Energy
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no energy use associated with construction and operation since no development would occur. While impacts under the proposed project related to energy use were determined to be less than significant, they would be eliminated under this alternative since there would be no energy use. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the energy use identified for the project and there would be no energy impacts.
Geology and Soils
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project site would remain in its current state.
Existing topography and on-site soils would not be modified to accommodate proposed development.
Potential impacts to unknown paleontological resources (Im pact GEO-1) that were identified for the proposed project would be avoided under this alternative, as there would be no ground disturbing
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-4
activities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce potential impacts related to geology and soils.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, GHG emissions associated with construction and operational activities would not occur. This alternative would not introduce any people or uses to the site that would generate GHG emissions. The proposed project’s GHG impacts were determined to be less than significant. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in a reduction of GHG emissions on the site and no impact would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no uses would be introduced that could result in the use or generation of hazardous materials. While the proposed project’s hazards and hazardous materials impacts were determined to be less than significant, this alternative would further minimize potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and no impact would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no development would occur, and no impervious surfaces would be created. The existing on-site hydrologic conditions, drainage patterns, and drainage volumes would remain unaltered. Water quality would also r emain unchanged. While the proposed project’s hydrology and water quality impacts were determined to be less than significant, this alternative would further minimize potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and no impact would occur.
Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped and none of the discretionary approvals identified for the project would be required. The General Plan Amendment to change the designations of the site from Mixed Use 3 (MU3) designation to Mixed Use 2 (MU2) and a rezone to change the existing Mixed Use 3 (SP) (MU-3 (SP)) zoning to Mixed Use 2 (MU-2) would not be required.
While the proposed project’s land use and planning impacts were determined to be less than significant, this alternative would further minimize potential impacts related to land use and planning, and no impact would occur.
Noise
The project site is currently vacant and does not generate any noise. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped and would not create any new sources of construction or operational noise. While noise impacts were determined to be less than significant for the project, this alternative would eliminate any new noise sources on the project site.
No noise impacts would occur under this alternative. As such, noise impacts under this alternative would be reduced as compared to the proposed project.
Population and Housing
The project site is currently vacant and located adjacent to commercial and residential uses. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not induce population growth in the area, as no development would occur. As described in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-5
would add an additional 369 people on site but would not result in substantial population growth in the area. No housing would be added to the site under the No Project/No Development Alternative, so this alternative would not contribute to meeting regional housing demands, including the provision of affordable units. However, because this alternative does not result in the addition of people on site, impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project. No population and housing impacts would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative.
Public Services
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in an increase in demand for public services, since no residential or commercial uses would be developed and there would be no increase in the City’s population. Specifically, the No Project/No Dev elopment Alternative would not increase the demand for police and fire protection services, nor would this alternative increase demand for park, school, and library services. As stated in Section 3.13, Public Services, public service impacts for the proposed project would be less than significant. Since this alternative would not result in additional residents on site, impacts on public services would be reduced, compared to the proposed project. No public services impacts would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative.
Recreation
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would not be an increase in demand for park and recreation services as no new housing or residents would be added to the City. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternativ e would decrease impacts, and no impacts to recreation would occur.
Transportation
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in the generation of vehicular trips. This alternative would not provide for pedestrian improvements along the project frontage, thus leaving the sidewalk between N. Pacific Street and N. Rancho Santa Fe Road on the north side of Capalina Road incomplete. Additionally, under this alternative there would be no restriping and extension of the westbound left turn pocket on Capalina Road at N. Rancho Santa Fe Road. While the proposed project would have less than significant transportation impacts, this alternative would have no impact related to transportation. However, under this alternative the pedestrian improvements discussed above would not be realized.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require any ground -disturbing activities.
Therefore, there would be no potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources potentially located within the project site (Impacts TCR -1 and TCR -2). As such, mitigation measures MM -CR-1 through MM-CR-4 would not be implemented or required. No impact would occur, and compared to the proposed project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in a reduced level of potential impact to tribal cultural resources.
Utilities and Service Systems
No development would be constructed under the No Project/No Development Alternative. As such, there would be no increase in demand for water service, wastewater service, stormwater capacity, energy, and solid waste handling services. As discussed in Section 3.17.4, project impacts related to utilities and services systems were determined to be less than significant. Because no development
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-6
would occur under this alternative, the demand for utilities would be eliminated. Thus, impacts to utilities and service systems would be reduced compared to the proposed project. No utilities and service system impacts would occur for the No Project/No Development Alternative.
Conclusion
Since the No Project/No Development Alternative would not develop any residential or commercial uses on the project site, overall impacts would be less than those of the proposed project or eliminated entirely. There are some benefits of the project that w ould not be realized under this alternative, including providing additional housing units, including affordable units, which helps the City meet its Regional Housing Need Allocation numbers. Under this alternative, the frontage improvements, including a si dewalk along Capalina Road, and restriping and extension of the westbound left turn pocket on Capalina Road at N. Rancho Santa Fe Road would not be realized. Under this alternative there would not be any payment of the City’s PFF, which goes toward supporting a variety of services and improvements in the City, including but not limited to Circulation Streets, State Route78 Interchanges, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Tech Improvements, and Parks, and Habitat Conservation. Payment of these fees provide improvements that benefit all residents of the city. Similarly, this alternative would not contribute any school fees. Finally, this alternative would not meet any of the project objectives (
Table 4-1).
4.3.4 No Project/Existing Plan Alternative
Under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative, the project site would be developed consistent with the site’s existing land use designation. Per the City’s General Plan, the project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU 3), which is a mixed -use non-residential designation with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. According to Table 2-3 of the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, this designation “Provides for a variety of commercial and office uses integrated as a cohesive development. These uses may be mixed ‘vertically’ (on separate floors of a building) or ‘horizontally’ (on a single site or adjacent parcels). Structured parking, while not required to achieve the maximum FAR, may be allowed. Shared parking arrangements may also be allowed consistent with the nature of mixed uses. Typical uses include retail, commercial services, administrative and office uses, institutional and government uses, business support and financial uses, restaurants, and health care facilities. To maintain a pedestrian scale and orientation, retail and other active services are encouraged at street level. This designation does not allow residential uses. A Specific Plan is required for development” (City of San Marcos 2012).
Figure 4-1 presents a development concept that would meet the MU -3 (SP) zoning requirements. It would include a four -story mixed-use office building with 90,000 square feet (s.f.) of office use and 10,000 s.f. of retail uses along the Capalina Road frontage, with a FAR of 1.5. Up to 400 parking spaces would be required and would be a mix of structured parking and ground-level parking. For the structured parking, one level would be subterranean. Access would be from Capalina Road. Overall, the development fo otprint would be the same, however, more grading and excavation would be required to provide subterranean parking.
4.3.4.1 Comparison of the Effects of the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative to the Proposed Project Aesthetics
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would develop a four -story building, with one story of office over a three -story parking structure, with one story below grade. The 10,000 s.f. of retail would be
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-7
located along the Capalina Road frontage. It is anticipated that architectural treatments would be used to break up the bulk and scale of the building and that a landscape concept plan would also be implemented. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would incorporate lighting for safety, security and way finding. Lighting would be required to comply with the City’s Street Lighting Standards and Specifications and San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20, Section 20.300.080 to minimize light pollution. The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would have a similar level of aesthetics impact as the proposed project and those impacts would be less than significant.
Air Quality
Under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative, air pollutant emissions associated with project construction including emissions associated with grading, site preparation, site finishing and building finishing would still occur. Grading activities would be more intensive since greater excavation would be required to accommodate below -grade parking, and construction emissions would be increased compared to the proposed project.
Emissions from vehicles going to and from the project site typically account for the largest portion of air quality emissions. The Local Transportation Analysis (CR Associates 2023a) calculated potential ADT under the existing General Plan land use on the project site. Vehicular trips under the Existing Plan Alternative would be higher than the proposed project. This alternative would generate approximately 2,200 ADT compared to the 874 ADT anticipated for the project, or more than double the amount. As such, because this alternative would result in an increase of ADT on site, operational air pollutant emissions would be greater when compared to the proposed project. However, operational and construction air pollutant emissions under this alternative would s till be less than significant.
Additionally, office and retail uses are not typically sources that create odors or significant air emissions from their day-to-day operations. Similar to the proposed project, impacts related to odors would be less than significant under this alternative.
Biological Resources
Since it would have a similar footprint of disturbance, the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would have a similar level of biological resources impacts as the proposed project, including a potential for impact to nesting birds. Biological resources mit igation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative (mitigation measure MM-BIO-1) and would reduce the potential impact to below a level of significance. The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would have a similar level of biological resources impacts as the proposed project, which is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
Cultural Resources
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would require a greater subsurface depth of disturbance than the proposed project due to sub -surface parking being required. Therefore, the potential to impact unknown archaeological resources potentially located wi thin the project site as well as unidentified human remains would occur under this alternative. Cultural resources mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative (mitigation measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4) and would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would have a similar level of cultural resources impacts as the proposed project.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-8
Energy
Construction of the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would include more intense grading and excavation activities and soil hauling than the proposed project due to the inclusion of a subterranean parking level. Therefore, construction-related energy use would be greater than the proposed project.
Operationally, office and retail uses have a higher energy demand than residential uses. Additionally, since this alternative would generate more than double the ADT compared to the proposed project, fuel use w ould be higher under this alternative. Compared to the proposed project, energy demand would be higher with the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative. Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would incorporate energy conservation featu res consistent with the requirements of Title 24 and the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy or a conflict with a state or local plan for energy efficiency. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative ground-disturbance would be required for construction of the mixed-use office and retail development. Development under this alternative would be required to implement the recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation (AGS 2022).
These recommendations include general provisions related to the site as well as specific recommendations related to foundation design, concrete design, and corrosion. Compliance with the recommendations of the prelimi nary geotechnical investigation would ensure that seismic and soils hazards would be addressed through project design and impacts related to geological and soils hazards would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
Since sedimentary rock units of the Santiago Formation may contain paleontological resources, there is a potential that the site could contain paleontological resources that could be disturbed during grading activities. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would need to implement mitigation measure MM-GEO-1. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in the same level of impacts to geology and soils, which is less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative, greater construction -related GHG emissions are anticipated since more grading and excavation would be required to create subterranean parking.
Operationally, office and retail uses are not typically sources t hat create significant GHG emissions from their day-to-day operations. Emissions from vehicles going to and from the project site typically account for the largest portion of GHG emissions. The Local Transportation Analysis determined that the potential ADT under the existing General Plan land use on the project site would be higher than the proposed project. This alternative would generate approximately 2,200 ADT compared to the 874 ADT anticipated for the project, or more than double the amount (CR Associ ates 2023a). As such, because this alternative would result in an increase of ADT on site, GHG emissions would be greater when compared to the proposed project. However, GHG impacts under this alternative would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is currently vacant and is not listed on any hazardous materials sites. Construction and operation of an office and retail/commercial use, as contemplated under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative, is not expected to result in the release of any significant hazardous materials or the
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-9
routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials. Development under this alternative would not result in any safety hazards resulting from proximity to the McClellan -Palomar Airport, nor would this alternative impair implementation of or physically in terfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Development under this alternative would be constructed in accordance with all applicable fire codes and would incorporate an appropriate fire fuel modification zone. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous material would be less than significant for this alternative and would be similar to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would introduce impervious surfaces at the site in a similar quantity as the proposed project. And the existing on-site hydrologic conditions, drainage patterns, and drainage volumes would be modified. It is expected that this alternative would incorporate all required and applicable best management practices in order to avoid any violations of water quality standards or otherwise modify or adversely affect surface and groundwater quality, similar to the proposed project. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar impacts and the impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
Under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative, a General Plan Amendment and Rezone would not be required as the development would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning designation assigned to the project site. Depending on the proposed office and commercial use, a Conditional Use Permit could be required.
Development under this alternative would generate more traffic (2,200 ADT compared to 874 ADT) than the proposed project. However, it is anticipated that adequate level of service performance would still occur on area roadways and intersections. Developmen t under this alternative would still be required to participate in Community Facility District: CFD2011-01 (Congestion Management).
This alternative would have a similar level of impact as the proposed project, which is less than significant.
Noise
Construction-related noise under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would be similar to the proposed project, since grading activities would still be required, and similar types of equipment would be used. Overall, the duration of construction -related noise would be longer since more grading and excavation would be required to accommodate sub-surface parking. However, similar to the proposed project, construction noise impacts would be less than significant under this alternative.
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would generate operational noise from office and retail/commercial activities as well as vehicle trips generated by the project. Commercial uses, including office and retail, have an exterior noise standard of 65 dB A Leq. For non -residential noise sensitive land uses, such as those that would be developed under this alternative, the exterior noise level is defined as noise measured at the exterior area provided for public use (City of San Marcos 2017).
This alternative would generate more than double the ADT as the project (2,200 ADT compared to 874 ADT). Therefore, offsite noise generated by the project would be higher under this alternative than the proposed project. Operationally, an office and retail /commercial development would typically have
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-10
more daily activity compared to a residential project, which could result in more operational noise.
Additionally, such buildings would typically require larger heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, which can result in more noise compared to residential buildings. However, such operational activities are not anticipated to be significant and HVAC equipment is typically shielded with rooftop parapets or other barriers which help to minimize noise.
Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would have a similar level of impact as the proposed project.
Population and Housing
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would develop the site in a manner that is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would, therefore, have been considered in the City’s growth assumptions. The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would not directly increase the population because no residential uses are included. The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would not create market rate/work force housing, nor would it create affordable housing units on the project site, which is needed by the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would have no impact related to unplanned population growth and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project .
Public Services
Similar to the proposed project, the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would result in an increase in demand for public services, due to the construction of office and retail/commercial uses. Specifically, this alternative would increase the demand for police and fire protection services over existing conditions. Residential uses are the primary driver for demand for park, library, and school services.
Since no residences would be constructed under this alternative, there would be no increase in demand f or school, park, and library services. Development under this alternative would still be required to pay applicable PFF and school fees, though the school fees would be at a reduced rate compared to the proposed project, since no residential uses are proposed. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar demand for fire and police services and decreased demand for park, library, and school services. Overall, impacts to public services would be less than significant.
Recreation
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative is not anticipated to generate an increase in demand of recreational needs compared to the proposed project as no residential uses would be proposed.
Residential uses are the primary driver for demand for park and recreation services. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would decrease the demand for park and recreation service and impacts would be less than significant.
Transportation
Under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative, impacts associated with consistency with policies in the Mobility Element of the General Plan that address LOS are still anticipated to be less than significant. Development under this scenario would still be required to construct the sidewalk along the site frontage with Capalina Road and restripe and extend the westbound left turn pocket on Capalina Road at N. Rancho Santa Fe Road. Development under this alternative would generate more traffic than the proposed project (2,200 ADT compared to 874 ADT).
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-11
With regard to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), based upon San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) screening maps, the regional mean VMT for employees is 18.9 VMT per employee. For the census tract where the project site is located, the VMT per employee would be 16.8, which is 89% of the regional mean (SANDAG 2023). This means that mitigation would be required to reduce the VMT to 16.07, which would be 85% of the regional mean and below the VMT significance threshold. It is expected that a 4% reduction c ould be achieved through a mix of mitigation measures such as employer carpool/vanpool programs, employer transit subsidies, and telecommute/alternative work schedules. Even with these reductions, development under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would result in more VMT compared to the project. This alternative would have increased VMT impacts compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Tribal Cultural Resources
• The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would result in a greater subsurface depth of disturbance than the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would have the potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources potentially located within the pr oject site during construction. Cultural resources mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative (MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4) and would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
The No Project/Exist ing Plan Alternative would have a similar level of impacts to tribal cultural resources as the proposed project, which is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.
Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would result in an increase in demand for utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, stormwater infrastructure, and solid waste service over existing conditions through the development of new office and retail/commercial uses. Based upon the water/sewer technical memorandum prepared by VWD (2023), development sewer generation, according to assumptions in their 2018 Master Plan, which were based upon existing land use designations for the site, would be 3,012 gallons per day (gpd) for this alternative and 20,370 gpd for the project. Water demand would be 3,765 under this alternative and 22,650 gpd under the proposed project. Therefore, the demand for sewer and water services would be decreased under this alternative compared to the proposed project, however, the water and sewer line upgrades identified for the proposed project in the VWD technical memorandum (2023) would also be required for this alternative.
Storm water infrastructure demands are anticipated to be similar to the proposed project as a similar amount of impervious surface would be created. Solid waste generation would not differ significantly under this alternative. Utilities and service system impacts would be less than significant under the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative and would water and sewer demand would be reduced compared to the proposed project.
Conclusion
The No Project/Existing Plan Alternative would result in a more intensive use on the project site, including more than double the trip generation compared to the proposed project (2,200 ADT compared to 874 ADT). This results in a corresponding proportional increase in air pollutant and GHG emissions and noise from vehicles compared to the proposed project. Construction -related air pollutant and GHG emission are also expected to be greater since this alternative would require more grading and excavation to accommodate subterranean parking.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-12
Footprint-specific impacts, such as those related to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils would be similar as the proposed project, as the same amount of site area would be disturbed.
This alternative would not generate any students for SMUSD and would reduce demand for parks, libraries, water, and sewer services compared to the proposed project. This alternative would result in a VMT impact and require mitigation to reduce VMT to 85% of the regional mean for employees. This alternative does not meet any of the project objectives, as shown in Table 4-1.
4.3.5 Reduced Intensity Alternative
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the project site would be developed with 75 residential apartments and 4,000 s.f. of commercial use for a density of 30 du/acre. The project proposes a density of 47 du/acre. A General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be required for this alternative to change the site from MU -3 to MU -2. Overall, the development footprint and area of disturbance would be similar to that of the proposed project, but with less density of residential units. The building would still be fo ur-stories high, which would allow for larger units. Private and common open space would be provided consistent with the City’s Outdoor Space Standards (Section 20.255.120 of the San Marcos Municipal Code). Architectural treatments would be incorporated into the design of this alternative to provide for visual interest and to break up the bulk and scale of the development.
4.3.5.1 Comparison of the Effects of the Reduced Intensity Alternative to the Proposed Project Aesthetics
Development under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would include 75 residential units and 4,000 s.f. of commercial use. Compared to the proposed project, there would be less overall development intensity on the project site, however a four-story building is still anticipated to be required. Similar to the proposed project, architectural treatments would be incorporated into the design of this alternative to provide for visual interest and to break up the bulk and scale of the development. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would incorporate lighting for safety, security and way finding.
Lighting would be required to comply with the City’s Street Lighting Standards and Specifications and San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20, Section 20.300.080 t o minimize light pollution. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have a similar level of aesthetics impacts as the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant.
Air Quality
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, air pollutant emissions associated with construction including emissions associated with grading, site preparation, site finishing and building finishing would still occur and would be reduced compared to the proposed project due to the reduced development.
Operational emissions under this alternative would also be reduced compared to the proposed project as fewer residential units would be constructed. Vehicular trips under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be lower than the proposed project. This alternative would generate 610 ADT. Compared to the proposed project, which would generate 874 ADT, this alternative would reduce ADT by 30%. As such, because this alternative would result in a decrease of development intensity and associated ADT, operational air pollutant emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-13
Biological Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have a similar level of biological resources impacts as the proposed project, since it would have a similar footprint of disturbance, including a potential for impact to nesting birds. Biological resources mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative (mitigation measure MM -BIO-1) and would reduce the potential impact to below a level of significance. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have a similar level of biological resources impacts as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Cultural Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in a similar amount of ground disturbance as the proposed project. Therefore, impact unknown archaeological resources potentially located within the project site as well as unidentified human remains would sti ll occur. Cultural resources mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative (MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4) and would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would ha ve a similar level of cultural resources impact as the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Energy
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced construction -related energy demands compared to the proposed project due to the reduced density and construction activities required.
Likewise, energy use associated with operation of the Reduced In tensity Alternative would be less compared to the proposed project since the number of units would be decreased from 119 units to 75 units. Similarly, vehicle fuel use would be reduced since this alternative would reduce the number of trips by approximatel y 30%. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would incorporate energy conservation features consistent with the requirements of Title 24 and the City’s CAP and would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy or a conflict with a s tate or local plan for energy efficiency. Compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative reduces the amount of energy used and impacts would be less than significant.
Geology and Soils
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would be required to implement the recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation (AGS 2022). These recommendations include general provisions related to the site as well as specific recommendations relate d to foundation design, concrete design, and corrosion. Compliance with the recommendations of the preliminary geotechnical investigation would ensure that seismic and soils hazards would be addressed through project design and impacts related to geologica l and soils hazards would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.
Due to the fact that the sedimentary rock units of the Santiago Formation may contain paleontological resources, there is a potential that the site could contain paleontological resources that could be disturbed during grading activities. Similar to the pr oposed project, this alternative would need to implement mitigation measure MM -GEO-1 and impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in the same level of impacts related to geology and soils.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-14
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, GHG emissions associated with project construction would be reduced compared to the proposed project due to the reduced density and construction activities required. Operational GHG emissions under this alternative would also be reduced due to the reduction in residential units. In particular, GHG emissions associated with vehicular trips under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be lower than the proposed project. This alternative would generate 610 ADT. Compare d to the proposed project, which generates 874 ADT, this alternative would reduce ADT by 30%. As such, because this alternative would result in a decrease of ADT, vehicular-related GHG would be reduced when compared to the proposed project. GHG emissions would be reduced compared to the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is currently vacant and is not listed on any hazardous materials sites. Construction and operation of this alternative would result in a similar level of hazards and hazardous materials risk as the proposed project since a similar type of use is proposed (residential and commercial use).
Development under this alternative would not result in any safety hazards resulting from proximity to the McClellan -Palomar Airport, nor would this alternative impair implementation of or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Development under this alternative would be constructed in accordance with all applicable fire codes and would incorporate an appropriate fire fuel modification zone. Impacts related to hazards and hazardous material would be less than significant for this alternative and would be similar to the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would introduce impervious surfaces at the site. The amount of impervious surface would be similar to the amount anticipated for the proposed project. The existing on-site hydrologic conditions, drainage patterns, and drai nage volumes would be modified. It is expected that this alternative would incorporate all required and applicable best management practices in order to avoid any violations of water quality standards or otherwise modify or adversely affect surface and groundwater quality, similar to the proposed project. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar hydrology and water quality impacts and the impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use and Planning
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, a General Plan Amendment and Rezone would still be required. This alternative would generate 610 ADT. Compared to the proposed project, which generates 874 ADT, this alternative would reduce ADT by 30%. The proposed project did not require any improvements to maintain adequate LOS on area roadways and intersections. Since the Reduced Intensity Alternative would generate less ADT, a similar conclusion would be made for this alternative and there would be no inconsistencies with the Mobility Elem ent of the General Plan. The proposed project would also be consistent with the other applicable policies and goals of the General Plan, as it would include similar uses and features as the proposed project. This alternative would have a similar level of l and use and planning impact as the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-15
Noise
Construction-related noise under the Reduced Intensity Alternative is expected to result in a similar maximum level of noise as the proposed project, though construction may be of a shorter duration since less development is proposed. Similar to the propos ed project, potential construction -related noise impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance through adherence to municipal code requirements for construction noise.
Stationary operational-related noise under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project since a similar use is proposed. However, since fewer residential units would be constructed, vehicular- related noise under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be lower than the proposed project. This alternative would generate 610 ADT. Compared to the prop osed project, which generates 874 ADT, this alternative would reduce ADT by 30%. As such, because this alternative would result in a decrease of ADT, vehicular-related noise would be reduced when compared to the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant.
Population and Housing
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an increase in the population of the City by approximately 233 residents, whereas the proposed project would increase the population by approximately 369 residents. However, increased population associated with the proposed project was determined to be less than significant. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would have a reduced level of impact related to unplanned population growth and impacts would be less than significant.
Public Services
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an increase in demand for public services due to the construction of residential uses on the project site. Specifically, this alternative would increase the demand for police and fire protection, school, park, and library services over existing conditions. Compared to the proposed project, fewer residents and students would be generated since fewer residential units would be constructed, and demand for public services would b e reduced. Development under this alternative would still be required to pay applicable PFF and school fees, which would help offset demand for public services. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.
Recreation
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an increase in demand for park and recreation facilities. Development under this alternative would still be required to pay applicable PFF. Additionally, this alternative would be required to provide common open space and private open space per City requirements, which would offset demand for park and recreational facilities. Similar to the proposed project, impacts would be less than significant.
Transportation
Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, impacts associated with consistency with policies in the Mobility Element of the General Plan that address LOS are expected to be less than significant.
Development under this scenario would screen out of a VMT assessment through the use of SANDAG maps. As discussed in Section 3.15, Transportation, the project site is located within a census tract with a resident VMT of 12.5 VMT/Capita, which is 66.2% of the regional average and below the VMT
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-16
significance threshold (CRA 2023b). Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would generate less VMT overall, since fewer units would be constructed, and impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in similar ground disturbance as the proposed project.
Therefore, the potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resources potentially located within the project site would still occur. Tribal cultural resources mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative (mitigation measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4) and would reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have a similar level of tribal cultural resources impacts as the proposed project and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in an increase in demand for utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, stormwater infrastructure, and solid waste service through the development of 75 residential units and 4,000 s.f. However, compared to the project, this alternative would decrease the overall demand since fewer residences would be constructed. Development under this alternative would still be required to pay all applicable water and sewer fees and it is expected that the sewer and water line upgrades identified for the project would be applicable to this alternative.
Storm water infrastructure demand is anticipated to be similar to the proposed project as a similar amount of impervious surface would be created. Solid waste generated would be reduced under this alternative. Utilities and service system impacts would be less than significant under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and would be reduced compared to the proposed project.
Conclusion
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the number of residential units constructed on the project site. This results in a corresponding decrease in vehicular trips by approximately 30% and a corresponding decrease in air pollutant and GHG emissions and noise from offsite traffic compared to the proposed project. Public services, utilities and service systems, and energy demands would also be proportionally decreased. Footprint specific impacts, such as those related to biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils would be similar as the proposed project since a similar area of disturbance would occur under this alternative. This alternative would contribute less PFF and school fees since fewer residential units would be constructed. This alternative would meet the majority of the project objectives as detailed in Table 4-1.
4.4 Alternatives Considered But Rejected
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives for the project. An EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides the following guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives for the project. There are many factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of range of potential alternatives for the project, such as site suitability, economic viability, availability of
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-17
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the prop onent). The alternatives discussion shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. An EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination.
The EIR need not discuss every alternative to the project. A range of alternatives that are “reasonable” for analysis have been evaluated and are discussed above in Section 4.3, Project Alternatives Considered in this EIR. The following describes other alternatives considered by the City but dismissed from further evaluation in this EIR, and a brief description of the reasons for their rejection.
4.4.1 Alternative Location
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City considered the potential for alternative locations to the project. There are sites within the city of an approximately equivalent size to the project site that could be redeveloped with a residential project; however, the project applicant does not control another site within the city of comparable land area that is available for development of the proposed project. One of the factors for feasibility of an alternative is “whether the propone nt can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” Because the city is highly urbanized and is largely built out, obtaining another site of a similar size in a similar location is not considered feasible. It should also be noted that the project site is surrounded by development and located adjacent to tra nsportation facilities, existing, transit and utility infrastructure. As such, an alternative location was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
4.4.2 Reduced Footprint Alternative
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would be a scenario where the development footprint would be reduced but the number of units and amount of commercial development would remain the same.
This is typically done if there are sensitive habitat issues on a project site or other sensitive resources that need to be avoided. The project site does not support any sensitive habitat. Potential impacts to nesting birds would still be expected under this alternative, as would the potential for impacts to unidentified a rchaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources to be identified during project grading for this alternative. This alternative would require greater building heights to capture the same level of development which may result in increased aesth etic impacts and incompatibility with the surrounding development. As such, a reduced footprint alternative was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
4.4.3 Park Use Alternative
During the Notice of Preparation comment period, one commenter suggested a park be built instead of a residential project. The project site has always been intended for development, as evidenced by the Mixed Use 3 General Plan and Zoning designation on the project site. Additionally, this site is not contemplated as a future park in the City of San Marcos’s Parks Master Plan (City of San Marcos 2018). As such, a park use alternative was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-18
4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 4 -2 provides a qualitative comparison of the impacts for each alternative compared to the proposed project. As shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts identified for the project. However, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. Additionally, there is no certainty that the project site would remain undeveloped in perpetuity. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then an environmentally superior alternative should be identified among the other alternatives.
Among the other alternatives, not including the proposed project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would provide a reduced level of impact in some environmental analysis areas including air quality, G HG, noise, public services, recreation, and utilities/service systems. Mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, tribal cultural resources.
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-19
Table 4-1. Summary of Alternatives and Project Objectives Objective Proposed Project No Project/No
Development
No Project/Existing
Plan Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
Provide a multi-family housing opportunity through
a range of unit types, sizes, and number of
different bedroom counts, including studios, one,
two, and, three-bedroom units, as well as a range
of affordability to accommodate a full spectrum of
family demographics to contribute to the growing
housing needs of the region.
Meets objective Does not meet this
objective
Does not meet this
objective Meets objective
Integrate high-density housing opportunities and
commercial uses close to major transit corridors,
education facilities, and job centers to optimize
land use with transit use and active modes of
transportation, reduce reliance on automobiles,
and potentially reduce energy usage, air pollutions
and greenhouse gas emissions.
Meets objective Does not meet this
objective
Does not meet this
objective
Partially meets this
objective
To the extent possible given the site constraints,
maximize the opportunity to provide high-density
housing for the City of San Marcos in the 45-50
dwelling unit/acre density range.
Meets objective Does not meet this
objective
Does not meet this
objective
Does not meet this
objective
Support the housing needs of the City of San
Marcos and the region by developing high-quality,
workforce housing that balances density with
price-points and long-term maintenance costs,
such that new apartments remain financially
attainable.
Meets objective Does not meet this
objective
Does not meet this
objective
Could be designed in
a manner that meets
this objective
Incorporate deed restricted affordable housing into
a portion of the proposed project.
Meets objective Does not meet this
objective
Does not meet this
objective
Could be designed in
a manner that meets
this objective
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-20
Table 4-2. Comparison of Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives Environmental Topic Proposed Project No Project/No
Development Alternative
No Project/Existing Plan
Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
Aesthetics LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Same)
LTS
(Same)
Air Quality LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Increased)
LTS
(Reduced)
Biological Resources LTSM No Impact
(Reduced)
LTSM
(Same)
LTSM
(Same)
Cultural Resources LTSM No Impact
(Reduced)
LTSM
(Same)
LTSM
(Same)
Energy LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Increased)
LTS
(Reduced)
Geology and Soils LTSM No Impact
(Reduced)
LTSM
(Same)
LTSM
(Same)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Increased)
LTS
(Reduced)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Same)
LTS
(Same)
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Same)
LTS
(Same)
Land Use and Planning LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
LTS
(Same)
Noise LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Increased)
LTS
(Reduced)
Population and Housing LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
No impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
Public Services LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
Recreation LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-21
Environmental Topic Proposed Project No Project/No
Development Alternative
No Project/Existing Plan
Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
Transportation LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTSM
(Increased)
LTS
(Reduced)
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM No Impact
(Reduced)
LTSM
(Same)
LTSM
(Same)
Utilities and Service Systems LTS No Impact
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
LTS
(Reduced)
Notes: Impact Status: LTS = Less than significant impact; LTSM = Less than significant with mitigation
4.0 Alternatives
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 4-22
Figure 4-1. No Project/Existing Plan Alternative – Development Concept
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 5-1
5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant
The City of San Marcos completed an Initial Study (IS) for the proposed project in accordance with Sections 21000-21189 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared by the City and mailed to applicable agencies, organizations, and neighboring property owners. The NOP is included in Appendix C of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).21 As required by Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following is a discussion of the environmental effects that were considered as a part of the Initial Study but were determined to have “No Impact”, and, therefore, are not discussed in detail in this EIR.
In some instances, complete environmental issue areas were eliminated during the IS process, including agriculture/forestry resources and mineral resources. In other instances, some of the specific CEQA thresholds were eliminated during the IS process.
5.1 Aesthetics
Threshold of Significance: Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista.
The project site is located within the Business/Industrial Neighborhood in the city. The City has a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone to protect natural viewsheds and unique natural resources, minimize physical impacts to ridgelines, and to establish innovative sensitive architectures standards. The project site is not located in the Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone.
Further, the project site does not include any primary or secondary ridgelines, as identified in Figure 4-5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (San Marcos 2012). Therefore, development of the project site would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and impacts would be less than significant
Threshold of Significance: Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
The project site is located approximately 800 feet north of State Route 78 (SR-78). A portion of SR-78 is recognized as a Scenic Highway by Caltrans; however, that portion is not in the project vicinity. The portion identified as a Scenic Highway is approx imately 50 miles east of the project site near Anza Borrego (Caltrans 2020). At a local level, SR -78 is designated by the City of San Marcos as a view corridor. The highway corridor provides a view of the Merriam Mountains, Mount Whitney, and Double Peak. There are no scenic resources on the project site. The project site is undeveloped and does not support any historic buildings (Dudek 2023c). In summary, the project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur.
21 The Initial Study, NOP, and comment letters received on the NOP are included in Appendix B and C of this EIR.
5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 5-2
5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Threshold of Significance : 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.
The project site is not mapped as prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance, as determined by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, and as shown on Figure 4-4 (Agricultural Areas) in the San Marcos General Plan (San Marcos 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. No impact is identified for this issue area.
Threshold of Significance : Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
The project site has a General Plan designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3) and a zoning designation of Mixed‐Use‐3 (MU‐3). The project site does not support zoning for agricultural use. The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The project site is not located within a Williamson Act contract area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Threshold of Significance: 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)).
Forest land is defined as “land that can support ten percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, b iodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits” (California Public Resources Code Section 1220(g)). Timberland is defined as “land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees” (California Public Resources Code Section 4526). A Timberland Production Zone is defined as “an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses” (California Public Resources Code Section 51104(g)).
The project site has a General Plan designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3) and a zoning designation of Mixed-Use-3 (MU-3). A General Plan Amendment and Rezone is proposed for the project to change these designations to Mixed Use 2 (MU2) and Mixed-Use-2 (MU-2) respectively. The project site is not located in an area that is zoned for forest land, timber land or for timber production. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. No impact is identified and this topic.
5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 5-3
Threshold of Significance: Result in the loss of forest land or conversation of forest land to non-forest use.
The project site does not support forests, nor is there any forest land adjacent to the project site.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. No impact is identified for this issue area.
Threshold of Significance: Involve other changes in the existing environment that, 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.
The project would not result in any other changes to the existing environment that would, due to their location or nature, result in the conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. There is no agricultural activity or forest land on the project site. No impact is identified for this issue area.
5.3 Biological Resources
Threshold of Significance: Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Based upon Biological Resources Letter Report prepared by Dudek (2023a), the project site does not support any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The entire 2.51 -acre-site consists of disturbed habitat. As such, the project does not have the potential to result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildl ife Service. No impact would occur and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Threshold of Significance: 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?
Based upon the Biological Resources Letter Report prepared for the project (Dudek 2023a), there are no state or federally protected wetlands on the project site. The project site is completely covered with disturbed vegetation. Development of the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands and no impact as identified.
Threshold of Significance: 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?
The project site is located in a developed portion of the City and is surrounded by development on all sides. Per Figure 4-2 (Wildlife Corridors and Linkages) of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan, the project site is not identifie d as a wildlife corridor. The project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife and no impact would occur.
A discussion of additional biological resources significance thresholds is provided in Section 3.3, Biological Resources.
5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 5-4
5.4 Cultural Resources
Threshold of Significance: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5.
Based upon the cultural resources report prepared for the project (Dudek 2023c), there are no historical resources on the project site. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in historic resources, as defi ned in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
A discussion of additional cultural resources significance thresholds is provided in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources.
5.5 Geology and Soils
Threshold of Significance: 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 wastewater.
Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed as part of the project. The project would receive wastewater service from Vallecitos Water District (VWD) and VWD has indicated they can serve the project (VWD 2023). Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area.
A discussion of additional geology and soils significance thresholds is provided in Section 3.6, Geology and Soils.
5.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold of Significance: Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
The project would be served by VWD for water service VWD water supplies come from the Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. Both of these agencies use some groundwater for their supplies. The proposed project will be supplie d from existing VWD supplies, which would have assumed the use of groundwater. The project would not develop any new groundwater wells to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The project would incr ease the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site; however, the project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact is identified for this issue area.
Threshold of Significance: In flood hazards, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Per the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06073C0789H the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2012). The project site is approximately 8.5 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and wo uld not be subject to inundation by tsunami. Given that the project site is not located near a large standing body of water,
5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 5-5
inundation by seiche (or standing wave) is considered negligible. No impact is identified for this issue area.
A discussion of additional hydrology and water quality significance thresholds is provided in Section
3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.
5.7 Land Use and Planning
Threshold of Significance: Physically divide an established community.
The project site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes residential and commercial uses in an area that is already developed with similar uses, and as such, would be compatible with existing uses.
The project would not physically divide an establis hed community. The project proposes the construction of a sidewalk along the project frontage that would enhance pedestrian movement in the project area, as well as a gate to provide resident access to the sidewalk on W. Mission Road and the nearby bus stop. No impact is identified for this issue area.
A discussion of additional land use and planning significance thresholds is provided in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning.
5.8 Mineral Resources
Threshold of Significance: 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
According to the City of San Marcos General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, the city contains land classified in all four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) (San Marcos 2012). 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. The lands designated as MRZ- 2 include small portions between Double Peak, Mount Whitney, and Franks Peak; and small portions in the northern Sphere of Influence within Twin Oaks Valley Neighborhood. These locations do not overlap with the project site; therefore, no loss of known mineral resources would occur. No impact is identified.
Threshold of Significance: 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 The project site is 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 2013). Due to the location and the nature of the proposed project, there would be no impact on mineral resources.
5.9 Noise
Threshold of Significance: 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 are to excessive noise levels?
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The public airport closest to the project site is the McClellan -Palomar Airport, located approximately 5 miles to the southwest.
5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 5-6
According to the ALUCP for the McClellan -Palomar Airport, the project site is not located within the existing or future 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). Therefore, people residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to substantial airport noise. No impact is identified for this issue area.
A discussion of additional noise significance thresholds is provided in Section 3.11, Noise.
5.10 Population and Housing
Threshold of Significance: Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
There is no existing housing on the project site. Therefore, the project would not remove existing housing. The project proposes 119 multi-family units which would add to the housing stock in the city.
Six of the units would be affordable at the very-low-income level (50% of the Area Median Income). No impact is identified for this issue area.
A discussion of additional population and housing significance thresholds is provided in Section 3.12, Population and Housing.
5.11 Wildfire
Threshold of Significance: A significant wildfire would be identified if the project was located in or near a state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone and would:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; • Due to slope, prevailing wind, and other factors exacerbate wildlife risk, and thereby, expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire;
• 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; or • Expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability or drainage changes.
The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area with a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non-VHFHSZ) designation per CALFIRE’s San Marcos Fire Hazards Severity Zones Map (2009) and is surrounded by areas identified a Non-VHFHSZ. Further, per Figure 6-4 of the City’s General Plan, the project site and surrounding areas are not identified as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. No impact is identified for this issue area.
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 6-1
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
6.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.2(b), requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less -than-significant level. Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, where feasible. Based upon the analysis in Sections 3.1 through 3.17 of this EIR, the proposed project would not have any significant and unavoidable impacts. All impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures would be identifie d in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program that will be adopted as part of the project and also be made a condition of approval of the project.
6.2 Growth Inducement
Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that the growth inducing nature of a proposed project be discussed. This CEQA Guideline states the growth-inducing analysis is intended to address the potential for the proposed project to “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Further, the CEQA Appendix G Checklist (Population and Housing) also mandates that a CEQA document speak to the proposed project’s likelihood to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
A project may be distinguished as either facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth.
Facilitating growth is related to the establishment of direct employment, population, or housing growth that would occur within a project site. Inducing grow th is related to lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity or facility that attracts new population/economic activity.
For purposes of this EIR analysis, a significant growth inducement impact would occur if the proposed project, and associated infrastructure improvements, directly or indirectly removes obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would significantly burden existing community services, the environment or cause a demand for General Plan Amendments. This section contains a discussion of the growth inducing factors related to the proposed project and as defined under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e). A project is defined as growth inducing when it directly or indirectly:
• Fosters population growth;
• Includes the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment; • Removes obstacles to population growth;
• Taxes existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
• Encourages or facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environments, either individually or cumulatively.
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 6-2
It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would directly induce growth through the development of 119 multi -family residential dwelling units on 2.51 acres, for a proposed density of 47 units per acre. Based on the city’s population rate of 3.1 persons per dwelling unit, the proposed project would directly induce population growth to the area and would potentially add an estimated 369 people to the area. In addition, the proposed project would add 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of ground floor retail to the project site, which would provide employment opportunities. The proposed project would not, however, indirectly induce a growth in population as no extension of infrastructure is proposed beyond what is required to adequately serve the proposed project. The water and sewer improvements that may be required for the project, as detailed in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, would only be required to serve the project. Additionally, the majority of the surrounding area is developed. The SANDAG population growth forecasts rely, in part, on individual jurisdiction’s planning documents, such as the City’s General Plan. Because the project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, the estimated population of 369 people would not have been accounted for in SANDAG’s projections. Therefore, the project’s induced population would exceed these projections. However, determination of impacts related to population growth are based upon whether the induced growth would be considered substantial.
As discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, the city’s population is projected to grow from 94,258 people in 2016 to 104,365 people by 2035 (an increase of 10,107 people) (SANDAG 2022).
The population increase of 369 people would account for 3.7% of SANDAG’s projected population growth.
There is no hardline number or percentage available to determine whether or not this estimated introduction of 369 people (3.7% of projected growth) could be considered a substantial increase in population. However, SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth Forecast is intended to be used as a starting point for regional planning as opposed to a prescribed growth pattern. Although the City determined that there are adequate sites available with appropriate designations/zoning to accommodate the remaining Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the current Housing Element planning period, the City has the discretion to adjust allocated housing units/sites as necessary to balance proposed plans for residential development with approved/constructed residential develop ment (City of San Marcos 2021). Therefore, while the proposed project would directly induce growth beyond current estimates and forecasts, it would not be considered substantially growth inducing, and impacts would be
less than significant.
6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(d), requires that an EIR identify any significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the proposed project. Such changes include, for example, the intensification of land use or irreversible damage from envir onmental accidents associated with the proposed project.
The project proposes development of 119 multifamily residential apartments on 2.51 acres for proposed density of 47 dwelling units per acre. The project would include a total of 147 parking spaces, 34,582 square feet (s.f.) of common recreation area, and p rivate open space ranging from 396 s.f. to 2,706 s.f. 50 to 80 s.f. per unit. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Development Plan. The General Plan Amendment would change the existing Mixed Use 3
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 6-3
(MU3) designation to Mixed Use 2 (MU2) and the rezone would be required to change the existing Mixed Use 3 (MU-3-SP) zoning to Mixed Use 2 (MU-2).
The proposed project’s change in land use would not be an intensification of land use over the existing commercial designation. As analyzed in Chapter 4, Alternatives, of this EIR, commercial and office development under the existing land use and zoning designation would result in additional and more severe environmental impacts in comparison to the development under t he proposed project designations. Nevertheless, as analyzed throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR, the proposed project may result in significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils (see Tables 1-1 in Chapter 1, Executive Summary, of this EIR). All potential impacts identified for the proposed project would be mitigated to a less-than-significant levels.
Construction and/or operation of the proposed project would require the use of resources that include, but are not limited to, soils, gravel, concrete, and asphalt, lumber and other related forest products, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copp er, and other metals, water, fuels, and energy. As such, the proposed project would result in the short -term and long-term use of fossil fuels and other nonrenewable resources.
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 6-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-1
7.0 References
Executive Summary (Section 1.0)
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
Project Description (Section 2.0)
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc (AGS). 2022. Due Diligence Geotechnical Study – Proposed Capalina Apartments, APN 466120002, Capalina Road east of North Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, California. May 13.
City of San Marcos. 2023a. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.300.080- Light and Glare Standards. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20. 300SIPLGEDEST_S20.300.080LIGLST. Viewed June 13, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 8480/636570701878000000. Viewed June 28, 2023.
City of San Marco 2021. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.225.060- Mixed Use 3 (SP) Zone. Adopted November 13, 2012. Last Supplemented March 31, 2021. https://library.municode.com/ca/ san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20.225MIUSZO_S20.225.060MIUS3 SPZO. Viewed June 28, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
Dudek. 2023a. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California. June 16.
Aesthetics (Section 3.1)
City of San Marcos. 2023a. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.300.080- Light and Glare Standards. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20. 300SIPLGEDEST_S20.300.080LIGLST. Viewed June 13, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2023b. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.260-Ridgeline Protection & Management Overlay Zone. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId= TIT20ZO_CH20.260RIPRMAOVZO. Viewed June 13, 2023.
United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2022. Quick Facts Escondido City, San Marcos City, California, United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/escondidocitycalifornia,sanmarcos citycalifornia,US/PST045219. Viewed June 16, 2023.
Air Quality (Section 3.2)
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov//sites/
default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Viewed January 18, 2023.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality Land Use Handbook: A Community Perspective.
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/california-air-resources-
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-2
board-air-quality-and-land-use-handbook-a-community-health-perspective.pdf. Viewed September 5, 2023
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. http://www.arb. ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Viewed January 13, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
LDN Consulting. 2023a. Air Quality Assessment, Capalina Apartments Residential Development Project, City of San Marcos, CA. June 19.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 1976. Regulation IV; Rule 51: Public Nuisance. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/rules.html. Viewed January 17, 2023 San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2019. Rule 20.2: New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/sdapcd/rules.html. Viewed January 17, 2023 San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2020. 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County. October. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/california-state-implementation-plans/nonattainment-area-plans/san-diego-county-
0. Viewed January 17,2023
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2021. Regulation XII; Rule 1210: Toxic Air Contaminant Health Risks- Public Notification and Risk Reduction. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ sdapcd/rules.html. Viewed January 17, 2023
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2023. Attainment Status. https://www.sdapcd. org/content/sdapcd/planning/attainment-status.html. Viewed January 17, 2023.
Biological Resources (Section 3.3)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021. Natural Communities List Arranged Alphabetically by Life Form. January 24, 2018. Accessed April 2021. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov /FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=153398&inline.
Calflora. 2021. Calflora Plant Database. Accessed July 2020. https://www.calflora.org/.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021. California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines. December 9, 1983; revised June 2, 2001. https://cnps.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/03/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2001. Natural Community Conservation Plan for the City of San Marcos. San Marcos Subarea Plan Public Review Draft.
https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/
publicationid_153_8102.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element.
Adopted February 14. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8478/63659 7348039500000.
Dudek. 2023a. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California. June 16.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-3
Dudek. 2023b. Focused Rare Plant Survey Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California. June 8.
Jepson Flora Project. 2021. “Jepson eFlora.” The Jepson Herbarium. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu /interchange/index.html.
SANDAG. 2003. North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. https://www.sandag.org/index .asp?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail.
The Phase I Group. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA Report), Vacant Property Northeast Side of Capalina Road, APN 219-115-33-00, San Marcos, California. March 28.
United States Department of Agriculture. 2021. 2021. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. http://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.
Cultural Resources (Section 3.4)
City of San Marcos. 2023. Archaeological and Historical Resources Consultant Guidelines. January. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/27022/638090369405800000.
Viewed April 27, 2023.
Dudek. 2023c. Archaeological Resources Inventory for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California (GPA22-0003, R22-0003, SDP22-0007). June 6.
NETR (National Environmental Title Research). 2022. Address search for Capalina Road, San Marcos, California. Accessed October 12, 2022. http://www.historicaerials.com/ .
Energy (Section 3.5)
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022a. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/2022-sp.pdf . Viewed August 31, 2023
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022b. EMFAC2021 v1.0.1. Accessed 2022. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/
.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023. Advanced Clean Cars II. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii. Viewed May 12, 2023.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.” March
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_ Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf. Viewed May 9, 2023.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Summary.
August.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-
08/CEC_2022_EnergyCodeUpdateSummary_ADA.pdf. Viewed May 9, 2023.
California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). 2021. Natural Gas and California. https://www.cpuc. ca.gov/natural_gas/. Viewed May 9, 2023.
Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2022. State Electricity Profiles: Table 1. 2021 Summary Statistics (California). Released November 10.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
california/index.php. Viewed June 22, 2023.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-4
Energy Information Administration, United States (EIA). 2023. California State Energy Profile. April
20. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.. Viewed May 9, 2023.
LDN Consulting (LDN). 2023b. Energy Usage Letter –Capalina Apartments Residential Development (GPA22-0003, R22-0003, SDP22-0007. June 19.
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). 2022a. About Us. https://www.sdge.com/more-information/our- company/about-us. Viewed May 9, 2023.
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). 2022b. The Path to Net Zero: A Decarbonization Roadmap for California. April. https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/documents/netzero2.pdf . Viewed May 9,
2023.
Geology and Soils (Section 3.6)
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc (AGS). 2022. Due Diligence Geotechnical Study – Proposed Capalina Apartments, APN 466120002, Capalina Road east of North Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, California. May 13.
California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2023.EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. April 4. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ . Accessed February 3,
2023.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Safety Element. Adopted February 14. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8476/636573113845230000 .
Viewed February 3, 2023
County of San Diego. 2009. Guidelines for Determining Significance for Paleontological Resources.
Modified January 15, 2009.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/Paleo-Guide
lines.pdf. Viewed February 3, 2023.
Greenhouse Gas (Section 3.7)
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) 2021. CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 Calcuation Details (Appendix A). May.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/user-
guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6. Viewed February 28, 2023.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. Senate Bill 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan- targets. Viewed February 28, 2023.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions.” March.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_ Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf. Viewed February 28, 2023.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Biennial RPS Program Update - In Compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 913.6. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/ divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs-division/reports/2016/2016-oga-reports/final12302015 section913_6report.pdf. Viewed February 28, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2020. Final Climate Action Plan and Appendix D Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan for Discretionary Projects Subject to
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-5
CEQA and City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist. https://www.san- marcos.net/departments/development-services/planning/climate-action-plan. Viewed February 28, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1- chapter2-1.pdf. Viewed January 24, 2023.
LDN Consulting. 2023a. Air Quality Assessment, Capalina Apartments Residential Development Project, City of San Marcos, June 19.
LDN Consulting, Inc. 2023c. Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Capalina Apartments Residential Development. City of San Marcos, CA. June 19.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2002. (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2021. 2021 Regional Plan, Appendix D:
Sustainable Communities Strategy Documentation and Related Information. https://www.sandag.org/-/media/SANDAG/Documents/PDF/regional-plan/2021-regional-plan/final- 2021-regional-plan/2021-regional-plan-appendix-d-2021-12-01.pdf. Viewed February 28, 2023.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans.
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa
/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/ghgboardsynopsis.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
Viewed February 28, 2023.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 3.8)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2013. Designation E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.
CalFire. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. June 11. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media
/5970/san_marcos.pdf. Viewed April 11, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Safety Element. Adopted February 14. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8476 . Viewed April 11, 2023.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 25. Amended March 4, 2010 and December 1, 2011. https://www.san.org/Airport-Projects/Land-Use-Compatibility/ALUC-Resources. Viewed April 11, 2023.
The Phase I Group. 2022. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA Report), Vacant Property Northeast Side of Capalina Road, APN 219-115-33-00, San Marcos, California. March 28.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-6
Hydrology/Water Quality (Section 3.9)
Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies. 2022. Carlsbad. http://www. projectcleanwater.org/watersheds/carlsbad-wma/#plan. Viewed February 3, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2017. City of San Marcos Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. January. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=15523. Viewed February 3, 2023.
City of San Marcos 2023. BMP Design Manual for Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatments and Hydromodification Management.
https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument
/27192/638114580843700000. Viewed April 17, 2023.
Excel. 2023a. Priority Project Hydrology Study for Capalina Apartments. June 12.
Excel. 2023b. Priority Development Project Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP). June
12. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C0789H. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search. Viewed February 3, 2023.
Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region. 1994. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). September 8. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/water_issues/pro grams/basin_plan/docs/R9_Basin_Plan.pdf. Viewed February 3, 2023.
Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region. 2015. Order No. R9-2015-0100. An Order Amending Order No. R9-2013-001, NPDES No. CAS 010266, As Amended by Order No. R9-2015- 001. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/
board_decisions/adopted_orders/2015/R9-2015-0100.pdf. Viewed February 3, 2023.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. California 2020-2022 Integrated Report (303(d) List/305(b) Report). State Water Board Approval January 19. U.S EPA Approval May 11. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/. Viewed April 24, 2023.
Land Use and Planning (Section 3.10)
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14. https://www.sanmarcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8480/ 636570701878000000. Viewed June 26, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2020. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. November. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25036. Viewed June 26, 2023.
City of San Marco 2021. Zoning Ordinance, Section 20.225.060- Mixed Use 3 (SP) Zone. Adopted November 13, 2012. Last Supplemented March 31, 2021. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_ marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20.225MIUSZO_S20.225.060MIUS3SPZO.
Viewed June 26, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-7
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2016. https://www.sandag.org/-/media /SANDAG/Documents/PDF/funding/grant-programs/smart-growth-and-housing/smart-growth-in-the- san-diego-region-brochure-2016.pdf.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2002. Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1140_ 5044.pdf.
Noise (Section 3.11)
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April.
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis /documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Viewed June 23, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2017. San Marcos Municipal Code. Chapter 20.300.070 Performance Standards.
https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT20ZO_CH20. 300SIPLGEDEST_S20.300.070PEST. Viewed June 23, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2012. Noise Element of the General Plan. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument/8475/636573113849130000. Viewed June 23, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
September.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131 /transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Viewed June 23, 2023.
LDN Consulting. 2023d. Noise Assessmetn Capalina Apartments Residential Development GPA22- 0003, R22-0003, SDP22-0007 City of San Marcos. June 2023.
Population and Housing (Section 3.12)
City of San Marcos. 2021. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted July 13, 2021 https://www.san- marcos.net/departments/development-services/general-plan/housing-element. Viewed January 9, 2023.
Department of Finance, California (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates For Cities, Counties, and State, 2020-2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed January 9, 2023.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2022. 2050 Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast For City of San Marcos and San Diego Region. August 11. https://datasurfer.sandag.org/ . Viewed
and Data Extracted on January 9, 2023.
Public Services (Section 3.13)
California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). 2023. Borrowing Books and Media. https://biblio.csusm.edu/content/borrowing-policies-books-and-media . Viewed June 13, 2023.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-8
City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan. Parks, Recreation and Community Health Element. Adopted February 14. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument /8477/636573113841930000. Viewed May 28, 2021.
City of San Marcos. 2012b. San Marcos General Plan EIR. Adopted February 14.
City of San Marcos. 2023. Fire Department Overview. https://www.san-marcos.net /departments/public-safety/fire-department/department-overview. Viewed June 7, 2023.
Palomar College. 2023. Library Borrowing Privileges. https://www.palomar.edu/library/library- borrowing-privileges/. Viewed June 13, 2023.
San Diego County Library. 2023a. San Marcos Branch Library. http://www.sdcl.org /locations_SM.html. Viewed June 7, 2023.
San Diego County Library. 2023b. About the Library. https://www.sdcl.org/about/. Viewed June 7, 2023.
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. 2023. San Marcos Station. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/ Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/40/. Viewed June 7, 2023.
San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD). 2023a. SMUSD Fast Facts. https://www.smusd.org/ about_us/district_overview. Viewed June 7, 2023.
SMUSD. 2023b. Email response from Aaron Reyes, Administrative Assistant to Sophia Mitchell. May
9. SMUSD 2023c. Residential and Commercial Developer Fees. https://www.smusd.org/departments/
facilities_planning_and_development/residential_and_commercial_developer_fee_summary.
Viewed June 7, 2023.
Recreation (Section 3.14)
City of San Marcos. 2023a. Parks & Recreation Facilities Directory – Innovation Park. https://www.san-marcos.net/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/701/1081.
June 12, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2023b. Discover San Marcos Parks & Recreation. https://www.san-marcos.net/ departments/parks-recreation. Viewed June 12,2023.
Department of Finance, California (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates For Cities, Counties, and State, 2020-2022. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed January 9, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2018. Parks Master Plan Update. June. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/27704/638253631535670000. Viewed June 9, 2023.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2022. 2050 Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast For City of San Marcos and San Diego Region. August 11. https://datasurfer.sandag.org/ . Viewed
and Data Extracted on January 9, 2023.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-9
Transportation (Section 3.15)
City of San Marcos. 2020a. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. November. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=25036. Viewed April 24, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2020b. Intersection Sight Distance Guidelines, December 2. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showdocument?id=11097. Viewed April 24, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023b. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Technical Memorandum. May 19.
Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 3.16)
Dudek. 2023c. Archaeological Resources Inventory for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California (GPA22-0003, R22-0003, SDP22-0007). June 6.
Utilities and Service Systems (Section 3.17)
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Escondido Resource Recovery (37-AA-0906). https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Solid Waste/SiteActivity/Details/1830?siteID=2903. Viewed June 14, 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019b. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.
Viewed June 14, 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2021. Jurisdiction Diversion/ Disposal Rate Summary. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Diversion Program/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006. Viewed June 14, 2023.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2023. Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics/. Viewed August 24, 2023.
City of San Marcos 2012a. Land Use and Community Design Element, City of San Marcos General Plan. https://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan . Viewed June 14,
2023.
County of San Diego. 2005. Integrated Waste Management Plan Countywide Siting Element.
September.
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/common_components/images/dpw /recyclingpdfs/2005_sitingelement.pdf. Viewed June 14, 2023.
County of San Diego. 2022. Five-Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/dpw/ SOLID_WASTE_PLANNING_and_RECYCLING/Files/2022%20Five-Year%20Review.pdf. Viewed June 14, 2022.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). June.
https://www.mwdh2o.com/media/21641/2020-urban-water-management-plan- june-2021.pdf. Viewed June 14, 2023.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-10
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). https://www.sdcwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Draft-2020-UWMP.pdf. Viewed June 14, 2022.
Vallecitos Water District (VWD). 2018. 2018 Water, Wastewater and Recycled Water Master Plan.
October 4. https://www.vwd.org/home/showpublisheddocument/10656/636752049380230000 .
Viewed June 14, 2023.
Vallecitos Water District (VWD). 2022. Water and Wastewater Capital Facility Fees for Capalina Apartments (APN 219-115-33). Letter to City of San Marcos. October 31.
Vallecitos Water District (VWD). 2023. Capalina Apartments Water and Sewer Study, Work Order #268583, Final Technical Memorandum, prepared by Vallecitos Water District, November 7. October
23. Alternatives (Section 4.0)
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc (AGS). 2022. Due Diligence Geotechnical Study – Proposed Capalina Apartments, APN 466120002, Capalina Road east of North Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, California. May 13.
Dudek. 2023a. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California. June 16.
City of San Marcos. 2018. Parks Master Plan Update. June. https://www.san-marcos.net /home/showpublisheddocument?id=22713. Viewed June 9, 2023.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element.
https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8480/ 636570701878000000. Viewed June 26, 2023.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023a. Local Transportation Analysis, Capalina Development. August 8.
CR Associates (CRA). 2023b. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Technical Memorandum. May 19.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2023. San Diego Region SB743 VMT Maps. https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=bb8f938b625c40cea14c825835519a 2b. Viewed June 26, 2023.
Vallecitos Water District (VWD). 2023. Capalina Apartments Water and Sewer Study, Work Order #268583, Final Technical Memorandum, prepared by Vallecitos Water District, November 7. October
23. Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant (Section 5.0) CalFire. 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. June 11. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov /media/5970/san_marcos.pdf. Viewed April 11, 2023.
Caltrans. 2019. Designated and Eligible Scenic Highways Spreadsheet. https://dot.ca.gov/pro grams/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Viewed June 28, 2023.
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-11
City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element and Safety Element. Adopted February 14.https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument?id=8476. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 8478/636597348039500000. Viewed June 28, 2023.
Dudek. 2023a. Biological Resources Letter Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California. June 16.
Dudek. 2023c. Archaeological Resources Inventory for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California (GPA22-0003, R22-0003, SDP22-0007). June 6.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C0789H. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search
. Viewed February 3, 2023.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 25. Amended March 4, 2010 and December 1, 2011. http://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command= Core_Download&EntryId=2991&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=225. Viewed June 28, 2023.
Vallecitos Water District (VWD). 2022. Water and Wastewater Capital Facility Fees for Capalina Apartments (APN 219-115-33). Letter to City of San Marcos. October 31.
Other CEQA Considerations (Section 6.0)
City of San Marcos. 2021. 2021-2029 Housing Element, Adopted July 13, 2021. https://www.san- marcos.net/departments/development-services/general-plan/housing-element. Viewed January 9, 2023.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2022. 2050 Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast For City of San Marcos and San Diego Region. August 11. https://datasurfer.sandag.org/. Viewed and Data Extracted on January 9, 2023
7.0 References
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 7-12
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
8.0 List of Preparers
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 8-1
8.0 List of Preparers
City of San Marcos (Lead Agency)
Chris Garcia, Senior Planner
Kyrenne Chua, PE, MPA, Senior Civil Engineer
Jonathan Quezada, MPA, CFM, E.I.T., Assistant Engineer – Land Development Environmental Impact Report
Sophia Mitchell & Associates, LLC
Sophia Habl Mitchell, LEED AP, Project Manager
Melyssa Sheeran, Senior Environmental Consultant
Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Reports
LDN Consulting
Jeremy Louden, Principal
Archeological Resources Inventory
Dudek
Keshia Montifolca, M.A., RPA
Biological Resources Report and Rare Plant Surveys
Dudek
Charles Adams, Botanist
Shana Carey, Biologist
Geotechnical Investigation
Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.
John J. Donovan, RCE, RGE
Paul J. DeRisi, CEG
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
The Phase One Group
Mark E. Smith, Environmental Professional/President
Stormwater Quality Management Plan/Hydrology Report
Excel Engineering
Robert D. Dentino, RCE
Transportation Analysis
CR Associates
Jonathan Sanchez, PE, TE, PTOE
Joseph Perez, EIT
8.0 List of Preparers
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 8-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.