Attachment D - Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND23-011) — San Marcos City Council, December 12, 2023

ATTACHMENT D

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
(ND23-011)
FINAL
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Restaurant Row Project
PROJECT NO: SP22-0004
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT NO: ND23-011
NOVEMBER 2023
Prepared for:

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Sean del Solar
Prepared by:

605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Vanessa Scheidel

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

13844 i
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1

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

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance ................................................................................ 1

1.3 Project Planning Setting ......................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Public Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Initial Study Checklist ............................................................................................................................. 3 2 Initial Study Checklist ........................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 16

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 20

2.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................................... 27

2.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 31

2.6 Energy .................................................................................................................................................. 38

2.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 39

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................ 43

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................................... 48

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 52

2.11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................................... 58

2.12 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................................. 59

2.13 Noise .................................................................................................................................................... 61

2.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 70

2.15 Public Services .................................................................................................................................... 72

2.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................ 76

2.17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 77

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 82

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................................. 84

2.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................. 90

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................... 92 3 References and Preparers ................................................................................................................................ 95

3.1 References Cited ................................................................................................................................. 95

3.2 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 97

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 ii
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

APPENDICES
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Report B Biological Resources Letter Report
C Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report
D Geotechnical Investigation
E Phase I ESA
F Preliminary Hydrology/Drainage Study
G Hydraulics Analysis/Floodplain Study
H Noise Study
I Local Transportation Assessment (LTA)
J VMT Impact Analysis
K Water and Sewer Study
L Fire Response Technical Memorandum
M Restaurant Row Specific Plan
N Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP)
O Built Environment Memorandum
P Historical Resources Technical Report
Q Responses to Comments

FIGURES
1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 99 2 Project Site ...................................................................................................................................................... 101 3 Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 103 4 Conceptual Landscape Plan ........................................................................................................................... 105 5 Conceptual Public and Private Park Plan ...................................................................................................... 107

13844 iii
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAP Climate Action Plan
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
City City of San Marcos
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GHG Greenhouse Gases
HOA Homeowners Association
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I Interstate
ips inches per second
IS Initial Study
Leq energy equivalent noise level
LOS Level of Service
LTA Local Transportation Analysis
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MT metric tons
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 iv
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Definition
N2O nitrous oxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
O3 ozone
PDF project design feature
PFF Public Facility Fees
PM10 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns proposed project or
project
Restaurant Row Project
PPV peak particle velocity
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategy
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB State Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMFD San Marcos Fire Department
SMMC San Marcos Municipal Code
SMUSD San Marcos Unified School District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPA Specific Plan Area
SR- State Route
STC Sound Transmission Class
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TCA Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIAG Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VWD Vallecitos Water District

13844 1
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
1 Introduction

1.1 Project Overview
The proposed Restaurant Row Project (project) includes a r equest for a Specific Plan (SP22-0004), General Plan Amendment (GPA22-0002), Rezone (R22-0002), Site Development Plan (SDP22-0006) for the private development, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM22-0003) for a mixed-use r esidential development project on a 10.5-acre site in the City of San Marcos (City; see Figure 1, Project Location, and Figure 2, Project Site).

Additionally, the project requests a separate Site Development Plan (SDP23-0004) for the development of a proposed 1.1-acre neighborhood public park. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Mixed-Use 1 (MU 1) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan (Appendix M) has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new mixed-use residential community. 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 Site Development Plan would configure the site for multifamily dwelling units, ground floor commercial mixed-use space, recreational open space, and private open space. The Tentative Subdivision Map presen ts specific infrastructure and lot and street configurations for the site.

The project consists of demolition of 63,484 square feet of existing (primarily vacant) restaurant uses on site, and redevelopment of 202 multifamily residential units and 10,400 square feet of commercial retail uses on the

10.5-acre project site (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). Residential units would consist of 8 three -bedroom townhomes over commercial (town over commercial); 17 front street townhomes ranging in size from three to four bedrooms; 57 greencourt townhomes ranging in size from two to four bedrooms; and 120 motorcourt units ranging in size from two to three bedrooms. The residential and mixed -use buildings A through T would be developed on site as shown in Figure 3. Useable open space amenities would be located in the north-central/northeastern portion of the project site , including the proposed public park, the proposed dog parks and proposed private tot lots and barbeque area, while commercial uses would be placed along the southern and eastern project boundaries. Primary project access would be via West San Marcos Boulevard at the project’s southern boundary. The project would provide 518501 parking spaces.

Due to the widening of San Marcos B oulevard and the addition of the multi -way improvements, there would be numerous utility structures that would need to relocate to accommodate these improvements. The San Diego Gas and Electric ( SDG&E) items that w ould be moved are SDG &E Fuse Cabinet, SDG &E 2-3316 primary handholes, SDG&E 1 -3314 primary handhole, SDG &E 1 -3421 single phase transformer, SDG &E 2 -secondary handholes, SDG&E 1-PME switch, and City of San Marcos 1-meter pedestal serving irrigation and streetlights. Additionally, due to the project development requirements, there would be a need to relocate a n SDGE fuse cabinet from a partial easement position to a franchise/partial position.

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
This document has been prepared to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before acting on those projects. CEQA Section 15152 encourages lead agencies to tier

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 2
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
environmental analysis to avoid repetitive discussion within subsequent environmental documents and focus on issues directly related to the topic of evaluation.

1.3 Project Planning Setting
The project site is located at 1020 West San Marcos Boulevard (northwest corner of West San Marcos Boulevard and Via Vera Cruz), in the City of San Marcos ( Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-200-30, 219-200-31, and 219-200-45). Please refer to Figure 1, Project Location and Figure 2, Project Site. The existing project site has been previously disturbed and is currently developed with existing, primarily vacant, commercial uses and associated parking. Partial demolition of an existing on-site building would occur as part of the project. The project site is located in an urban area of the City surrounded on all sides by existing development, including industrial uses to the north, and commercial uses, and associated paved parking to the east, west, and south.

1.4 Public Review Process
In accordance with CEQA, a good faith effort has been made during the preparation of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (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. The public review period for this IS/MND is August 21 through September 20, 2023. 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 September 20, 2023, by 4:30 p.m.

City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, California 92069
Contact: Sean del Solar
Email: [email protected]
Upon completion of public review, this final version of the MND was prepared. The final version of the MND contains minor revisions/clarifications to the text or in response to the comments received as part of the public review period of the Draft MND. A ll revisions included in the final version of this MND have been made in tracking mode (strikeout/underline), so that the original and revised text may be compared. Public comments received on the Draft MND, and the City’s responses to comments, are included as part of the final MND as Appendix Q.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 3
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Additional minor revisions/clarifications to th is final version of the MND have been made in response to Planning Commission requests provided at the November 6, 2023, Planning Commission Hearing for the proposed project.

These minor revisions include slight increases to the proposed parking stall numbers throughout this Final MND and in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Technical Report (Appendix A); and Restaurant Row Specific Plan (Appendix M). The Local Transportation Analysis (Appendix I) and VMT Impact Analysis (Appendix J) have also been updated to include the slightly modified site plan which reflects the increased parking count; however, no text revisions were warranted in Appendix I and Appendix J. Similar to the minor revisions/clarifications to the text made in response to public comments, these additional minor revisions made in response to Planning Commission requests are shown in tracking mode (strikeout/underline), so that the original and revised text may be compared.

None of the revisions made herein result in changes to the impact significance determination s or proposed mitigation measures of the previously circulated IS/MND.

1.5 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 enviro nment. 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 make 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.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 4
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13844 5
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
2 Initial Study Checklist

1. Project title:

Restaurant Row 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:

Sean del Solar, Senior Planner
760.744.1050 ext. 3223
[email protected]

4. Project location:

The project site is located at 1020 West San Marcos Boulevard (northwest corner of West San Marcos Boulevard and Via Vera Cruz), in the City of San Marcos ( Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219-200-30, 219-200-31, and 219-200-45). Please refer to Figure 1, Project Location, and Figure 2, Project Site.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address:

Lennar
16465 Via Esprillo, Suite 150
San Diego, California 92127

6. General plan designation:

The existing General Plan land use designation s for the project site are Mixed-Use 1 (MU 1) and Light Industrial ( L-I). The project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designations of all parcels within the project area to Specific Plan Area (SPA).

7. Zoning:

The existing zoning designations for the project site are Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) and Light Industrial (L-I). The project includes a change of the existing zoning of all parcels within the project area 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 project includes a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan, Tentative Map, and two Site Development Plans (one for the residential mixed-use development and one for the public park) .

The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and zoning from

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 6
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Light Industrial (L-I) and Mixed Use (MU-1) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan (Appendix M to this IS/MND) serves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan. The Tentative Map presents the specific lot configuration for the site. The Site Development Plan will configure the site for townhome dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational public open space, and private open space.

The project consists of redevelopment of a 10.5 -acre site to include 10,400 square feet of commercial space, a 1.1-acre neighborhood public park, and 202 multifamily residential homes linked together by a series of pedestrian paseos and common use areas (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). The project would require the demolition of 63,484 square feet of existing (primarily vacant) restaurant uses on site. However, elements from the Old California Restaurant Row w ould be preserved and incorporated into the project design to create an old meets new aesthetic that celebrates the history of the site. The approximate grading quantities for the project include approximately 4,500 cubic yards of cut, 16,800 cubic yards of fill, and 12,300 cubic yards of import.

Residential Component
Residential homes would consist of 8 three-bedroom townhomes over commercial (town over commercial); 17 “front street” townhomes ranging in size from three to four bedrooms; 57 “greencourt” townhomes ranging in size from two to four bedrooms; and 120 “motorcourt” townhomes ranging in size from two to three bedrooms. Private balcony/patio space would be included for each residential unit. Development of the project would be guided by the project’s Specific Plan, which provides development guidelines, policies, and regulatory measures (Appendix M).

Commercial and Mixed Use Component
The 10,400 square feet of proposed c ommercial and mixed-use spaces would be located along street frontages and adjacent to proposed plazas and paseos. As outlined in the Specific Plan (Appendix M), the intent of the pending commercial uses is to complement the existing restaurants adjacent to the project site.

The goal of the commercial nodes along the southern project boundary adjacent to San Marcos Boulevard is to activate street activity by encouraging residents and visitors to shop, eat, linger, and sta y along the San Marcos Boulevard corridor. The commercial nodes along the eastern project boundary would offer a place of connection to integrate the park, Western Paseo, and parking, into Restaurant Row. The commercial spaces would be limited to 10,400-square feet as allowed by the Specific Plan and would generally be located on the ground floor. Commercial tenant spaces would be built to suit and vary in size. The commercial spaces located below the Town over Commercial homes are smaller in size and range less than 15 feet in height. The commercial areas will have the ability to be subdivided depending on the retail market.

Commercial nodes, woven throughout residential and mixed -use buildings, would be located along the southern and eastern project boundaries , to encourage walkability and convenient access to on -site commercial uses as well as along West San Marcos Boulevard. The commercial nodes along the southern project boundary activate Restaurant Row, link commercial activity from adjacent properties along West San Marcos Boulevard, and create a new pedestrian -oriented street frontage encouraging residents and visitors to shop and eat along the San Marcos Boulevard corridor. The commercial node along the eastern project boundary offers a connecting space to interface with the park, Western Paseo, and parking into Restaurant Row.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 7
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Neighborhood Park Component
The public park design was developed through a series of public workshops, whereby multiple amenities were explored with the community. Based on the public workshops, the public park would include bench seating and tables, pergola, wayfinding signage, four standard pickleball courts with bleacher seating, a playground with rubber surfacing and play equipment, connecting walkways, a passive lawn area with amphitheater seating and hillside seating, and restroom facilities. The project would also provide for homeowners association ( HOA)-maintained public gathering spaces on site, and a public dog park separated into two areas for large breed dogs and small breed dogs. All proposed common areas would be maintained by the HOA , with the exception of the public par k which would be publicly owned and maintained. Public park parking would be maintained by the HOA.

Access, Roadways , and Off -Site Improvements
Primary project access would be via two driveways off West San Marcos Boulevard at the project’s southern boundary. A secondary project access would be on the east from Via Vera Cruz via the alleyway (private drive G) heading westerly to the project. In alignment with the San Marcos Boulevard Multi-Way Complete Street Project, the project would construct a continuous center median along the project frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard. This would eliminate the left -turn ingress and egress movements at the western project driveway. The project would also include the following off-site improvements:
▪ Move the existing northern curb line along West San Marcos Boulevard approximately 16 feet into the project site to accommodate the proposed multi-way roadway improvements. ▪ Construct a raised curb along its frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard, which would separate the multi -way facility from the through travel lanes on West San Marcos Boulevard. These improvements would be non-vehicular capacity enhancing. ▪ As part of the multi-way improvements, the project includes reconstruction and widening of the existing sidewalk along its frontage , which would be constructed to City standards and would be Americans with American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. ▪ The project would replace the existing Class II bike lane along San Marcos Boulevard with the same facilities as in existing conditions or provide a Class III bike facility to accommodate on-street parking.

The site would be linked together through a series of landscaped promenades and paseos that not only facilitate pedestrian and bi cycle connectivity but create public spaces for people to congregate. The pedestrian connections would be punctuated with social gathering nodes and opportunities for public art.

The north and south connecting paseo would link to the public park in the northeast portion of the Specific Planning area (Figure 5, Conceptual Public and Private Park Plan).

All project driveways would provide for full turning movements and would be designed to meet the design requirements codified in the California Fire Code. Additionally, adequate corner and stopping site distances would be maintained at all driveway locations.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 8
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Based on the final multi-way design, the existing San Marcos Boulevard and Via Vera Cruz bus stop, located on the northwest corner of the West San Marcos Boulevard / Via Vera Cruz intersection, may be moved slightly in comparison to existing conditions, if moved at all. However, this change, would not substantially change the bus stop spacing along the route and would have minimum to no impact on the route’s operations. The existing amenities at the bus stop would be replaced in kind to current conditions w ith additional new amenities being implemented for the relocation of bus stop.

Infrastructure and Utility Improvements
A Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA)-mapped 100-year floodplain, 500-year floodplain, and regulatory floodway occur across the northern portion of the site. The project would fill areas north and south of the floodway to raise the proposed buildings above the 100 -year floodplain elevations wi th required freeboard. Grading and encroachments would be minimized within the floodway area. As part of the project, a park would be implemented in the existing floodway area with a variety of amenities tolerant of inundation (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). The site design is intended to minimize floodway encroachments and results in minor changes to the existing condition 100 -year water surface elevations.

The proposed condition water surface elevations are generally lower than existing conditions (please see Section 2.10 below and Appendices F and G to this IS/MND).

The on-site drainage improvements in proposed conditions would consist of private streets, gutters , and curb inlets that tie into underground storm drain systems. The project would upsize the existing 30 -inch public storm drainpipe that conveys the majority of the site to a double 36-inch storm drainpipe with a new alignment that transitions to a dual reinforced concrete box (RCP) before it discharges to the existing concrete channel. In addition, the project would construct some public improvements and street widening along the project frontage. These public improvements include center median improvements and a new side median for multi -way improvement lanes in West San Marcos Boulevard . The proposed drainage patterns would be relatively the same as in existing conditions, and the site would generally drain towards the existing 100-year floodway and drain to the west toward the existing concrete channel. The project is located within Vallecitos Water District’s (VWD) boundaries for water and wastewater service. The proposed project would construct systems to connect to existing VWD infrastructure that currently serves the existing buildings on site; including construction of approximately 1,188 feet of new 10 -inch PVC water main into the project site and replacement of approximately 714 feet of existing 8 -inch ACP water main with new 10-inch PVC water main in the Alley Way. All water services to the site would be connected to a new 10 - inch water main installed north o f the project site in Alley Way (private drive G) and would upsize existing facilities to 10 inches. Sewer facilities would also be extended through Alley Way (private drive G), including construction of 1,541 feet of 8-inch PVC sewer main into the project site. Please refer to Section 2.19 below and Appendix F to this IS/MND.

Electricity and natural gas would be provided by SDG&E. Electrical facilities throughout the City include a combination of aboveground and belowground electrical distribution lines and utilities structures. The City’s fiber-optic network is facilitated by a 72 -strand fiber-optic line that runs on various streets throughout the City. All major arterials in the City have implemented fiber optics. The proposed project would require construction of private utility lines to connect to existing electrical lines and natural gas that currently serve the site. Due to the project development requirements, there will be a need to relocate a n SDG&E fuse cabinet from a partial easement position to a franchise position.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 9
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Parking
Project development would result in the removal of 822 existing parking spaces that currently serve the Restaurant Row site, within the project boundaries. The project would remove 7 spaces that currently serve the Buffalo Wild Wings sites to accommodate the implementation of the multi-way along San Marcos Boulevard. The proposed project would provide 518501 parking spaces on site, with 392 private garage spaces, and 9 open bay residential spaces being reserved for project residents. The remaining 117 spaces would be open to the proposed project’s residential guests, retail patrons and park users, as well as other users of the larger Via Los Vallecitos De San Marcos site pursuant to the shared parking agreemen tsand 109 spaces being open to guests, retail patrons, park users, and other uses within the shopping center .

The project would provide 4 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and 17 EV ready stalls on site and would install charging stations in all private garage parking stalls. The project would also include four eight (8) ADA parking stalls as part of the proposed parking, and one ADA van accessible space. The portion of the multi-way in which the proposed project would implement along San Marcos Boulevard would also provide up to 13 on-street public parking spaces.

Landscaping
The project would include approximately 84,770 square feet of landscaped area throughout the project.

Implementation of the project would introduce a landscape plan, and more vegetation and trees would be incorporated into site design than what currently exists on site (Figure 4, Conceptual Landscape Plan).

Existing trees would need to be removed as a result of median reconfiguration; however, these trees would be replaced, and the project would add trees to the right-of-way. The City has a General Plan policy of 1-to- 1 tree replacement for development projec ts. The project would remove 140 existing trees on site (47 existing standard trees and 93 existing palm trees), would protect 13 existing trees on site, and would plant 243 trees on site (204 proposed standard trees and 39 proposed palm trees).

Streetscape Design
The project would include streetscape design features such as street furniture, trash and recycling areas, bicycle racks, signage, and lighting to aid in the cohesive design of the project as outlined in the Specific Plan (Appendix M) . Any street furnishing within the right-of-way along San Marcos Boulevard would be reviewed and approved by the City. A variety of fencing is proposed throughout the site. The type of fencing selected is based on location and use; types of fencing include residential horizontal wood fencing, solid vinyl fence, steel picket fencing, cable railing, vinyl -coated chain-link fence for the dog park , vinyl-coated chain-link fence for the pickle ball courts , and a glass and concrete masonry unit block combo wall separating the public park from proposed residential units to the south.

Construction Sequence and Development Phasing
As outlined in the Specific Plan prepared for the project site (Appendix M), construction of the proposed project is planned to be accomplished in four stages. Development of the site would be accomplished in six phases.

Construction sequence and development phasing is subject to change and would be approved by the City’s Building Division. The four stages of construction include: (1) land development – demolition of the existing structures and mass grading of the site; (2) residential construction – model homes from each product type would be completed in the initial production phases to enable sales to begin, with the rest of the homes to follow; (3) retail – construction of the commercial and mixed-use buildings would be completed; and (4) public

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 10
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
improvements, including San Marcos multi-way and the public park, which are subject to additional review and permitting. It is anticipated that some of construction stages 2, 3 and 4 would overlap. The Conditions of Approval for the project would specify timing for each of the proposed stages.

After construction stage 1 is complete, residential construction would begin with model homes for each product type, followed by the rest of the homes to be built in six phases, during construction stage 2. Please refer to the Specific Plan for additional details related to construction sequencing and phasing (Appendix M).

Project Design Features
The project would incorporate the following project design features (PDFs) as a condition of approval:

PDF-1: The project would include 518501 total parking spaces; 4 EV charging stations and 17 EV ready spaces would be included. Charging stations will be installed in all garage parking stalls.

PDF-2: The project would pay its fair-share contribution to bicycle infrastructure improvements.

PDF-3: The project would provide pedestrian connections throughout all uses on site and connection to adjacent sidewalks and existing roadways. The project would provide communal bicycle parking, and all living units would provide bicycle storage.

PDF-4: The project would install instantaneous electric water heaters without water tanks.

PDF-5: Based on the 10,400 square feet of commercial retail uses , the project would install a (10,400 x 2)/1,000 = 20.8 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system.

PDF-6: The project’s landscaping would meet the requirements within the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The project would include a landscape area of approximately 84,770 square feet.

PDF-7: The project would include a total of 243 trees.

PDF-8: Project implementation of permanent storm water quality best management practices (BMPs) that comprise of proprietary and non -proprietary biofiltration, hydromodification, and 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 2023 BMP Design Manual and BMPs outlined in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP).

PDF-9: For residences with yard area that lies adjacent to the southern, eastern, or northern, or northwestern project site boundary, a 6-foot-high concrete block/CMU sound attenuation wall, or equivalent, solid fence or landscape wall would be provided along the yard/project site boundary in order to ensure exterior noise levels from roadway traffic and adjacent commercial uses does not exceed 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) in these yard areas.

PDF-10: For residences in the first row of structures adjacent to San Marcos Boulevard, to achieve the interior criterion of 45 dBA CNEL, exterior doors and windows located on the building façade facing San Marcos Boulevard should have a minimum Sound Transmission Classification (STC) rating of 35.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 11
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

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

The existing project site has been previously disturbed and is currently developed with existing, primarily vacant, commercial uses and associated parking and is located within Old California Restaurant Row in the City of San Marcos. The project site is currently situated on three parcels between the former Sears site directly to the west, and three restaurants and a bank to the east. The project site is located in an urban area of the City surrounded on all sides by existing development, including industrial uses to the north, and commercial uses and associated paved parking to the east, west, and south. Surrounding uses include Wells Fargo Bank, a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant, and additional restaurants to the east as well as health service and commercial buildings to the north. An unoccupied commercial site and a Regal Edwards Cinema are to the west. Vacant land and commercial uses are south along the opposite side of West San Marcos Boulevard.

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

N/A.

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. ? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the pot ential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

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. To date, four Tribes have requested consultation, including San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on July 14, 2022; San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians on September 19, 2022; Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on September 21, 2022; and Campo Band of Mission In dians on October 3, 2022. The City conducted consultation m eetings with representatives of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on November 17, 2022; January 12, 2023; and February 16, 2023. Consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians concluded on April 16, 2023.

The City conducted consultation meetings with representatives of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on August 19, 2022, and December 20, 2022, with consultation concluding on December 21, 2022. Both the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians concluded for mal 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 below. The City held one consultation meeting with the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians on May 11, 2023. A consultation close-out letter was requested by the City on May 15, 2023. On October 18, 2023, the City notified the Campo Band of Mission Indians by letter of the opportunity to consult on the project. On October 3, 2022, the City received an emailed request from the tribe’s Cultural Resources Manager, Daniel Tsosie, to consult under Senate Bill 18. The City transmitted the cultural resources report to Campo on October 18, 2022, and subsequent attempts to communicate with the tribe

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 12
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
were not successful. The City attempted again on April 20 and July 24, 2023, to which the tribe did not respond or provide information on tribal cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with Section 21082.3.(d)(2) of the Public Resources Code, which states that the tribe had requested consultation but failed to provide comments to the City, or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process, the City concluded consultation with Campo on August 15, 2023.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 13
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 14
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 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 le gal 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 applic able 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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 15
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Eval uation 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 will 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. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant 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 (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

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 Measures. For effects that are “Less T han 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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 16
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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 City’s General Plan, hillside and ridgeline areas visible throughout the City, as viewed from the State Route ( SR-) 78 corridor and other locations such as parks and scenic roads, are considered valuable. The City’s General Plan does not identify any designated scenic vistas; however, the General Plan more generally aims to protect the City’s scenic resources such as the San Marcos, Merriam, and Double Peak Mountains ; creek corridors ; mature trees ; rock outcroppings ; and ocean views. The project site and surrounding valley terrain are encompassed by mountains to the west and south that provide opportunities for elevated vantage poin ts 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. As such, impacts would be less than significant. 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. SR-78 is located approximately 0.5 miles 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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 17
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) State Scenic Highways Program (Caltrans 2022). Additionally, a portion of SR-78 is also identified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, this eligible segment begins approximately 26 miles east of the project site in Santa Ysabel. The nearest eligible state scenic highway is Interstate 5 (I-5). I-5 is located approximately 7 miles west of the project site and is not visible due to distance.

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. However, views of the project site from SR -78 are generally limited due to existing commercial developments, existing landscaping, and the speed of motorists on SR-78. Even with development of the proposed project, views of the surrounding hillsides and ridgelines are not expected to be substantially obstructed from SR-78. In addition, the project site is located on a currently developed site within an urbanized area. Visual quality would not substantially differ from existing conditions. Impacts 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? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of San Marcos is considered an urbanized area pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21071. Therefore, the first question of Threshold c) does not apply to the proposed project, as it is directed at non-urbanized areas.

The visual character of the site would be altered by the proposed project, as it would change the existing restaurant uses into a higher density 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 and the site is entirely surrounded by adjacent development in a highly urbanized area. Although the proposed mixed-use residential uses would differ in land use designation and visual character in comparison to the immediately surrounding commercial and industrial land uses, 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 Mixed-Use 1 (MU 1) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA), the proposed project would be required to comply with design standards of the approved Specific Plan (Appendix M) for the project site, including building placement and building height. Building height would allow for 2 stories minimum, with up to an additional 15 feet that may be permitted for special architectural features and roof line variation. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes landscaping standards, including specifics for tree selections that shall be upright, vertically oriented species.

As described in the Specific Plan (Appendix M), the goal of the architectural design is to encourage connection, while providing a transition zone to the residential areas within the Specific Plan area. The architecture along San Marcos Boulevard frames large plazas and outdoor dining areas that wrap the site and lead to the park at the northeast corner of the development. Private residential areas are reinforced by the use of private drives/streets and tighter paseos framed by taller buildings compared to the open spaces and common plazas shared by the retail and dining areas. The project would draw inspiration from Old California Restaurant Row through its colors and materials . Referential materials and colors would occur off San Marcos Boulevard and in the commercial buildings adjacent to the park. These materials would be contrasted by the contemporary residential developments characterized by contemporary colors, materials, and forms. The proposed design on-site intends to create a stronger contrast between the history

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 18
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
of the site and the new architectural development. The project would incorporate Old California Restaurant Row inspired materials, and would pair them with cool and muted grays of various shades to give the area a modern aesthetic. Residential components o f the project site would include materials such as smooth stucco, metal shading elements, wood accents, stone veneer, lap siding accents, and contemporary brick; while the mixed-use components of the project would include materials such as wooden beams, va rious wooden siding, tumbled brick with heavy mortar joints, heavy metal accents and metal siding, corrugated metal, and integration of historical features (i.e., bells, beams, signage details).

The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality.

Therefore, impacts are determined to 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 is developed in existing conditions and surrounded by lighting associated with adjacent development and roadways. Additionally , all lighting associated with the project would be required to comply with the City of San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards (City of San Marcos 2022a), as well as the conceptual lighting plan and lighting standards outlined in the Specific Plan (Appendix M). The project includes catenary, bollard, york mount, arm mount , and wall mount lighting throughout the project site.

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. Compliance with the SMMC would minimize and restrict nighttime light pollution and light trespass on adjacent properties.

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 SMMC 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 proposed project would not propose any features that would be characterized as creating a substantial new source of glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. Compliance with the SMMC would result in less-than-significant impacts associated with light and glare.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 19
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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 Department of 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 20 16). As a result, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses.

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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 20
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 southern portion of the site. This vacant lot is designated as “Other Land” by the CDC Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program . Surrounding development adjacent to the project site include industrial, mixed Use, and commercial uses. Given the extent of development surrounding the proposed project site, the proposed project would not resu lt 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 201 6). 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 Thresholds a) and 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 Thresholds a) and 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 Thresholds a) and b) above.

2.3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?
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?

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 21
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

Dudek prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for the project which is included as Appendix A to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix A. Full details regarding air quality as it relates to the project can be found in Appendix A. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and is subject to S an Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) guidelines and regulations. The SDAB lies in the southwest corner of California, which comprises the entire San Diego region, and covers approximately 4,260 square miles. The SDAPCD is the regional agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of federal and state regulations. California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the regulation of mobile emissions sources within the state, local air quality management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing air quality standards and regulating stationary sources.

An area is designated in attainment when it is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (federal) and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) (state). These standards are set by the Environmental Protection Agency or the CARB for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in an air quality assessment include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5), lead, and toxic air contaminants. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are precursors to the formation of ground-level O3.

The Regional Air Quality Strategy ( RAQS) outlines SDAPCD’s plans and regulatory control measures designed to attain state air quality standards for ozone. The RAQS, which was adopted by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control Board in 1992, is updated on a triennial basis, with the most recen t revision adopted in 2023. The State Implementation Plan ( SIP) and RAQS rely on information from CARB and the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG), including mobile and area source emissions as well as information regarding projected growth in the 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.

If a project involves development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might be in conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality. The northern portion of the project site includes 1.63 acres of

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 22
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
existing vacant light industrial zoned land, while the remaining portion of the total 10.5-acre project area is zoned Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) and built with an existing 63,484 square feet of restaurant uses. Therefore, the project requires a General Plan Amendment and rezone to change the General Plan designation and zoning from Mixed -Use 1 (MU -1) and Light Industrial (L -I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The current RAQS assumptions would include the project site based on emissions of VOC and NO x from land uses of zoning of L-I and MU-1 It should be noted that the current low -density single-story restaurant complex does not conform with the current zoning , and the proposed SPA would result in development standards that conform substantially to the MU-1 development standards.

The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report prepared for the proposed project determined that the project would not result in a more intensive land use than currently allowed under the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012 a), which SDAPCD’s RAQS emissions forecast is based on.

Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the SIP and RAQS and would result in a less -than- significant impact on air quality. As presented in the July 2021, General Plan Housing Element, the most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment from SANDAG stated that San Marcos’s share of regional future housing needs is 3,116 new units between April 15, 2021, and April 15, 2029. As of June 30, 2020, 546 housing units have been planned or approved for development, with 2,570 units remaining needed to be developed in the City. The project is expected to bring 202 units to market in 2027 , which would be within SANDAG’s growth projection for housing during the 6th Cycle planning horizon.

The General Plan Amendment and zone change to Specific Plan Area (SPA) is not anticipated to result in air quality impacts that were not envisioned in the growth projections and RAQS, and this minor increase in residential units (202 units) in the region would not obstruct or impede implementation of local air quality plans. The project would be consistent at a regional level with the underlying growth forecasts emissions in the RAQS. Impacts would be less than significant.
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. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report prepared for the proposed project evaluated the potential for adverse impacts to air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the project. Impacts were evaluated for their significance based on the County of San Diego’s mass daily criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance (County of San Diego 2007), which is based on SDAPCD Rules 20.2 and 20.3 (SDAPCD 1998 , 2021).

Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health.

Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM 10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM 2.5), and lead. Pollutants that are evaluated include VOCs, oxides of nitrogen (NO x), CO, sulfur oxides (SO x), PM10, and PM 2.5. VOCs and NOx are important because they are precursors to O3.

Construction Emissions
Proposed construction activities would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment, soil disturbance, and VOC off-gassing from architectural coatings and asphalt pavement application) and off -site sources (i.e., on -road haul trucks,

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 23
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 emissions estimated during each year of construction (2024 –2026). Construction schedule assumptions, including phase type, duration, and sequencing, were based on information provided by the app licant or CalEEMod defaults and are intended to represent a reasonable scenario based on the best information available. NOx and 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, which would require the project to 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 coatings, such as exterior application/interior paint and other finishes would produce VOC emissions . The contractor would also 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 8 in Appendix A presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during construction of the project. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A. As determined in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report , maximum daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5 during construction (Appendix A).

Operational Emissions
Following the completion of construction activities, the project would generate VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM10, and PM 2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicular traffic; energy sources from natural gas usage; and area sources, including the use of landscaping equipment , consumer products , and from architectural coatings. Pollutant emissions associated with long-term operations were quantified using CalEEMod using a combination of project-specific information and CalEEMod default values.

Table 9 in Appendix A presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with project operation. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A. As shown in Table 9 in Appendix A, the maximum daily emissions of the project would not exceed the significance thresholds for any criteria air pollutants.

The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. 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 1

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 24
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
and 2 of Appendix A , project-generated construction and operational emissions would not exceed the emission-based significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, 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 emissions associated with construction activity of future projects would be reduced through implementation of control measures required by the SDAPCD. Cumulative air quality impacts are basin-wide, and air quality is affected by all pollutant sources in the basin. As the individual project thresholds are designed to help achieve attainment with cumulative basin -wide standards, they are also appropriate for assessing the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. As shown in Tables 8 and 9 of Appendix A, emissions would be less than applicable screening thresholds. As emissions would be less than the screening thresholds, the project would not result in cumulative considerable impact . 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. Air quality varies as a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions.

Air quality problems 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. As such, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long -term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

The SDAPCD identifies sensitive receptors as those who are especially susceptible to adverse health effects from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as children, the elderly, and the ill. Sensitive receptors include schools (grades Kindergarten through 12), day care centers, nursing homes, retirement homes, health clinics, and hospitals within 2 kilometers of the facility (SDAPCD 2019). Based on SDAPCD guidance, the nearest existing sensitive receptors include single -family residential (>1,000 f eet away) , EZ Living Mobile Home Park (~1,500 feet away), and Big Future Preschool (>850 feet).

Health Impacts of Carbon Monoxide
Regionally, project-related travel would add to regional trip generation and increase the vehicle miles traveled within the local airshed and the SDAB. Locally, project -generated traffic would be added to the County’s roadway system near the project site. If such traffic occurs during periods of poor atmospheric ventilation, is composed of a large number of vehicles “cold -started” and operating 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. In addition, according to the

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 25
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Local Transportation Assessment ( Appendix I), the project would reduce average daily trips coming from the project site, compared to the existing restaurants. As shown in Table 6 in Appendix A, the project would result in an estimated reduction of 4,665 average daily trips to local roadways.

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 of San Diego screening threshold of 3,000 peak trips ( Appendix A ). The trip rates for the project are based on the Local Transportation Assessment and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix I and Appendix J . Based on this data, there would be approximately 118 trips during the AM peak -hour and 153 trips during the PM peak -hour, which would be minimal in comparison to the screening threshold of 3,000 peak tri ps. In addition, the project would reduce average daily trips coming from the project site, compared to the existing restaurants. Therefore, the project would not result in a CO hotspot and would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Health Effects of Other Criteria Air Pollutants
As discussed above, project construction and operation would not exceed significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SO x, PM 10, or PM 2.5. VOCs and NO x are precursors to O 3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The 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 project would not exceed the significance threshold s for VOC or NOx; therefore, implementation of the project would contribute minimally to regional O3 concentrations and the associated health effects.

In addition to O 3, NO x emissions contribute to potential exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO 2.

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, existing NO 2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. As such, the project would not result in potential health effects associated with NO2 and NOx.

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 obstruct the SDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. Additionally, the project would implement dust control strategies and be required to comply with S DAPCD 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.

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.

Health Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as TACs or hazardous air pollutants. State law has

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 26
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
established the framework for California’s TAC identification and control program, which is generally more stringent than the federal program and aimed at TACs that 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 DPM emissions:
▪ Fleet owners of mobile construction equipment are subject to the CARB Regulation for In -use Off- road Diesel Vehicles (13 CCR 2449), the purpose of which is to reduce 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. Idling of heavy -duty diesel construction equipment and trucks during loading and unloading shall be limited to five min utes; electric auxiliary power units should be used whenever possible.

Health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of cancer risk. The SDAPCD recommends an incremental cancer risk threshold of 10 in a million (SDAPCD 2015b). “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 , per the standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk-assessment methodology (OEHHA 2015). The project would not require the extensive operation of heavy -duty construction equipment, which is subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure for in -use diesel construction equipment to reduce diesel particulate emissions and would not involve extensive use of diesel trucks, which are also subject to a CARB Airborne Toxics Control Measure.

As shown in Table 7 in Appendix A, maximum daily PM 10 or PM 2.5 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, t otal construction of the project would last approximately 30 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 exposure period. In regard to long -term TAC emissions and as a residential project, 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).

As previously described, the nearest existing sensitive receptors are located more than 850 feet away from the project site and diesel particulate matter would disperse quickly. Therefore, the exposu re of project- related TAC emission impacts to proximate sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Valley Fever
Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United States.

Valley Fever is not considered highly endemic to San Marcos. Even if present at a site, earth -moving activities may not result in increased incidence of Valley Fever. Construction of the project would comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, Fugitive Dust Control, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. SDAPCD Rule 55 is intended to reduce PM 10 emissions from any transportation, handling,

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 27
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. Based on the low incidence rate of coccidioidomycosis on the project site and in the County, and with the project’s implementation of dust control strategies and Valley Fever awareness and training , it is not anticipated that earth -moving activities during project construction would result in exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to Valley Fever.

Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to Valley Fever exposure for sensitive receptors.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less-than-Significant Impact . Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application, which would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. In addition, the project would not include land-use types that would generate odors during operation. Therefore, project construction and operations would result in odor impacts that are determined to be less than significant.

2.4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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
Game 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 Game 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?

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 28
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?

Dudek prepared a Biological Resources Letter Report for the project, which is included as Appendix B to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix B. Full details regarding biological resources as it relates to the project can be found in Appendix B.
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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. According to the Biological Resources Letter Report (Appendix B) prepared for the project, the project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures.

Urban/Developed refers to areas that have been constructed on or d isturbed so severely that native vegetation is no longer supported. Urban development is present to the north, south, east, and west of the site. No natural land covers or potential habitat is located on or adjacent to the site. Because of the singular land cover type present (Urban/Developed), no specific investigation of species present within land cover types was warranted, as no natural land cover types or habitat are present within the site or directly adjacent.

The site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type and does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special status wildlife species.

Similarly, the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities or land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special status plant species.

In order to comply with the MBTA, a pre-construction nesting bird survey will be conducted if demolition or construction occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31 September 2515) (mitigation measure MM-BIO-1). As such, due to the lack of natural vegetation communities that would provide habitat to special wildlife species, impacts are determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 29
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
MM-BIO-1: To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be conducted if demolition or construction occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31September 15).
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As described above, a Biological Resources Letter Report (Appendix B) has been prepared for the proposed project, which outlines that the project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. No natural land covers or potential habitat is located on or adjacent to the site. The site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type and does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land co ver types that are known to provide habitat to any special - status wildlife species. Similarly, the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special status plant species.

Based on the results of the site assessment and land cover type mapped in the project site, the site does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. Therefore, i mpacts would be less than significant.
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. As described above, a Biological Resources Letter Report (Appendix B) has been prepared for the proposed project, which outlines that the project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. No natural land covers or potential habitat is located on or adjacent to the site. The site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type and does not co ntain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special - status wildlife species. Similarly, the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special status plant species.

No potentially jurisdictional aquatic features were observed within the site, as it is entirely developed. No wetlands or other aquatic features were observed, though a formal jurisdictional delineation was not conducted during the site review. Las Posas Creek and San Marcos creek are located to the west and south of the site, respectively. Since these two streams are greater than 1,000 feet away from the site, with the major streets of South Las Posas Road and West San Marcos Creek Boulevard located betwee n the site and the streams, no indirect or peripheral impacts to these nearby aquatic resources are likely to result from project implementation.

Based on the results of the site assessment and land cover type mapped in the project site, the site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands . As such, implementation of the project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on wetland habitat, and impacts would be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 30
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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. As described above, a Biological Resources Letter Report (Appendix B) has been prepared for the project, which outlines that the project site consists entirely of Urban/ Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. The site con sists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type and does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habi tat to any special status wildlife species. Similarly, the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special status plant species.

Based on the results of the site assessment and land cover type mapped in the project site, the site does not contain sensitive habitat and does not have the potential to support special -status species that would require mitigation if impacted. While no la nd cover types were observed which have a likelihood of utilization for nesting by migratory birds, native bird species have the potential to perch, or otherwise utilize non-native ornamental trees within the landscaping and would be protected by the MBTA. As previously discussed, in order to comply with the MBTA, a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be conducted if demolition or construction occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31September 15). With the incorporation of the pre-construction nesting bird survey, impacts would 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 loca ted away from trees. As described above, the project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. The site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type and does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types. As part of project construction, the majority of existing trees would need to be removed as a result of median reconfiguration; however, these trees would be replaced, and the project would add trees to the right -of-way. The City has a General Plan policy of 1 -to-1 tree replacement for development projects. The project would remove 140 existing trees on site (47 existing standard trees and 93 exis ting palm trees); would protect 13 existing trees on site; and would plant 2 43 trees on site (204 proposed standard trees and 39 proposed palm trees). Implementation of the project would introduce a landscape plan, and more vegetation and trees would be incorporated into site design than what currently exists on site (Figure 4, Conceptual Landscape Plan) . 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 . In June 2022, Dudek performed a general review of the project site to assess and document existing conditions of biological resources present, and to evaluate the presence of appropriate habitat for nesting birds and special -status plant and wildlife species. Dudek created an updated map of the land cover type s present within the study area. No physical site visit was conducted,

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 31
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
based on the singular land cover type of Urban/Developed. Dudek reviewed regional California Natural Diversity Database occurrence data (CDFW 2023) to identify special-status plant and wildlife species that are known to occur within a nine-quad radius of the project site. Database search results are provided as part of Appendix B to this IS/MND. Land covers within the survey area were mapped in a geographic information system (GIS)-based on general definition criteria. Aerial base map imagery of the study a rea, and GIS coverage was created. The vegetation community and land cover mapping follow the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008), which is based on the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986).

The project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures . As discussed in response to Threshold e) above, the majority of the existing trees on site would need to be removed as a result of median reconfiguration. The project would remove 140 existing trees on site (47 existing standard trees and 93 existing palm trees); would protect 13 existing trees on site; and would plant 2 43 trees on site (2 04 proposed standard trees and 39 proposed palm trees). The site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type and does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special -status wildlife species. Similarly, the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special-status plant species. Nevertheless, in order to comply with the MBTA, a pre -construction nesting bird survey ( MM-BIO-1, identified above under Threshold 2.4a ) will be conducted if demolition or construction occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31September 15).

Based on the results of the Biological Resources Letter Report (Appendix B) , i mplementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Plan, or other applicable plan related to biological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

2.5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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 §15064.5?

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

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

Dudek prepared Cultural Resources Phase I Inventory Report for the project, which is included as Appendix C to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix C. Full details regarding cultural resources as it relates to the project can be found in Appendix C. Additionally, a Built Environment HistoricHistorical Resources Technical

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 32
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Report Memorandum was prepared for the project by South EnvironmentalDudek and is included as Appendix PO to this IS/MND. The historical resources analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix PO. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less-than-Significant Impact. A historical resource is one that meets the eligibility criteria for the California Register of Historical Resources. This includes “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, ec onomic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (PRC Section 5020.1[j]). The significance of a historic resource is impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics that convey its significance.

As discussed in the Cultural Report (Appendix C), the records search conducted for the project identified 25 cultural resources within the 1-mile search radius outside the project site. None of the identified resources occur within the project site. The project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. As outlined in the Built Environment Historic Resources Memorandum prepare d for the project (Appendix O), there are building s located within the proposed project site associated with “Old California Restaurant Row” that appear to date to 1978, which as of 2023 would make them 45 years old.

No previously identified built environment cultural resources, including the extant buildings located within the project site, have been previously recorded, evaluated, considered eligible, or were found duri ng research to be formally listed in a federal, state, or local register. In considerat ion of these factors, there are no known historical resources for the purposes of CEQA located within the project site.

As part of the formal Responses to Public Comments (Appendix Q to this Final MND), specifically in response to a comment letter received from the San Diego County Archaeological Society, an additional historic evaluation of the site was conducted by South Environmental in September 2023. This Historical Resources Technical Report is provided as Appendix P to th is Final MND. This Historical Resources Technical Report determined that the buildings associated with “Old California Restaurant Row” were subject property was found not eligible under all designation criteria due to a lack of historical associations and a lack of architectural merit and integrity. Therefore, the subject property is not considered a historical resource under CEQA. The findings of the additional evaluation confirm that no historic al resources are present on the project site, and mitigation is not required.

As described in the project description, t he project would require the demolition of 63,484 square feet of existing (primarily vacant) restaurant uses on site. However, elements from the Old California Restaurant Row would be preserved and incorporated into the project design to create an old meets new aesthetic that celebrates the history of the site. Because none of the existing buildings are designated as historic al resources, it is determined that impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. No archaeological resources were observed within the project site during the pedestrian survey.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 33
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
However, based on the results of the record search and previously identified cultural resources in the project area, the surrounding area has been utilized extensively prehistorically resulting in a moderate sensitivity for identifying intact subsurface archaeological deposits during project implementation. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially impact archaeological resources during construction.

Undocumented fill was likely deposited in the project area in the mid-1970s, ranging from 3 feet to 19 feet below ground surface. No prehistoric or historic age resources will be present within the fill sediment; however, there is potential to encounter cultural resources within young alluvium sediments below the fill.

In order to mitigate potential ly significant impacts to buried archaeological resources that could be encountered during site grading , mitigation measure s MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 would be implemented. With the implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 outlined below, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.

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, cerem onial items, traditional gathering areas, and other Tribal Cultural Resources. Such resources may be located within and/or discovered during ground - disturbing and/or construction activities for the proposed project, including any additional culturally appropriate archaeological studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground -disturbing activities.

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

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

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 m onitor) 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.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 34
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 opportunity 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 monitori ng 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 e vidence of potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources. In areas of artificial paving, the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on site during grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to disturb more than 6 inches below the original pre-project ground surface to identify any evidence of potential archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources. No monitoring of fill material, existing or imported, will be required if the general contractor or developer can provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City that all fill materials being utilized at the site are either (1) from existing commercial (previously permitted) sources of materials or (2) are from private or other non-commercial sources that have been determined to be absent of Tribal Cultural Resources by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor.

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

Prior to the release of any grading bonds, or prior to the issuance of any project Certificate of Occupancy, an archaeological monitoring report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the construction monitoring , shall be submitted by the Qualified Archaeologist, along with any TCA Native American monitor’s notes and comments received by the Qualified Archaeologist, to the Planning Division Manager for approval.

Once approved, a final copy of the archaeological mo nitoring report shall be retained in a confidential City project file and may be released, as a formal condition of Assembly Bill 52 consultation, to San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians , San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, and Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, or any parties involved in the project specific monitoring or consultation process. A final copy of the report, with all confidential site

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 35
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated ( TCA) Native American monitor may temporarily halt or divert ground-disturbing activities if potential archaeological resources or Tribal Cultural Resources are discovered during construction activities. Ground-disturbing activities shall be temporarily directed away from the area of discovery for a reasonable amount of time to allow a determination of the resource’s potential sign ificance. Isolates and clearly non- significant archaeological resources (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native American monitor) will be minimally documented in the field. All unearthed archaeological resources or Tribal Cultural Resources will be collected, temporarily stored in a secure location (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre - excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction.

If a determination is made that the archaeological resources or Tribal Cultural Resources are considered potentially significant by the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor, then the City and the TCA Tribe shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant/Owner and the Qualified Archaeologist, t he 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 Manage r shall make a determination based upon the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) with respect to archaeological resources, and California Public Resources Section 21704 and 21084.3 w ith 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 plan, as determine d by the City in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe. The TCA Tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the determination and implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation and the drafting and finalization of any eth nographic 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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 36
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will be inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American monitor.

If a data recovery plan is authorized as indicated above and the TCA Tribe does not object, then an adequate artifact sample to address research avenues previously identified for sites in the area will be collected using professional archaeological collect ion 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 in 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 repatr iation 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 disturba nce of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated [TCA] Native American monitor) shall occur until the Medical Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to 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 2 working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Medical Examiner recognizes the remains to be Native American, and not under his or her jurisdiction, then he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination as to the Most Lik ely Descendent, who shall be afforded 48 hours from the time access is granted to the discovery site to make recommendations regarding culturally appropriate treatment.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 37
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 archae ological 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 d isagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, state law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the Native American Heritage Commission . In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a locati on free from future disturbance (see Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)). c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is not within a known cemetery or burial ground;, however, human remains have been encountered within the vicinity of the project .. In the highly unlikely event that human remains are uncovered during ground ‐disturbing activities, there are regulatory provisions to address the handling of human remains in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). Pursuant to these codes, in the event that human remains are dis covered, disturbance of the site would be halted until the County coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The County coroner is required to make a determination within 2 working days of notificat ion of the discovery of the human remains. If the County coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, and if he or she recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall c onsult with the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours, to designate a Most Likely Descendant who shall recommend appropriate measures to the landowner regarding the treatment of the remains. If the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the Most Likely Descendant may request mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission. Therefore, with compliance with existing state law and implementation of MM-CUL-4, impacts associated with human remains would be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 38
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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. Temporary use of electricity and petroleum would be required during construction of the proposed project. Use of these materials during construction would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. The amount of electricity used during construction would be minimal relative to the total power used in the region or state and typical of what is required to construct a development like the project. Typical demand would stem from the use of electrically powered hand tools and sever al construction trailers by managerial staff during the hours of construction activities. Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during project construction. Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of const ruction. The CalEEMod analysis discussed in Appendix A to this IS/MND, includes the proposed construction schedule and equipment usage. CalEEMod assumes compliance with the Title 24 code. Based on that analysis, impacts related to energy consumption is determined to be less than significant.

Operation of the proposed project would require electricity for multiple purposes, including cooling, lighting, appliances, and various equipment ; the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water ; and transportation to/from the site. The project would implement applicable City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan ( CAP) Consistency Checklist measures that would reduce operational electricity consumption. As outlined above under PDFs to be incorporated as part of the project, the project would inclu de EV parking (PDF-1), would install instantaneous electric water heaters without water tanks (PDF -4), would install approximately 20.8 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system (PDF -5), and would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (PDF -6). Furthermore, as described under Section 2.17 below, the project is projected to generate 10,460 vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is 23,756 VMT less than the existing Restaurant Row uses, which were calculated to generate 34,216 VMT.

Although electricity consumption would likely increase at the project site due to project implementation of residential uses, the project would be required to comply with current Title 24 code and the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist by implementing energy-efficient measures. The project would be subject to the Title 24 building code that is adopted at the time building permits are obtained and thus may be subject to a more stringent energy standard than what was assumed in preparation of the Air Quality an d Greenhouse

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 39
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Gas Technical Report prepared for the project (Appendix A). Construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in wasteful or inefficient energy use and is expected to result in similar use to surrounding development and previous development on site. Therefore, impacts are determined to 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 proposed 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 nonresidential buildings cons tructed in California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The proposed project would also be subject to Part 11 of Title 24, also known as the CalGreen building standards. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to conflict with a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency . Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

2.7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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 involve ing:

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.

i) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
ii) iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iii) iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 40
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?

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

Geocon Inc. prepared a Geotechnical Investigation for the project, which is included as Appendix D to this IS/MND.

The analysis herein is based on findings and recommendations contained in Appendix D. Full details regarding geology and soils as it relates to the project site can be found in Appendix D. a) Would the project 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?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located in tectonically active Southern California.

However, no Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones or other known active faults run through the project site. The closest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, located 11 miles southwest of the project site. Based on the lack of active or potentially active faults underlying the project area, the potential for surface rupture is low , and the project site would not be subject to a greater seismic risk than other locations within the region. Additionally, per the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, because the project site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Fault Zone, the 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 u ses including police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, rest homes, nursing ho mes, and emergency communication facilities) within an Alquist–Priolo Fault Zone. Thus, the potential for loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered low.

The proposed project would be designed in accordance with applicable California Building Code 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 C alifornia, and applicable requirements of the State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These required seismic design considerations are u sed to minimize structural damage in the event of ground shaking. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project (Appendix D) confirms there are no active faults crossing the property . Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 41
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 approximately 70%. Pursuant to SMMC Chapter 17.32, Building, Construction, and Related Activities , all applications for grading permits are required to be accompanied by a geotechnical report (SMMC 17.32.040(d)). The geotechnical report is required to address on-site soils and geology and include conclusions regarding the adequacy of the site to be developed as proposed and provide recommendations specific to the project site (SMMC 17.32.040(f)). Consistent with City regulations, a Geotechnical Investigation was prepared for the project.

The project site is underlain by undocumented fill and young alluvium with groundwater encountered at a depth ranging from 7 feet to 21 feet below the existing ground surface; however, as outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation, December 2022 (Appendix D) prepared for the proposed project, the potential for liquefaction and dynamic settlement to occur on site is considered low due to the relative density of the older alluvium. Additionally, due to the developed nature of the existing site, impacts related to liquefaction are not anticipated. Although no geologic conditions were encountered that would preclude development of the property as proposed, the Geotechnical Investigation included soil removal/excavation, grading, and seismic design recommendations to be performed during project development.

Future projects within the Specific Plan would be required to adhere to the applicable recommendation stated in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D). Through implementation of all relevant geological recommendations, development of the project site would not result in seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is flat, currently consisting of existing development and paved parking. The project site is identified in the City ’s Safety Element as having "Zero Susceptibility" to landslides (Figure 6-1 of the General Plan) (City of San Marcos 2012 a). Additionally, the Geotechnical Investigation concurred with previous reports that found the potential for landslides or slope instabilities to occur is negligible . Therefore, the project site is not considered susceptible to landslides , and proposed project impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is flat, currently consisting of existing development and paved parking. 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 SMMC Chapter

17.32, Building, Construction, and Related Activities includes requirements for preparation of site-specific geotechnical reports (SMMC 17.32.040(d) and 17.32.040(f)), the proposed project would be required to implement all recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D) pertaining to soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 42
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As described above, the project site is flat, currently consisting of existing development and paved parking. The Geotechnical Investigation determined that the potential for landslides, liquefaction, or slope instabilities to occur is negligible. The proposed project would be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (see Appendix D) prepared for the project. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less-than-Significant Impact. Expansive soils are clay -based and tend to increase in volume due to water absorption and decrease in water volume due to drying. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project found the project site underlain by undocumented fill, young alluvium, old alluvium, and metavolcanic rock. The potential for expansive soil is not anticipated at the project site . However, the Geotechnical Investigation determined that the potential for on -site soil expansion ranges from “low” to “high.” T he proposed project would be required to comply with the recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D) completed for the project. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 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 that would connect to existing City infrastructure. Therefore, no impacts relating to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Although ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to unearth previously unidentified paleontological resources , d ue to the existing development on site, t he potential for paleontological resources to be located on the project site is considered low. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 43
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?

Dudek prepared an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report for the project, which is included as Appendix A to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix A. Full details regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as it relates to the project can be found in Appendix A. a) Would the project g enerate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Global climate change is primarily considered a cumulative impact but must also be evaluated on a project-level under CEQA. A project participates in this potential impact through its incremental contribution combined with the cumulative increase of all ot her sources of GHG emissions.

GHGs are gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. Principal GHGs regulated under state and federal law and regulations include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). GHG emissions are measured in metric tons of CO 2 equivalent (MT CO 2e), which account for weighted global warming potential factors for CH4 and N2O.

The City of San Marcos adopted the Final Climate Action Plan (CAP) on December 8, 2020. The CAP relies on a screening threshold of 500 MT CO2e per year based on land use size and a CAP Consistency Checklist to determine whether a project’s emissions would be consistent with GHG emissions estimated within the City’s CAP. For projects that are subject to CAP consistency review, the next step in determining consistency is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in development of th e CAP. This allows the City to determine a project’s consistency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP.

Step 1 of the CAP Checklist determines land use consistency. Question 1 of Step 1 asks if a project is less than a certain size. It is deemed consistent with the City’s CAP by emitting fewer than 500 MT CO 2e per year and would be less than significant. In order to determine if the project emits less than 500 MT CO 2e per year, construction and operational GHG emissions were quantified . Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with the use of off -road construction equipment, haul trucks, on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. CalEEMod was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the construction scenario. On-site sources of GHG emissions include off -road equipment and off-site sources including trucks and worker vehicles. As shown in Table 11 in Appendix A, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of would be approximately 2,870.48 MT CO2e over

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 44
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
the construction period. Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 96 MT CO 2e 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. Amortized construction emissions were added to operational emissions to be compared to the project for this assessment. CalEEMod was used to estimate potential operational GHG emissions from area sources (landscaping equipment), energy sou rces (natural gas and electricity), mobile sources, solid waste, and water supply and wastewater treatment for the project. As shown in Table 13 in Appendix A, the estimated GHG emissions from operation of the project would be approximately 1,714 MT CO 2e per year, including amortized construction emissions. Pursuant to the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist, since the project would emit greater than 500 MT CO2e per year, then CAP Step 1, Question 2 must be addressed as follows.

Question 2 of Step 1 asks if the proposed project is consistent with the City’s existing General Plan land use designation. The answer to this would be n o: the project requires a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Mixed -Use 1 (MU-1) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). Pursuant to the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist, since the project is not consistent with the City’s existing General Plan land use, then CAP Step 1, Question 3 mu st be addressed as follows.

Question 3 of Step 1 asks that for projects not consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, does the project include a General Plan Amendment that would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated emissions generated under the existing designation. The answer to this question would be y es: the project would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated emission generated under the existing designation as detailed in Section 3.5 of Appendix A.

Step 2 of the CAP Checklist determines the project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP. As outlined below, and as shown in Attachment B to Appendix A, CAP Checklist, the project has demonstrated consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP as required by Step 2 of the CAP Checklist. Therefore, the project is deemed consistent with the City’s CAP, and impacts would be less than significant.

The following summarizes the checklist items as presented in Attachment B to Appendix A:

Checklist Item 1. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T -2) This checklist item applies to multifamily residential and nonresidential projects. It asks if the project will install electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or better) in at least 5% of the total parking spaces provided on site.

The project would comply with this checklist item. The proposed multifamily residential project would include 501 518 total parking spaces; 4 EV charging stations, and 17 EV ready spaces would be included. Charging stations will be installed in the 392 garage parking stalls. The project would answer “Yes” to this question.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 45
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Checklist Item 2. Bicycle Infrastructure (Measure T -8) This checklist item applies to residential and nonresidential projects. It asks if the following conditions are met, would the project pay its fair-share contribution to bicycle infrastructure improvements of the following:
▪ Intersection or roadway segment improvements are proposed as part of the project. ▪ The City’s General Plan Mobility Element identifies bicycle infrastructure improvements at any intersection(s) or roadway segment(s) that would be improved as part of the project.

The project would comply with this checklist item. The project will determine specific details based on discussions with the City regarding San Marcos Boulevard multi-way.

Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.

Checklist Item 3. Transportation Demand Management (Measure T -9) This checklist item applies to residential and non -residential projects. Will the project develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that includes, at a minimum, all of the TDM strategies listed below?
▪ Provide discounted monthly transit pass or provide at least 25 % transit fare subsidy to residents/employees.
▪ Provide designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking spaces. ▪ Provide pedestrian connections between all internal uses and to all existing or planned external streets around the project site(s).
▪ Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or bicycle racks, showers, and clothes lockers. ▪ Encourage telecommuting for employees (allow one telecommute day per week or compressed work weeks) or provide a telecommute work center with common office space and equipment available to residents.
or
▪ Would the project implement and monitor for four (4) years a TDM program that demonstrates an alternative transportation (i.e., carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, telecommute) mode share of at least 29 percent for all residents?
The proposed project would not result in a VMT-related impact, and therefore, a TDM plan is not required.

The proposed project units are for sale units that would be managed by a n HOA; therefore, the project providing discounted monthly transit passes to residents would not be sensible. Future tenants of the proposed commercial/retail space would be encouraged to provide employees with discounted monthly transit passes; however, that would be at the discretion of the tenant. Due to the shared parking agreement for the project site, as required by the City, the project does not designate car -share, carpool, vanpool , and/or park-and-ride spaces; however, such could be provided with direction from the City. The project would provide pedestrian connections throughout all uses on site and connection to adjacent sidewalks and existing roadways. The project would provide communal bicycle parking, and all living units would

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 46
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
provide bicycle storage and showers. Telecommuting is resident- and tenant-based but will be encouraged.

The TDM Plan is a proposed condition of approval prior to building occupancy.

Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.

Checklist Item 4. Reduce Parking Near Transit (Measure T -12) This checklist item applies to multifamily residential projects. If located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop, would the project provide at least 27% fewer parking spaces than required for the same use based on the City’s municipal code parking requirements?
The project is not located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop defined as a bus or light -rail station with fixed service and 10-minute minimum headways during peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would answer “N/A” to this question.

Checklist Item 5. Water Heaters (Measure E -1)
This checklist item applies to residential projects and asks if the project would install one of, or a combination of, the following water heater types in place of natural gas water heaters:
▪ Electric heat pump water heater
▪ Instantaneous electric water heater
▪ Electric tank
▪ Solar water heater with heat pump water heater backup ▪ Solar water heater with electric tank backup
The project would comply with this checklist item. The project would install instantaneous electric water heaters without water tanks that would meet the requirements of this checklist item. The project would answer “Yes” to this checklist question.

Checklist Item 6. Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E -2) This checklist item applies to nonresidential projects. The item requires nonresidential projects to install a minimum photovoltaic system of 2 watts per square foot of gross floor area.

The project would include 202 multifamily residential units and 10,400 square feet of commercial retail uses. Therefore, this checklist item would only apply to the 10,400 square feet of commercial retail use.

Based on the 10,400 square feet of commercial retail uses, the project would install a (10,400 x 2)/1,000 = 20.8 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system. The project would answer “Yes” to this checklist question.

Checklist Item 7. Landscaping Water Use (Measure W -1)
This checklist item applies to residential and nonresidential projects and asks if the project would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

The proposed project would comply with this checklist item. The project ’s landscaping would meet the requirements within the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Per SMMC Section 20.330.020, water

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 47
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
efficient landscape standards are applicable to new construction with an aggregate landscape area equal to or greater than 500 sq uare feet. The project will include a landscape area of approximately 87,500 square feet, which is greater than 500 square feet. Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.

Checklist Item 8. Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C -2)
This checklist item applies to residential and nonresidential projects and asks if the project is providing more than 10 parking spaces, will the project plant at least one tree per five parking spaces provided.

The project would comply with this checklist item. The project is providing 501 518 parking spaces and will plant at least 97 104 trees to satisfy this checklist requirement. As detailed on the project landscape plan, the project would include a total of 2 43 trees. Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.

In summary, as described above, the project has demonstrated consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP and would implement project design features PDF -1 through PDF-7. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
b) Would the project generate c onflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Numerous plans, policies, and regulations have been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall state plan and policy are AB 32 and the follow - up legislation, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. The City’s CAP outlines the measures for the City to achieve its share of state GHG reductions. The project would be consistent with the CAP and, therefore, would be consistent with state GHG reduction goals.

At the regional level, SANDAG’s Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (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.

As presented in the July 2021, General Plan Housing Element, the most recent Regional Housing Needs Assessment from SANDAG stated that San Marcos’s share of regional fu ture housing needs is 3,116 new units between A pril 15,2021, and April 15, 2029. As of June 30, 2020, 546 housing units have been planned or approved for development, with 2,570 units remaining needed to be developed in the City. The project is expected to bring 202 units to market in 2027, which would be within SANDAG’s growth projection for housing during the 6th Cycle planning horizon. Since the project is within the scope of development that was anticipated in the General Plan, it would not result in growth that would conflict with the Regional Plan.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 48
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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.

2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project by Geocon, which is included as Appendix E to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix E. Full details regarding hazards and hazardous materials as it relates to the project site can be found in Appendix E. Additionally, a Fire Response

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 49
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Technical Memorandum was prepared for the project, which is included as Appendix L to this IS/MND. Information from the Fire Response Technical Memorandum is referenced in the analysis herein. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
and
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. Construction of the proposed project would entail transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to, diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, h uman waste, and chemical toilets.

Direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment could occur with the transport, use, or disposal of these materials. However, existing federal and state standards related to the handling, storage, and transport of these materials would be implemented during construction of the proposed project. These regulations include the Federal Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations), California Highway Patrol and Caltrans container and licensing requirements for transportation of hazardous waste on public roads, the International Fire Code, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 , California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law , the California Fire Code , California Health and Safety Code Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory , the California Integrated Waste Management Act , regulations developed by California Occupation al Safety and Health Administration, and the state Hazardous Waste Control Act.

During operation of the proposed project, the only hazardous materials anticipated for transport, use, or disposal associated with the project would be routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products, typical of residential and commercial retail uses. The use, handling, and disposal of these products is addressed by household hazardous waste programs that are part of the Integrated Waste Management Plan of the Cou nty of San Diego. The Household Hazardous Waste Element of the Integrated Waste Management Plan specifies the means by which hazardous wastes generated by households shall be collected, recycled, treated, and disposed of safely (County of San Diego 2005).

The proposed project’s compliance with all standards required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations, in addition to project-specific plans reviewed by the City, would ensure potential impacts to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not be substantial. Furthermore, the project would comply with all recommendations outlined in the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed site , including the recommendation that any suspect asbes tos-containing material from demolition of the existing site be actively managed in accordance with a property -specific asbestos operations and management program until construction, demolition, or renovations warrant positive identification and/or building material removal . Therefore, impacts of the proposed project are determined to be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 50
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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. The project site is not located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The closest schools to the project site are Discovery Elementary School, located approximately 0.45 miles south of the project site, and High Tech High North County, located approximately 0.70 miles west of the project site . However, the proposed project is not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste beyond routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive product s, batteries, and garden maintenance products. Residential use of the project site is also expected to handle fewer hazardous materials and emit reduced hazardous emissions compared to the light industrial and mixed-use uses designated under the existing zoning for the project site. Furthermore, the project would comply with all recommendations outlined in the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed site . Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
d) Would the project 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?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Geocon prepared a Phase I ESA for the project site in June 2021. As outlined in t he Phase I ESA , Environmental Data Resources Inc. searched federal, state, and local databases regarding the known contaminated sites within 1 mile of the site. The databases that list the project site and/or properties/facilities within 1 mile of the site and the number of properties/facilities listed are summarized in Section 4 of Appendix E. The project site is listed on the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and California Integrated Water Quality System Project databases; however, the Phase I ESA identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the project site . A recognized environmental condition is the presence o r likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. As no recognized environmental conditions were identified, additional environmental assessments are not warranted at this time. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
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? 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 (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). 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 (EOP) governs the operations of the City during a disaster. The EOP addresses response to

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 51
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
moderate evacuation scenarios, including the identification of evacuation points and general routes (City of San Marcos 2012a). The proposed project would be required to abide by the standards set forth in the San Marcos EOP. 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 that afford fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Sections 503.1 through 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 points of entry and private driveways have been reviewed and approved by San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) and are required to meet the qualifications for emergency access to and from the project site. Furthermore, a Fire Response Technical Memorandum (Appendix L) has been prepared for the proposed project , which outlines fire protection services and emergency response as it relates to development of the project. Based on response travel time modelling, it is concluded that the project site is within the SMFD’s internal response timeframes with up to 24 seconds of additional time available. For these reasons, the project would not interfere with emergency response plans, and impacts 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 currently developed with restaurants and associated paved parking on site. The proposed re -designation of the project site from Light Industrial and Mixed - Use to residential use s under a S pecific Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks in comparison to existing conditions. 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. The redevelopment of the existing project site with proposed land uses would not exacerbate fire risk. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire codes, including compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of San Marcos 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, Sections 503.1 through 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).

Furthermore, a Fire Response Technical Memorandum (Appendix L) has been prepared for the proposed project, which outlines fire protection services and emergency response as it relates to development of the project. The Fire Response Technical Memorandum concludes that the increased on -site density and intensity of uses would not cause a significant stress on existing call volume or response capabilities. The project site would be served for a fire emergency within SMFD’s internal response time frames. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 52
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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 off site;

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

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

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

The Hydrology and Water Quality Section of this IS/MND is based on the results of the Preliminary Hydrology/Drainage Study and Hydraulics Analysis and Floodplain Study, which are included as Appendices F and G, respectively. Additionally, this section refers to the SWQMP prepared for the project, included as Appendix N to this IS/MND.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 53
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in potentially significant 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 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System State Water Resources Control Board Region-wide Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit - Order No. R9 -2013-0001, as amended by Orders R9 -2015-0001 and R9 -2015-0100, and Construction General Permit Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ for stormwater discharges and general construction activities, and would incorporate standard BMPs, such as regular cleaning or sweeping of construction areas and impervious areas, and filtration media screens. In compliance with the Construction General Permit, a stormwater pollution prevention plan, including an erosion control plan, will be prepared for the project , prior to issuance of grading permits, that would specify construction BMPs that would be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to water quality. Furthermore, project implementation of permanent storm water quality BMPs that compromise of proprietary and non -proprietary biofiltration, hydromodification, 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 2023 BMP Design Manual and BMPs outlined in the project’s SWQMP (PDF-8). Proposed drainage management areas and BMP sites are shown on the drainage management areas map on page 45 of the SWQMP, provided as Appendix N to this IS/MND.

As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Report and SWQMP prepared for the project, water quality requirements would be addressed with permanent stormwater quality BMPs, including a modular wetland systems (proprietary biofiltration), and green-street biofiltration BMP, and hydromodification requirements would be addressed with underground storage vaults . The on-site permanent BMPs would be maintained by the HOA, and sediment and debris collected in the proposed hydromodification vault would be maintained via a vactor truck procedure. Both the pollutant-removal BMPs and the hydromodification vaults would have strategically place d access holes in order to facilitate maintenance. The BMPs would be inspected regularly to inspect for sedimentation. The project includes green street biofiltration within the multi-way median, as part of the proposed m ulti-way improvements. The property owner is required, pursuant to SMMC Section 14.15 and the City’s BMP Design Manual, to enter into a stormwater management and discharge control maintenance agreement for the installation and maintenance of permanent BMPs prior to i ssuance of construction permits. Through implementation of the construction and permanent BMPs and the adherence to water quality regulations , the project would not violate any stormwater quality standards or waste discharge requirements, nor degrade surface or ground water quality. As outlined in Appendix F, the project would meet state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System construction and municipal stormwater permit requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with water quality and stormwater drainage and 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 Investigation (Appendix D) completed for the project, groundwater was encountered in all the exploratory borings performed across the site, which

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 54
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
varied between 8 and 24 feet below the existing ground surface. The groundwater elevations are expected to fluctuate seasonally and may affect remedial grading. In this regard, remedial grading may encounter wet soils and excavation and compaction difficul ty, particularly if grading is planned during the winter months. Additionally, a non -operational/abandoned well was observed in the northwestern portion of the property and would be properly abandoned/removed in accordance with San Diego County regulatory requirements (Appendix D). Due to anticipated removal depths, the current location of groundwater and the condition and compression characteristics of the alluvium that underlies the site, a compression study was completed for the site which found that older alluvial deposits were encountered at depths of 3 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface. To evaluate the possibility of leaving this unit in-place, consolidation testing was performed on several relatively undisturbed samples of this material. Based on the laboratory test results presented in Appendix B of Appendix D to this IS/MND, the older alluvium possesses adequate engineering properties to remain in -place and receive the proposed fills and/or str uctural loads.

Construction of the project is not anticipated to interfere with groundwater recharge; nevertheless, the project would be required to comply with all conclusions and recommendations outlined in Appendix D to this MND. Specifically, a ll grading shall be performed in accordance with the Recommended Grading Specifications in the Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix D), and all earthwork should be observed and all fills tested for proper compaction by Geocon Inc.

All stormwater would be adequately treated by the modular wetland system prior to being discharged to natural/undisturbed areas that could allow the runoff to infiltrate into the ground and eventually reach groundwater. The use of permanent BMPs that would effectively treat stormwater runoff, would ensure that project implementation would not have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectiv es or degradation of beneficial uses.

The project would receive 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 2016). As the project would not use groundwater for construction or operation, and would not interfere with infiltration and groundwater recharge, implementation of the proposed project would not dec rease groundwater basins through increasing water demand on site or impede sustainable groundwater management of any groundwater basin, and 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 . The proposed project would be required to implement BMPs during construction and incorporate storm drain systems including proprietary and non -proprietary biofiltration BMPs and hydromodification vaults into the development design. With implementation of the proposed stormwater quality BMPs , the project would not generate runoff volumes that would significantly alter the overall drainage on site. Additionally, project-related runoff would be adequately treated prior to discharge into pl anned drainage systems via stormwater quality BMPs such that the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 55
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
The proposed project is required to accommodate adequate drainage capacity on site, and connections to existing facilities, in project -specific plans that will be reviewed and approved by the City. Further, implementation of BMPs and a stormwater pollution prevention plan would ensure construction of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Compliance with the stormwater pollution prevention plan and project specific SWQMP would ensure impacts related to erosion or siltation on- or -off-site would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
Less-than-Significant Impact. There are no existing streams or rivers on site that would be substantially altered as a result of project implementation. The project site is within Zone AE of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is subject to inundation by the 1% annual chance flood. Zone AE is defined as areas with “base flood elevations determined.” The northern portion of the site is within the floodway areas in Zone AE. The floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent areas that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1% annual flood chance can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights.

Under existing conditions, the project area is fully developed and consists of commercial development with a large parking lot area and a number of restaurants. The project site generally drains towards the center, towards the middle of the large parking lot. Surface drains along the project site collect site runoff and convey the runoff in an existing 30 -inch pipe that runs west through the project site. This 30 -inch pipe connects a 36 -inch x 60-inch elliptical pipe in Via Vera Cruz upstream and an existin g concrete channel west of the site downstream. San Marcos Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site, downstream of the project outfall point. The on-site drainage improvements proposed consist of private streets, gutters, and curb inlets that tie into underground storm drain systems. The project would upsize the existing 30-inch storm drain that conveys majority of the stormwater on site to a double 36-inch storm drain with a new alignment, which would ultimately transition to a dual RCB before it discharges to the existing concrete channel. In addition, the project proposes to construct some public improvements and street widening along the project frontage. These public improvements include center median improvements, and a new side median for multi -way lane in West San Marcos Boulevard. Hydrology modeling was prepared for these improvement areas.

As the project grading has been designed to fit into the existing landform, the proposed drainage areas mimic the existing condition and consist of one on -site drainage system and one off-site drainage system.

As outlined in Table 2 in Appendix F, peak flows for the proposed condition would decrease compared to existing conditions. Therefore, 100 -year detention is not required since 100 -year post-project peak flows are less than 100-year pre-project peak flows. The project would fill areas north and south of the floodway to raise the proposed buildings above the 100-year floodplain elevations with required freeboard. Grading and encroachments would be minimized within the floodway area.

The project would introduce new pervious areas on site through open space and landscaped areas that currently do not existing in current conditions. The proposed on-site drainage improvements include private streets, gutters, storm drain pipes, and curb inlets that would connect to underground storm drain systems.

In addition, post-development condition of the project site would continue to drain towards San Marcos Creek; however, as shown above, flow-rate for the proposed condition would be reduced compare d to the existing condition.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 56
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
As described in the project description and the Hydraulic Analysis (Appendix G), FEMA has mapped a 100- year floodplain, 500-year floodplain, and regulatory floodway within the site. These are associated with the “North Split” from the San Marcos Creek (as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map 06073C0793G) and would remain partially contained within the redeveloped area and w ould not inundate future buildings. As discussed above, the project would fill areas north and south of the floodway to raise the proposed buildings above the 100-year floodplain elevations with required freeboard. As part of the project, a park would be implemented in the existing floodway area with a variety of amenities tolerant of inundation (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). The site design is intended to minimize floodway encroachments and results in minor changes to the existing condition 100 -year water surface elevations. As described in Appendix G, t he proposed condition water surface elevations are generally lower than existing conditions.

As shown above and as outlined in Appendix F and G , the hydrology results indicate that the post -project flow rates do not exceed pre-project flow rates, due to an increase of landscape areas compared to existing conditions. The proposed buildings would be elevated above the 100-year flood elevation. For the reasons outlined above, impacts are determined to 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 increase pervious surfaces and decrease peak flows through the project site. T he 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 previously, t he project would upsize the existing 30-inch storm drain that conveys the majority of the site to a double 36 -inch storm drain with a new alignment that would ultimately transition to a dual RCB before it discharges to the existing concrete channel. As the project grading has been designed to fit into the existing landform, the proposed drainage areas mimic the existing condition and consist of one on -site drainage system and one off -site drainage system. As outlined in Table 2 in Appendix F, peak flows for the proposed condition would decrease compared to existing conditions. Therefore, 100-year detention is not required since 100-year post-project peak flows are less than 100-year pre-project peak flows.

The on-site drainage system would be 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 significant. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed drainage patterns would be relatively the same as in existing conditions. The site would generally drain towards the existing 100 -year floodway and drain to the west towards the existing concrete channel. Most of the roof drainage for the residential motorcourts would drain to the center of their courtyards and would be collected in inlets and conveyed through the storm drainpipes. The drainage pattern on West San Marcos Boulevard would remain the same as in existing conditions. The project would fill areas north and south of the floodway to raise the proposed buildings above the 100-year floodplain elevations with required freeboard. Grading and encroachments would be minimized within the floodway area. As part of the project, a park would be implemented in the existing floodway area with a variety of amenities tolerant of inundation (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). The site design is intended to minimize floodway encroachments and results in minor changes to the existing

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 57
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
condition 100-year water surface elevations . As described in Appendix G, the proposed condition water surface elevations are generally lower than existing conditions. The proposed condition would include more pervious landscaping areas compared to existing conditions, which contribute to lower flow rates; therefore no 100-year detention is required for the project.

The project would be required to comply with recommendations in the Hydrology/Drainage Report and Hydraulic Analysis and would be required to incorporate all requirements and BMPs outlined in the stormwater pollution prevention plan and SWQMP prepared for the project. Based on the analysis above , impacts would be less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less-than-Significant Impact. As described above, FEMA-mapped 100 -year floodplain, 500 -year floodplain, and regulatory floodway occur across the northern portion of the site. The project would fill areas north and south of the floodway to raise the proposed buildings above the 100 -year floodplain elevations with required freeboard. Grading and encroachments would be minimized within the floodway area. As part of the project, a park would be implemented in the existing floodway area with a variety of amenities tolerant of inundation (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan). The site design is intended to minimize floodway encroachments and results in minor changes to the existing condition 100-year water surface elevations.

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 tsunami or seiche zone. 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 st eep slopes and does not contain slopes subject to mudflows; therefore, potential impacts related to release of pollutants due to inun dation are determined to be less than significant.
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 was prepared in June 2016 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 Water Quality Improvement Plan is to guide the Responsible Agencies’ jurisdictional runoff management plans towards achieving improved water quality in MS4 discharges (or stormwater discharges) and receiving water bodies. 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 Quality Improvement Plan outlines areas of priority water quality conditions and highest priority water quality conditions. No potential wetland or non- wetland water features are present within the biological study area. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Carlsbad Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan 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.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 58
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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. As described under Section 1 above, the project is a mixed-use residential development project on a 10.5 -acre site. The project consists of demolition of 63,484 square feet of existing (primarily vacant) restaurant uses on site, re-development with 202 multifamily residential units, 10,400 square feet of commercial retail uses, and a 1.1 acre public park (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

Residential units would consist of 8 three-bedroom townhomes over commercial (“town over commercial”); 17 “front street” townhomes ranging in size from three to four bedrooms; 57 “greencourt” townhomes ranging in size from two to four bedrooms; and 120 “motorcourt” townhomes ranging in size from two - to three-bedrooms. Private balcony/patio space would be included for each residential unit. Development of the project would be guided by the project’s Specific Plan, which provides development guidelines, policies, and regulatory measures (Appendix M). Open space amenities would be located in the northeastern portion of the project site, and commercial uses would be placed along the southern and eastern project boundaries. Primary project a ccess would be via West San Marcos Boulevard at the project’s southern boundary. The project would provide 518501 parking spaces.

The project includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Mixed -Use 1 (MU -1) and Light Industrial (L -I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA) to allow for the proposed multifamily dwelling unit development, associated amenities, private open space , and a public park. The Specific Plan has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new mixed -use residential community and to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses . 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/restaurant uses immediately north, east, and west; Bradley Park approximately 1 mile northwest; Lake San Marcos approximately 1 mile southwest; single and multifamily residential approximately 0.5 mile s south; and schools/educational facilities, including San Marcos High School approximately 1 mile west . The proposed project would not incorporate new roads or require removal of roads that currently provide access to the area. Furthermore, due to the location of the project site surrounded on all sides by existing roadways, no separation or disruption of surrounding uses would occur as a result of project implementation. Because the project site is surrounded on all sides by existing development and will maintain existing pedestrian and vehicle access

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 59
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
through the site, it is determined that the proposed project would not divide an established community, and therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. 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 proposed project would change the project site’s current General Plan and Zoning designations of Light Industrial (L-I) and Mixed-Use (MU-1) for the site. The proposed Restaurant Row Project (project) includes a r equest for a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezone, two Site Development Plans (one for the development and one for the public park) , and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for a mixed-use residential development project on a 10.5-acre site. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ens ure the efficient development of a new mixed-use residential community. 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 Site Development Plan will configure the site for multifamily dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space. The Tentative Subdivision Map presents specific lot configurations for the site. A separate Site Development Plan will describe the development of the public park, consistent with the feedback gathered at a series of public workshops.

Upon City approval of the G eneral Plan Amendment/Rezone to Specific Plan Area, the proposed project would be required to comply with the allowable multifamily residential uses and development standards outlined in the Specific Plan prepared for the project site (Appendix M). The Specific Plan includes a General Plan consistency analysis (Appendix M). Although the proposed project would amend the land use designation, the proposed project would not result in 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. The proposed 1.1-acre park, that would be publicly owned and maintained , complies with the City’s General Plan Parks, Recreation and Community Health Element , and the City’s Parks Master Plan Update as a location identified for a future park (City of San Marcos 2018). 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, with approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment/Rezone, project impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant.

2.12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 60
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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?
and
b) Would the project 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? 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 currently developed and not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any local General Plan, Specific Plan, or other land use plan (City of San Marcos 2012a). Thus, due to the location and nature of the proposed project, there would be no impact to mineral resources.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 61
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?

Dudek prepared a Noise Study for the project which is included as Appendix H to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix H. Full details regarding noise as it relates to the project can be found in Appendix H.
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
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena. Construction noise and vibration levels vary 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. SMMC Chapter 10.24: Noise addresses construction noise (City of San Marcos 2020a) . Erection and demolition of buildings is exempt between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The SMMC does not set noise limits on construction activities. Through adherence to the limitation of allowable construction times provided in the SMMC, construction-related noise levels would not exceed local standards. However, were the City to consider adoption of the County of San Diego’s Noise Ordinance noise limit of 75 dBA (8 -hour energy equivalent noise level [Leq]) for construction activities, then for information purposes this assessment will compare predicted construction noise against the County’s 75 dBA 8 -hour L eq threshold. The analysis assumes that the 8 -hour period over which the County’s 75 dBA L eq could apply would be within the aforementioned exempt hours as allowed by the City of San Marcos.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 62
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Construction assumptions, including timing, phasing, and equipment type and quantity, as well as worker and vendor truck trips, were based on information provided by the applicant. Default values provided by CalEEMod were used since detailed project site -specific information is not currently available. Equipment that could be in use during construction would include, in part, graders, backhoes, concrete saws, excavators, dump trucks, loaders, cranes, manlifts, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, welders, and air compressors. The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 6 in Appendix H. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the listed maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time.

Aggregate noise emission from assumed construction activities, broken down by sequential phase, was predicted at two distances to the nearest apparent existing noise-sensitive receptor: (1) from the nearest position of the construction site boundary ; (2) from the nearest position of construction activity for the “main” portion of the site (the closest receiver to construction activity is adjacent to the northern extension of the project site, which would contain six multifamily residential structures); and (3) from the geographic center of the construction site, which serves as the time -averaged location or geographic acoustical centroid of active construction equipment for the phase under study.

The intent of the former distance is to help evaluate anticipated construction noise from a limited quantity of equipment or vehicle activity expected to be at the boundary for some period of time, which would be most appropriate for phases such as site preparation, grading, and paving. The latter distance is used in a manner similar to the general assessment techni que as described in Federal Transit Administration guidance for construction noise assessment (FTA 2018), when the location of individual equipm ent for a given construction phase is uncertain over some extent of (or the entirety of) the construction site area.

Because of this uncertainty, all the equipment for a construction phase is assumed to operate —on average—from the acoustical centroid. Table 7 in Appendix H summarizes these three distances to the apparent closest noise-sensitive receptor for each of the five sequential construction phases. Adoption of the County’s noise ordinance threshold would mean that an “occupied property ,” which could be a residence or any occupied building, would be the nearest noise-sensitive receptor in this context. At the site boundary, this analysis assumes that the equipment may be operating up to 8 hours per day (i.e., comparable to a typical on-site work shift).

A Microsoft Excel –based noise prediction model emulating and using reference data from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest occupied noise-sensitive land use.

As presented in Table 8 in Appendix H, the estimated maximum construction noise levels at the closest noise-sensitive receptor (church) are predicted to be greater than 75 dBA L eq, when activities take place within the rectangular extended site area at the northern end of the project site. Note that these estimated noise levels at a source-to-receiver distance of 50 feet occur when noted pieces of heavy equipment would each operate at the same location along the northern property boundary of the northern site extension area for a cumulative period of 8 hours a day. However, construction equipment would move through the project area throughout an 8 -hour day, resulting in average 8 -hour noise levels that are less than the maximum noise levels. Although maximum construction noise at the closest off -site noise-sensitive receiver could exceed 75 dB(A) L eq, the analysis of these noise levels is extremely conservative, because it assumes all equipment in the phase is working simultaneously in the same location along the northern boundary. Given

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 63
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
the analysis at this distance is very conservative, and because San Marcos has not adopted the San Diego County ordinance, construction noise impacts even within the northern site extension area would be considered less than significant.

The site extension area at the north end of the project site has a depth of approximately 300 feet, as measured perpendicular to the closest noise-sensitive receptor. The construction noise model was run with this distance separation for construction activities, the results of which are also presented in Table 8 in Appendix H (Nearest Noise Sensitive Receptor to Main Construction Area). As can be seen in Table 8 in Appendix H , the estimated construction noise levels at the closest noise -sensitive receptor (church) are predicted to be less than 75 dBA L eq averaged over an 8-hour period, when activities take place no closer than the boundary of the main project site (along the northern project site boundary, excluding the extension or pop-out near the middle of the northern project site boundary). Note that these estimated noise levels at a source-to-receiver distance of 300 feet occur when noted pieces of heavy equipment would each operate for a cumulative period of 8 hours a day. Therefore, for construction activities taking place within the main project site boundaries, construction noise levels at the closest noise -sensitive receptor would comply with the County’s standard, and therefore, mitigation would not be required for construction activities occurring within the main project site (i.e., no closer than 300 feet to the adjacent church).

Finally, Table 8 in Appendix H provides the results of the construction noise analysis based upon the distance from the acoustical centroid to the closest noise -sensitive receptor. This scenario is meant to address construction activities distributed across the site, rather than those occurring along the closest site boundary to the sensitive receptor. The values based on the acoustical centroid are considered to be more representative of average construction noise exposure levels at adjacent properties across the entire construction period. As illustrated in Table 8 in Appendix H, noise levels based on the acoustical centroid would average no more than approximately 66 dBA, which is the equivalent of normal conversation levels.

Thus, when considered over the entire construction process, it is anticipated that construction noise levels at the closest noise-sensitive receptor would not be intrusive or disruptive.

Compared to measurements of the daytime outdoor ambient sound level at representative sample locations as shown in Table 5 in Appendix H, predicted construction noise levels ranging in the lower to middle seventies of dBA as appearing in Table 8 in Appendix H are considerably higher and would be clearly perceptible to an average listener having healthy human hearing. However, there are no residences within 1,000 feet of the project site; the nearest noise-sensitive uses are a church and a pre-school. At the nearby church and pre-school, exposure to such construction-related noise would typically be relatively short term and temporary —lasting only as long as construction occurs during allowable hours . And because i t is anticipated that construction activities associated with future development as a result of the proposed project would take place within the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., the noise -producing activity would thus be in complianc e with the SMMC with respect to allowable hours. Construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant.

Long -Term Operational
Roadway Traffic Noise
The proposed project’s residences and commercial space would result in the introduction of vehicle trips on local arterial roadways (i.e., San Marcos Boulevard, Via Vera Cruz, and South Las Posas). However, the project would eliminate several existing restaurants that have a fairly high trip generation rate. According

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 64
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
to the project traffic impact assessment ( Appendix I), the project would reduce average daily trips coming from the project site, compared to the existing restaurants. Table 9 in Appendix H presents the conclusion of the traffic analysis, which is shown as estimated reduction of 551 average daily trips to local roadways.

Given the project would reduce traffic trips from the site to area roadways, traffic noise on area roadways would not change as a result of project implementation. Thus, a less-than-significant impact is expected for proposed project-related off-site traffic noise affecting existing residences in the vicinity.

Exterior Noise Exposure for Future Project Occupants
Aside from exposure to aviation traffic noise, current CEQA noise-related guidelines at the state level do not require an assessment of exterior -to-interior noise intrusion, environmental noise exposure to occupants of newly created project residences, or environmental noise exposure to exterior nonresidential uses attributed to the potential future development at the proposed project site. Nevertheless, the City’s CEQA guidelines and the California Building Code requires that interior background noise levels not exceed a CNEL of 45 decibels (dB) within habitable rooms. Hence, the following predictive analysis of traffic noise exposure and commercial noise sources at the exteriors of occupied residences and outdoor living areas is provided to support evaluation of the project for Noise Element policy compliance, which includes exterior noise compatibility levels of 65 dBA CNEL for multifamily residential uses and 60 dBA CNEL for parks . A detailed description of applicable State and Local regulations related to noise is outlined in Section 2 of Appendix H.

Traffic Noise
Potential noise exposure for future project residents from vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways was assessed using worksheets based upon the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model version

2.5. Year 2019 traffic volumes were obtained from the City of San Marcos Public Works Division ( City of San Marcos 2023) and Year 2030 traffic volumes were calculated using a 1.5% annual growth rate (which is representative of regional traffic growth in California, and compares well to the current actual an nual growth rate for San Marcos of 1.9% annually). Table 10 in Appendix H presents the results of traffic noise modeling. It should be noted that proposed new driveways/roads interior to the project site were not assessed for noise generation, due to the much lower quantity of trips on these roadways compared to Las Posas or Via Vera Cruz, both of which were found to generate noise levels less than 60 dBA CNEL.

The traffic noise exposure levels in Table 10 in Appendix H are calculated for the project boundary closest to the identified roadway segment. As outlined in Table 10 in Appendix H, estimated Year 2023 traffic noise exposure levels at the project boundary closest to Las Posas Road would be approximately 58 dBA CNEL; traffic noise levels at the project boundary closest to Via Vera Cruz would be approximately 59 dBA CNEL; and traffic noise levels at the project boundary closest to San Marcos Boulevard would be approximately 71 dBA CNEL. For project boundaries closest to Las Posas Road and Via Vera Cruz, a number of existing structures exist between the roadway segment and the project boundary. These existing buildings would provide some shielding for traffic noise propagation, and thus calculated roadway traffic noise levels along these project boundaries would be lower than the calculated value presented in Table 10 in Appendix H (the values represent a conservative worst- case with no intervening buildings). The project boundary adjacent to San Marcos Boulevard has unobstructed exposure to the street, and therefore, the traffic noise value in Table 10 in Appendix H for San Marcos Boulevard represents expected future conditions, with no conservatism.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 65
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
The proposed park would extend from the project boundary closest to Las Posas Road to the project boundary closest to Via Vera Cruz. The maximum traffic noise level exposure at the ends of the park closest to these roadways would be no greater than 59.2 dBA CNEL, which is below the Noise Element recommended 60 dBA CNEL maximum for parks. Proposed residences along these project boundaries would also be exposed to traffic noise levels below the Noise Element Policy limit of 65 dBA CNEL for multifamily residences (Appendix H).

The project would place five rows of two-story structures between San Marcos Boulevard and the park area, which would be expected to reduce traffic noise exposure within the park area by a minimum of 20 dBA CNEL. Therefore, traffic noise exposure levels from San Marcos B oulevard in the park area would not be anticipated to exceed 50 dBA CNEL. Traffic noise exposure levels in the park area would therefore remain within the Noise Element policy limits of 60 dBA CNEL.

Based on the Year 2030 results of the above traffic noise analysis, the first row of structures adjacent to San Marcos B oulevard could have traffic noise levels in front yard areas and at the façade facing San Marcos B oulevard of approximately 70 dBA CNEL. To achieve compliance with the Noise Element multifamily residential exterior exposure limits of 65 dBA CNEL in yard areas immediately adjacent to San Marcos Boulevard, a solid fence or landscape wall of 6 feet in height would be provided between the yard area and San Marcos B oulevard (PDF-9). The wall would reduce traffic noise exposure in the yard areas to approximately 63 dBA CNEL.

The first building row adjacent to San Marcos Boulevard is proposed to be two stories in height, effectively spanning the project property frontage except for one entry drive. This row of buildings would reduce traffic noise exposure at the next row of residences by a minimum of 10 dBA CNEL, and the further distance from the traffic noise source would reduce levels by another 3 dBA CNEL. Therefore, residences interior to the project site would not be exposed to traffic noise exposure levels greater than approximately 57 dBA CNEL, comfortably within the Noise Element limit of 65 dBA CNEL.

California Code of Regulations Title 24 requires that an interior noise analysis be performed where exterior noise exposure would exceed 60 dBA CNEL, which would be the case for the fa çades of the first row of buildings immediately adjacent to San Marcos B oulevard. California Code of Regulations Title 24 and the City of San Marcos also require that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources not exceed 45 dBA CNEL for multifamily residences. An interior noise analysis is not currently required under CEQA, but a preliminary discussion for informational purposes is provided below.

No exterior wall assembly has been provided yet, but it is assumed the exterior wall for the project structures will be of standard construction and consist of three-coat stucco or exterior paneling over sheathing, on wood studs with a single layer of gypsum board on the interior and batt insulation in the cavity. This assembly has an attenuation capacity of typically 40–45 (identified by a Sound Transmission Classification [STC] rating), which means the exterior solid wall could reduce exterior noise levels by at least 40 dBA in interior spaces. However, windows and doors are not as effective in reducing noise levels from exterior to interior spaces. Therefore, for residences in the first row of structures adjacent to San Marcos B oulevard, to achieve the interior criterion of 45 dBA CNEL, exterior doors and windows located on the building façade facing San Marcos Boulevard should have a minimum STC rating of 35 (PDF-10).

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 66
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Exterior Noise Exposure Levels from Adjacent Commercial and Industrial Land Uses Existing commercial uses, including restaurants, commercial offices, and a bank , would be preserved on the property immediately to the east and north of the project site. Roof-mounted heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment on the closest restaurant to the eastern project site boundary is located approximately 100 feet from the eastern property boundary of the project site. Based on a Carrier brand 20-ton package HVAC unit, the sound level for the HVAC equipment at the closest restaurant would be 77 dBA at 10 feet, attenuated to approximately 59 dBA at the project site eastern boundary. Parking lots associated with the commercial uses north and east of the project site would be the primary noise source that would continue to exist adjacent to the project. The average noise level for a commercial parking lot is approximately 63 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the edge of the parking lot (Appendix H). The closest parking stalls to the project site would be located at approximately 50 feet from futur e residences within the project.

Adding HVAC noise to the parking lot noise would result in noise exposure no greater than approximately 66 dBA L eq at residences along the northern and eastern project site boundary . With standard residential construction capable of providing an exterior to interior attenuation of 25 dBA, interior noise levels should remain below 45 dBA Leq. The adjacent businesses would not be anticipated to operate between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and therefore, industrial and commercial uses should not result in interior noise levels within project homes that exceed 45 dBA CNEL. For the first row of residences along the northern and eastern project site boundaries, noise could be marginally above the recommended exterior limits (66 dBA CNEL compared to a limit of 65 dBA CNEL) where yards are provided between the residences and the project site boundary. Solid fencing or landscape walls A 6-foot-high concrete block/CMU sound attenuation wall, or equivalent, would be provided 6 feet in height at the yard boundary closet to the project site boundary would to reduce noise levels below 65 dBA, which would prevent exterior noise exposure that exceeds the Noise Element limit at proposed yard areas adjacent to the northern and eastern project site boundaries.

Exterior Noise Exposure – Recreational Noise Sources
The proposed recreation area within the project site includes four proposed pickleball courts, at the extreme east end of the park site. The pickleball courts’ locations are between approximately 50 and 108 feet from the closest residence on the site (immediately south of the pickleball courts). Other on -site residences in the area (along the southern park boundary) would be located between 60 and 200 feet from the pickleball courts. Pickleball play has been demonstrated to generate average sound levels of approximately 64 dBA Leq at 30 feet (Appendix H). Pickleball noise could average 62 dBA Leq at the closest on-site residence while all the courts are in use; other on -site residences further away would experience lower pickleball noise levels. These noise levels would comply with the SMMC daytime limit of 65 dBA Leq for multifamily residence zoning. The pickleball courts would not be anticipated to be used in the nighttime period (i.e., later than 10:00 p.m. ), and therefore would not need to comply with the nighttime SMMC limit of 55 dBA L eq.

Daytime/evening only use of the pickleball courts woul d produce exterior noise levels no greater than 63 dBA CNEL at the closest residence, which would result in interior noise levels no greater than 38 dBA CNEL, given an exterior to interior attenuation performance for residential construction. While the pickleball noise would not be expected to exceed applicable limits in the SMMC, the use of sound attenuating material on the court fences would reduce the potential for residence annoyance from pickleball play. Sound levels at the closest property line from pickleball play would attenuate to approximately 63 dBA Leq, and therefore, pickleball noise would also be compliant with the SMMC limit of 65 dBA Leq within the commercial zone to the east of the project site. The conceptual park plan also includes a proposed lawn area with some casual tiered seating, with no proposed amplified sound system. In addition to the pickleball courts, proposed

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 67
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
active recreational uses include a tot lot and all -wheel rolling plaza (i.e., area for rollerblading, skating, skateboarding, etc.); neither of these two active recreation areas would be equipped with an amplified sound system. As such, sound levels genera ted by use of the tot lot and roller plaza would be anticipated to remain well below the SMMC daytime limit of 65 dBA L eq at the nearest multifamily residences; neither the tot lot nor roller plaza are anticipated to be open in the nighttime period. As a p ublic park, the Parks Department would need to issue a permit for a special event at the tiered lawn area or within other areas of the proposed park. Due to the proximity of the park to homes, it is anticipated the City would restrict special event permits to prohibit the use or portable amplified sound systems.

Stationary Operations No -ise
Future residential and commercial development on the project site will add a variety of noise -producing mechanical equipment, primarily involving HVAC equipment for habitable spaces. While there would be some commercial space included in the proposed development, residential structures would be the dominant land use and the quantity of HVAC units would substantially outnumber the systems dedicated to commercial spaces Therefore this stationary equipment operations noise analysis focuses on residential space HVAC equipment. Within the park component, the only substantial noise source would be the proposed skatepark and pickleball courts (discussed above). Modeling of project stationary source noise levels at areas adjacent to the project site does include both residential HVAC sources and the pickleball courts. Operational noise levels were calculated using Dudek’s NoisePro (Appendix H).

As proposed, structures would be arranged to create a relatively continuous building block along the exterior project site. The gaps between structures would be minor compared to the length of connected structures, and therefore, the first row of buildings along the exterior lot boundary would present an effective sound barrier for stationary noise sources more internal to the project site. The noise model therefore includes air conditioner condenser units for the first row of buildings closest to the exterior perimeter of the project site.

Dudek used the reference sound level (68 dBA at 1 meter) for a Carrier 16NA -48 5 -ton HVAC unit to represent the HVAC system for each residential unit located along the project site boundary. A total of 64 HVAC units were included in the model for the residences along the project site boundaries. A sound level reference of 64 dBA at 30 feet was included in the model for each of the four pickleball courts. A total of seven receiver points were included in the model space, al ong the project property boundary adjacent to concentrations of project stationary noise sources, to represent the worst -case noise levels for simultaneous operation of all air conditioners in residential units along the site boundaries, and with games on each of the four pickleball courts.

Table 11 in Appendix H presents the results of the project operational noise prediction modeling at the seven receiver locations (R1-R7) in the NoisePro model space, as well as at the two closest ambient noise measurement locations (ST2 and ST3). Refer to Figure 4 of Appendix H for the locations of R1-R7, ST2, and ST3. These modeled receptor positions are intended to represent project operational sound levels along the project site property boundaries as well as at the noise -sensitive uses closest to the project site, for comparison to City of San Marcos noise ordinance limits. Properties immediately adjacent to the project site include commercial land uses to the west, south , and east, as well as north of the eastern half of the project site, where the applicable SMMC limit in the overnight period is 55 dBA Leq. and during the daytime is 65 dBA L eq. Uses to the north of the western half of the project site are industrial, where the applicable SMMC limit in the overnight period is 60 dBA Leq. and during the daytime is 65 dBA Leq.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 68
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
As indicated in Table 11 in Appendix H, project operational noise levels at each modeled location except R4 and R5 would range from 42 to 53 dB(A) L eq and would fall below the more stringent nighttime limit s, indicating that even if all equipment is operating in the overnight period, the project noise levels would comply with the SMMC. At receivers R4 and R5, the modeled noise levels reflect use of all four pickleball courts simultaneously. Since the courts would not be anticipated to be open in the overnight period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., noise levels from the courts at the adjacent project site boundaries would be subject to the daytime limit for commercial zones of 65 dBA Leq; the modeled noise levels of 60 and 57 dBA Leq at the property lines adjacent to the pickleball courts would comply with the commercial zone daytime limit of 65 dBA L eq. NoisePro also generates an exhibit with noise contours depicting the noise levels resulting from project operations, that illustrates noise levels extending several hundred feet from the site.

Refer to Figure 4 in Appendix H for the noise contour map from the NoisePro modeling.

Dudek also compared the predicted operational noise to ambient noise levels documented during the ambient noise survey, as reported for locations ST1, ST2, ST3, and ST4. Table 12 in Appendix H presents the predicted project operational noise levels to the measured ambient noise levels; predicted project operational noise levels at each ambient noise measurement point would fall below the measured ambient noise level. Adding the project operational noise to the ambient noise level would in each case result in less than a 3 dB increase.

On the basis of comparing predicted project operational noise levels against both noise ordinance limits and ambient noise levels, a less-than-significant impact would occur for proposed project operational noise.

Cumulative Noise Assessment
Transportation Sources
The proposed project would result in a reduction in the total number of traffic trips added to the local roadway network, when compared to the existing restaurant uses, which would be eliminated by the project. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative traffic impacts in the region.

Construction Activities
Temporary changes to the outdoor sound environment could also occur not only due to project construction noise that has already been presented herein, but as a cumulative result of potential concurrent project construction activity noise and the noise emission from construction of other projects in the vicinity.

Due to the decrease in noise levels with distance and the presence of physical barriers (i.e., intervening buildings and topography), noise due to construction of other projects would not meaningfully combine with that of the proposed project and produce a cumulative noise effect during construction. By way of illustration, if there are two concurrent construction projects of comparable sound emission intensity, and the activity nearest to a common studied noise -sensitive receptor is compliant with the afor ementioned 75 dBA 8-hour Leq, then the other activity could be no closer than three times the distance of the receptor to the nearest activity and not make a cumulatively measurable contribution to the total noise exposure level. If, on the other hand, two concurrent projects were co mparably close to a receptor, the cumulative noise would be one of the following:
▪ the louder (in dBA) of the two concurrent activities; or ▪ a logarithmic sum of the two activity noise levels that, per acoustic principles, cannot be more than 3 dBA greater than the louder of the two individual noise-producing activities.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 69
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
In sum, cumulative construction noise is likely to be dominated by the closest or loudest activity to the receptor, and the combination will be no more than a barely perceptible difference (i.e., up to a 3 dBA change). On the basis of such a barely perceptible cumulative construction noise level occurring due to the proposed project and what may be a nearby concurrent construction activity, the impact would be considered less than significant.

Stationary Operational Sources
Similar to the preceding discussion of cumulative construction noise, operation noise from stationary equipment attributed to the proposed project (as already presented herein) and any others potentially operating in the future and in the vicinity of a common off -site noise-sensitive receptor would need to be compliant with the City’s applicable standards. Cumulative contribution of the proposed project to this future aggregate noise level from multiple established projects or facilities assumed to have comparable individual noise emission from stationary sources would be bounded by the same potential outcomes as follows:
▪ the louder (in dBA) of the two concurrently operating projects or facilities; or ▪ a logarithmic sum of the two operation noise levels that, per acoustic principles, cannot be more than 3 dBA greater than the louder of the two individual levels.

In sum, cumulative operation noise is likely to be dominated by the closest or loudest project to the receptor, and the combination will be no more than a barely perceptible difference (i.e., up to a 3 dBA change). On the basis of such a barely perceptible cumulative operation noise level occurring due to the proposed project and what may be nearby and concurrent operation of off -site stationary noise sources, the impact would be considered 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. Information from Calt rans indicates that continuous vibrations with a peak particle velocity (PPV) of approximately 0.1 inches per second (ips) could be considered annoying on the basis of it being “strongly perceptible” by building occupants. For context, heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected on the project site, have PPVs of approximately 0.089 ips PPV or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (Appendix H).

Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated with expressions found in Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans guidance. By way of example, for a bulldozer operating on site and as close as the northern project boundary (i.e., 50 feet from the nearest occupied property) the estimated vibration velocity level would be 0.03 ips PPV per the equation as follows (FTA 2018):

PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.089 * (25/50)^1.5 = 0.006 In the above equation, 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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 70
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
to the receiver. Therefore, at this predicted PPV, the impact of vibration -induced annoyance to occupants of nearby existing homes would be less than 0.1 ips PPV and therefore less than significant.

Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, anticipated construction vibration associated with future development on site would yield levels of 0.03 ips, which do not surpass the guidance limit of 0.2 to 0.3 ips PPV for preventing damage to residential structures (Caltrans 2020). Because the predicted vibration level at 50 feet is less than this guidance limit, the risk of vibration damage to nearby structures is considered less than significant. 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? No 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 located approximately 4.6 miles west of the site. The project site is not located within the boundaries of the land use plan adopted for this airport. Therefore, no Impact would occur.

2.14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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. The proposed project consists of demolition of 63,484 square feet of existing (primarily vacant) restaurant uses on site, and re -development of 202 multifamily residential units and 10,400 square feet of commercial retail uses on the 10.5-acre project site (Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

As of 2022, the City has a persons per household ratio of 3.01 (DOF 2022). (DOF 2022). Using this household ratio of 3.0 1, development of 202 residential dwelling units at the project site would accommodate approximately 608 people. Although not all residents of the development would be new to the City of

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 71
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
San Marcos, residential development on the project site would result in unplanned growth for the City because residential development within the project site was not accounted for in the City’s General Plan.

However, development of the project would not directly induce further population growth in the area. The area surrounding the project site is already developed with commercial and residential uses , and th e proposed project site is currently developed with existing access roads and utilit y service. Therefore, 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 of San Marcos is forecasted to grow from 98,915 persons in 2020 to 109,095 persons in 2035, which is 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 (SANDAG 2020). Approval of the proposed project would accommodate the substantial population growth projected to occur within the City and the need for housing.

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

The City’s Growth Management Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 20.315) 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 servic es 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 SMMC Section

20.310.050. 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 of San Marcos 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 2021).

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 72
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
In summary, implementation of the project would change the site’s land use designation and zoning from Light Industrial (L-I) and Mixed -Use 1 (MU -1) to Specific Plan Area (SPA) in a manner that would accommodate development of 202 residential units , 10,400 square feet of commercial use, and associated open space amenities and parking. The project would generate housing anticipated to accommodate approximately 608 people, in a location where housing was not previously accounted for by the City. However, based on existing growth projections and the need to provide housing opportunities to accommodate projected growth, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. Additionally, the portion of the project site with an existing MU -1 zoning has a development capacity of 266 units (20 –30 dwelling units per acre ), which is more than the 202 units proposed under the project. Further, because the proposed project site is currently developed with existing access roads and uti lities, 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. As the proposed project would be required to comply with City regulations and app licable fees outlined above, impacts associated with the proposed project are determined to be less than significant. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with commercial uses and associated parking . The site does not include any existing residences. Implementation of the proposed project would displace existing restaurants (most of which are vacant) but would not displace any existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impacts are determined to be less than significant .

2.15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
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:
iv) Fire protection?
v) Police protection?
vi) Schools?
vii) Parks?
viii) Other public facilities?

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 73
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 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 im pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Residential uses were not considered at the project site in the City’s General Plan, and the land use change from Light Industrial (L-I) and Mixed-Use 1 (MU-1) to Specific Plan Area (SPA) to accommodate the proposed residential development could result in an increase in demand on SMFD. The proposed project would result in development of 202 residential dwelling units and 10,400 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed residential units are expected to house approximately 608 residents. The estimated generation of 608 residents is calculated based on an average of 3.0 1 occupants per household. The proposed project would increase the demand on SMFD resources in comparison to the existing development on site and that allowed under the current land use designation of Light Industrial and Mixed-Use. Although not all residents of the project would be new to the City, the estimated additional numbers of residents at the project site would increase the need for fire protection services related to routine fire and emergency medical calls and would increase the demand on SMFD Station 1, which would provide primary response to the project site; with SMFD Station 2 responding, as necessary.

The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Services Fees outlined in SMMC Section 17.44.030. Payment of the Development Services Fees go towards City services, which include the Fire Protection District, to ensure adequate fire protection facilities are provided. In addition, the project would be required to annex into Community Facility District CFD 2001-01 (Fire and Paramedic) (mitigation measure MM-PS-1). This would offset the project’s increase in demand for fire protection services. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with any recommendations outlined in the Fire Response Technical Memorandum prepared for the project (Appendix L to this IS/MND). The Fire Response Technical Memorandum prepared for the project determined that both SMFD Stations 1 and 2 are well -within the City’s time response goal for first -in fire engine and medic ambulance to the entire project site. Furthermore, the addition of approximately 1 call per 3.5 days anticipated as a result of the project is not considered a significant increase. This is modeled off a conservative approach of four persons per unit as described in the Fire Response Technical Memorandum . The project would not warrant construction of new fire facilities t hat could create physical impacts; therefore, with implementation of MM-PS-1, impacts would be less than significant.

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

Police protection?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated . The proposed residential development would develop 202 residential dwelling units, generating approximately 608 residents at the project site. Residential development at the project site would increase the demand on police protection services in comparison to the existing uses on site and uses allowed under the current land use designation due to the introduction

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 74
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
of residents. Although not all residents would be new to the City, the proposed project could increase the need for police protection services through routine police and emergency calls and could increase the demand on the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department San Marcos Station, which would serve the project site. The San Marcos Station is located approximately 4-miles east of 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. Law enforcement services include general patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention, juvenile services, narcotics and gang investigations, 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, patrol deputies ar e assigned to a geographical “beat” area, allowing deputies to become familiar with citizens and problems within their “beats” (SDCSD 2023). Accordingly, service ratios and response times are anticipated to remain adequate with implementation of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project is not expected to affect police protection such that new or physically altered governmental facilities are needed.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Services Fees outlined in SMMC Section 17.44.030. Payment of the Development Services Fees funds needed City services, which include the Sheriff’s Department. Furthermore, the project applicant/developer/property owner shall annex the site into the preexisting Community Facilities District for Police Services (CFD 98 - 02IA1) (mitigation measure MM-PS-2). Participation in the CFD will offset the cost of increases in necessary services resulting from implementation of the proposed project.

Therefore, while the proposed project would likely place a slight increase in demand on police protection services, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in the need for construction or expansion of existing police facilities and imp acts to police protection resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant with implementation of MM-PS-2.

MM-PS-2: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer/property owner shall annex the site into the preexisting Community Facilities District for Police Services (CFD 98-02IA1).

Schools?
Less-than-Significant Impact. Primary education throughout the City is served by the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD). La Mirada Academy (serving grades K -8) and San Marcos High School (serving grades 9-12) are the schools within SMUSD that would be expected to serve grade-school residents at the project site. Using the SMUSD student generation rates as described in the City’s General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element (elementary students = 0.2271, middle school students = 0.0963, high school students = 0.1032), the proposed project would generate approximately 46 elementary school students, 19 middle school students, and 21 high school students, respectively (City of San Marcos 2012a).

Prior to project approval, the project would be required to obtain will -serve letters from the SMUSD or servicing schools to confirm such schools have adequate capacity. Furthermore, the project would be required to contribute development fees to SMUSD pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 75
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
et seq. and Government Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b), and the SMMC Section 17.52.050. The project developer/applicant would be required to pay the school mitigation fees that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance unless a direct agreement otherwise has been made with SMUSD. The current school fee for residential development required by SMUSD is $4.44 per square foot; however, this fee amount could change between the drafting of the CEQA document for the project and the time of building permit issuance (SMUSD 2020). Further, consistent with General Plan Policy LU-11.2, the project would be required to provide a letter from the school district(s) to the City prior to the issuance of building permits confirming these fees have been paid (City of San Marcos 2012 a). SB 50 states that the fees imposed by school districts shall constitute the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities caused by a development project. Such payment shall provide “full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act...on the provision of adequate school facilities” (Government Code Section 65995(h)). As such, with contribution of required development fees, impacts to schools as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.

Parks?
Less-than-Significant Impact. As previously described, the proposed project would develop 202 residential dwelling units, generating approximately 608 residents. This increase in residents would increase demands for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. The City require s any project that increases the demands for park and recreation needs to pay into the City’s Public Facility Fees (PFF). This fee is to be used for developing public neighborhood parks, regional parks, and recreational facilities, as outlined in the City’s Park Master Plan Update ( City of San Marcos 2018 ). The provision of useable common open space, private open space, and payment of the PFF would maintain the City’s service standard for parks within the City.

The site would be linked together through a series of landscaped promenades and paseos that not only facilitate pedestrian and bike connectivity but create public spaces for people to congregate. The pedestrian connections would be punctuated with social g athering nodes and opportunities for public art.

The project includes development of a 1.1-acre public park. The north and south connecting paseo would link to the public park in the northeast portion of the Specific Planning area (Figure 5, Conceptual Public and Private Park Plan). The public park design was developed through a series of public workshops, during which multiple amenities were explored with the community. Based on the public workshops, the public park would include bench seating and tables, pergola, wayfinding signage, four standard pickleball courts with bleacher seating, a playground with rubber surfacing and play equipment, connecting walkways, a passive lawn area with amphitheater seating and hillside seating, and restroom facilities. The project would also provide for HOA-maintained public gathering spaces on site, including a barbeque area with benches and tables, and a public dog park separated into two areas for large breed dogs and small breed dogs.

Implementation of the 1. 1-acre public park would offset the project demand on surrounding recreational facilities in the City. Development of the public park has been analyzed throughout this IS/MND as part of the project. Development of the public park on -site would not result in significant environmental impacts, and impacts are determined to be less than significant.

Other public facilities?
Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would develop 202 units, generating approximately 608 residents at the project site. Although not all of these residents would be new residents to the City, the

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 76
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
generation of residents at the project site would increase the demands on library services and resources in comparison to the project site’s current development and land use designation s. However, additional library services are available in the County through a cooperation of County libraries, independent city libraries, and the Imperial County Library, which collectively form the Serra Library System. This system enables County library cardholders to check out library materials from the other Serra member libraries (Serra Cooperative Library System 20 23). In addition, community members can purchase a community borrower card to obtain borrowing privileges at the California State University San Marcos campus .) Community members can also borrow materials at Palomar Community College with a valid picture ID and proof of current mailing address. These additional library resources are located in the San Marcos community and provide over 200,000 square feet of addit ional library space. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities in the City as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.

2.16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?

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? and
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. According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), there are approximately 3.01 persons per housing unit in San Marcos (DOF 2022). The project involves development of 202 residential dwelling units, which is estimated to generate approximately 608 residents using the Department of Finance’s 3.01 persons per household unit estimate (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing). This increase in residents would increase demands for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. The City of San Marcos provides over 290 acres of park land with 24 community parks, 13 neighborhood parks, and 3 recreation centers. Additionally, the City provides over 72 miles of trail network for hiking, biking, running and equestrian use (City of San Marcos 2022b). The closest park to the project site is Bradley Park located approximately 0.5 miles northwest.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 77
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
In addition to private balcony/patio space for each residential unit, the project would allot 20% of the site as common open space area for residents. The project would be required to comply with SMMC requirements, which outline recreation and open space requirements of residential development. In addition, the project would be required to pay the City’s Public Facility Fees (PFF), required to all projects that increase the demand for park and recreati on needs in the City. The PFF money would go towards the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the City to offset the demand on public park space, as described in SMMC Chapters 17.36 and 17.44. Payment of the PFF shall be made prior to City issuance of the first building permit for the project. Therefore, payment, which would ultimately contribute to development of new parks and recreational facilities, would offset the increase in demand of parks and recreational facilities generated by residential development at the proj ect site, such that existing facilities would not substantially deteriorate.

Furthermore, as described in Section 2.15 above, t he project includes development of a 1. 1-acre public park that would be publicly owned and maintained . The north and south connecting paseo would link to the public park in the northeast portion of the Specific Planning area (Figure 5, Conceptual Public and Private Park Plan). The public park design was developed through a series of public workshops, in which multiple amenities were explored with the community. Based on the public workshops, the public park would include bench seating and tables, pergola, wayfinding signage, four standard pickleball courts with bleacher seating, a playground with rubber surfacing and play equipment, connecting walkways, a passive lawn area with amphitheater seating and hillside seating, and restroom facilities. The project would also provide for HOA-maintained public gathering spaces on site, including a barbeque area with benches and tables, and a public dog park separated into two areas for large breed dogs and small breed dogs.

Implementation of the 1. 1-acre public park would further offset the project demand on surrounding recreational facilities in the City. Development of the public park on site would not result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, proposed project impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks are determined to be less than significant.

2.17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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?

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 78
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Intersecting Metrics prepared a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) and a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Impact Analysis, which are included as Appendi ces I and J to this IS/MND, respectively. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendi ces I and J. Full details regarding traffic and transportation as it relates to the project can be found in Appendices I and J.
a) Would the project conflict with a program , plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated . The project site is located in an urban part of the City with numerous bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities. Class II bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks are generally provided throughout the area, with pedestrian crossings located at intersections surrounding the project site.

The site is also served by existing transit. The site is located in an area with moderately high employment density given the surrounding commercial and light industrial land uses. The well-developed commercial area along West San Marcos Boulevard would serve the shopping and dining demand of future residents within easy walking distance. Schools, parks, and other facilities are also walkable/bikeable from the site. The project site is adjacent to bus stops with connections to Sprinter service at Palomar College Station.

The LTA prepared for the project ( see Appendix I) analyzed Level of Service (LOS) methodology for the project. Per the City’s LTA guidelines, the proposed project is considered having a substantial effect if the traffic from the proposed project causes an intersection currently operating at acceptable LOS A through D to operate at LOS E or F or adds 2 or more seconds to the average vehicle delay. If an intersection is already operating at LOS E, then the proposed project is considered to have a substantial effect if the proposed project adds 2 or more seconds to the average vehicle delay. To ensure the project does not affect the current flow of traffic and roads remain operational consistent with City standards , the project includes a number of off -site/roadway improvements. As outlined in Appendix I, all study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better during both the AM and PM peak hours, with the anticipated changes in the traffic patterns associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the reconfiguration of the western driveway on West San Marcos Boulevard from right -in/right-out only would eliminate the failing movement (the southbound left-turn out of the project site), resulting in much improved operations at the driveway (see Appendix I),
As outlined in Table 1 of Appendix I, implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a net decrease of 4,665 daily trips, a net increase of 54 AM peak hour trips ( -7 inbound; 61 outbound), as well as a net decrease of 355 PM peak hour trips (-257 inbound; -98 outbound).

Primary project access would be via West San Marcos Boulevard at the project’s southern boundary. A secondary project access would be on the east from Via Vera Cruz via the alleyway heading west to the project. In alignment with the San Marcos Boulevard Multi -Way Complete Street s project outlined in the City’s General Plan , the project would construct a modified center median along the project frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard. This would eliminate the left -turn ingress and egress movements at the western project driveway but allow continued left-turn ingress for the existing driveway on the south side of West San Marcos Boulevard. The project would also move the existing northern curb line along West San Marcos Boulevard approximately 16 feet into the project site , with additional public street easement dedications, to accommodate the proposed multi -way roadway improvements. Furthermore, the project would implement a raised curb median along its frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard, which would separate the multi -way facility from the through travel lanes on West San Marcos Boulevard. These improvements would be non -vehicular capacity enhancing. As part of the multi-way improvements, the

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 79
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
project would reconstruct the existing sidewalk along its frontage , which would be constructed to City standards and would be ADA compliant. The project would replace and enhance the existing Class II bike lane along San Marcos Boulevard , as the project would remove and replace the existing bike lane with a buffered bike lane as part of the multi-way improvements or replace the existing bike lane with a Class III bike facility to accommodate on-street parking.

Based on the final multi-way design, the existing San Marcos Boulevard and Via Vera Cruz bus stop, located on the northwest corner of the West San Marcos Boulevard/Via Vera Cruz intersection, may be moved slightly in comparison to existing conditions, if moved at all. However, this change, would not substantially change the bus stop spacing along the route and would have minimum to no impact on the route’s operations. The existing amenities at the bus stop would be replaced in kind to current conditions wit h additional new amenities being implemented for the relocation of bus stop.

Project development would result in the removal of 822 existing parking spaces that currently serve the Restaurant Row site, within the project boundaries. The project would remove 7 spaces that currently serve the Buffalo Wild Wings sites to accommodate the implementation of the multi-way along San Marcos Boulevard. The proposed project would provide 501 518 parking spaces on site, with 392 private garage spaces, and 9 open bay residential spaces being reserved for project residents. The remaining 117 spaces would be open to the proposed project’s residential guests, retail patrons and park users, as well as other users of the larger Via Los Vallecitos De San Marcos site pursuant to the shared parking agreements and 109 spaces being open to guests, retail patrons, park users, and other uses within the shopping center .

The project would provide 4 EV charging stations and 17 EV ready stalls on-site and would install charging stations in all garage parking stalls. The project would also include four ADA parking stalls as part of the proposed parking, and one ADA van accessible space . The parking requirements for each land use proposed was derived from the requirements outlined in SMMC Section 20.340. The portion of the multi- way in which the proposed project would implement along San Marcos Boulevard would also provide up to 13 on-street public parking spaces.

Although this analysis determines that the project would not result in any direct traffic related impacts, the project would contribute to City-wide traffic resulting in potential cumulative impacts. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, application for annexation into Community Facility District CFD2011 -01 (Congestion Management) shall be required to mitigate these impacts (mitigation measure MM-TR-1).

With the inclusion of the off-site/roadway improvements and parking plans, implementation of the project would not conflict with applicable plans, such as SANDAG’s San Diego Forward 2021 Regional Plan, City of San Marcos Bikeway Master Plan, City of San Marcos General Plan Mobility Element, or the SMMC. Therefore, with implementation of MM-TR-1, impacts are determined to be less than significant.

MM-TR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD2011-01 (congestion management).
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less-than-Significant Impact. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 replaces LOS with VMT as the appropriate metric to be used in assessing a project’s transportation related impacts. Under CEQA

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 80
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Guidelines section 15063.4(b)(1), VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact, although development projects within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop are presumed to cause a less -than-significant transportation impact. A “major transit stop” includes a site containing an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes based on frequency of service intervals. (Public Resource Code section 21064.3.) The North County Transit District provides public transportation within the City and the County of San Diego for Coaster rail service, Sprinter light rail service, and Breeze bus service. Sprinter service operates between Escondido and Oceanside, with connections to I-5 and the Coaster rail service operating out of the City of Oceanside. The North County Transit District operates the Palomar College Station Sprinter and Breeze transit station located approximately 0. 8 miles north of the proposed project. Th erefore, the project site falls just outside the 0.5-mile threshold under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b). However, it should be noted that a Breeze bus service stops along West San Marcos Boulevard and Via Vera Cruz along the project site’s southern border. As described in the project description above, b ased on the final multi-way design, the existing San Marcos Boulevard and Via Vera Cruz bus stop, located on the northwest corner of the West San Marcos Boulevard / Via Vera Cruz intersection, will be relocated in conjunction with the installation of improvements to San Marcos Blvd. This would not substantially change the bus stop spacing along the route and would have minimum to no impact on the route’s operations. The existing amenities at the bus stop would be replaced in kind to current conditions with additional new amenities (such as an upgraded bench and shelter) being implemented for the relocation of bus stop.

Because the project site is located just beyond 0.5 miles from a major transit stop, and in compliance with the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (TIAG; City of San Marcos 2020b), a quantitative VMT analysis was prepared for the project and is included as Appendix J to this IS/MND. As outlined in Appendix J, Section 2.1.3 of the City’s TIAG, identifies the impact thresholds that should be applied to the different types of land development projects within the City. Since the proposed project would be replacing existing land uses, it is considered a redevelopment project; therefore, the following impact threshold was applied to identify VMT related impacts:

Redevelopment Projects (Replaces Existing Uses) – As noted in Section 2.1.3.2 of the TIAG, per CEQA, a redevelopment project that replaces existing uses and results in a net decrease in VMT can be presumed to have a less -than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis; a redevelopment project that replaces existing uses and results in a net increase in VMT will require a VMT analysis. This should be calculated by estimating the total VMT for the previous and proposed lan d uses using SANDAG trip generation rates and citywideaveragecitywide average trip lengths from the California Household Travel Survey (CHTS). If a project replaces existing uses and the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT compared to the previous uses, then the appropriate metrics and thresholds should be applied to each proposed use. If the project is a mixed-use project, then internalization should be considered when estimating its total VMT and each component’s trip generation should be multi plied by its respective trip length; if the project results in a net increase in VMT, then each individual use should be analyzed under its respective threshold. In addition, the proposed land uses should be analyzed without incorporating a credit or reduction for the displacement of existing land uses at the project site.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 81
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Table 2 in Appendix J calculates the VMT the project is anticipated to generate and compares it to the VMT generated by the current uses on the project site. As shown in Table 2 in Appendix J, the project is projected to generate 10, 407 VMT, which is 23, 809 VMT less than the existing Restaurant Row uses, which were calculated to generate 34,216 VMT. Therefore, as per Section 2.1.3.2 of the City’s TIAG, implementation of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to VMT. 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 project site is located in an urban area of the City bounded by West San Marcos Boulevard to the south, and existing commercial and light industrial uses to the north, east, and west. Under existing conditions, site access is provided from two points off West San Marcos Boulevard at the southern boundary of the project site . The project will similarly be served by two driveways located off West San Marcos Boulevard. All proposed circulation improvements would be designed in accordance with the City’s roadway design standards to ensure proper safety requireme nts are met. The internal circulation network for the project would not include any hazardous design features or incompatible uses.

All driveways would provide for full turning movements and provide forprovide adequate emergency access.

The project would include circulation amenities such as an interconnected mobility system for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles in order to provide residents with safe movement within the project site; connections to existing roadways within the vicini ty of the project site; and access to regional arterial and highway networks and Sprinter/Breeze transit services. All final project plans are subject to review and approval by the City and the SMFD, and all roadway improvements implemented as part of the project would be designed consistent with City policy and guidelines.

As described in response to Threshold a) above, in alignment with the San Marcos Boulevard Multi -Way Complete Streets project outlined in the City’s General Plan, the project would construct a modified center median along the project frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard. This would eliminate the left-turn ingress and egress movements at the western project driveway but allow continued left-turn ingress for the existing driveway on the south side of West San Marcos Boulevard. The project would also move the existing northern curb line along West San Marcos Boulevard approximately 16 feet into the project site, with additional public street easement dedications, to accommodate the proposed multi -way roadway improvements. Furthermore, the project would implement a raised curb median along its frontage on West San Marcos Boulevard, which would separate the multi -way facility from the through travel lanes on West San Marcos Boulevard. These improvements would be non -vehicular capacity enhancing. As part of the multi-way improvements, the project would reconstruct the existing sidewalk along its frontage, which would be constructed to City standards and would be ADA compliant. The project would replace and enhance the existing Class II bike lane along West San Marcos Boulevard, as the project would remove and replace the existing bike lane with a buffered bike lane as part of the multi-way improvements, or replace the existing bike lane with a Class III bike facility to accommodate on-street parking.

Furthermore, considering the proposed residential uses for the project site, no incompatible uses, such as farm equipment or motorsport vehicles, would be operated on site during project construction or operation.

As such, impacts related to design features and incompatible uses would be less than significant.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 82
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would have four primary access points, which include the two unsignalized driveways on West San Marcos Boulevard, and two unsignalized driveways on Via Vera Cruz (the existing northern and southern Restaurant Row driveways). The western driveway on West San Marcos Boulevard would be converted from full -access to right-in-right-out access only. The northern driveway on Via Vera Cruz would connect to the existing east –west roadway that traverses through the existing Restaurant Row site and th e Regal Edwards San Marcos theater lot and connects to South Las Posas Road. The project site would have access to the driveway on South Las Posas Road, but it is anticipated to serve a negligible amount of project trips as it would be a circuitous path for people accessing the project site from the east or north. All driveways would provide for full turning movements and would be designed to meet the design requirements codified in the California Fire Code. Additionally, adequate corner and stopping site distances would be maintained at all driveway locations.

According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos EOP 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 2012a). The project would be required to abide by standards as set forth in the San Marcos EOP. Implementation of the project would not 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. Additionally, a Fire Response Technical Memorandum has been prepared for the project, which include s recommendations related to emergency access and fire ha zards and confirms project compliance with existing response time standards.

Furthermore, the California Fire Code, along with the SMFD, 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 ( California Fire Code Chapter 5, Sections 503.1 through 503.4), an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D ; California Fire Code Section D106), and entryway gate access for first responders (California Fire Code Chapter 5 , Section 503.6). All final project plans and the VMT Analysis prepared for the proposed project are subject to review and approval by the City and the SMFD. Proposed circulation improvements would be designed in accordance with the City’s roadway design standards to ensure proper safety requirements are met (City of San Marcos 2019). Therefore, it impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.

2.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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:

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 83
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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

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?

a) 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:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Less-than-Significant Impact. As described under Section 2.5 of this IS/MND, the records search conducted for the project identified 25 cultural resources within the 1-mile search radius outside the project site. None of the identified resources occur within the project site. The project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. Although there are existing structures on site, none are designated historical resources. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect Tribal Cultural Resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the state or local register. Impacts would be less than significant. ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdiv ision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Under California’s AB 52, Tribal Cultural Resources are defined as archaeological resources that are eligible for or listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or resources that the lead agency determines to be a Tribal Cultural Resource with a substantial burden of evidence. Considering the developed nature of the existing site, the discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources on-site are not anticipated. To date, no Tribal Cultural Resources have been identified on the project site

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 84
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
that would be impacted by project implementation. However, tribal consultation with the City is ongoing, and outreach letters to all Native American group representatives included on the Native American Heritage Commission contact list were mailed out on June 30, 2022, as part of preparation of the Cultural Resources report to be completed for the project. To date, four Tribes have requested consultation, including San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on July 14, 2022; San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians on September 19, 2022; Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on September 21, 2022; and Campo Band of Mission Indians on October 3, 2022. The City conducted consultation meetings with representatives of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on November 17, 2022; January 12, 2023; and February 16, 2023. Consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians concluded on April 16, 2023. The City conducted consultation meetings with representatives of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians on August 19, 2022, and December 20, 2022, with consultation concluding on December 21, 2022. 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. The City held one consultation meeting with the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians on May 11, 2023. A consultation close-out letter was requested by the City on May 15, 2023. On October 18, 20232022, the City notified the Campo Band of Mission Indians by letter of the opportunity to consult on the project. On October 3, 2022, the City received an emailed request from the tribe’s Cultural Resources Manager, Daniel Tsosie, to consult under Senate Bill 18. The City transmitted the cultural resources report to Campo on October 18, 2022, and subsequent attempts to communicate with the tribe were not successful. The City attempted again on April 20 and July 24, 20 23, to which the tribe did not respond or provide information on tribal cultural resources. Therefore, in accordance with Section 21082.3.(d )(2) of the Public Resources Code, which states that the tribe had requested consultation but failed to provide comments to the City, or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process, the City concluded consultation with Campo on August 15, 2023.

While considered unlikely based on the current developed state of the project site, and other information received by the City to date, there remains the potential for the project to encounter previously unknown and unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources during construction of the proposed project . In the unlikely event that construction encounters unanticipated archaeological resources, mitigation measures MM-CUL- 1 through MM-CUL-4 would be implemented, as outlined in Section 2.5 above. With the implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4, impacts related to Tribal Cultural Resources would be less than significant.

2.19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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,
wastewater treatment, or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 85
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment 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?

VWD prepared a Water and Sewer Study for the project, which is included as Appendix K to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix K. Full details regarding water and sewer service as it relates to the project site can be found in Appendix K.
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 proposed project development would be served by VWD. Multifamily residential sites in the VWD are typically served by on-site private water systems, which consist of separate fire and domestic systems on site. Private fire systems typically supply on-site fire hydrants and building fire sprinkler systems and require a backflow preventer at the connection to the public water system. There are existing water facilities in the vicinity of the project site which serve the existing on-site and surrounding uses.

Water service for potable residential use and fire service to the project site would be provided by VWD. VWD receives its water from the San Diego County Water Authority ( Water Authority ). The Water Authority is San Diego County’s predominant source of water, supplying from 75% to 95% of the region’s water needs (Water Authority 2016). The population within the Water Authority’s service area was approximately

3.3 million people in 2020 and is projected to increase to roughly 3.8 million people by 2045. The County of San Diego is expected to develop an additional 130,000 acres between 2020 and 2050, with the majority (125,000 acres) of development dedicated to residential land uses. These regional growth projections are based on the SANDAG Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast, developed for its 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan, which was adopted by SANDAG’s Board of Directors on October 25, 2019. In fiscal year 2020, total water demand in the Water Authority’s service area was 463,128 acre-feet, of which 92% was for municipal and industrial use and 8% was for agricultural water use. By 2045, the Water

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 86
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
Authority’s total water demands are projected to reach 630,771 AF. This projection accounts for planned future water conservation savings (Water Authority 2016).

VWD prepared a Sewer and Water Study for the proposed project in January 2023 (Appendix K), which determined adequate utility service, including water and wastewater, is available for the project. The entire project site lies within VWD’s 855 Pressure Zone. As described in Appendix K, the proposed project would increase the projected average water demand from the 2018 Master Plan land use (Mixed Use 1 and Light Industrial) by 45,810 gallons per day.

An existing 6 -inch water main and existing 14 -inch water main are in San Marcos Boulevard along the project frontage. There is also an existing 12 -inch water main along the alley way on the north end of the property within the VWD easement, as well as an existing 8-inch water main in the alley way that connects to Via Vera Cruz. Both the 14 -inch and 12 -inch water mains are in the 920 -pressure zone and are not available for new service connections. Appendix K found that the project did not create any distrib ution system deficiencies under average day demand but did under maximum day plus fire flow demand conditions. This would require that all water services to the site be connected to a new 10-inch water main installed north of the project site in Alley Way and that existing facilities be upsized to 10 inches.

Additionally, the analysis found that water storage capacity is currently available to serve the project’s increased storage requirements. Master Plan projects address and accommodate the ultimate build out storage deficiency, and Water Capital Facility Fees paid by the project would be used for the increase in storage necessitated by the project’s demand.

The proposed project site lies completely within VWD sewer shed 30C. Similar to water demand, the proposed project would increase the projected average wastewater generation from the 2018 Master Plan land use by 33,594 gallons per day. However, as shown in Appendix K, the modeling results showed that no deficiencies were identified under the currently approved density under peak wet weather flows during ultimate buildout conditions. Similar to water, the project would extend future sewer facilities on the north end of the project property in the Alley Way within the VWD easement, including construction of approximately 1,541 feet of 8-inch PVC sewer main into the project site.

As described in Appendix K, VWD currently has water and sewer capacity available to serve the project as proposed with project implementation of the conditions outlined in Appendix K. The project would comply with the recommendations and conditions outlined in the VWD Water and Sewer Study (Appendix K).

The project site lies within an existing 100-year floodway and floodplain, just downstream of the San Marcos Creek highway 78 SplitflowSplit-flow. Under existing conditionscondition, the project area consists of commercial development with a large parking lot area and a number of restaurants. The project site generally drains towards the center, towards the middle of the large parking lot. Surface drains along the project site collect site runoff and convey the runoff in an existing 30-inch pipe that runs west through the project site. This 30-inch pipe connects a 36-inch x 60-inch elliptical pipe in Via Vera Cruz upstream and an existing concrete channel west of the site downstream. San Marcos Creek is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the project site, downstream of the project outfall point.

In proposed conditions, a public park would be implemented in the existing floodway with a variety of amenities tolerant of inundation. The proposed site would allow for opportunity to program special events for the community. In addition, a smaller residential park is proposed just south and out of the floodway, in order to provide playground structures for children of different age groups. The site design is intended to

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 87
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
minimize floodway encroachments and results in minor changes to the existing condition 100 -year water surface elevations. The on-site drainage improvements in proposed conditions would consist of private streets, gutters, and curb inlets that tie into underground storm drain systems. The project would upsize the existing 30-inch public storm drainpipe that conveys the majority of the site to a double 36-inch storm drain pipe with a new alignment, that would ultimately transition to a dual RCB before it discharges to the existing concrete channel. In addition, the project would construct some public improvements and street widening along the project frontage. These public improvements include center median improvements, and a new frontage road median for the multi-way frontage road in West San Marcos Boulevard. The proposed drainage patterns would be relatively the same as in existing conditions, and the site would generally drain towards the existing 100 -year floodway and drain to the west towards the existing concrete channel . The project would implement all BMPs outlined in the project’s SWQMP.

SDG&E would provide e lectric power service to the project. Any proposed aboveground transformers and electrical facilities that solely service the project site would be placed on site and not within the City’s right- of-way. At full buil dout, 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 20 22 Title 24 standards or the most recent standards at the time of building permit issuance. Th e 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.

SDG&E would provide natural gas. The project would comply with 20 22 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.

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.

In summary, development of the project would not require relocation or any new substantial construction of utility facilities, and impacts 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. As described above, the entire project site lies within VWD’s 855 Pressure Zone. As described in Appendix K, the proposed project would increase the projected average water demand from the 2018 Master Plan land use (Mixed Use 1 and Light Industrial) by 45,810 gallons per day.

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 2012b). 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’s Urban Water Management Plan (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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 88
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
has supply capabilities sufficient to meet expected demands through 2045 under normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years (MWD 2021). The Water Authority is the largest member agency of MWD. The Water Authority’s 2020 UWMP was approved on May 27, 2021. The Water Authority’s mission is to provide a safe and reliable supply of water to its 24 member agencies serving the San Diego region, which includes VWD, and is San Diego County’s predominant source of water, supplying from 75% to 95% of the region’s water needs (Water Authority 2021).

Additionally, the analysis in Appendix K found that water storage capacity is currently available to serve the project’s increased storage requirements. Master Plan projects address and accommodate the ultimate buildout storage deficiency , and Water Capital Facility Fees paid by the project would be used for the increase in storage necessitated by the project’s demand. Further, the project site would be developed in compliance with the California Green Building Code (CALGreen), which implements water efficiency standards for appliances and fixtures. Compliance with CALGreen would further reduce project water usage in combination with VWD and MWD’s ongoing water conservation practices.

As concluded in Appendix K, VWD currently has water capacity available to serve the project as proposed, so long as the project implements the required conditions outlined in Appendix K, including construction of approximately 1,188 feet of new 10 -inch PVC water main into the project site and replace ment of approximately 714 feet of existing 8 -inch ACP water main with new 10 -inch PVC water main in the Alley Way. Additionally, the project would be required to pay all applicable Water Capital Facility Fees in affect at the time service is committed in accordance with VWD rules and regulations. Furthermore, VWD Construction and Board acceptance of all on -site and off -site water facilities would be required prior to service. Project compliance with all VWD requirements would ensure sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project as proposed, and impacts 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. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated by the Meadowlark Water Reclamation Facility , which has a capacity of 5 million gallons per day , with a wet weather treatment capacity of 8 million gallons per day, and treats wastewater at 0.25 million gallons per day. Sewer facilities to serve the project would require the construction of private on -site sewer lines connecting to the public system at one or more locations. The applicant of the project would be required to pay all applicable Wastewater Capital Facility Fees in effect at the time service is committed in accordance with VWD rules and regulations. Acceptance by VWD of all wastewater facilities required to be constructed to service the project would also be required. With implementation of City and VWD requirements for sewer service, and considering the scope of existing and pr oposed infrastructure, the proposed project is not anticipated to exceed current capacities or significantly impact existing wastewater treatment systems.

As described above, t he proposed project would increase the projected average wastewater generation from the 2018 Master Plan land use by 33,594 gallons per day. However, as shown in Appendix K, the modeling results showed that no deficiencies were identified under the currently approved density under peak wet weather flows during ultimate buildout conditions. Due to the extensive upgrades required to provide service to the project from facilities located in West San Marcos Boulevard and VWD’s desire to remove flows from the already burdened sewer facilities, the District’s preference is to extend future sewer facilities on the north end of the project property in the Alley Way within the VWD easement.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 89
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
As outlined in Appendix K, VWD currently has sewer capacity available to serve the project as proposed, so long as the project implements the required conditions outlined in Appendix K, including construction of approximately 1,541 feet of 8 -inch PVC sewer main into the project site in the Alley Way. Additionally, the project would be required to pay all applicable Water Capital Facility Fees in affect at the time service is committed in accordance with VWD rules and regulations. Furthermore, VWD Constructi on and Board acceptance of all on-site and off-site sewer facilities would be required prior to service. Project compliance with all VWD requirements would ensure sufficient sewer service would be available to serve the project as proposed, and impacts 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. Demolition of the existing site and c onstruction of the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste such as scrap lumber, concrete, residual wastes, packing materials, and plastics. Operation of the proposed project would represent an increase in intensity of uses and generation of solid waste on the project site compared to existing conditions. Solid waste generated by the project would be serviced by EDCO, and solid waste would then be transferred to Sycamore Landfill.

According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the facility has a daily permitted capacity of 5,000 tons per day for solid waste. As of December 2016, the remaining capacity of Sycamore Sanitary Landfill is 147,908,000 cubic yards, or approximately 40 million tons, with an anticipated closure date of 2042. Further, four other landfills in the County accept municipal solid waste, including Borrego Landfill, Miramar Landfill, Otay Landfill, and Ramona Landfill (CalRecycle 2022).

The anticipated operational solid waste generation from the proposed project was estimated using CalRecycle’s Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates (CalRecycle 2019). It is estimated that the project (202 units) would generate approximately 2,470.46 pounds of solid waste per day (12.23 pounds per household). This does not consider any waste diversion through recycling. According to CalRecycle, the City of San Marcos has a disposal rate target of 8.9 pounds per person per day. If the City meets this target, the City is considered in compliance with the 50% diversion requirement of AB 939. The most recent data from CalRecycle identifies the annual per -capital disposal rate is 5.4 pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2019). Thus, the City is exceeding their targets for diversion.

The project would be required to comply with applicable state and local regulations related to solid waste, waste diversion, and recycling at the time of development. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to 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 sol id waste reduction goals, and impacts related to solid waste are determined to 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 statutes 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, Public Resources Code Sections 44001–44018 and California Code of Regulations Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 4 (Section 21440 et seq.) authorize the County Department of Environmental Health and Quality , Local Enforcement Agency to issue solid waste facility permits. Sycamore Sanitary Landfill is a permitted facility and

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 90
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
EDCO is a licensed hauler. Lastly, beginning in 2022, SB 1383 requires every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses. Organic waste includes food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, and printing and writing paper. The project would provide trash, recycle, and organic waste bins throughout the project site for both residential and public use. For these reasons, and the reasons stated above, impacts related to solid waste as a result of project implementation would be less than significant.

2.20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XX. WILDFIRE – 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?

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?

Dudek prepared a Fire Response Technical Memorandum for the project which is included as Appendix L to this IS/MND. The analysis herein is based on findings of Appendix L. Full details regarding wildfire as it relates to the project can be found in Appendix L.
a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less-than-Significant Impact. According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos EOP 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 2012a).

The proposed project would be required to abide by the standards set forth in the San Marcos EOP.

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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 91
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
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 ( California Fire Code Chapter 5, Sections 503.1 through 503.4), an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D; California Fire Code Section D106), and entryway gate access for first responders (California Fire Code, Chapter 5, Section 503.6). SMFD would review t he proposed points of entry and private driveways, which would be required to meet the qualifications for emergency access to and from the project site. Furthermore, a Fire Response Technical Memorandum has been prepared for the proposed project (Appendix L) that outlines fire protection services and emergency response as it relates to development of the project. As outlined in Appendix L, both SMFD Stations 1 and 2 are well within the City’s time response goal for first-in fire engine and medic ambulance to the entire project site. For these reasons, 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. The redevelopment of the existing project site with proposed land uses would not exacerbate fire risk. The preliminary site plans and emergency access for the proposed project would be reviewed and approved by SMFD prior to development, and all project plans would be required to comply with the California Fire Code. It has been determined that the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, exposing occupants to pollutants ; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
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, Utilities and Service Systems), 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 include any new overhead utility lines or construction of roads to serve the project site. The proposed project would not require the installation or maintenance of such infrastructure that 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 fire hazard severity zone, and risk of wildfire is considered low within the project area due to the location within a relatively flat and highly urbanized area of the City. The Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix E) also does not note any significant landslide risks 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.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 92
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

2.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigated
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)?

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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. As outlined in the Biological Resources Letter Report prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B), the project site consists entirely of Urban/Developed land cover type, consisting of commercial retail and paved parking lots, with associated minor ornamental landscaping and structures. Urban/Developed refers to areas that have been constructed on or d isturbed so severely that native vegetation is no longer supported. Urban development is present to the north, south, east, and west of the site. No natural land covers or potential habitat is located on or adjacent to the sit e, and the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities or land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special -status wildlife species. Similarly, the site does not contain any natural vegetation communities of land cover types that are known to provide habitat to any special -status plant species.

However, mitigation measure MM-BIO-1 is proposed in order to comply with the MBTA, and pre-construction

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 93
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
nesting bird survey (s) will be conducted if demolition or construction occurs within the nesting season (January 15 to August 31September 15).

As described throughout this IS/MND, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment; would not substantially reduce 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. The project includes implementation of MM -CUL-1 through MM -CUL-4 to address potential impacts related to discovery of archaeological resources.

The project would require the demolition of 63,484 square feet of existing (primarily vacant) restaurant uses on site. However, elements from the Old California Restaurant Row w ould be preserved and incorporated into the project design to create an old meets new aesthetic that celebrates the history of the site. The project is not anticipated to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, and therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant. 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 eff ects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Implementation of the proposed project, when combined with other approved and proposed projects in the City and outlying areas, could potentially contribute to cumulative degradation of the environment as a result of potential impacts related to air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and services systems. As analyzed throughout Section 2 of this MND, all potential impacts are determined to be less than significant, with the exception of impacts related to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Public Services, Transportation and Tribal Cultural Resources , which are determined to be less t han significant with mitigation incorporated (MM-BIO-1; MM-CUL-1 through MM -CUL-4; MM -PS-1 – MM-PS-2; and MM -TR-1). All cumulative projects would be required to complete a similar environmental analysis and incorporate mitigation as necessary to reduce the potential for cumulative impacts.

Although cumulative impacts are always possible, the proposed project, by incorporating all mitigation measures outlined herein, would reduce its contribution to any such cumulative impacts to less than cumulatively considerable; therefore, the project wou ld 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?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated . 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 substa ntial adverse effects on human beings. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 94
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

13844 95
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
3 References and Preparers

3.1 References Cited
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A through L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

California Public Resources Code, Section 21000–21177. California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed May 13, 2021. 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). 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. April 2020.

Caltrans. 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed April 8, 2021. https://www.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983.

CDC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed November 14, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.CDC. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed June 24, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

City of San Marcos. 2023. “Traffic Counts (ADT) Table.” Accessed July 2023. https://www.san-marcos.net/ departments/public-works/transportation-engineering/traffic-counts-adt-table.

City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan.

City of San Marcos. 2012b. General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. February 2012. Accessed March 31, 2021.

City of San Marcos. 2018. Parks Master Plan Update. June 2018. Accessed July 20, 2023. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/27704.

City of San Marcos. 2020a. City of San Marcos Municipal Code. Current through April 23, 2020. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/ code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20.515S IDEPLRE.

City of San Marcos. 2020b. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. November 16, 2020. Accessed April 6, 2021. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25036.

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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 96
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
City of San Marcos. 2022. City of Code of Ordinances. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/ codes/code_of_ordinances.

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

County of San Diego. 2005. Integrated Waste Management Plan. Revised 2005. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/common_components/images/dpw/recyclingpdfs/ summaryplan.pdf.

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.

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/.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 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.

FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123.

September 2018.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.

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.

Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California, by R.F. Holland, October 1986.

March 2008.

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

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

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

Adopted October 2013. Accessed March 31, 2021. 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.

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 97
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023
SANDAG. 2020. Regional Housing Needs Assessment 6th Housing Element Cycle 2021-2029. Approved July 10, 2020.

Accessed March 31, 2021. https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=189&fuseaction=projects.detail.

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

Amended December 1, 2011. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.lee-associates.com/ elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf.

SDAPCD. 1998. Regulation II: Permits; Rule 20.2: New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. Effective December 17, 1998. Accessed July 27, 2018. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Rules_and_Regulations/Permits/APCD_R20-2.pdf.

SDAPCD. 2021. Rule 20.3 – New Source Review Major Stationary Sources and PSD Stationary Sources.

October 14, 2021. Accessed April 2022. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/ rules/current-rules/Rule-20.3-2021.pdf.

SDCSD (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department). 2023. San Marcos Patrol Station. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/ Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/40/61.

Serra Cooperative Library System. 2023. https://serra.overdrive.com/.

SMUSD (San Marcos Unified School District). 2020. Residential and Commercial Developer Fees webpage. Last updated April 22, 2020. Accessed March 17, 2021. https://www.smusd.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId= 157433&pageId=394313.

Water Authority (San Diego County Water Authority). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2016. Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.sdcwa.org/sites/default/files/UWMP2015.pdf.

Water Authority. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Public Review Draft. March 2021. Accessed July 2023. https://www.sdcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Draft-2020-UWMP.pdf.

3.2 List of Preparers
City of San Marcos
Joseph Farace, Planning Manager
Sean del Solar, Senior Planner
Kyrenne Chua, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
Jonathan Quezada, Associate Civil Engineer
Dudek
Brian Grover, AICP, Principal
Vanessa Scheidel, Environmental Project Manager
Hayley Ward, Environmental Planner

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 98
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

78 SYCAMOREAVE

BUSINESSPARK
DR

POINSETT IAAVE

CAMINODELARRO
YODR

PANORAMAAVE
S

LASPOSASRD

LAFLORA DR

ALTURA DR

SAN MARINO DR

S TWIN OAKS VALLEY RD

VIAPORTOLA KNOLL RD

DISCOVERY ST

LA GRANADA DR
RUS
H DR

SRANCHOSANTAFERD

JEWEL RD

HERMOSITADR
PONTE
AVE

SPECIALTY DR

PICOAVE

PAWNEE ST

OLEANDER AVE

NAVAJO ST
SA
NTA

BARBARA DR

S PACIFIC ST
LASOM
BRADR

LAS FLORES DR

AVENIDADELASROSAS

POPPYRD

VIEWPOINTDR

RICHMAR AVE

SHENAN DOAHAVE

LA TIERRA DR

FIREBIRD
LN

BINGHAM DR

LAPLAZA DR

TREASUREDR

HOLLENCRESTRD

CIMA DR

VIOLET AVE
01ST ST

VALENCIA AVE

ACACIA DR

LODGEPOLERD

LA NOCHE DR

BOARDWALK

BEL ESPR IT CIR

PALOMARCOS AVE
ALLEY

PARKW O OD
AVE
ALLEY

GEMSTONEDR

W SAN MARCOS BLVD

MARCOS ST

DISCOVERY ST

APPLEWILDE DR

LIBERTYDR

GRANDON AVE

CRAVEN RD
ISLAND
DR

GRAND AVE

HONEYS UC KLEDR

CANOPYDR

NLASPOSAS
RD

VILLAGEDR N

FOXHALLDR

SAN PABLO DR

CAMINOLI NDADR

SA N JULIAN DR

CREEK ST

LA MIRADA DR
ALLEY
ALLEY

LAKERIDGEDR

KIRKWALL DR
09TH ST ALLEY

VIA VERACRUZ

BIRCH ST

DESCANSO AVE

QUAIL HILL DR

AUTUMN DR

SUN VALLEY RD

W MISSION RD

VIAALTAVISTA
GRANI
TERD

COMMERCEWAY
TAU

LBEES LN

GLENDALEAVE

CAD ES WAY

HILL HAVEN
DR

HAPPYHILLLN
JOY CT

N PACIFIC ST

LOS VALLECITOS BLVD

DOGWOODWAY CAPALINA RD

LA CASADR
01ST ST

LA MIRADA DR

COMET CIR

ECHO LN

S BENT AVE

LA COLUSA DR

MERITDR

WESTLAKEDR

W LINDA VISTADR

CORALST

AVENIDA AZUL

DECISION ST
SON

OMA S T

BLUESAGE DR

PROGRESS ST

KELLOGGST

MCMAHRRD

LA LINDA DR

LA LOMA DR

ARBORVIEW DR
LA

BONITADR

HELMSDALE RD
PLUM
E
RIADR
ASHST
MIM O
SAAVE

TOYON TER

W BORDEN RD

GRAND AVE

TILLEY LN
TIGER
WAY

VIRGINIA PL

LINDA VISTA DR

LA CASITA DR

WHITESANDS
DR

ROADRUNNER RD

DESCANSO AVE

ARMORLITE DR

LINDA VISTA DR

ACTIVITYDR

SEQUOIA ST

ECHO LN

COAST AVE

DELEONERD

PIONEERAVE

COMETCIR

LINDA VISTA DR

WINDRIDGE CIR

FIRE LN
Project Location
San Marcos Restaurant Row
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2022
Date: 3/22/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1384401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\InitialStudy\Figure1-ProjectLocation.m xd 02 , 0 0 0 1,000
Feet
Project Boundary
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

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 100
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Date: 3/22/2023 - Last saved by: agreis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1384401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\InitialStudy\Figure2-ProjectSite.mxd

LINDA VISTA DR

STONE DR

COMMERCE ST

RYAN DR

VIA VERA CRUZ

W SAN MARCOS BLVD
Project Site
San Marcos Restaurant Row
SOURCE: SANGIS 2020, 2022
0 200 100
Feet
Project Boundary
FIGURE 2

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 102
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
9'-0"
18'-0"

EXISTING
9'-0"
SPECIAL SETBACK FROM SAN MARCOS:
61 FEET FROM CENTERLINE



















616'-6"
20'-0"
19'-0"
38'-0"
20'-0"
270'-6"
30'-6"
24'-10"
897'-1"
28'-9"
24'-0"
33'-9"
26'-10"
10'
21'-4" 28'-11"
12'-11"
57'-0" 9'-0"
13'-4"
27'-6"
17'-4"
15'
22'-6"
54'-5"
30'-0"
20'-0"
622'-4"
18'-0"
13'-8"
16'-1"
15'-10"
7'-8"7'-1"
15'-11"
12'-3"
41'-4"
17'-4"
37'-0"
39'-2"
27'-0"
41'-0"
39'-11"
32'-2"
25'-6"
TYP
66'-2"
24'-0"
24'-0"
62'-11"12'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
20'-0" 20'-0"
72'-8"
24'-0"
40'-0"
24'-0"
34'-11"
34'-0"
24'-0"
15'
24'-0"33'-2"
39'-2"
34'-0"
12'-2"
19'-0"
38'-0"
38'-0"
34'-0"
10'-11"
10'-9"
11'-1"
17'-2"
17'-2"
14'-8"
25'-10"
15'-8"
12'-0"
19'-1"
12'

24'-0"
15'-0"SETBACK
MidBlock Retail Areas
Parkside Retail Areas
Line Floodway
Line Floodway
18'-0"
CommercialTrashEnclosure
LoadingZone

FRONT STREET

ROWTOWN

TOWN OVERCOMMERCIAL

FRONT STREET

ROWTOWN

COMMERCIAL

TOWN OVERCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL

FRONT STREET

ROWTOWN

FRONT STREET

ROWTOWN

TOWN OVER

COMMERCIAL

MOTORCOURT

MOTORCOURTGREENCOURT

GREENCOURT

PROPERTY LINE
TYP.

PROPERTY LINE
TYP
PARK
A
B
C
D

MOTORCOURT
0 50 10025
Scale: 1" = 50'-0"
0 50 10025
Scale: 1" = 50'-0"

TOWN OVER COMMERCIAL
3 Bedroom 8 du
Sub-Total 8 du

FRONT STREET ROWTOWNS
3 Bedroom 17 du
Sub-Total 17 du

GREENCOURT TOWNHOMES
2 Bedroom 22du
3 Bedroom 21 du
4 Bedroom 14 du
Sub-Total 57 du
MOTORCOURT TOWNHOMES (120du/3.9ac = 30.8 du/ac)
2 Bedroom 78 du
3 Bedroom 42 du
Sub-Total 120 du
Grand Total: 202 units
Total Commercial: 10,400 sf

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
Greencourts 4,460 sf
Motorcourts 9,876 sf
Town over Commercial 10,032 sf
Total 24,368 sf (.56 acres)

PARKING
Residential Parking Requirements
Multi-Family (2 BR): 107x1.75 188 spaces
Multi-Family (3+ BR): 95x2 190 spaces
Guest Parking: 202 d.u. x 0.15 31 spaces
Total 409 spaces
Non-Residential Parking Requirements
Park Site: 1.1 acres/9 per acre 10 spaces
Restaurant > 2000 sf:
(3,232 sf/1,000 sf) x 7.5 24 spaces
Restaurant < 2000 sf:
(4,063 sf/1,00sf) x 6.5 27 spaces
Retail:(2,280 sf/1000 sf) x 3 7 spaces
Total 68 spaces
Residential Parking Provided
2 Car Garage: (190 d.u.) 380 spaces
1 Car Garage: (12 d.u.) 12 spaces
Assigned Spaces for Units
w/ Single Car Garage: 9 spaces
Guest Spaces Open Bay: 48 spaces
Total 449 spaces
Non-Residential Parking Provided
Park: 10 spaces
Open Bay: 76 spaces
Total 86 spaces
Open Parking Spaces Provided
Standard (incl. 10 park spaces: 84 spaces
EV Ready: 18 spaces
ADA Standard: 5 spaces
ADA Van: 2 spaces
EVCS: 7 spaces
EVCS Van: 1 spaces
Total 117 spaces

PRODUCT TYPE INFO
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
(CBC SECTION 310)
SEPARATIONS:
(CBC SECTION 420.2)

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION

FIRE RESISTIVE RATING

REQUIREMENTS FOR
BUILDNG ELEMENTS.

FIRE RESISTIVE RATING

REQUIREMENTS FOR

EXTERIOR WALLS BASED

ON FIRE SEPARATION
DISTANCE:
(TABLE 602)
MIXED USE 1 ZONE: MU-1 R-2/U (PRIVATE

GARAGES) - SEPARATED OCCUPANCIES
WALLS SEPARATING DWELLING UNITS - 1/2 HOUR
FIRE PARTITION PER CBC SECTION 708.3,
EXCEPTION #2

TYPE VB
REFER TO TABLE 601
(NO RATING IS REQUIRED PER TABLE 601)
FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE > 10' FOR TYPE VB
CONSTRUCTION AND R-2 OCCUPANCY SHALL BE
ZERO (0)
(NON-RATED) FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE < 10'
FOR TYPE VB CONSTRUCTION AND R-2
OCCUPANCY SHALL BE ONE (1) - (1 HOUR)

REFER TO SITE PLAN, FOR ACTUAL DIMENSIONS

BETWEEN BUILDINGS
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT:
(CBC TABLE 504.3)
ACTUAL HEIGHT:

ALLOWABLE STORIES:
(CBC TABLE 504.4)
FIRE SPRINKLERS:

MAXIMUM AREA OF
EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS:

ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:

ACCESSIBILITY:
60 FEET (HEIGHT INCREASE USED)
±40'-0"
3 STORIES
NFPA 13 PER CBC SECTION 903.3.1.1

UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED - PER
C.B.C. TABLE 705.8, SEE SITE PLAN FOR

FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE

SEE TABLE

SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC CHAPTER
1102A.3 MULTI-STORY DWELLINGS

REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR MORE

INFORMATION
CONDOMINIUMS (R-2/U)

DEVELOPMENT NOTES
- SECTION 20.225.040 - MIXED USE 1 ZONE: THE MU-1 ZONE SHOULD

INCORPORATE RETAIL STOREFRONTS, URBAN LIVING, AND COMMUNITY DESTINATIONS IN A VERTICAL PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED SETTING. THESE USES

MAY BE MIXED VERTICALLY ON SEPARATE FLOORS OF A BUILDING, OR

HORIZONTALLY IN SEPARATE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE SITE OR ADJACENT PARCELS. TO MAINTAIN A PEDESTRIAN SCALE AND ORIENTATION, PERMITTED

USES ON THE GROUND FLOOR ARE LIMITED TO RETAIL AND OTHER ACTIVE USES. THE MU-1 ZONE IS INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MIXED USE 1 (MU1) LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN. - TABLE 20.225-1 - C BUILDING FRONTAGE AND ACTIVE USE REQUIREMEN TS:

PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED GROUND FLOOR USES ARE REQUIRED FOR EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) OF THE BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE, AND FACING PUBLIC OPEN SPACES OR PLAZAS.
- FORM-BASED REGULATION FIGURE 20.225-1: FIGURE 20.225-1 IS THE REGULATING PLAN FOR THE MIXED USE ZONES. THE REGULATING PLAN

FURTHER MODIFIES THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS OF THE ZONING MAP BY

ADDING FORM-BASE STANDARDS SUCH AS SETBACK TYPES, AND
PLACE-ORIENTED REGULATIONS TO EACH ZONE. THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD TABLES OF EACH MIXED USE ZONE (TABLES 20.225-1, 20.225-2,

20.225-3, AND 20.225-4) REFERENCE FEATURES AND LOCATIONS REPRESENTED ON THE REGULATING PLAN.

Conceptual Site Plan
San Marcos Restaurant Row
FIGURE 3
SOURC
E: KYGY
Architecture +
Planning,
2023; Le
nnar 2023
Z:\Projects\j1384401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\InitialStudy

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 104
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

UNIT 1
TYPE: T1
UNIT 2
TYPE: T2
UNIT 3
TYPE: T2
UNIT 4
TYPE: T2
UNIT 5
TYPE: T1
UNIT 1
TYPE: T1
UNIT 2
TYPE: T2
UNIT 3TYPE: T2
UNIT 4
TYPE: T2
UNIT 5
TYPE: T1
UNIT 1
TYPE: T1
UNIT 2
TYPE: T2
UNIT 3TYPE: T2
UNIT 4
TYPE: T2
UNIT 5
TYPE: T1
UNIT 1
TYPE: T1
UNIT 2
TYPE: T2
UNIT 3
TYPE: T2
UNIT 4
TYPE: T2
UNIT 5
TYPE: T1
UNIT 1
TYPE: T1
UNIT 2
TYPE: T2
UNIT 3
TYPE: T2
UNIT 4
TYPE: T2
UNIT 7
TYPE: T1
UNIT 5
TYPE: T2
UNIT 6
TYPE: T2
UNIT 1
TYPE: T1
UNIT 2
TYPE: T2
UNIT 3
TYPE: T2
UNIT 4
TYPE: T2
UNIT 9
TYPE: T1
UNIT 5
TYPE: T2
UNIT 6
TYPE: T2
UNIT 7
TYPE: T2
UNIT 8
TYPE: T2
18 • • • • •••• ••••••••••

PUBLIC PARK AREA,
SEE L4 FOR ENLARGEMENT

PARK CONNECTOR
SEE SHEET L3 FOR

ENLARGEMENT

WESTERN PASEO

CONNECTOR, SEE
SHEET L3 FOR

ENLARGEMENT CENTRAL PASEO

MERGE, SEE SHEET
L3 FOR

ENLARGEMENT

EASTERN PASEO

CONNECTOR, SEE
SHEET L3 FOR

ENLARGEMENT

TOWN OVER

COMMERCIAL

FRONT STREET

ROWTOWN

COMMERCIAL

PLAZA SPACE

SITE GATHERING
AREA SEE SHEET L4

FOR ENLARGEMENT

MOTORCOURT
COURT

TOWNHOMES

PLANTED MEDIAN
SECTION B - SAN MARCOS BLVD.

NTS

SECTION
20 FEET
5 FEET
10 FEET
10 FEET
25 FEET
10 FEET

TRAFFIC SIGNAL, STOP SIGN

UDERGROUND UTILITY LINES

ABOVE GROUND UTILITY STRUCTURES

DRIVEWAYS

INTERSECTIONS
SEWERS

MINIMUM TREE SEPARATION
DISTANCE:

DESIGN STATEMENT:

THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN IS TO

ILLUSTRATE THE PROPOSED DESIGN FOR 'OLD CALIFORNIA'
RESTAURANT ROW. TRANSFORMING THE SPACE INTO A

PLACE THAT WILL FUNCTION WELL AND ADD TO THE OVERALL
CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE AREA. THE NEW CONCEPT

UTILIZES THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE CONTEXT TO PROVIDE A

FRAMEWORK FOR THE INTEGRATION OF A 'NEW'
RESTAURANT ROW.

BUILDING AND GROUND NOTES:

1. ALL PUBLIC PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SUPPLIED TO A

PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
••• •••• •••••••• • ••••••••• •••• •••• • •• •••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

PUBLISHED BY CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
(CPSC) AND THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TESTING AND
• •••• • •••• •••••• ••• • • •••• • •• • • • • • •• • •• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLAYGROUND
• • • •• • • • • •• • • •• • • • •• •• • • ••••• • • •• • ••••••• •••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

THE CERTIFICATION SEAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL PLAY
EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION. ALL DESIGNS

SHALL MEET OR EXCEED THE MOST CURRENT EDITION OF
•••• •• ••• ••••• • • ••• •• •••• •• •• ••• •••• • •••• • • •• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••• •••• •••• •••• ••••• •••••• •••• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

BE CERTIFIED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR
STANDARDIZATION.

2. PLAY EQUIPMENT, STRUCTURES, AND SURFACES SHALL BE
INSTALLED BY A CONTRACTOR CERTIFIED BY THE CPSC.

3. PLAY EQUIPMENT, STRUCTURES, AND SURFACES SHALL BE

INSPECTED, AUDITED, AND CERTIFIED BY AN INDEPENDENT
INSPECTOR CERTIFIED BY THE CPSC. THE AUDIT AND

CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
MAINTENANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.

4. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF
THE ADA.

CFD MAINTENANCE & ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD NOTES:

1. THE MAINTENANCE AND ESTABLISHMENT (M&E) PERIOD
SHALL BE FOR A DURATION OF TWO YEARS.

2. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE M&E PERIOD:

A. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE

ARCHITECT AND CITY AND FINAL MYLARS AND BLUE

LINES SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT.

B. PRE-MAINTENANCE PERIOD INSPECTION PERFORMED
AND RESULTING PUNCH LIST WORK COMPLETED.

C. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST

TO COMMENCE THE M&E PERIOD TO THE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT. THE REQUEST SHALL BE
••••• •••• ••• ••• •••• •••••••••• •• •• •• ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT, SCHEDULE OF

MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, AND PERFORMANCE BOND
IN THE AMOUNT OF 150 PERCENT OF THE
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. THE PERFORMANCE BOND

SHALL COVER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

NECESSARY TO SATISFACTORILY COMPLETE THE
MAINTENANCE PERIOD.

D. IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SHALL
ONLY BE PERFORMED BY A CONTRACTOR WITH A C-27

LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR LICENSE ISSUED BY THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

E. THE DEVELOPER SHALL INFORM THE CITY, IN WRITING,

OF ITS INTENTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE MAINTENANCE

CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO FORMALLY MAKING ANY
SUBSTITUTION. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SUBMIT A

FULLY EXECUTED COPY OF THE NEW MAINTENANCE

CONTRACT TO THE CITY PRIOR TO THE SUBSTITUTE
CONTRACTOR STARTING WORK.

3. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL INFORM THE

DEVELOPER OF THE COMMENCEMENT DATE FOR THE M&E

PERIOD IN WRITING AFTER THE ABOVE ITEMS ARE
SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED.

4. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN THE

IRRIGATION, LANDSCAPE, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

INCLUDED IN THE CFD AT ITS COST FOR THE DURATION OF
THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD.

5. THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL BE THE SOLE JUDGE

OF WHETHER THE IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS ARE BEING ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED. THE

CONTRACTOR WILL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING IN THE FORM OF

CORRECTION NOTICES SHOULD THESE IMPROVEMENTS NOT
BE ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE

FIVE WORKING DAYS TO RESOLVE ANY DEFICIENCIES

COMMUNICATED VIA CORRECTION NOTICE OR WILL BE

SUBJECT TO DISCONTINUANCE AND SUBSEQUENT EXTENSION

OF THE M&E PERIOD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DEFICIENCIES

HAVE BEEN CORRECTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT.

6. IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE
BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO:

A. REGULAR MONITORING, ADJUSTMENT, AND REPAIR OF
THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

B. APPROPRIATE WATERING OF PLANT MATERIAL.

C. REGULAR WEEDING.

7. THE DEVELOPER SHALL TRANSMIT:

A. ALL FINAL SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT.

B. WATER AND ELECTRIC METER SERIAL NUMBERS,

ADDRESSES, SIZES, AND UTILITY COMPANY BILLING

INFORMATION INCLUDING A ONE YEAR BILLING
HISTORY.

C. WELL SYSTEM INFORMATION INCLUDING BUT NOT

LIMITED TO OUTPUT AND DEPTH, CATALOGUE CUTS

AND MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUALS FOR
ALL CABINET KEYS.

D. QUICK COUPLER KEYS AND SWIVEL (ONE FOR EVERY
FIVE QUICK COUPLERS INSTALLED).

E. BUILDING KEYS (TWO SETS).
• •••• • • ••• ••• • • • • • •• • • • •• • • •• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• G. CURRENT BACKFLOW CERTIFICATION.

H. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SCHEDULES.

I. ANY ITEMS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS TO THE CITY 90

DAYS PRIOR TO THEIR PROPOSED M&E PERIOD
ACCEPTANCE DATE.

FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CAUSE TO EXTEND THE

MAINTENANCE PERIOD BY THE NUMBER OF DAYS AFTER THE

AFOREMENTIONED DATE THAT THE FINAL SUBMITTALS ARE
MADE.

8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL SCHEDULE A FINAL MAINTENANCE

PERIOD INSPECTION ONE MONTH PRIOR TO THE PROPOSED
TWO YEAR M&E PERIOD COMPLETION DATE. THE DEVELOPER

SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE CITY FOR

ACCEPTANCE OF THE M&E PERIOD UPON SATISFACTORILY
COMPLETING ALL FINAL PUNCH LIST WORK. THE CITY WILL

PROVIDE THE DEVELOPER WITH WRITTEN CONFIRMATION OF
ACCEPTANCE OF THE M&E PERIOD.

6. (CONTINUED)
D. PROMPT REPLACEMENT OF DEAD, DYING OR DAMAGED
PLANT MATERIAL.

E. PRUNING OF TREES AS DIRECTED BY THE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT.

F. FILLING AND COMPACTING SETTLED TRENCHES AND
ERODED AREAS.

G. DAILY (SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK) REMOVAL AND
DISPOSAL OF TRASH, LITTER, AND FOREIGN DEBRIS.

H. WEEKLY MOWING OF TURF AREAS AND REMOVAL OF
GRASS CLIPPINGS.

I. REMOVAL OF TURF BY SHOVEL CUTTING WITHIN 12
INCHES OF TREES LESS THAN 24 INCH BOX AND 18
INCHES WITHIN TREES OF 24 INCH BOX AND GREATER
AND MAINTAINING FOUR INCHES OF BARK MULCH.

J. NECESSARY PEST CONTROL BY A LICENSED PEST
CONTROL APPLICATOR.

K. FERTILIZING AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLANT
MATERIAL IN A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS CONDITION.

L. FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONES (100 FEET FROM
STRUCTURES) AS SHOWN.

M. REGULAR CLEANING OF DRAINAGE STRUCTURES
WITHIN THE CFD.

N. PROPER TRIMMING OF SHRUBS TO LEAVE THEM IN A
NATURAL FORM TYPICAL OF THE PARTICULAR PLANT.

POODLING OR BALLING SHRUBS IS NOT PERMITTED.

O. MAINTENANCE OF ALL APPURTENANT IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDED IN THE CFD.

PLANTED BMP,
TYP.

PARKWAY TREES
W/ 3" DECOMPOSED

GRANITE

SECTION B

PRIVATE

RESIDENTIAL GATED

PARK ACCESS

WESTERN PASEO

CONNECTOR, SEE
SHEET L3 FOR

ENLARGEMENT
COURT

TOWNHOMES

VISIBILITY TRIANGLE

SECTION A
NTS

SECTION A

ENHANCED PAVING

SMALL DOG PARK,
SEE L4 FOR

ENLARGEMENT

LARGE DOG PARK,
SEE L4 FOR

ENLARGEMENT

COMMUNITY

GATHERING AREA,
SEE SHEET L4 FOR

ENLARGEMENT

AREAS IMPACTED BY MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS

TO HAVE PAVERS, PLANTING AND IRRIGATION
REMOVED. DISTURBED MEDIAN AREAS TO

PLANTED WITH CITY APPROVED PLANT
SELECTIONS AND 3" DG SURFACE. EXISTING
TREES TO REMAIN, SEE SHEET L7.

MONUMENT SIGN, PLANTING AND
IRRIGATION TO BE REMOVED.

DISTURBED MEDIAN AREAS TO

PLANTED WITH CITY APPROVED
PLANT SELECTIONS AND 3" DG
SURFACE.

PARK MONUMENT SIGN

PRECISION BLOCK

WALL AND COMPOSITE

WOOD GATE
Conceptual Landscape Plan
San Marcos Restaurant Row
FIGURE 4
SOURC
E: Project
Design Consu
ltants, 20
23 Z:\Projects\j1384401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\InitialStudy

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 106
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK




STREET TREE NOTE:

IMPROVEMENT SUCH AS DRIVEWAYS UTILITIES, DRAINS AND

WATER SEWER LATERALS SHALL BE DESIGNED SO AS NOT TO

PROHIBIT THE PLACEMENT OF STREET TREES, ALL TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

CROSSWALK

CONCEPTUAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PARKS PLAN

PRIVATE COMMUNITY

GATHERING AREA
- BENCHES
- TABLES
- BBQ

PUBLIC SMALL DOG PARK
(HOA OWNED AND MAINTAINED)
- DG SURFACE
- 48" FENCE AND GATES
- WASTE STATION
- BENCH SEATING

PUBLIC LARGE DOG PARK
(HOA OWNED AND MAINTAINED)
- DG SURFACE
- 60" FENCE AND GATES
- WASTE STATION
- BENCH SEATING

PUBLIC COMMUNITY GATHERING AREA
(HOA OWNED AND MAINTAINED)
- PERGOLA
- PICNIC TABLES
- BBQ ISLAND

ALL WHEELFLOW COURSE
- CONTOURED CONCRETE

FLOW COURSE

CONCRETE WALKWAY
- PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR
- 10' MAINTENANCE VEHICLE ACCESS

OVERLOOK GATHERING SPACE

WITH BENCHES AND TABLES
6' COMBO GLASS AND BLOCK

WALL AT TOP OF SLOPE
(HOA OWNED AND MAINTAINED)
PLAYGROUND - AGES (2-5) & (5-12)
- RUBBER SURFACING
- BENCH SEATING
- HILLSIDE PLAY
- PLAY EQUIPMENT

LAWN AREA
- AMPHITHEATER SEATING
- PICNIC TABLES
- HILLSIDE SEATING
- PASSIVE LAWN AREA

SOUTH ENTRY PLAZA AREA
- RESTROOM FACILITY
- ENHANCED CONCRETE
- 10' WIDE MAINTENANCE ACCESS
6' WIDE CONCRETE

ADA WALKWAY

PICKLE BALL COURTS
- (4) STANDARD COURTS
- 8' CHAIN LINK FENCE
- BLEACHER SEATING AREA

PARK ENTRY PLAZA
- PARK MONUMENT SIGN
- BENCH SEATING
- SCULPTURE

PRIVATE MODULAR WETLAND

PRIVATE BMP VAULTS

PUBLIC RESTROOM
- STORAGE AREA
- WATER BOTTLE FILLING STATION

PARK MONUMENT SIGN

PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT

THROUGH NORTH/SOUTH
PASEO TO SAN MARCOS BLVD.

PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT

ALONG PRIVATE DRIVE 'A' TO
SAN MARCOS BLVD.
"PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE PRIVATE
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES”
NOT-A-PART, REFER TO SDP22-0006

PUBLIC PARK
Conceptual Public and Private Park Plan
San Marcos Restaurant Row
FIGURE 5
SO
URCE: Pr
oject Design C
onsultant
s, 2023
Z:\Projects\j1384401\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\InitialStudy

RESTAURANT ROW PROJECT / INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13844 108
OCTOBER NOVEMBER 2023

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

San Marcos City CouncilDecember 12, 2023

San Marcos City Council
December 12, 2023