for the project site would ensure impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element goals of the City’s General Plan, as shown in the General Plan Consistency Analysis prepared for the project which is included as Appendix B to the Marcos Specific Plan (Appendix A to this IS/MND).

San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20
As described above, a Rezone would be required to re -designate the project site from Commercial to Specific Plan Area. Approval of the proposed GPA/Rezone would allow for development of the project site with the proposed residential land uses and associated amenities and improvements. Upon City approval of the GPA/Rezone to Specific Plan Area, the proposed project would be required to comply with the allowable uses and development standards outlined in the Specific Plan prepared for the project site (Appendix A). Although the proposed project would amend the land use designation and zoning to Specific Plan Area, the concurrent process of amending the zoning designation does not necessarily equate to consistency with the Zoning Ordinance. However, with the ex ception of the request for a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the project site, the proposed project would be consistent with the remaining goals that guide development within the City. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of the site would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Based on the considerations outlined above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Therefore, project impacts related to land use and planning are determined to be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 67
AUGUST 2023

2.12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?

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

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element, the City has land classified in all four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) (City of San Marcos 2012 a). The different MRZs are defined as follows:

MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.

MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists.

MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.

MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.

California does not require that local governments protect land designated as MRZ -1, MRZ-3, or MRZ -4.

However, the City is responsible for recognizing lands designated as MRZ -2 and protecting these areas from premature development incompatible with mining. City lands designated as MRZ -2 include small portions between Double Peak, Mt. Whitney, and Franks Peak; and small portions in the northern Sphere of Influence within Twin Oaks Valley Neighborhood (City of San Marcos 2012 a). These locations do not overlap with the proposed project site; therefore, no loss of known mineral resources would occur.

Furthermore, the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any local general plan, specific p lan, or other land use plan (City of San Marcos 2012 a). Thus, due to the location and nature of the proposed project, there would be no impact to mineral resources.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 68
AUGUST 2023
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral res ource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Please see response to Threshold 2.12(a) above.

2.13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. NOISE – Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?

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

The following analysis is based, in part, on the Noise Technical Report prepared for the project by Dudek in December 2022, which is included as Appendix G to this EIR.

In light of these above significance criteria, this analysis uses the following standa rds to evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts.
▪ Construction noise – the City has adopted the County’s construction noise threshold of not exceeding 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) for an 8-hour period, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., when measured at any occupied property where the noise is being received.
▪ Off-site project-attributed transportation noise – For purposes for this analysis, a direct roadway noise impact would be considered significant if increases in roadway traffic noise leve ls attributed to the proposed project were greater than 3 dBA community noise equivalent level ( CNEL) at an existing noise - sensitive land use.
▪ Off-site project-attributed stationary noise – For purposes for this analysis, a noise impact would be considered significant if noise from on -site project sound sources, including typical operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), other electro -mechanical systems, as well as outdoor events, exceeded 65 dBA hourly energy equivalent level (Leq) at the property line from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and 55 dBA hourly Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 69
AUGUST 2023
▪ Construction vibration – Guidance from Caltrans indicates that a vibration velocity level of 0.2 inches per second (ips) peak particle velocity (PPV) received at a structure would be considered annoying by occupants within (Caltrans 2020). As for the receiving structure itself, aforementioned Caltrans guidance from Section 2 recommends that a vibration level of 0.3 ips PPV would represent the threshold for building damage k. a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less-than-Significant Impact.

Short -Term Construction Noise
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena, varying from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance between the source and receptor. Equipment that would be in use during construction would include, in part, graders, scrapers, backhoes, rubber-tired dozers, loaders, cranes, forklifts, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, and air compressors.

The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 3 of Appendix G. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, which the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006) characterizes as “acoustical usage factor” and thereby produces energy-average noise levels over time (L eq) that are less than the listed maximum noise level. The aver age sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment actually operates on site.

Using the provided construction information, prediction results are summarized in Table 4 of Appendix G, at the nearest noise-sensitive receptor for two calculation scenarios as follows:
▪ Usage of the shortest activity -to-receptor distance for the loudest equipment type and quantity associated with the studied construction phase, with less noisy equipment types at successive distance increments of 50 feet; and
▪ An “acoustic centroid” approach, akin to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) general assessment technique for estimating construction noise, whereby all listed equipment for a construction phase is represented by a common locati on at the geographic center of the studied construction zone or area.

The first of these methods is considered a conservative approach to assess what might be characterized as a peak exposure level, applicable to not more than approximately 10% –15% of the total construction period and when the studied construction activity is taking place with loudest equipment along the property boundary closest to these nearest off -site receivers. The second approach utilizes the acoustic centroid technique to represent a time-averaged location for the phase equipment and activity, thereby yielding average noise levels to represent overall noise exposure as experienced for adjacent receivers over the duration of each construction phase.

A Microsoft Excel –based noise predi ction model emulating and using reference data from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels. (Although the Roadway Construction Noise Model was funded and promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, it is often used for non-roadway projects, because the same types of construction

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 70
AUGUST 2023
equipment used for roadway projects are often used for other types of construction.) Input variables for the predictive modeling consist of the equipment type and number of each, the aforementioned acoustical usage factor, the expected duration (in hours) of on-site activity, and the distance from the receiver. Conservatively, no topographical or structural shielding was assumed in the modeling.

As presented in Table 4 of Appendix G, the estimated construction noise exposure levels for each of the five expected sequential phases are not predicted to exceed 75 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the north of the project site under both of the calculation methods described above. ,Thus, temporary construction-related noise impacts would be considered less than significant.

Long -Term Operational Noise
Off-Site Roadway Traffic Noise
The proposed project would result in the creation of additional vehicle trips on local roadways (i.e., Linda Vista Drive, Grand Avenue, and Via Vera Cruz), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent noise-sensitive land uses. The project is expected to generate a net total of 2,241 daily trips to the roadway system (Appendix H). As shown in Table 3.1 of the project’s Transportation Impact Study (Appendix H), during the PM peak-hour, approximately 189 vehicles are estimated to enter or exit the project site. Utilizing this information, an emulator based on the Federal Highway Administration ’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model RD-77-108 was used to estimate potential noise impacts at adjacent noise-sensitive uses.

Information used in the model included posted traffic speeds, truck mix percentage, and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes ( expressed as vehicles per hour) for the existing, near -term year 2024 with and without project, and horizon year 2050 with and without project conditions. ADT volumes for I -78 were obtained separately via the SANDAG Transportation Forecast Information Cent er for the existing (2016), near-term (2025), and horizon (2050) years. Existing (2022) and Near -Term (2024) ADT volumes for I-78 were derived by determining the yearly percentage increase or decrease in traffic using the information available from the Transportation Forecast Information Center. Consistent with Caltrans guidance (Caltrans 2013), this analysis assumes 80% of the ADT occurs during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), 5% during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and 15% during the night time (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

Appendix G contains the input data and results of the traffic noise modeling effort. In summary, the project would have to roughly double the traffic volumes on nearby studied roadway segments in order to increase traffic by 3 dBA, which would be considered a barely perceptible increase (Caltrans 2013).

Traffic noise levels were modeled at the same geographic positions as the measured locations ST2 and ST3 as shown in Appendix G. The traffic noise level for ST1 was predicted at the northwestern boundary of the project site to be representative of the future residences located behind a proposed 6-foot noise wall.

The traffic noise model results are summarized in Table 5 of Appendix G, and represented by CNEL values.

Table 5 of Appendix G shows that at all three listed representative receivers, the addition of proposed project traffic to the local roadway network would result in a CNEL increase of less than or equal 1 dB, which is below the discernible level of change for the ave rage healthy human ear. Thus, a less -than- significant impact is expected for proposed project-related off-site traffic noise increases affecting existing residences in the vicinity.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 71
AUGUST 2023
On-Site Roadway Traffic Noise
As of January 2019, the study of future project residential exposures to off-site transportation noise sources is not considered for noise impact assessment at the California state level. Hence, for informational purposes and as shown in Table 5 of Appendix G, predicted future (2024 and 2050) “with project” noise levels exceed the City’s “conditionally acceptable” multifamily/mixed-use land use compatibility standard threshold of 75 dBA CNEL at the receiver representing the multifamily residences located adjacent to Grand Avenue. The proposed 6-foot noise wall on the northeastern side of the property, situated between the project buildings and the parallel major roadway represented by Grand Avenue and CA -78 traffic, is predicted to provide an insertion loss of approximately three to four dBA for first-floor exterior areas.

Second floor balconies (as shown in Exhibit D of Appendix G) facing Grand Avenue and CA -78 are also predicted to exceed 75 dBA CNEL but would not be benefited by the additional three to four dBA of insertion loss from the 6-foot noise wall. If these balconies are not merely an architectural or decorative feature and are intended to be used as private outdoor spaces with the potential to be occupied by residents or their guests, then those balconies would need to be acoustically upgraded to reduce outdoor noise exposure for seated occupants.

An approach that Dudek has recommended on previous residential projects is to provide this identified noise reduction need by way of the addition of a solid and sufficiently massive material layer to the planned square-tubed metal railings on the balcony usable area perimeter. As depicted in Exhibit E of Appendix G, showing detail from a previously studied project (and thus used merely for illustration purposes), proposed installation of a 6 -millimeter (0.236-inch) sheet of plexiglass (acrylic) on the interior -facing side of the balcony railing structure would be expected to yield an effective sound transmission class rating of at least

15. Although the material itself has a sound transmission class rating of 29, the approximate 1-inch-wide air gap between the bottom edge of the plexiglass panel and the balcony floor results in lower expected sound transmission class performance. In other words, the area of the gap as a fraction of the barrier material surface area causes the reduction in sound transmission loss performance. Other material options and designs are possible, subject to non-acoustical considerations such as desired barrier opacity, balcony deck drainage, etc., provided that the designed installation has barrier material having adequate mass and solidity, an approximate deck to top-edge height of 42 inches (3.5 feet), and with minimized airgaps such as the sample appearing in Exhibit E of Appendix G.

Exhibit F of Appendix G illustrates examples of similar sound -blocking balcony barriers to help reduce incoming traffic noise and increase occupant privacy at pre -existing Vista Flores Apartments and Barham Villas Apartments that overlook and are within co mparable horizontal distances to the CA -78 highway as anticipated project facades appearing in Exhibit D of Appendix G.

On these bases, implementation of PDF -NOI-1 and PDF -NOI-2 below would help reduce traffic noise exposure levels. However, predicted traf fic noise exposure levels may still exceed the City’s land use compatibility standard of 65 dBA CNEL at the Private Usable Open Spaces for these Category B receptors per Table 7-4 (as shown in Exhibit B of Appendix G). As permitted by note 5 in Table 7-4 (as shown in Exhibit B of Appendix G), the project’s group Usable Open Spaces (pool, playground, etc.) that are shielded by multiple project building rows would be predicted to have traffic noise exposure levels less than 65 dBA CNEL and would therefore be compatible with the City’s land use compatibility standard. This is supported by language in note 5 from Table 7-4 (as shown in Exhibit B of Appendix G) as follows: “When the noise limit

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 72
AUGUST 2023
for Private Usable Open Space cannot be met, then a Group Usable Open Space that meets the exterior noise level standard shall be provided.”
PDF-NOI-1 Where project exterior on -site noise levels due to off -site surface transportation noise sources are predicted to exceed 65 dBA CNEL at useable open space areas, the project shall install noise-reducing features external to or upon the useable open space areas (or within, as practical and appropriate) in the form of sound walls, fencing, landscape berms, or similarly performing barriers to occlude incoming roadway traffic noise.

PDF-NOI-2 Residential unit patios or balconies with roadway -facing building facades predicted to be exposed to external noise levels in excess of 65 A -weighted decibels community noise equivalent level shall feature railings or other partial-height barriers comprising sufficiently solid and dense materials (e.g., acrylic, glass, wood that exhibits a sound transmission class rating of at least 20) and of a 42 -inch minimum height (from floor or deck of the balcony surface) that occludes direct sound path f rom the noise -producing roadway of concern and a seated patio or balcony occupant.

Stationary Project Operations Noise
The completion of various buildings on the project site will add a variety of noise -producing mechanical equipment that include those pre sented and discussed in the following paragraphs. In addition to noise-producing mechanical equipment on the roofs of the project buildings, the site contains several proposed outdoor spaces on the east side of the site where events are expected to take pl ace. Most of these noise -producing equipment or sound sources would be considered stationary, or limited in mobility to a defined area.

The aggregate noise emission from these outdoor -exposed sound sources has been predicted with the Datakustik CadnaA sound propagation program. CadnaA is a commercially available software program for the calculation, presentation, assessment, and prediction of environmental noise based on algorithms and reference data per International Organization of Standardization Standard 9613-2, “Attenuation of Sound During Propagation Outdoors, Part 2: General Method of Calculation” (ISO 1996). The following assumptions and parameters are included in this CadnaA-supported stationary noise source assessment:
▪ Ground effect acoustical absorption coefficient equal to 0.5, which intends to represent an average or blending of ground covers that are characterized largely by hard reflective pavements and existing building surfaces across the project site and the surroundings; ▪ Reflection order of 1, which allows for a single reflection of sound paths on encountered structural surfaces such as the modeled building masses;
▪ Off-site residential structures and the commercial buildings have not been rendered in the model; ▪ Calm meteorological condition s (i.e., no wind) with 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 50% relative humidity; and
▪ All of the modeled noise sources are operating concurrently and continuously for a minimum period of 1 hour.

As analyzed in Appendix G, aggregate noise emission from continuously operating outdoor-exposed rooftop HVAC units is expected to range between 20 to 36 dBA hourly L eq, which is below the City’s exterior noise

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 73
AUGUST 2023
Threshold of 60 dBA L eq for commercial land uses and below the proposed Specific Plan Threshold of 65 dBA Leq at the site boundary. Additionally, aggregate project noise emission from the combination of this anticipated building HVAC noise and a “large” in -progress outdoor event attended by 100 people at the planned event area is expected to range between 25 to 60 dBA hourly Leq, which is below the Specific Plan Threshold of 65 dBA Leq at the site boundary. Given that such a large attended outdoor event is predicted to be compliant, one can reasonably assume that an HVAC -plus-event noise emission associated with “small” outdoor events that may occur locally around distinct project buildings would, on the basis of smaller event attendance having less acoustical contribution due to average speech levels, also be compliant with this Specific Plan standard.

Therefore, noise impacts associated with stationary operations related to rooftop HVAC equipment would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities may expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise, causing a potentially significant impact. Caltrans has collected groundborne vibration information related to construction activities (Caltrans 2020). Inform ation from Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.2 ips is considered annoying.

For context, heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected on the project site, have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.089 ips PPV or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018).

Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through in tervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans guidance. As outlined in Section 5 of Appendix G , PPV rcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receiver position, PPV ref is the reference value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the actual horizontal distance to the receiver. Therefore, at this predicted PPV, the impact of vibration -induced annoyance to occupants of nearby commercial buildings would be less than significant.

Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, anticipated construction vibration associated with the proposed project would yield levels of 0.16 ips PPV, which does not surpass th e guidance limit of 0.3 ips PPV for preventing damage to older residential structures (Caltrans 2020). Because the predicted vibration level at 30 feet is less than this guidance limit, the risk of vibration damage to nearby structures is considered less than significant.

Once operational, the proposed project would not be expected to feature major producers of groundborne vibration. Anticipated mechanical systems like heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning units are designed and manufactured to feature rotating (fans, motors) and reciprocating (compressors) components that are well-balanced with isolated vibration within or external to the equipment casings. On this basis, potential vibration impacts due to proposed project operation would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 74
AUGUST 2023
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less-than-Significant Impact. There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. The closest airport to the project site is the McClellan Palomar Airport, approximately 5 miles wes t of the site.

According to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SDCRAA 2011) the project site is not located within a noise exposure contour and would therefore not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive n oise levels. Impacts from aviation overflight noise exposure would be less than significant.

2.14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?

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

a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously described, t he proposed project would consist of the construction of 102 multifamily residential units, 7 live-work units, 7,658 sf of office space, 49,266 sf of specialty retail space, and associated open space and parking improvements on an 11.07-acre project site.

Residential units would be contained within 15 townhome buildings, and units would be a mix of six different unit types, ranging in size from two to three bedrooms. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Commercial (C) to Specific Plan Area (SPA) to allow for its residential, commercial, and open space components.

As of 2022, the City has a persons per household ratio of 3.01 (DOF 2022). As such, the project’s 10 9 residential dwelling units (inclusive of the 7 live-work units) would generate approximately 3282 residents.

Although not all residents of the project would be new to the City, residential development at the project

2 3.01 x 109 = 328.09

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 75
AUGUST 2023
site would be considered unplanned growth, as a residential land use at the project site is not accounted for in the City’s Zoning or General Plan land use designation.

Development of the project , however, is unlikely to directly induce substantial population growth in the area. This is because the area surrounding the project site is already developed. Additionally, because the proposed project site is currently developed and includes existing access roads and utility service, no indirect impacts associated with the extension or construction of roads or expansion of public utilities are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.

The City is forecasted to grow from 98,915 persons in 2020 to 109,095 persons in 2035, resulting in a population increase of 10,180 (SANDAG 2013). Additionally, SANDAG allocated 3,116 housing units to the San Marcos area for the 2021 -2029 Housing Element Cycle ( City of San Marcos 2021 ). Therefore, the population growth associated with the project is well within the City’s anticipated population growth. The implementation of the project would help to accommodate the City’s expected population growth and help meet its housing needs goal.

The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the City’s General Plan Housing Element goals and policies, compliance with housing -related ordinances in the City’s M unicipal Code, and would be subject to applicable development fees, as outlined below.

The City’s Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.315 of the Municipal Code) was adopted to implement the General Plan and to manage the projected growth of residential, industrial, and commercial development. The ordinance requires that all new development bear the cost of providing the public facilities and services needed to effectively serve the new development. The Growth Management Ordinance does not limit density of development or cap the number of residential building permits that can be issued within the planning period. To the contrary, the ordinance will ensure that public facilities and services are, or will be, provided to serve future residential development anticipated by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, established in May 2000, requires housing developers of one or more units to contribute to housing for extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Developers of for-sale single family projects and rental projects of six or fewer units may pay an in -lieu fee in accordance with Section

20.310.050 of the Municipal Code. In-lieu fees are deposited into an interest-accruing account to provide housing opportunities for target households. The City has the discretion to accept an irrevocable dedication of land or other non-monetary contribution that is not less in value than the otherwise required in-lieu fee if the non-monetary alternative furthers the goals and policies of the Housing Element.

The City charges fees to process plans submitted for residential projects and to finance the provision of important services that are needed to accommodate housing and population growth. Fees and exactions are used to finance public facilities, roadways, water and sewer infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Nearly all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project’s impact or the extent of the benefit that will be derived. The City’s fees have not been found to act as a constraint to the development of housing in San Marcos. For new residential projects, developers in San Marcos may be required to pay one or more of the following fees depending on the location, type, and size of the project: Planning, Building and Environmental Fees; City Impact Fees; and Regional Impact Fees (City of San Marcos 2013).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 76
AUGUST 2023
In summary, implementation of the project would change the site’s land use designation and zoning from Commercial to Specific Plan Area in a manner that would accommodate development of 109 residential units, 7,658 sf of office space, 49,266 sf of specialty retail space, and associated open space and parking improvements. The project is anticipated to generate approximately 328 residents, which is well within the City’s projected population growth. Additionally, while residential uses are not currently accounted for under the City’s existing zoning and general plan land use designation, the addition of 109 residential units would help the City to reach its goal of 3,116 new residential units by 2029. Furthermore, the project would not induce substantial population growth in the vicinity of the project site because the area is developed with existing roads and utilities. Therefore, no indirect impacts associated with the extension or construction of roads or other infrastructure is expected to occur as a result of the project. City requ irements for funding and pre-planning for implementation of housing projects would also ensure that proposed project growth is adequately planned for prior to development. As such, for the reasons described above, the project’s impacts associated with substantial unplanned population growth would be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Given that no residential uses are located on the project site, the project would not displace existing housing, nor would it impede future residential development potential. The project site is currently vacant and does not contain any business or residential uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with the displacement of people or housing would occur.

2.15 Public Services

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

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 77
AUGUST 2023
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Fire and Emergency Medical Services in the City are provided by SMFD.

SMFD Station 1 , located at 180 West Mission Road (approximately 1.25 miles east of the project site), would which provide primary response to the project site, and SMFD Station 2, located at 1250 South Rancho Santa Fe Road (approximately 2.15 miles southwest of the project site) would provide additional support as necessary.

The project would result in the development of 109 multifamily residential units, 7,658 sf of office space, and 49,266 sf of retail space. As outlined in Section 2.14, Population and Housing, the project’s residential component is expected to house approximately 328 residents. Under existing conditions, the project site is currently primarily vacant and is developed with paved areas and billboards. As such, the proposed project would increase the demand for SMFD resources when compared to existing conditions, as the project would result in an increase in calls for fire and emergency medical calls on the project site.

As previously discussed, however, the project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth.

As such, the project is not anticipated to result the need for new facilities or physically altered facilities related to fire protection services. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 17.44.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project’s developer would be required to pay the City’s Development Services Fees, which would be used to fund City services, including SMFD . This would offset the costs of increased personnel or equipment that could be required to maintain acceptable servic e ratios, response times, and other performance objectives under project conditions. Furthermore, the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with all appliable provisions of the state and local fire code. As such, for the reasons described above, the project’s impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant.

Police protection?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City contracts with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services (City of San Marcos 2022a). The San Diego County Sheriff’s San Marcos Station is located at 182 Santa Place, approximately 2.1 miles east of the project site.

The project would result in the development of 109 multifamily residential units, 7,658 sf of office space, and 49,266 sf of retail space. As outlined in Section 2.14, the project’s residential component is expected to house approximately 328 residents. Under existing conditions, the project site is currently vacant and is developed with paved areas and billboards. As such, the proposed project would increase the demand for police services when compared to existing conditions, as the project would result in an increase in police calls to the project site.

Implementation of the proposed project would be expected to increase the frequency of emergency and non-emergency calls to the Sherriff’s Department. However, over 100 deputies, volunteers, and professional staff serve the residents of the City (SDCSD 2022). Law enforcement services include general patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention, juvenile services, narcotics and gang investigations,

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 78
AUGUST 2023
communications and dispatch, and various management support services. Unlike fire services, which respond solely to emergencies, law enforcement services consist of patrolling large areas 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Police units are continuously mobile, and service calls are responded to by the nearest available mobile unit. At the San Marcos Station, patr ol deputies are assigned to a geographical “beat” area, allowing deputies to become familiar with citizens and problems within their “beats” ( City of San Marcos 2012b).

As previously discussed, the proposed project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth.

As such, the project is not anticipated to result the need for new facilities or physically altered facilities related to police protection services. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 17.44.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project’s developer would be required to pay the City’s Development Services Fees, which would be used to fund City services, including the Sheriff’s Department. This would offset the costs of increased personnel or equipment that may be required to maintain accep table service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives under project conditions. As such, service ratios and response times are anticipated to remain adequate with implementation of the proposed project, and the proposed project is not expected to affect police protection such that new or physically altered governmental facilities are needed. Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, the project’s impacts on police protection services would be less than significant.

Schools?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Public education throughout the City is provided by the San Marcos Unified School Distric t (SMUSD). The project site is in the service area of La Mirada Academy (approximately

0.85 miles west of the project site) which serves grades K-8, and San Marcos High School (approximately

1.15 miles southwest of the project site) which serves grades 9 -12. According to the City’s General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element, the City’s generation rates for SMUSD students per household are as follows: elementary school students (grades K–5): 0.2297 per household, middle school students (grades 6–8): 0.0993 per household, and high school students (grades 9–12): 0.1234 per household (City of San Marcos 201 2c). As such, the project’s 10 9 residential units would result in the generation of approximately 25 elementary school students, 11 middle school students, and 13 high school students.

These contributions to the existing district’s enrollment would be nominal and would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities.

The project’s developer would also be required to contribute de velopment fees to SMUSD pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620 et seq. and Government Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b), as well as the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.52.050. The current school fee for residential development required by S MUSD is $4. 79 per sf for residential development and $0.78 per sf for commercial development; however, this fee is subject to change between the drafting of this document and the issuance of a building permit (SMUSD 2022). Furthermore, consistent with General Plan Policy LU -11.2, the project’s developer would be required to provide a “will serve” letter substantiati ng that the develop has paid the required school fees prior to the issuance of a building permit. These fees would offset the costs of increased personnel or equipment that SMUSD to continue to provide an adequate level of service under project conditions. Therefore, for the reasons described above, the project’s impacts associated with public school services would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 79
AUGUST 2023
Parks?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously described, the proposed project would result in the addition of ap proximately 328 residents in the City. This increase in residents would increase demands for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. The addition of 328 residents, however, would be a nominal contribution to the City. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the need for new or physical altered park facilities. Additionally, the project’s developer would be required to pay a Park and Recreational Development Construction Unit Fee, pursuant to Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code. These fees would be used for public park improvements, to ensure the City is able to provide an adequate level of parks and recreational services under project conditions. The proposed project would also include a number of on-site recreational amenities to help offset the project’s contribution to the demand for public parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, the project’s impacts on park facilities would be less than significant. For further discussion on the project’ s impacts on the City’s recreational services, refer to Section 2.16, Recreation, below.

Other public facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Other public facilities provided within the City include library services.

Library services within the City are provided by the San Diego County Library system. The San Marcos Branch, located at 2 Civic Center Drive, is located approximately 1.4 miles east of the project site. The project’s addition of 328 residents would increase the demand for library services in the City. This increase, however, would be nominal and would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities.

Additionally, as described in the Section 9.08.020 of the City’s Municipal Code, library services are considered a compon ent of the City’s parks and recreation services. Therefore, a portion of the development fees that would be paid pursuant to Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, would be dedicated toward the improvement of existing library services. As such, the proposed project’s impacts on library services would be less than significant.

2.16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 80
AUGUST 2023
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less-than-Significant Impact. The City provides nearly 290 acres of existing parkland including 24 community parks, 13 neighborhood parks, and 3 recreation centers. The City also provides a 70-mile trail network for hiking, biking, running, and equestrian use ( City of San Marcos 2022b). The parks nearest to the project site is Mission Sports Park, located approximately 0.35 miles northeast of the project site.

As described in Section 2.14, the project is expected to result in the generation of approximately 328 residents in the City. While this would result in an increase in the demand for recreational facilities , this increase, however, would be nominal and would not result in the need for new or physically altered park or recreational facilities.

The proposed project would include approximately 80,767 -sf of common open space area including recreational amenities such as a pool, BBQ area, wal king path adjacent to Las Posas Creek, and other amenities spread throughout the Planning Area. Individual units would have the benefit of private open space ranging from 95-sf to 255-sf with a total of 14,899-sf of private open space provided throughout the West-End Planning Area dwelling units. These on -site amenities would help to offset a portion of the project’s demand for off-site parks and recreational facilities. Additionally, as stated it Section 2.15, Public Services, the project’s developer would be required to pay a Park and Recreational Development Construction Unit Fee, pursuant to Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code. These fees would be used for public park improvements, to ensure the City is able to provide an adequate level of parks and recreational services under project conditions. Therefore, for the reasons described above, the project’s impacts on existing neighborhood and regional parks would be less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is vacant with no existing recreational facilities on or near the project site . As mentioned above, the proposed project would include approximately 80,767 -sf of common open space area including recreational amenities such as a pool, BBQ area, walking path adjacent to Las Posas Creek, and other amenities spread throughout the Planning Area. These on-site amenities would be within the project site and included in the project’s design. Any potential environmental impacts related to the construction and o peration of these on -site recreational amenities are analyzed in this IS/MND as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the project. No adverse physical impacts beyond those already disclosed in this document would occur as a result of implementation of the project’s on-site recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of recreational facilities would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 81
AUGUST 2023

2.17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION – Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

The section is based on the Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) and the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Technical Memorandum, prepared by CR Associates in March 2023. These reports are included as Appendix H-1 and H-2, respectively. The traffic study area included signalized and unsignalized intersections along and adjacent to the project site, site access driveways, and any classified (non-residential) roadway segments that are linked to the intersections that are being studied. A complete list of intersections and roadway segments are provided in Appendix H-1.

The transportation impact analysis prepared for the proposed project is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the City of San Marcos’s General Plan Mobility Element and applicable provisions of CEQA, including disclosure of project impacts in both existing and cumulative horizon years. a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive with Grand Avenue to the north and Linda Vista Drive to the east and south. Adjacent land uses include commercial and industrial uses to the north, east, south, and west of the project site. The closest freeway is SR-78 located approximately 100 feet northeast of the project site.

Access to the project from the regional transportation network will be provided via SR -78, Grand Avenue, Linda Vista Drive, Via Vera Cruz, South Las Posas Road, and West San Marcos Boulevard. These facilities will either provide a direct connection to the project, via a project driveway, or will provide a critical link between the project and the regional transportation network.

Project site access would be provided via the following new project driveways:

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 82
AUGUST 2023
▪ Project Driveway #1 would be along the south side of Grand Avenue approximately 900 feet northwest of Linda Vista Drive. This driveway would be a new side -street stop -controlled intersection with Grand Avenue as the uncontrolled approach and the project driveway as the stop- controlled approach. This driveway would serve as the main entry point for residents. ▪ Project Driveway #2 would be located along the south side of Grand Avenue approximately 300 feet northwest of Linda Vista Drive. This driveway would be a new side -street stop -controlled intersection with Grand Avenue as the uncontrolled approach and the project driveway as the stop- controlled approach. This driveway would serve as one of three entry points for the retail and office components of the project.
▪ Project Driveway #3 would be located along the north side of Linda Vista Drive approximately 700 feet southwest of Grand Avenue. This driveway would be a new side -street stop -controlled intersection with Linda Vista Drive as the uncontrolled approach and the project driveway as the stop-controlled approach. This driveway would serve as one of three entry points for the retail and office components of the project.
▪ Project Driveway #4 would be located along the north side of Linda Vista Drive approximately 250 feet southwest of Grand Avenue. This driveway will be a new side-street stop-controlled intersection with Linda Vista Drive as the uncontrolled approach and the project driveway as the stop-controlled approach. This driveway will serve as one of three entry points for the retail and office components of the project.

As discussed above, a n LTA (see Appendix H-1) has been prepared for the project consistent with City requirements to evaluate the effects of the project on the circulation network, and improvements have been recommended that would increase performance of unacceptable roadways/intersections to acceptable or pre-project conditions.

The proposed project is consistent with SANDAG’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan policies and strategies to manage congestion, as it would develop in an infill area, and the project would incorporate safe access to/from the project site and surrounding roadways. The proposed project would also not preclude the development of any specific improvement projects identified in the Regional Plan to reduce regional congestion.

The project site is within 0.5 miles of the transit lines serviced by North County Transit District described below:
▪ Bus Route 347 – This bus route is serviced along West Mission Road and North Las Posas Road within the project study area. This bus route connects the Palomar College Transit Center to the CSU San Marcos SPRINTER Station. Operations starts at 5:31 a.m. and ends at 7:21 p.m. between Monday and Friday with 30-minute intervals. On Saturdays, operations start at 7:22 a.m. and ends at 7:08 p.m. with 60-minute intervals. This route does not operate on Sundays. ▪ Bus Route 445 – This bus route is serviced along West Mission Road and North Las Posas Road within the project study area. This bus route connects the Palomar College Transit Center to the Carlsbad Poinsettia Station (COASTER Connection). Between Monday and Friday, operations start at 6:34 a.m. and ends at 10:19 a.m. with 30-minute intervals for the morning period. Similarly, between Monday and Friday, operates start at 3:36 p.m. and ends at 7:19 p.m. with 30-minutes intervals for the afternoon period. This route does not operate on Saturdays or Sundays.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 83
AUGUST 2023
▪ SPRINTER – This light rail line runs between Oceanside Transit Center and Escondido Transit Center (eastbound and westbound direction). The nearest stop to the project site is the Palomar College Transit Center. Operation starts at 4:17 a.m. and ends at 9:10 p.m. between Monday and Sunday with 30-minute intervals.

Based on the preliminary review of the project site plan, the project would not conflict with existing or planned transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities and would not result in any impacts to transit facilities.

Under existing conditions, there are no Class II bicycle facilities along project frontage. However, per the City of San Marcos General Plan, there are planned Class II bicycle facilities along the segments of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive fronting the project. The project would construct a landscape buffer and a Class IV bike path with a separate pedestrian path adjacent to it at its project frontage along the segments of Linda Vista Drive and Grand Avenue.

The proposed Class IV bike path along Grand Avenue would transition the current on -street bike facilities on Grand Avenue to a physically separated bike lane within the multi -purpose trail component for the Specific Plan Area. These improvements would facilitate a safer bicycle lane along the project’s frontage and help facilitate a safer and more connected bicycle network city -wide. The Class IV bike lane planned for Linda Vista Drive is consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element’s call for at least a Class II bike lane. The Class IV bike lane would separate bicyclists from vehicles with a physical barrier incorporated in the planned multi-purpose trail along the frontage and transitioning back to the on -street bike lane south of the project. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing or planned bicycle facilities.

Public sidewalks are proposed along the segmen ts of Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive fronting the project. Sidewalks are also proposed throughout the internal roadways providing direct access to dwelling units, office and commercial buildings, and other on-site amenities.

Additionally, the project would reconstruct curb ramps located along project driveways, including detectable surface warning tactiles (yellow truncated domes). Implementation of the recommendation above should enhance the walkability and safety of the overall pedestrian environment, and reduce potential impacts to pedestrian facilities.

The project would not be inconsistent with any program, plan, or policy related to the above -mentioned goals nor would it preclude the City from implementing adopted transportation-related programs, plans, or policies. Additionally, since SB 743 went into effect, analysis of traffic congestion based on the level of service (LOS) metric is not part of the CEQA impact assessment. However, the City requires separate LOS- based traffic analysis to demonstr ate that the traffic added by the project would maintain mobility performance goals outlined in the City’s General Plan. As such, the LOS-based traffic study was submitted to the City under separate cover for review and approval (Appendix H-1).

The project would not conflict with any plans or policies regarding existing or proposed bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the study area and would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Mobility Element, included in the General Plan Consistency Analysis withi n Appendix A . As discussed above, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 84
AUGUST 2023
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, which creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alte rnative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts. Under the new transportation guidelines, LOS, or vehicle delay, will no longer be considered an environmental impact under CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research recommended VMT as the most appropriate measure of project transportation impacts for land use projects and land use plans. The updates to the CEQA Guidelines required under SB 743 were approved on December 28, 2018.

The Updated CEQA Guidelines state that “generally, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts” and define VMT as “the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” It should be noted that “automobile” refers to on -road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy -duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT). Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

On November 16, 2020, the City adopted its Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG). The following sections describe the analysis methods outlined in the City’s TIAG to describe how transportation related impacts are analyzed and identified in relation to VMT. Additionally, per the City TIAG, analysis methods are described to evaluate the traffic effect as a result of the proposed project in relation to LOS.

The City’s TIAG provide screening criteria to screen out VMT based on project size, location, provision of affordable housing, and transit availability. The City uses screening Thresholds to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed VMT study.

Relevant screening criteria for the proposed project is described below:
▪ Small Projects – Projects that generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis.

Trips should be calculated using SANDAG trip generation rates (or other sources if an applicable SANDAG rate is not available).
▪ Map-Based Screening for Residential a–d Office Projects - Residential and office projects located in areas that generate VMT below adopted City Threshold can be presumed to have a less-than- significant transportation impact. This determination must be made by SANDAG’s online residential and employment VMT maps for existing year or model baselines year VMT (whichever is available at the time analysis is being conducted), which show census tracts in the city where the VMT is below the regional average.
▪ Local-Serving Retail and Public Facilities – Retail projects that are 50,000 sf gross floor area or less can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. Retail can include shopping centers as well as standalone uses such as commercial shops, gas stations, and restaurants. This screening criteria applies to the entirety of a retail project; it would not be applied to multiple tenants at a retail site separately. For a mixed- use project, this screening criteria should be applied to the retail/commercial component separately to determine if that portion of the project screens out of a detailed VMT analysis.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 85
AUGUST 2023
Since the project would be composed of a mix of land uses, each component was evaluated independently per land use type. The screening criteria evaluation for each component is detailed below. ▪ Residential Component – Per Section 2.1.2.5 of the City’s TIAG, the project is located in an efficient VMT/capita area. Therefore, the residential component of the project is deemed to have a less - than-significant impact and no further VMT analysis is required. ▪ Office Component – Per Section 2.1.2.5 of the City’s TIAG, the project’s office component is not located in an efficient VMT/employee area. Therefore, the office component of the project would not be screened out from completing detailed VMT analysis. ▪ Retail Component – Per Section 2.1.2.3 of the City’s TIAG, the project consists of less than 50,000 sf of retail and considered “local-serving retail.” Therefore, the retail component of the project is to have a less-than-significant impact and no further VMT analysis is required.

The project’s VMT per employee was obtained from the SANDAG VMT screening map. Per the City’s TIAG, an employee project is determined to have a significant impact if the project generates VMT per employee greater than 85% of the regional average. The regional average VMT per employee was determined using the SANDAG Series 14 ABM2+ /2021 RP Year 2016 Base Year model. As outlined in Appendix H -2, the project (office component) is anticipated to generate a VMT per employee of 16.80 miles, which exceeds the significance Threshold of 16.07 miles. Therefore, the project would have a significant VMT impact and mitigation measures are required to reduce VMT per employee.

The project’s (office component) VMT per employee is not anticipated to fall under the significant Threshold as the project site is located in an area primarily composed of industrial and commercial land uses where employees travel longer -than-average distances for work compared to the region. As noted above, the project would have a significant VMT impact for the office component and mitigation measures are required to reduce the VMT per employee. The project’s total VMT per employee is 16.80 miles. To mitigate the project’s VMT to less-than-significant levels, mitigation measures would need to reduce the total VMT per employee by 4.4% from 16.80 miles to 16.07 miles.

To reduce the average VMT per employee, the project would implement MM-TRA-1, a Transportation Demand Management Program. A Transportation Demand Management Program would facilitate increased opportunities for walking and bicycling, as well as provide the resources, means, and incentives for ridesharing and carpooling. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity was taken into consideration initially ; however, the SANDAG Mobility Management Guidebook/VMT Reduction Tool was determined more appropriate as it identifies several measures th at specifically target employee VMT.

MM-TRA-1 would satisfy the “1A-Voluntary Employer Commute Program-5.4% employee VMT reduction with 100% employee eligibility ” SANDAG VMT Reduction tool measure. Table 2.17-1, Project VMT Mitigation , summarizes the project’s trip reductions and mitigation results.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 86
AUGUST 2023
Table 2.17-1. Project VMT Mitigation
VMT/Employee Threshold
Mitigation Measures
(% Reduction)
VMT/
Employee
Reduction
Net VMT/
Employee Mitigated?

16.80 16.07 SANDAG 1A (-5.4%) -5.4% 15.89 Yes
Source: Appendix H-2.

Based on the VMT reduction results, implementation of MM-TRA-1 is anticipated to reduce the VMT per employee generated by 5.4%. Thus, with the implementation of MM-TRA-1, the project is anticipated to generate 15.89% VMT per employee, which d oes not exceed the 16.07 Threshold. Therefore, since the MM-TRA-1 would reduce the VMT per employee to less-than-significant levels, the impact is mitigated, and the project is considered to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed pro ject would be developed within the vacant and highly disturbed, previously developed property, with the addition of roadway modifications, sidewalk improvements, and driveways. The project site is located in an area surrounded by development, off Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive. As described within Section 2.17(a), the project would be served by four driveways.

As outlined in Appendix H-1, the project would not impede traffic at the driveways or adjacent roadway system. The LTA recommends that that the project driveways are constructed in accordance with City standards, and that stop signs are installed at project driveways (Appendix H-1).

All final project plans and the LTA prepared for the project (included as Appendix H-1) are subject to review and approval by the City and the San Marcos Fire Department. Proposed circulation improvements per the LTA would be designed in accordance with the City’s roadway design standards to ensure proper safety requirements are met (Appendix H-1). These proposed circulation improvements are part of the proposed project’s design. All uses on-site, including vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be typical of such a development, and no incompatible uses, or equipment are proposed. Further, the proposed project is a mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses and would not result in land uses that would be incompatible with the existing land uses surrounding the project site. Therefore, impacts regarding increases in hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less-than-Significant Impact. As described in response to Threshold c ), the project would be served by two driveways located on Grand Avenue and two driveways located on Linda Vista Drive. All driveways would provide for full turning movements. According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan governs the operations of the City during a disaster. This plan addresses response to moderate evacuation scenarios, including the identification of evacuation points and general routes (City of San Marcos 2012b). The project would be required to abide by standards as set forth in the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan. Implementation of the project would not impact any roadway or staging areas that are identified in any emergency planning documents and would not impair

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 87
AUGUST 2023
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency r esponse plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Furthermore, the California Fire Code, along with the San Marcos Fire Department, administers the rules and regulations on fire access design. Final site plans will be required to show fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Section 503.1 through Section 503.4 of the California Fire Code), an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D, Section D106 of the California Fire Code. All final project plans and the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project are subject to review and approval by the City and the San Marcos Fire Department.

Proposed circulation improvements would be designed in accordance with the City’s roadway design standards to ensure proper safety requirements are met (Appendix H-1). Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, it is determined that impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
MM-TRA-1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. To reduce the average VMT per employee, the property manager of the office component of the project shall provide transit information to the tenants as well as offers for transit passes or subsidizes transit fares.

Rideshare and micro mobility parking shall be provided on site, as well as bicycle racks.

Tenants within the office areas will be encouraged to implement telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and/or compressed work weeks. Additionally, a preferent ial parking permit program shall be implemented.

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 88
AUGUST 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.

The evaluation of potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) is based on the findings resulting from tribal consultation conducted by the City, as the lead agency, as well as the findings of the Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report conducted by Dudek in December 2022 (Appendix D).

Senate Bill 18
California SB 18, which took effect on March 1, 2005, requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the NAHC for the purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places in creating or amending general plans and specific plans (Government Code Section 65352.3).

The project is subject to compliance with SB 18 (Government Code Section 65352.3), requires local governments to invite California Native American tribal representatives to participate in consultation about proposed General Plan and Specific Plan adoptions or amendments. The City is considering an amendment to the General Plan and Specific Plan for the parcels within the project site and as such, ini tiated SB 18 consultation . All NAHC -listed California Native American Tribal representatives that have requested project notification pursuant to SB 18 were sent letters by the City on May 18, 2022, via mail. The notification letters contained a project description, request for consultation, and contact information for the appropriate lead agency representative.

Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 of 2014 amended California Public Resources Code Section 5097.94 and added California Public Resources Code Sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2, and 21084.3. AB 52 established that TCRs must be considered under CEQA and also provided for additional Native American consultation requirements for the lead agency. California Public Resources Code Section 21074 describes a TCR as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object that is considered of cultural value to a California Native American Tribe. A TCR is either:
▪ On the CRHR or a local historic register;
▪ Eligible for the CRHR or a local historic register; or ▪ A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 89
AUGUST 2023
AB 52 formalizes the lead agency–tribal consultation process, requiring the lead agency to initiate the opportunity for tribal consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, including tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, MND, or EIR by contacting those tribal groups who have previously provided formal written request for notification of projects under the agency’s jurisdiction.

Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the California Public Resources Code , which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to TCRs, the consultation shall include those topics (California Public Resources Code, Section 21080.3.2[a]). Finally, the environmental document, for which the tribal consultation is focused, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable), developed in consideration of information provided by tribes during the formal consultation process, shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted ( California Public Resources Code, Section 21082.3[a]).

The project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (California Public Resources Code, Section 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to TCRs as part of the CEQA process, and that the lead agency notify California Native American Tribal representatives (that have requested notification) who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. All NAHC-listed California Native American Tribal representatives that have requested project notification pursuant to AB 52 were sent letters by the City on May 3, 2022, via mail. The notification letters contained a project description, outline of AB 52 timing, an invitation to consult, a project site plan, and contact information for the appropriate lead agency representative.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? Less-than-Significant Impact. As described under Section 2.5, Cultural Resources, a SCIC records search and NAHC Sacred Lands File search were conducted for the project site. The SCIC and NAHC Sacred Lands File results identified one cultural resource within the project area, which consists of a historic -age trash scatter. As discussed in Section 2.5, this resource did not meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the NRHP under any criteria. Moreover, an additional 47 cultural resources were identified within the 1-mile buffer. A NAHC Sacred Lands File search was requested on October 10, 2022. The results were received on November 30, 2022, and the results were negative. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect TCRs that are listed or eligible for listing in the state or local register. Impacts would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 90
AUGUST 2023
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The project is subject to compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 (California Public Resources Code , Section 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to TCRs as part of the CEQA process and requires lead agencies to provide notification of proposed projects to C alifornia Native American Tribal representatives that have requested such notifications. Outreach letters to all Native American group representatives included on the NAHC contact list were mailed out on May 3, 2022 as part of preparation of the Cultural R esources report to be completed for the project. To date, two (2) Tribes have requested consultation, including Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on May 20, 2022; and San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on June 6, 2022. The City conducted the consultation meeting with representatives of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on June 1, 2023, and consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians was concluded on January 12, 2023. The City conducted the consultation meeting with representatives of th e Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on February 21, 2023 , with consultation concluding on February 21, 2023 . Both the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians concluded formal consultation with the understanding that the project would implement the City’s standard tribal cultural resource mitigation measures. The project would implement these mitigation measures as outlined under MM-CUL-1 through MM -CUL-4 in Section 2.5 above. Consultation is pending completion with the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians at this time, and the City requested a close -out letter from the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians on May 15, 2023.

Implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, as discussed in Section 2.5, would reduce the potential for impacts to TCRs to occur, should any resources be located within the site’s subsurface. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
waste water treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

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

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 91
AUGUST 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Result in a determination by the waste
water treatment provider which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

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

The following analysis is based, in part, on the Preliminary Drainage Study and SWQMP s prepared for the project by Fuscoe Engineering LLC in March 2023, and on the Water and Sewer Study prepared by VWD in May 2023, which are included as Appendix I, J, K, and L, respectively, to this EIR. a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expande d water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities for the reasons discussed in the following subsections.

Water Facilities
The project involves the construction of a 102 -unit multifamily residential community, office space, and commercial space, which would increase demand for water supply on the project site. Water service would be provided by VWD, and there are existing water lines within Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive.

The project site is within VWD’s 855 Pressure Zone. The commercial portion of the project site would make two fire water connections, one in Grand Avenue and one in Linda Vista Drive. One domestic water line would connect at Grand Avenue. Water connections on the residential portion of site would be made to existing VWD water service lines underneath Grand Avenue. According to the VWD 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the anticipated demand for water supply within VWD’s service area is anticipated to be greater than the demand for water in the future, which indicates that VWD has available capacity to serve the proposed project (see Section 2.19[b]). The project’s nominal contribution to the total water demand could be served by existing water facilities serving the project area without requiring new or expanded facilities. Additionally, a Water and Sewer Study prepared for the project (Appendix L) concluded that although the project would increase the projected average water demand by

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 92
AUGUST 2023
approximately 28,967 gallons a day, the water storage capacity is av ailable to serve the project’s increased storage requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with the construction or expansion of water facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Wastewater collection would be provided by VWD, and there are existing sewer lines within Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive. Existing 8-inch and 15-inch wastewater lines are located adjacent to the project site, which connect to larger pipelines in Las Posas Road (Appendix L). The commercial portion of the project site would gravity drain via proposed 8-inch sewer lines connecting to an existing public sewer main in Linda Vista Drive. A separate 8-inch grease wastewater line would be constructed in anticipation of the inclusion of restaurant uses within the commercial portion of the site and would gravity drain to an internal sewer line connection before continuing to the public sewer connection in Linda Vista Drive. Grease traps would be strategically located along the 8-inch grease wastewater line to capture grease from restaurants.

Restaurants may be required to install additional grease traps during the tenant improvement process per City of San Marcos Building Code requirements. The residential portion of the project site would gravity drain via a proposed 8-inch sewer line to a public sewer connection on site. An existing 8-inch wastewater line located on the western property line will be abandoned and instead would gravity flow underneath proposed driveways to a connection on the adjacent proper ty to the existing sewer line. A new 20 -foot easement would be granted to VWD for the rerouted sewer line while VWD would maintain the rights to the existing 20-foot sewer easement through the site.

The VWD currently has a wastewater system that has a total liquids treatment capacity of 12.45 million gallons per day (MGD), and has an estimated maximum daily flow of approximately 9.54 MGD (City of San Marcos 2012c). VWD’s award-winning Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility (MRF) is capable of recycling up to 74% of the wastewater generated in VWD’s service area. Built in 1961, MRF is located within the southwestern portion of VWD’s service area in Carlsbad. The MRF treats wastewater to meet the stringent standards of California Title 22 and Waste Discharge Permit R9-2007-0018 issued by RWQCB Region 9.

Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated by the MRF. MRF has a capacity of 5 MGD, with a wet weather treatment capacity of 8 MGD, and treats wastewater at 0.25 MGD. It is expected that the MRF would be able to adequately treat wastewater flows from the proposed project, and therefore new wastewater treatment facilities would not be needed. Additionally, a Water and Sewer Study prepared for the project (Appendix L) concluded that although the project would increase the projected wastewater generation by 21,097 gallons per day, there is capacity currently available to serve the proposed project.

Thus, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities that would cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage Facilitie s
As described in Section 2.10 , Hydrology and Water Quality, and as outlined in the “West” and “East” SWQMPs (Appendices J and K), the existing site consists of development areas that were previously commercial pads but have since been demolished. The channel was recently improved by the City, and the development area had new storm drains added to collect runoff from the pads and discharge into the improved channel. A bridge was constructed to link to the “West” and “East” sites.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 93
AUGUST 2023
In existing conditions, there are some subtle flow paths where the site drains to the storm drain outlets that were constructed as part of the channel improvements at nodes 200 and 400. The westerly third of the “West” site leads to a local depression near node 10 before spilling ou t onto the adjacent property to the west. The proposed development areas will be re-graded to ensure that the runoff is routed to the channel.

The site has less defined flow paths on the “East” side. It appears that some of the site drains to the newly constructed storm drain at nodes 300, 700, and 900 while other parts may sheet flow over the side of the channel at nodes 600 and 800. The easternmost third of the proposed commercial site is very flat due to the concrete foundations that were left behind. While the flow paths are less definitive, it appears as though it generally flows out through the sheet flow onto Linda Vista Drive. There are storm drain inlets further south down Linda Vista Drive that discharge into the same channel that bisects the project, so any runoff that leaves the project site ultimately ends up in the same channel. The proposed development areas would be re-graded to ensure that the runoff is routed to the channel. Runoff would no longer be allowed to spill out onto the adjacent property to the south or out onto Linda Vista Drive. The proposed residential uses on the “West” site have a system of concrete swales and storm drains to collect runoff and convey it to water quality basins and/or underground detention structures for hydromodification storage being discharged to the channel at nodes 200, 400, and 1000. The proposed commercial uses on the “East” site have a similar pattern, except that there would be no underground detention, and a storm drain system that outlets to the channel at nodes 300, 700, and 900 would be implemented.

The storm drain system for the proposed project has been designed for the 100-year storm event. Through the use of on-site detention systems, the site has been designed so that the channel would see no increase in flow for the proposed condition. The proposed project would benefit the adjacent properties by eliminating potential vector control issues with localized ponding and re -routing flows that currently lead off-site or add to runoff in the street. In the proposed condition, those off-site runoffs would be captured, treated, for water quality, and safely released to the channel.

The proposed development areas will be re-graded to ensure that the runoff is routed to the channel. Runoff would no longer be allowed to spill out onto the adjacent property to the south or out onto Linda Vista Drive.

The residential site has a system of concrete swales and storm drains to collect runoff and convey it to water quality basins and/or underground detention structures for hydromodification storage before being discharged to the channel at nodes 200, 400, and 1000. The commercial site has a similar system, except that there will be no underground detention. That side of the project will have a storm drain system that outlets to the channel at nodes 300, 700, 900. Proposed public improvements around the site would be treated by green street elements including trees.

All storm water runoff would be conveyed through on-site private storm water quality facilities and storm drain system. Although new stormwater drainage facilities would be constructed, these improvements are part of the project analyzed herein, and as such, any potential environmental impacts related to these components of the project are already accounted for in this IS/MND as part of the impact assessment conducted for the entirety of the project. No adverse physical effects beyond those already disclosed in this IS/MND would occur as a result of implementation of the project’s stormwater drainage system improvements. Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 94
AUGUST 2023
Electric Power Facilities
Electric power service would be provided to the project site by San Diego Gas and Electric. Any proposed above-ground transformers and electrical facilities that solely service the project site would be placed on - site and not within the City’s right -of-way. If feasible, and at the discretion and concurrence from SDG&E, all existing aboveground utility poles along the project frontage on Grand Ave. would be undergrounded.

At full built-out, the project’s operational phase would require electricity for building operations (appliances, lighting, etc.). In addition, the project would be required to comply with the 2016 Title 24 standards or the most recent standards at the time of building permit issuance. The energy-using fixtures within the project would likely be newer technologies, using less electrical power. Therefore, impacts associated with electrical power facilities would be less than significant.

Natural Gas Facilities
Natural gas would be provided by San Diego Gas and Electric. The project would comply with 2016 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards, reducing energy used in the state. Based on compliance with Title 24, the project would generate a need for natural gas that is consistent with multifamily homes, commercial and office uses. Therefore, impacts associated with natural gas facilities would be less than significant.

Telecommunications Facilities
The City is served by multiple telephone service providers. Since the project site is in an urbanized area and is nearby other residential uses, there are existing telecommunication facilities that would be able to serve the project site, including Cox Communications and AT&T. Once the project is completed, the residents of the project would be able to connect to existing telecommunication services without the need for expansion or construction of new facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.
b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site would receive its water supply from the VWD. According to the City’s General Plan, the VWD receives its water from MWD, which imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California (City of San Marcos 2012c).

MWD was formed in 1928 to develop, store, and distribute supplemental water to southern California for domestic and municipal purposes. MWD consists of 26 member agencies and has a service area covering six counties, 5,200 square miles, and approximately 19 million people. MWD obta ins water from local sources as well as the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta, via the State Water Project. MWD’s UWMP documents the availability of these supplies to meet future demands. With a projected annual water demand of 4,925,000 acre-feet per year for 2025, the MWD UWMP concludes that, with implementation of required conservation measures, MWD has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands through 2045 under normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years (MWD 2021).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 95
AUGUST 2023
In general, water demand tends to increase in dry years, primarily due to increased water activities such as landscape irrigation. Thus, to assess the reliability of their water supply service, every urban water supplier is required to assess its water service under normal, dry, and multiple-dry water years. Although the project site was not accounted for as a residential land use in the MWD’s UWMP, the water demand generated by the project is expected to present an insig nificant increase in water demand relative to the annual water demand projected by the MWD’s UWMP.

Further, the project site would be developed in compliance with the California Green Building Code, which implements water efficiency standards for applianc es and fixtures. Compliance with the California Green Building Code would further reduce project water usage in combination with VWD and MWD’s ongoing water conservation practices. VWD requires a development -specific evaluation of water use to determine it s ability to service any development and capacity fees to be paid. A “Water Availability” letter will be required for processing the proposed project (VWD 2021). Compliance with these regulations and conservation measures will ensure sufficient water suppl ies are available to service the proposed project. Impacts to water services would be less than significant.
c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less-than-Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the wastewater treatment provider indicates that a project would increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of the facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded. As described in Section 2.19(a), wastewater generated at the project site would be treated at the MRF. MRF has a capacity of 5 MGD, with a wet weather treatment capacity of 8 MGD, and treats wastewater at 0.25 MGD. It is expected that the MRF would be able to adequately treat wastewater flows from the project, even with the additional wastewater flow that was not accounted for in the Land Outfall’s capacity studied in the 2018 Master Plan (Appendix L) .

Therefore, impacts associated with wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less-than-Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to such a degree that existing and projected landfill capacities would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste.

Solid waste disposal in the City is provided by a private franchise hauler, EDCO Waste and Recycling (EDCO), a private waste collection and recycling company that handles all residential, commercial, and industrial collections within the City (City of San Marcos 2012c). Waste collected by EDCO is hauled to the Escondido Resource Recovery Transfer Station. Waste is then transported to the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill in Santee, while recyclable materials are processed at the Escondido Resource Recovery Transfer Station (City of San Marcos 2012c). The project site would be serviced by EDCO.

The Escondido Resource Recovery Transfer Station has a permitted daily maximum capacity of 3,223 tons.

Solid waste is consolidated here and trucked to a landfill for disposal. The Sycamore Sanitary Landfill has a daily permitted throughput of 5,000 tons/day of solid waste, a remaining capacity of approximately 113,972,637 cubic yards, and an anticipated closure date of 2042 (CalRecycle 2022).

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 96
AUGUST 2023
The project would result in the development of 109 multifamily residential units, 7,658 sf of office space, and 49,266 sf of retail space. Project construction would involve some generation of waste during demolition; however, in accordance with AB 939, the construction contractor would ensure that source reduction techniques and recycling measures are incorporated into project construction. Once operational, the project would result in waste typically associated with multifamily residences , commercial uses, and office space uses. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, multifamily residences generate approximately four pounds per dwelling unit per day , commercial uses generate approximately 10.53 pounds per employee per day, and office space uses generate approximately 1.24 pounds per employee per day (CalRecycle 2019).

Considering the project site was previously developed with commercial uses, and considering existing capacity of landfills in the project vicinity, the proposed project is expected to be adequately served by the El Sobrante and Badlands Landfill. In addition, the project would implement recycling and waste diversion programs consistent with City requirements. Solid waste generated by the project would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards. Therefore, impacts associated with landfill capacity would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste, diversion of waste, and recycling. All solid waste facilities, including landfills, require solid waste facility permits to operate. In San Diego County, California Public Resources Code (Sections 44001–44018) and California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4 (Section 21440 et seq.) authorizes the County Department of Environmental Health, Local Enforcement Agency to issue solid waste facility permits. Sycamore Sanitary Landfill is a permitted facility and EDCO is a licensed hauler. For these reasons, and the reasons stated above under Section 2.19(d), impacts related to solid waste as a result of project implementation would be less than significant.

2.20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

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

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 97
AUGUST 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?

a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is not located within or adjacent to a state responsibility area or local responsibility area Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CAL FIRE 2009). The project site is located within an urbanized and developed area of the City. Although the project site is on undeveloped land, this wildland is not in an area subject to high fire risk. The nearest VHRHSZ is a local responsibility area located approximately 0.7 miles southwest of the proposed project site (CAL FIRE 2009). As discussed in Section 2.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire codes, including compliance with the California Fire Code and the San Marcos Fire Department, which require a design that affords fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Section 503.1 through Section 503.4 of the California Fire Code). The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and, therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in a developed area of the City and is not located within or adjacent to a fire hazard severity zone. Although the project site includes native vegetation that could experience a relatively small-scale wildfire risk, the proposed project land uses would not exacerbate that risk. The preliminary site plans and emergency access for the proposed project will be reviewed by City Fire and would be in compliance with the Fire Code. It has been determined that the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, exposing occupants to pollutants and, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 98
AUGUST 2023
c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less-than-Significant Impact. While the proposed project would require the installation of water sources and other underground utilities to connect to the City’s existing infrastructure (refer to Section 2.19), these would not exacerbate fire risks, as the proposed project is not located within or adjacent to a fire hazard severity zone and these improvements would be constructed within an existing right-of-way or within the project site boundary. The project does not propose any new overhead utility lines nor construction of roads to serve the project site. The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of such infrastructure which would exacerbate fire risk, and therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant. d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and risk of wildfire is considered low within the project site due the relative size of the habitat area and location.

The Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E) also does not note any significant landslide r isks based on the soil types. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?

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

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 99
AUGUST 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described throughout this IS/MND, with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures for biological , paleo ntological, and cultural resources, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment; would not substantially r educe the habitats of fish or wildlife species; would not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels; would not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal; and would not eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. When evaluating cumulative impacts, it is important to remain consistent with Section 15064(h) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that an EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

Alternatively, a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a significant cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in an IS/MND or if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located.

The proposed project would potentially result in project related impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation resources that could be potentially significant without the incorporati on of mitigation. Thus, when coupled with potential impacts related to the implementation of other related projects throughout the broader project area, the project would potentially result in cumulative-level impacts if these significant impacts are left unmitigated.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 100
AUGUST 2023
Cumulative projects in the project site area that were considered in the project analysis include the 10 cumulative projects outlined in Section 6.1 of the LTA prepared for the project (Appendix H -1). These cumulative projects include, Pacifi c Commercial; San Marcos Highlands; El Dorado II Specific Plan; Villa Serena; Mariposa (Phase 1); Murai Subdivision; Pacifica San Marcos; Karl Strauss Brewery; Gran Vista Multi-Family; and Hughes Circuits projects.

With the incorporation of mitigation identified throughout this IS/MND, the project’s impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous material s, and transportation resources would be reduced to less -than-significant levels and would not considerably contribute to cumulative impacts in the greater project region. In addition, these other related projects would presumably be bound by their applicable lead agency to (1) comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements; and (2) incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, consistent with CEQA, to further ensure that their potentially cumulative impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Although cumulative impacts are always possible, the proposed project, by inc orporating all mitigation measures outlined herein, would reduce its contribution to any such cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable; therefore, the project would result in individually limited, but not cumulatively considerable, less-than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As evaluated throughout this IS/MND, with incorporation of mitigation identified herein, all environmental impacts associated with the project would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Thus, the project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

14763 101
AUGUST 2023
3 References and Preparers

3.1 References Cited
APA (American Planning Association). 2011. Planning for Wind Energy. https://planning-org-uploaded- media.s3.amazonws.com/legacy_resources/research/wind/pdf/pas566.pdf.

ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 2019. New Guidance for Residential Air Cleaners. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/documents/ harriman_stephens_brennan_-_new_guidance_for_residential_air_cleaners_-_ashrae_ journal_sept-2019._web_version.pdf.

BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2016. Planning Healthy Places. https://www.baaqmd.gov/ ~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-healthy-places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en.

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.go v/media/5970/san_marcos.pdf.

CAL FIRE. 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section-65962-5a/.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/ general/rates.

CalRecycle. 2022. SWIS Facility Detail: Sycamore Landfill (37-AA-0023). Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. Accessed at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/ environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California.

April. Accessed at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.

CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessed December 2022.

CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. May 2014. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/ first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 102
AUGUST 2023
CARB. 2022. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. November 16, 2022. Accessed December 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022- scoping-plan-documents.

Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies. 2021. Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan. Accepted December 13, 2021. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://projectcleanwater.org/download/carlsbad -wma-wqip-updated-2021/.

CDC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed November 14, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

CEC (California Energy Commission) 2022a. Electricity Consumption By County. 2021. Accessed December 2022. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

CEC. 2022b. Natural Gas Consumption By County. 2021. Accessed December 2022. https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

City of San Marcos. 2001. Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan for the City of San Marcos. May 2001. https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/projects-and-programs/environment/regional- habitat-conservation/habitat-management-conservation-plan-for-the-city-of-san-marcos-2001-05-01.pdf.

City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 8478/636597348039500000.

City of San Marcos. 2012b. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8476/637732781280670000.

City of San Marcos. 2012c. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element.

Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 8480/636570701878000000.

City of San Marcos. 2013. 2013 – 2021 Housing Element. Adopted June 25, 2013. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument?id=8474.

City of San Marcos. 2021. 2021-2029 Housing Element. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/25740/637689416879030000.

City of San Marcos. 2022a. San Diego County Sheriff’s San Marcos Station. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/departments/public-safety/sheriff.

City of San Marcos. 2022b. Discover San Marcos Parks and Recreation. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/departments/parks-recreation.

Clark, T., and C. Duran. 2019. Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Los Posas Creek and Grand Avenue Capital Improvement Project, City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California. November 2019.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 103
AUGUST 2023
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.5). Accessed October 2022. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org.

County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. Land Use and Environment Group. Department of Planning and Land Use.

Department of Public Works. March 19, 2007.

DEHQ (County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health and Quality). 2012. Closure Letter. Voluntary Assistance Program Cases #H39772-001 & H39774-001, Former Cribwall Company & Industrial Metal Buildings, 1023-1031 Grand Ave, San Marcos, CA. July 3, 2012.

DOF (Department of Finance). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/ e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2022. EnviroStor. https://envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Dudek. 2009. Biological Resources Letter Report and Impacts Analysis, Grand Avenue/Las Posas Reach Flood Protection Project, San Marcos, California. August 28, 2009.

Dudek. 2011. Final Wetland Restoration and Monitoring Plan for the Grand Avenue Capital Improvements 317 Drainage/Road Improvements Project, San Marcos, California. May 2011.

Dudek. 2018. Long Term Management Plan for the Channel Widening at Grand Avenue, Capital Improvements Project No. 88214. Draft. June 2018.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. “Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)”. Updated May 14, 2022. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-waste-hhw.

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/ j3868893c89be41f5b7f6915543b33273/scratch/FIRMETTE_9025a11b-f484-459b- a936-ba2df96e264c.pdf.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model: User’s Guide. Final Report.

FHWA-HEP-06-015. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02. Cambridge, Massachusetts: DOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. August. Accessed January 25, 2022 at https://www.gsweventcenter.com/ Draft_SEIR_References/2006_01_Roadway_Construction_Noise_Model_User_Guide_FHWA.pdf.

FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division. Washington, D.C.

December 8, 2008.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September. Accessed at https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/ transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 104
AUGUST 2023
Geotek, Inc. 2021. Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed Commercial Development, Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive, San Marcos, California. Prepared for: AOA San Marcos, LLC. 709 Randolph Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, 92626
ISO (International Organization of Standardization). 1996. Standard 9613-2 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors – Part 2: General method of calculation). Geneva.

MWD (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2021. Accessed December 6, 2022. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/ 5202375113/MWDSC%202020%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan%20-%20June% 202021%20WUE%20Portal.pdf.

NETR. 2022. Historic Aerials. Accessed October 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.

NREL (National Renewable Energy Library). 2015. Small Wind Site Assessment Guidelines. https://nrel.gov/ docs/fy15osti/63696.pdf.

NREL. 2023. PVWatts Calculator. https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/pvwatts.php.

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

Accessed January 2019. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2012. “Hazard Communication Standard: Safety Data Sheets”.

Accessed December 6, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OSHA3514.pdf.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Amended December 1, 2011. Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.lee-associates.com/ elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf.

San Diego County Water Authority. 2023. Groundwater Management – Basins by Sustainability Priority. https://www.sdcwa.org/your-water/local-water-supplies/groundwater/#:~:text=The%20three% 20Sustainable%20Groundwater%20Management,Borrego%20Valley%20(high%20priority).

SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2013. Series 13 Regional Growth Forecast City of San Marcos.

Adopted October 2013. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://datasurfer.sandag.org/ download/sandag_forecast_13_jurisdiction_san-marcos.pdf.

SANDAG. 2021. SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 10, 2021. Accessed December 2022. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan.

SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 2015. Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County.

SDAPCD. 2020. 2020 Plan for Attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County.

October. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att%20A% 20(Attainment%20Plan)_ws.pdf.

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 105
AUGUST 2023
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2011. McClellan-Palomar Compatibility Factor Maps. https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?Command=Core_ Download&EntryId=2979&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=225.

SDCSD (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department). 2022. San Marcos Station. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/40/34?sortn=FCName& sortd=asc&npage=2#:~:text=More%20than%20111%2C000%20residents%20are%20served%20by% 20a,County%2C%20San%20Marcos%20is%20a%20higher%20education%20hub.

SMUSD (San Marcos Unified School District). 2022. Residential and Commercial Developer Fees. https://www.smusd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=157433&pageId=394313.

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2022. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

VWD (Vallecitos Water District). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Dated June 29, 2021. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fuwmp_attachments%2F4256275773% 2F2021_06_29_2020%20UWMP_VWD_Final.pdf.

3.2 List of Preparers
Dudek
Vanessa Scheidel, Project Manager
Hayley Ward, Environmental Analyst
Armando Gonzales, Environmental Analyst
Elena Nuno, Air Quality Specialist
Olivia Koziel, Biologist
Angela Pham, Cultural Resources Specialist
David Faith, Cultural Resources Specialist
Mark Storm, Senior Noise Specialist
City of San Marcos
Chris Garcia, Senior Planner

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 106
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
78 LASOMBRA DR

POINSETTIAAVE

SLASPOSASRD

NTWINOAKSVALLEYRD
ALTURA
DR SAN
MARINO
DR

VIAPORTOLA

KNOLL RD

NLASPOSASRD

VI A LA VENTA

SANDYLN

SMILAX RD

RUS H DR

FIREBIRDLN
PLU

MOSAAVE

SRANCHOSANTAFERD

SPECIALTYDR

PI CO AVE

PAWNEE ST

NAVAJO ST

SANTABARBARADR
S

PACIFIC ST

S TWIN OAKS VALLEY RD

LAS FLORES DR
POPPY
RD

VIEWPOINTDR
SHENAN

DOAHAVE

LATIERRADR

S AN PABLODR
CAMINO
DEL

SOL BINGHAM DR
WINDY
W
AY

LANOCHE
DR

HOLLENCREST RD
01ST ST

SYCAMOREAVE
ACACIA
DR
CRAVEN
DR

BELESPRITCIR

PALOMARCOSAVE

APPLEWILDE DR
ALLEY
VIOLET
AVE

CASITA LN

DISCOVERY ST

GRANDON
AVE

CRAVEN RD

GRAND AVE

HONEYSUCKLE
DR

CANOPY DR

ECARMEL
ST
W
SAN
MARCOS
BLVD
MIMOSA
AVE

LAKERIDGEDR
09TH ST
ALLEY

DECISION
ST

VIAVERACRUZ
BI RCH
ST
QUAIL
HILL
DR

DESCANSO
AVE
AUTUMN
DR

W MISSION RD

TESOROAVE

COMMERCEWAY
BARHAM
DR

GLENDALE
AVE
HIL

LHAVENDR

W BORDEN RD

NPACIFICST
LOS

VALLECITOS
BLVD

DOGWOODWAY

CAPALINA RD

LACASADR

LAMIRADADR
COM
ETCIR

OLEANDER
AVE

CURRY CO MB DR

RICHMAR
AVE

S BENT AVE

LA COLUSA DR

S SANTAFEAVE

WESTLAKEDR

AVENIDAAZUL

BLUESAGE DR

PROGRESS
ST

MCMAHR RD

LABONITADR

HELMSDALE
RD
ASHST
TOYON
TER

GRAND AVE

TILLEY LN

TI G ER WAY

VIRGINIA PL

CAMPUS VI EW DR

JUNIPER LN

ARMORLITE DR

LINDA VISTA DR

ACTIVITYDR

SEQUOIA
ST
ECHO
LN

PIONEERAVE

LOMAALTADR

DELEONE RD

WINDRIDGE
CIR

F I R E
LN
Project Location
Marcos Specific Plan Project
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2022
Date: 2/27/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure1-ProjectLocation.mxd 02 , 0 0 0 1,000
Feet
Project Boundary/Study Area
FIGURE 1
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
Mexico
905
209
75 52
54 94
241
98 73
125
274
195
56 78
86 111
67 74
74 76 79
805
215
15 5
8 Project Site

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 108
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Date: 2/27/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND\Figure2-ProjectSite.mxd 78 GRAND AVE

VIA VERA CRUZ

BINGHAM DR

LINDA VISTA DR

S BENT AVE

LOS VALLECITOS BLVD
Project Site
Marcos Specific Plan Project
SOURCE: Fuscoe 2022; City of San Marocs 2022; SANGIS 2022 0 200 100
Feet
Project Boundary/Study Area
Conservation Easement
FIGURE 2

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 110
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
$57,6769,//$*(
&,9,/6,7(3/$1
-2%12
'5$:1%<

Illustrative Site Plan
Marcos Specific Plan Project
FIGURE 3
Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND
SOURCE: CR Associates San Marcos Artist’s Village TIA, 2022

LAS POSAS CREEK

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 112
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
VAN
VAN
VAN
VAN

COMPACT
COMPA
CT
COM
PAC
T

COMPACT
COM
PACT
COMPA
CT

RESERVED

RESERVED
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV
EV

COMPACT

COMPACT
CITY
VAN

RESERVED

COMPACT

CARPOOL
C
ARPOOL
C
ARPOOL

CARPOOL

PASSENGER LOADING

RESERVED

COMPACT

RIDESHARE

RIDESHARE
POSTAL
SERVIC
E
EV
/,1'$9,67$'5
*5$1'$9(
/,1'$9,67$'5
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
F DGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
FDGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
F
DGEORFNFRP
*5$1'$9(
1931 SF
BAR
B160
BRIDGE

BY OTHERS

EXISTING BILLBOARDEXISTING BILLBOARD

CONSERVATION

EASEMENT
2061 SF

RESTAURANT
A102
3649 SF

BREWERY
A101
1426 SF

RESTAURANT
A110
635 SF

RESTAURANT
E100
1487 SF

RESTAURANT
B100
799 SF
RETAIL
B120
1487 SF

RESTAURANT
B130
799 SF
RETAIL
B140
1662 SF
RETAIL
A113
1966 SF

DISTILLERY
A127
890 SF
MAKER
A128
1080 SF
MAKER
A111
1733 SF
MAKER
A114
1121 SF
MAKER
A123
1021 SF
MAKER
A125
1276 SF
MAKER
C100
1172 SF
MAKER
C101
1135 SF
MAKER
C102
547 SF
D105
629 SF
RETAIL
A120
1121 SF
RETAIL
A124
1487 SF

RESTAURANT
B110
VALET

DROP OFF
541 SF
D101
547 SF
D102
547 SF
D103
547 SF
D104 547 SF
D106
547 SF
D107
240 SF

STORAGE
D108
1247 SF
PATIO
E100P
LEGEND
BAR

BREWERY / DISTILLERY
COMMON

COMMON RESTROOMS
KIOSK

LIVE/WORK

LIVE/WORK PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREA
MAKER
PATIO
PATIO<25%

RESTAURANT
RETAIL
1580 SF

MAKER SPACE
B150
778 SF
RETAIL
A122
TRASH

TRASH ENCLOSURE
770 SF
RETAIL
A121
485 SF
D104P

COMMON RESTROOMS
1516 SF
MAKER
A112
COMMON

RESTROOMS
703 SF

SPEAKEASY
A100
996 SF
MAKER
A129
1127 SF
MAKER
A126
799 SF
RETAIL
B121
799 SF
RETAIL
B141
136'-4"
132'-0"
84' -0"
70' -4"
76' -9"
73' -8"
TRASH

ENCLOSURE
73' -1"
95' - 7"
28' - 1"

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK
10' - 0"
10' -0"

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK
12' - 10" 27' - 0"
11'-2"
11'-8"
14'-5"
84'-9"

RESERVED PARKING SPACES

FOR LIVE/WORK UNITS AS

INDICATED
6'-8"
5' - 2"
13' - 3"

DISTRICTA&B

DISTRICTC

MATCHLINE

MATCHLINE
BOH
899 SF
PATIO<25%
A101P
1115 SF
PATIO
B160P

BEER GARDEN
387 SF
D103P
236 SF
D102P
442 SF
D105P 269 SF
D106P
234 SF
D101P
1 2
3 4 5 6
7 LIVE/WORK

LINDAVISTADR

GRAND AVE
316 SF
PATIO<25%
A127P
370 SF
PATIO<25%
B100P
370 SF
PATIO<25%
B110P
370 SF
PATIO<25%
B130P
TRASH
148 SF 151 SF
151 SF
151 SF
151 SF
151 SF
151 SF
79 SF
KIOSK
K101
28' - 1"

ROW CENTERLINE

STAGEBAND SHELL
STAGE

FIRE FEATURE

FIRE FEATURE
LAWN

BICYCLE & MICRO -

MOBILITY PARKING

BICYCLE & MICRO -

MOBILITY PARKING

PAVILION & BENCH

WATER WELL PUMP

ENCLOSURE

RIDESHARE DROPOFF
PARKING (2 SPACES)

BICYCLE & MICRO -

MOBILITY PARKING
37' - 10"

RESERVED CITY

PARKING SPACE AND

VEHICLE TURNAROUND
N
0 32' 64' 128' 192'16' 48'
5(6,'(17,$/
Conceptual Site Plan
Marcos Specific Plan Project
FIGURE 4
Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND
SOURCE: Olson Kundig 2023

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 114
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Conceptual Westend Planning Area Landscape Plan
Marcos Specific Plan Project
FIGURE 5a
Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 116
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Conceptual Eastend Planning Area Landscape Plan
Marcos Specific Plan Project
FIGURE 5b
Z:\Projects\j1476301\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\ISMND

MARCOS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14763 118
AUGUST 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Appendix A
Marcos Specific Plan

Appendix B
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report

Appendix C
Biological Resources Memorandum

Appendix D
Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report

Appendix E
Geotechnical Evaluation

Appendix F
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Appendix G
Noise and Vibration Analysis Technical Report

Appendix H-1
Local Transportation Analysis

Appendix H-2
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Technical Memorandum

Appendix I
Preliminary Drainage Study

Appendix J
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (West)

Appendix K
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (East)

Appendix L
Water and Sewer Study

Appendix M
Public Comments and Responses to Comments

Appendix N
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

San Marcos City CouncilOctober 24, 2023

San Marcos City Council
October 24, 2023