Attachment D_EIR — San Marcos City Council, March 26, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

ATTACHMENT D

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Capalina Apartments
Final Environmental Impact Report

SCH No. 2023050006
GPA22-0003, R22-0003, SDP22-0007

Prepared for:

City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Contact: Chris Garcia, Senior Planner

Prepared by:

Sophia Mitchell & Associates
P.O. Box 1700
Gualala, CA 95445
Contact: Sophia Habl Mitchell

January 2024

ERRATA
Capalina Apartments
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 20203050006

Change to EIR Appendix M (Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Technical Memorandum)

Page 4 ends

Associates (May 19, 2023) was revised.

The following presents the text, as printed in the 2023 VMT analysis memorandum:

As shown in Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate 874 daily trips, including 63 trips (15-in/48-out) during the AM peak hour and 80 (54-in/26-out) trips during the PM peak hour. Whereas the current site plan would generate a total of 788 daily trips, with 61 occurring in the AM peak hour (14-in/47-out) and 72 occurring in the PM peak hour (50-in/22-out). Therefore, the trip generation as studied in the LTA provides a more conservative analysis from a trip generation perspective.

The revised text reads as follows:

As shown in Table 1, the Project is anticipated to generate 874 daily trips, including 63 trips (15-in/48-out) during the AM peak hour and 80 (54-in/26-out) trips during the PM peak hour.

The revised text does not change the conclusions of the VMT analysis. The project will have a less than significant VMT impact.

The updated VMT memorandum is included as Appendix M and is dated February 6, 2024.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.1-1

0.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of San Marcos CEQA procedures.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of the following:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

In accordance with these requirements, the Capalina Apartments EIR is comprised of the following:
• Capalina Apartments Draft Environmental Impact Report (November 2023) (SCH No. 2023050006)
• This Final EIR document, January 2024, that incorporates the information required by Section 15132
Format of the Final EIR
This document is organized as follows:

Section 0.1 Introduction
This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final EIR.

Section 0.2 Corrections and Additions
This section provides a list of those revisions made to the Draft EIR text as a result of comments received and/or minor errors discovered subsequent to release of the Draft EIR for public review. None of these revisions would result in the need to recirculate the Draft EIR.

Section 0.3 Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR This section provides copies of the comment letters received and individual responses to written comments. In accordance with Public Resources Code 21092.5, copies of the written proposed responses to public agencies will be forwarded to the agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR. The responses conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on Draft EIRs.

Section 0.4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This section includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which identified the mitigation measures, timing and responsibility for implementation of the measures.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.1-2
Section 0.5 CEQANet Posting
This section contains the proof of posting of the Draft EIR for a 45-day public review on the State Clearinghouse CEQANet portal.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.2-1

0.2 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
The following Section 0.2.1 contains a summary of revisions to information included in the Draft EIR (November 2023). These revisions were made based upon comment received on the Draft EIR or to correct minor inconsistencies in the document.

Given the nature of the changes associated with the document, the information added to the EIR does not meet the requirements for recirculation pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Pursuant to Section 15088.5(a), a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to the EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen environmental impacts of the project, by the projects’ proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally flawed and basically inadequate and conclusionary in nature that meaningful public review was precluded.

Changes to the Draft EIR were to correct minor inconsistencies and to provide clarifications. No changes were made to the mitigation measures.

The changes are detailed in Section 0.2.1. The revisions made to the Draft EIR do not meet the requirements of Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines . The revisions do not result in a new significant impact being identified, nor do the revisions identify a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Further, a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed was not included in the revisions. Finally, the Draft EIR has adequately disclosed the potential impacts of the project and identified mitigation measures, where feasible to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.

0.2.1 DRAFT EIR CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS
Changes to the Draft EIR were to correct minor inconsistencies and to provide clarifications. No changes were made to the mitigation measures. Text that has been added to the document appears in an underline format. Text that has been deleted appears with strikeout.

The following table details the changed EIR sections and accompanying page numbers in the Final EIR. The revised Draft EIR is included following this Final EIR Introduction.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.2-2
Final EIR Section Page/Table/Figure Change

1.0 – Executive Summary Page 1-6: Clarification on ability of Reduced Project Alternative to meet the project objectives.

2.0 – Project Description Page 2-3: Revised the square footage range for private open space. Minor revision to tree species in the landscape plan.

Pages 2-7 and 2-8: Clarifications related to water and sewer improvements.

Figure 2-4: Updated landscape concept plan included in Final EIR. One tree species was changed.

3.1 – Aesthetics Page 3.1-5: Minor revision to tree species in the landscape plan.

3.3 – Biological Resources Page 3.3-9: Minor revision to tree species in the landscape plan.

3.10 – Land Use and Planning Table 3.10-13: Minor revision to tree species in the landscape plan.

3.17 – Utilities and Service
Systems
Pages 3.17-13 and 3.17-14: Clarifications related to water and sewer improvements.

6.0 – Other CEQA
Considerations

Page 6 ends

Appendix A2 – Landscape
Concept Plan
The landscape concept plan was revised based on City comment.

Changes included: 1) revisions to maintenance and irrigation notes; 2) utility easement options added to the plan; and 3) accent tree changed from tipu tree to holly oak.

Appendix Q1– VWD Water
Sewer Study
The final version of the VWD Water Sewer study was included in the Final EIR. No substantive changes were made to the report.

Capalina EIR January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.3-1

0.3 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
Section 0.3 contains responses to all comment letters received on the November 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). A total of two comment letters were received during the comment period, which closed December 18, 2023. A response to each comment letter follows this introduction. A copy of each letter with bracketed comment numbers on the right margin is followed by the response for each comment as indexed in the letter.

Letter Number Commenter Date
1 San Diego County Archaeological Society 12/6/23
2 Lionel Burton 11/2/2023
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.3-2

LETTER 1

1-1
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.3-3
Letter 1
San Diego Archaeological Society

1-1 This comment states that the San Diego Archaeological Society agrees with the cultural resources mitigation measures (MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4) included in the Draft EIR.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.3-4

LETTER 2

2-1
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.3-5
Letter 2
Lionel Burton

2-1 This comment suggests a park be built on the project site 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)1.

The project provides 34,582 s.f. of open space (32% of the site) for the use of the future residents of the development. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay the City’s Public Facility Fees (PFF), which is required by all projects that increase the demand for park and recreation needs in the City. The PFF money would go towards the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the city to offset the demand for public park space generated by the project, as described in Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 and 17.44.

This comment also suggests alternative locations for the project. 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 r esidential 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 proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” Additionally, it is unlikely that an alternative site would reduce environmental impacts compared to the project site. The project site is already disturbed, located adjacent to transit options and is in a developed part of the City. The analysis in the Dr aft EIR concluded that all impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance.

1 City of San Marcos. 2018. City of San Marcos Parks Master Plan Update. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/27704/638253631535670000 .

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-1

0.4 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
Pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097, public agencies are required to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to assure that mitigation measures and revisions identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) are implemented. As stated in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code:
“… the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision makers coincidental to certification of the FEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must be adopted when making the findings (at the time of approval of the project).

As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, “reporting” is suited to projects that have readily measurable or quantitative measures or which already involve regular review. “Monitoring” is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetland restoration or archaeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time or require careful implementation to assure compliance. Both reporting and monitoring would be applicable to the proposed project.

MITIGATION MATRIX
To sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared and includes the following components:
• Impact
• Mitigation Measure
• Action
• Timing
• Responsibility

The mitigation matrix is included in Table 0.4-1. Additionally, the project will be required to adhere to the design features presented in Table 0.4-2.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-2
Table 0.4-1. Mitigation Measures
Capalina Apartments Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1
The project has the
potential to directly
impact nesting birds
protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) through removal
or disturbance of habitat
that supports active
nests.

MM-BIO-1 Construction-related ground-disturbing
activities (e.g., clearing/grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and other intensive activities) that occur during the breeding season (typically February 1 through September 15) shall require biological survey for nesting bird species to be conducted within the limits of grading within 72 hours prior to construction. This survey is necessary to ensure avoidance of impacts to nesting raptors and/or birds
protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3513. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans or a biological resources figure, and the information provided to the construction supervisor and any personnel working near the nest buffer.

Active nests will have buffers established around them (e.g., 250 feet for passerines to 500 feet for raptors) by the project biologist in the field with brightly colored flagging tape, conspicuous fencing, or other appropriate barriers or signage. The project biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to avoid inadvertent impacts to these nests. The project biologist may adjust the 250-foot or 500-foot setback at his or her discretion depending on the species and the location of the nest (e.g., if the nest is well protected in an area buffered by dense vegetation).

However, if needed, additional qualified monitor(s) shall be provided in order to monitor active nest(s) or other project activities in order to ensure all of the project biologist’s duties are completed. Once the nest is no longer occupied for the season, construction may proceed in the setback areas.

If construction is
proposed during the
breeding season,
conduct a pre-
construction survey.

If nesting birds are
present, implement
avoidance measures
outlined in approved
letter report/
mitigation plan.

If nesting birds are
not detected during
the preconstruction
survey, no further
mitigation is
required.

For construction
activities proposed
for the period of
February 1 through
September 15,
conduct survey
within ten days prior
to the start of
construction
activities.

Applicant/Land
Owner, Project
Biologist,
Contractor
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-3
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
If construction activities, particularly clearing/grubbing, grading, and other intensive activities, stop for more than 3 days during the nesting season, an additional nesting bird survey shall be conducted within the proposed impact area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES/TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CR-1
Due to grading and
ground disturbing
activities, the project has
the potential to impact
unidentified
archeological resources
on the project site.

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

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit
and/or during all
earth moving and
ground disturbing
activity in previously
undisturbed soils.

Applicant/
Landowner, TCA
Tribe
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-4
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
court of competent jurisdiction. The requirement and timing of such release of ownership, and the recipient thereof, shall be reflected in the Pre-Excavation Agreement. If the TCA Tribe does not accept the return of the cultural resources, then the cultural resources will be subject to curation.

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

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

Prior to issuance of
Grading Permit
and/or during all
earth moving and
ground disturbing
activities in
previously
undisturbed soils.

Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-5
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
materials being utilized at the site are either: 1) from existing commercial (previously permitted) sources of materials; or 2) are from private or other non-commercial sources that have been determined to be absent of tribal cultural resources by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American
monitor.

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

Prior to the release of any grading bonds, or prior to the issuance of any project Certificate of Occupancy, an
archaeological monitoring report, which describes the
results, analysis, and conclusions of the construction
monitoring shall be submitted by the Qualified Archaeologist, along with any TCA Native American monitor’s notes and
comments received by the Qualified Archaeologist, to the Planning Division Manager for approval. Once approved, a final copy of the archaeological monitoring report shall be retained in a confidential City project file and may be released, as a formal condition of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation, to San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians,
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Pechanga Band of Indians, or any parties involved in the project specific monitoring or consultation process. A final copy of the report, with all confidential site records and appendices, will also be
submitted to the South Coastal Information Center after approval by the City.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-6
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
MM-CR-3 Unanticipated Discovery Procedures. Both the
Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor may temporarily halt or divert ground disturbing activities if potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural
resources are discovered during construction activities.

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

If a determination is made that the archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are considered potentially significant by the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor, then the City and the TCA Tribe shall determine, in consultation with the
If potential
archaeological
resources are found,
halt ground
disturbance and
follow procedures
listed for discovery.

During all earth
moving and ground
disturbing activity in
previously
undisturbed soils.

Archaeologist,
Tribal Monitor
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-7
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
Applicant/Owner and the Qualified Archaeologist, the
culturally appropriate treatment of those resources.

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

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

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-8
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American
monitor.

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

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

Impact CR-2

MM-CR-4 Human Remains. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains, or
remains that are potentially human, are found on the project site during ground disturbing activities or during
If human remains
are found, halt
ground disturbance
and follow
During all earth
moving and ground
disturbing activity in
Archaeologist
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-9
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
There is a potential for
project construction
activities to disturb
previously unidentified
human remains on the
project site.
archaeological work, the person responsible for the
excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the Medical Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.

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

If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ (in place) until after the Medical Examiner makes its determination and notifications, and until after the Most Likely Descendent is identified, at which time the archaeological examination of the remains shall only occur on site in the presence of the Most Likely
Descendent. The specific locations of Native American
burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. According to California Health and Safety procedures listed for
discovery.
previously
undisturbed soils.

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-10
Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility
Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native
American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). In the event that the Applicant/Owner and the Most Likely Descendant are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the
remains, State law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a location free from future disturbance (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact GEO-1
The project has the
potential to disturb
previously unknown
paleontological resources
during project grading.

MM-GEO-1 Prior to project grading the project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to review the proposed project area to determine the potential for paleontological resources to be encountered. If there is a potential for paleontological resources to occur, the paleontologist shall identify the area(s) where these resources are expected to be present, and a qualified paleontological monitor shall be retained to monitor the initial cut in any areas that have the potential to contain paleontological resources.

Site review and if
potential for
paleontological
resources is
identified,
monitoring of initial
cut in any areas that
have the potential
for resources.

Prior to grading and if
applicable during
initial cut.

Paleontologist

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-11
Table 0.4-2. Design Considerations for the Project
Aesthetics
• Implementation of the Landscape Plan to provide a cohesive and visually appealing planting scheme.
• Compliance with the City of San Marcos Street Lighting Standards and Specifications and San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20, Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards.

Air Quality
• Compliance with San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDACPD) Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust. • In accordance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0 (Architectural Coatings), the project would utilize low - volatile organic compound (VOC) paint that does not exceed 100 grams of VOC per liter for interior surfaces and 150 grams of VOC per liter for exterior surfaces. • Heavy diesel construction equipment shall be rated Tier IV or better.

Geology and Soils
• Implementation of all general, foundation design, concrete design, and corrosion recommendations contained within Chapters 6 of the geotechnical report prepared for the project (AGS 2022).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Provision of 8 Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations. • Provision of 15 EV capable and 36 EV ready parking spaces in the community parking area. • Installation of rooftop solar consistent with Title 24 and the CAP compliance checklist. • Provision of bicycle racks.
• The property manager will provide transit information to the owners and make a good faith effort in offering transit fare subsidies. The property management company will provide a newsletter to inform the residents there are options for reduced transit passes. • Designated parking for car-share, carpool, vanpool, EV and/or park-and-ride spaces on site. • Provision of a workspace in the community building and common office space in the commercial are for telecommuting employees.
• Compliance with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Municipal Code, Title

20. • Installation of electric (rather than natural gas) tank water heaters. • None of the units will have fireplaces.
• Planting of shade trees.

Energy
• Ensure proper maintenance of all construction equipment per manufacturer recommendations. • Installation of rooftop solar consistent with Title 24.

Geology and Soils
• Implement all 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. The detailed recommendations are included in Chapter 6 of the geotechnical report, which is included as Appendix G of this document.

Hazards
Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-12
• Future residents shall be notified of potential annoyances commonly associated with proximity to airports (e.g., noise, vibrations, and overflights) through the recording of overflight notification documents as outlined in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Chapter

20.265 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Source control BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Preventing illicit discharges into the MS4
• Stenciling the future on-site public road storm drain inlets • Protecting trash storage areas from rainfall, run-on, runoff, and wind dispersal.

Site design BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Conserving natural drainage pathways and hydrologic features • Conserving natural areas, soils, and vegetation
• Minimizing impervious areas
• Minimizing soil compaction
• Runoff collection through multiple private inlets
• Landscaping with native or drought tolerant species.

Post-construction BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Biofiltration basins
• Vegetated swale
• Stormwater detention system
Noise
• Grading, excavation, and other earth moving activities will occur between 7:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. No grading, excavation and other earth moving activities will occur on the weekends or holidays in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, Section 17.32.180. • The residential units with direct line-of-site to W. Mission Road will have enhanced balcony and patio shielding consisting of 5 -foot barriers. The barriers will be constructed of a non -gapping material consisting of masonry, ¼ inch thick glass, earthen berm, or any combination of these materials.
• To ensure compliance with CCR Title 24, a final noise assessment is required prior to the issuance of the first building permit to identify the interior noise requirements based upon architectural and building plans. Interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL ca n be obtained with conventional building construction methods and providing a closed window condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning) and upgraded windows for all sensitive rooms (e.g., bedrooms and living spaces).

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-13
• The applicant shall pay the San Marcos Unified School District developer fees that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The current residential fee is $4.79 per square foot and the current commercial fee is $0.78 per square foot.

Transportation (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
• Widen the project frontage of Capalina Road to provide an additional 12 feet to accommodate a bike lane, on -street parking, a 5 -foot sidewalk and a vegetated swale to handle public street runoff.
• Restripe and extend the westbound left turn pocket on Capalina Road at N. Rancho Santa Fe Road by approximately 125 feet as detailed in the Local Transportation Analysis prepared for the project (CRA 2023a).
• Restripe the centerline in Capalina Road to provide a two-way left turn lane. • Construct project driveways in accordance with City and Fire District Standards. • Install stop signs (R1-1) at both project driveways.
• Install appropriate signage to warn drivers of pedestrian traffic. • The applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD2011-01 (Congestion Management).

Utilities and Service Systems
• The applicant shall pay applicable Water and Wastewater Capital Facility Fees to Vallecitos Water District per Ordinances Nos. 175 and 176.
• Construct an 8-inch water main through the project site to create a looped water main connecting Capalina Road and W. Mission Road and dedicate an easement to VWD through the project’s drive aisle.
• Construct wastewater infrastructure improvements, as detailed in either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2 of the VWD Capalina Apartments Water and Sewer Study (2023).

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-14

0.5 CEQANET POSTING

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-15

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-16

Capalina Apartments January 2024
City of San Marcos Page 0.4-17

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... i List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... vii Appendixes viii
Acronyms ix

1.0 Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1-1

1.1 Project Summary .......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Summary of Significant Effects/Mitigation ..............................................................................1-1

1.3 Areas of Controversy .................................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Issues to be Resolved ...............................................................................................................1-3

1.5 Project Alternatives ...................................................................................................................1-3

1.5.1 No Project/No Development Alternative..................................................................................... 1-3

1.5.2 No Project/Existing Plan Alternative ........................................................................................... 1-4

1.5.3 Reduced Intensity Alternative...................................................................................................... 1-4

1.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative .......................................................................................... 1-5

2.0 Project Description, Location and Environmental Setting ................................ ...................... 2-1

2.1 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Description ....................................................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Discretionary Actions ................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2.2 Architectural Design ......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2.3 Walls, Fencing, and Lighting ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.2.2.4 Access, Circulation and Parking....................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.2.5 Grading and Construction Phase ..................................................................................... 2-5

2.2.2.6 Public Utilities and Services ............................................................................................. 2-5

2.2.2.7 Offsite Improvements ....................................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.2.8 Project Design Features ................................................................................................... 2-8

2.3 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................ 2-11

2.3.1 Existing Land Use and Setting ................................................................................................... 2-11

2.3.2 Existing General Plan and Zoning ............................................................................................. 2-11

2.3.3 Regional Setting ......................................................................................................................... 2-12

2.3.3.1 Climate ............................................................................................................................ 2-12

2.3.3.2 Air Basin .......................................................................................................................... 2-12

2.3.3.3 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 2-12

2.3.3.4 Terrain and Topography ................................................................................................. 2-12

2.3.3.5 Watersheds and Hydrology ............................................................................................ 2-13

2.3.3.6 Regional Biology ............................................................................................................. 2-13

2.4 Intended Uses of EIR .............................................................................................................. 2-13

2.4.1 Scope of the EIR ......................................................................................................................... 2-14

2.4.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping ........................................................................................... 2-14 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page ii

2.4.3 Draft EIR and Public Review ...................................................................................................... 2-15

2.4.4 Final EIR Publication and Certification...................................................................................... 2-16

2.5 Matrix of Project Approvals .................................................................................................... 2-16

2.6 Project Inconsistencies with Applicable Regional and General Plans ................................ 2-17

2.7 List of Past, Present and Reasonably Anticipated Future Projects in the Project Area ..... 2-17

3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................... 3.0-1

3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 3.1-2

3.1.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.1-2

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.1-3

3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................................... 3.1-5

3.1.4 Project Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.1-5

3.1.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis...................................................................................................... 3.1-8

3.1.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 3.1-8

3.1.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 3.1-9

3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.2-6

3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.2 -12

3.2.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.2 -14

3.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.2 -18

3.2.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.2 -19

3.2.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.2 -19

3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 3.3-1

3.3.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.3-2

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.3-5

3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................................... 3.3-7

3.3.4 Project Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.3-8

3.3.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis...................................................................................................... 3.3-9

3.3.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.3 -10

3.3.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.3 -10

3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 3.4-1

3.4.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.4-2

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.4-4

3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................................... 3.4-7

3.4.4 Project Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.4-7

3.4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis...................................................................................................... 3.4-8

3.4.6 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 3.4-8

3.4.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.4 -12

3.5 Energy .................................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.5-1

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.5-4

3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.5 -14

3.5.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.5 -14

3.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.5 -20

3.5.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.5 -21 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page iii

3.5.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.5 -21

3.6 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 3.6-1

3.6.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.6-2

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.6-5

3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ....................................................................................................... 3.6-8

3.6.4 Project Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.6-9

3.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.6 -12

3.6.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.6 -13

3.6.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.6 -13

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 3.7-1

3.7.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.7-1

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.7-2

3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.7 -14

3.7.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.7 -15

3.7.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.7 -22

3.7.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.7 -22

3.7.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.7 -22

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 3.8-1

3.8.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.8-3

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.8-4

3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.8 -11

3.8.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.8 -11

3.8.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.8 -15

3.8.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.8 -15

3.8.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.8 -15

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 3.9-1

3.9.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 3.9-3

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................................... 3.9-4

3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.9 -10

3.9.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.9 -11

3.9.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.9 -19

3.9.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.9 -20

3.9.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.9 -20

3.10 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 3.10-1

3.10.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.10- 1

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.10- 7

3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................. 3.10-14

3.10.4 Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 3.10-14

3.10.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 3.10-25

3.10.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 3.10-25

3.10.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 3.10-25

3.11 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 3.11-1

3.11.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.11- 1

3.11.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.11- 3

3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.11- 8

3.11.4 Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 3.11-11 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page iv

3.11.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 3.11-17

3.11.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 3.11-18

3.11.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 3.11-18

3.12 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 3.12-1

3.12.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.12- 1

3.12.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.12- 2

3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.12- 6

3.12.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.12- 6

3.12.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.12- 7

3.12.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.12- 8

3.12.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.12- 8

3.13 Public Services .................................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.13.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.13- 1

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.13- 3

3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.13- 6

3.13.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.13- 7

3.13.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 3.13-10

3.13.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 3.13-11

3.13.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 3.13-11

3.14 Recreation............................................................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.14.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.14- 1

3.14.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.14- 4

3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.14- 7

3.14.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.14- 7

3.14.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis....................................................................................................3.14- 9

3.14.6 Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................................3.14- 9

3.14.7 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................3.14- 9

3.15 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 3.15-1

3.15.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.15- 1

3.15.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.15- 3

3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.15- 8

3.15.4 Project Impact Analysis ...........................................................................................................3.15- 9

3.15.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 3.15-13

3.15.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 3.15-14

3.15.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 3.15-14

3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 3.16-1

3.16.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.16- 2

3.16.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.16- 8

3.16.3 Thresholds of Significance .....................................................................................................3.16- 9

3.16.4 Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 3.16-10

3.16.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 3.16-11

3.16.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 3.16-11

3.16.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 3.16-15

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 3.17-1

3.17.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................3.17- 2

3.17.2 Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................3.17- 7 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page v

3.17.3 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................. 3.17-12

3.17.4 Project Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 3.17-13

3.17.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis................................................................................................. 3.17-22

3.17.6 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................ 3.17-24

3.17.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 3.17-24

4.0 Alternatives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4-1

4.1 Introduction to Alternatives ......................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Project Alternatives Considered in This EIR .............................................................................4-2

4.3.1 Description of Alternative ............................................................................................................ 4-2

4.3.2 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.3 No Project/No Development Alternative..................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.3.1 Comparison of the Effects of the No Project/No Development Alternative to the Proposed Project............................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.4 No Project/Existing Plan Alternative ........................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.4.1 Comparison of the Effects of the No Project/Existing Plan Alternative to the Proposed Project ............................................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.5 Reduced Intensity Alternative.................................................................................................... 4-12

4.3.5.1 Comparison of the Effects of the Reduced Intensity Alternative to the Proposed Project ......................................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.4 Alternatives Considered But Rejected .................................................................................. 4-16

4.4.1 Alternative Location ................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.2 Reduced Footprint Alternative ................................................................................................... 4-17

4.4.3 Park Use Alternative ................................................................................................................... 4-17

4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................................... 4-18

5.0 Environmental Effects Found not to be Significant ................................ ................................ 5-1

5.1 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .........................................................................................5-2

5.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................5-3

5.4 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................5-4

5.5 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................................5-4

5.6 Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................................................................................5-4

5.7 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................5-5

5.8 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................................................5-5

5.9 Noise 5-5

5.10 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................5-6

5.11 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................5-6

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6-1

6.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................................6-1

6.2 Growth Inducement ...................................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .....................................................................6-2

7.0 References ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 7-1

8.0 List of Preparers................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 8-1 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page vi

List of Tables
Table 1-1. Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts ............................................... 1-1 Table 1-2. Comparison of Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives ............................................ 1-5 Table 1-3. Summary of Alternatives and Project Objectives ................................................................. 1-6 Table 2-1. Project Design Features ......................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-2. Required Actions and Approvals ......................................................................................... 2-17 Table 2-3. Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................................. 2-18 Table 3.1-1. Aesthetics Summary of Impacts ..................................................................................... 3.1-2 Table 3.2-1. Air Quality Summary of Impacts ...................................................................................... 3.2-1 Table 3.2-2. San Diego County Air Basin Attainment Status by Pollutant ......................................... 3.2-3 Table 3.2-3. Two Year Ambient Air Quality Summary Near the Project Site (Camp Pendleton or Carmel Mountain Ranch Stations) ............................................................................................................ 3.2-4 Table 3.2-4. Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................................................................................ 3.2-7 Table 3.2-5. Screening-Level Criteria for Air Quality Impacts ........................................................... 3.2-13 Table 3.2-6. Construction Emissions (lbs/day) ................................................................................. 3.2-15 Table 3.2-7. Operational Emissions (lbs/day) ................................................................................... 3.2-16 Table 3.3-1. Biological Resources Summary of Impacts .................................................................... 3.3-1 Table 3.4-1. Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts ....................................................................... 3.4-1 Table 3.4-2. Historical Aerial Photograph Review ............................................................................... 3.4-2 Table 3.5-1. Energy Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................... 3.5-1 Table 3.5-2 Proposed Construction Phase and Duration Equipment.............................................. 3.5-16 Table 3.5-3 Annual Energy Use for Proposed Project and MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario . 3.5-17 Table 3.5-4. Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Checklist Measures .................................... 3.5-19 Table 3.6-1. Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts ......................................................................... 3.6-1 Table 3.7-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Impacts ......................................................... 3.7-1 Table 3.7-2. Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (Proposed Project) .......... 3.7-16 Table 3.7-3. SDG&E Energy Intensity Factors ................................................................................... 3.7-17 Table 3.7-4. Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Checklist Measures .................................... 3.7-17 Table 3.7-5. Proposed Project Operational Emissions Summary (MT/Year) .................................. 3.7-19 Table 3.7-6. MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario - Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 3.7-20 Table 3.7-7. MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario Operational Emissions Summary (MT/Year) . 3.7-21 Table 3.8-1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts .............................................. 3.8-2 Table 3.9-1. Hydrology/Water Quality Summary of Impacts .............................................................. 3.9-1 Table 3.10-1. Land Use Summary of Impacts ................................................................................... 3.10-1 Table 3.10-2. Signalized Intersection LOS Operational Analysis Method ....................................... 3.10-4 Table 3.10-3. LOS Criteria for Stop-Controlled Unsignalized Intersections..................................... 3.10-4 Table 3.10-4. Roadway Segment Daily Capacity and LOS Standards ............................................. 3.10-5 Table 3.10-5. Peak Hour Intersection LOS – Existing Conditions .................................................... 3.10-6 Table 3.10-6. Roadway Segment LOS Results – Existing Conditions ............................................. 3.10-7 Table 3.10-8. Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................ 3.10-18 Table 3.10-9. Near-Term Year 2025 - Intersection Operations Without and With Project ......... 3.10-19 Table 3.10-10. Near-Term Year 2025 Roadway Segment Operations Without and With Project ............ .................................................................................................................................................. 3.10-20 Table 3.10-11. Horizon Year (2050) Intersection Operations Without and With Project ............ 3.10-22 Table 3.10-12. Horizon Year 2050 Roadway Segment Operations Without and With Project ... 3.10-23 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page vii
Table 3.10-13. Project Consistency with Applicable San Marcos General Plan Goals and Policies ........ .................................................................................................................................................. 3.10-27 Table 3.11-1. Noise Summary of Impacts ......................................................................................... 3.11-1 Table 3.11-2. Measured Ambient Noise Levels ................................................................................ 3.11-3 Table 3.11-3. Exterior Noise Standards by Zone .............................................................................. 3.11-7 Table 3.11-4. Permitted Increase in Noise Levels ............................................................................ 3.11-8 Table 3.11-5. Permitted Increase in Interior Noise Levels ............................................................... 3.11-8 Table 3.11-6. Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria (Human Annoyance) ................. 3.11-9 Table 3.11-7. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria (Structural Damage) ................................ 3.11-10 Table 3.11-8. Construction Noise Levels ....................................................................................... 3.11-12 Table 3.11-9. Future Traffic Parameters ........................................................................................ 3.11-13 Table 3.11-10. Future Unmitigated Exterior Noise Levels ............................................................ 3.11-14 Table 3.11-11. Future Exterior Noise Levels with Balcony and Patio Design Features .............. 3.11-15 Table 3.11-12. Project HVAC Noise Levels (Southern Residential Property Line) ....................... 3.11-16 Table 3.11-13. Vibration Levels from Construction Activities (Residential Receptors) ............... 3.11-17 Table 3.12-1. Population/Housing Summary of Impacts ................................................................. 3.12-1 Table 3.12-2. Forecasted Growth for the San Diego Region and the City of San Marcos ............. 3.12-4 Table 3.13-1. Student Generation ..................................................................................................... 3.13-8 Table 3.14-1. Recreation Summary of Impacts ................................................................................ 3.14-1 Table 3.15-1. Transportation Summary of Impacts .......................................................................... 3.15-1 Table 3.15-2. Vehicle Queue Summary .......................................................................................... 3.15-12 Table 3.15-3. Measured Sight Distances ....................................................................................... 3.15-13 Table 3.16-1. Tribal Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts ........................................................ 3.16-1 Table 3.17-1. Utilities and Service Systems Summary of Impacts .................................................. 3.17-1 Table 3.17-2. Metropolitan Water District Total Water Demands in Acre Feet Per Year ............... 3.17-2 Table 3.17-3. Projected Wastewater Flows within VWD Service Area ............................................. 3.17-4 Table 3.17-4 Estimated Water Demands for Proposed Project .................................................... 3.17-14 Table 3.17-5 Potable Water Pipeline Results under Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Conditions .................................................................................................................................................. 3.17-15 Table 3.17-6 Existing Reservoir Storage Capacity and Requirements ......................................... 3.17-16 Table 4-1. Summary of Alternatives and Project Objectives ............................................................... 4-19 Table 4-2. Comparison of Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives .......................................... 4-20

List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Regional Map ...................................................................................................................... 2-20 Figure 2-2. Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-3. Site Plan Exhibit .................................................................................................................. 2-22 Figure 2-4. Conceptual Landscape Plan............................................................................................... 2-23 Figure 2-5a. Building A - North and West Elevations ........................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2-5b. Building A - South and East Elevations............................................................................ 2-25 Figure 2-6a. Building B – North and West Elevations ......................................................................... 2-26 Figure 2-6b. Building B – South and East Elevation ............................................................................ 2-27 Figure 2-7. Recreation Area Rendering ................................................................................................ 2-28 Figure 3.1-1. Site Photos Key Views .................................................................................................... 3.1-9 Figure 3.1-2. View 1 – From the South .............................................................................................. 3.1-10 Figure 3.1-3. View 2 - From the West ................................................................................................ 3.1-10 Figure 3.1-4. View 3 - From the North ............................................................................................... 3.1-11 Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page viii
Figure 3.1-5. View 4 - From the East ................................................................................................. 3.1-11 Figure 3.3-1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ........................................................ 3.3-11 Figure 3.10-1. Traffic Analysis Study Area ..................................................................................... 3.10-26 Figure 3.11-1. Ambient Monitoring Locations................................................................................ 3.11-19 Figure 3.11-2. Modeled Receptor Locations .................................................................................. 3.11-20 Figure 3.11-3. Area of Enhanced Shielding on Patios and Balconies .......................................... 3.11-21 Figure 3.11-4. Locations of Proposed HVAC Units ......................................................................... 3.11-22 Figure 3.15-1 Project Location within SANDAG SB 743 VMT Map ............................................... 3.15-16 Figure 4-1. No Project/Existing Plan Alternative – Development Concept ........................................ 4-22

Appendices
Appendix A.1 Project Plans
Appendix A.2 Conceptual Landscape Plan
Appendix B.1 Initial Study Checklist
Appendix B.2 Notice of Preparation
Appendix B.3 NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C Air Quality Assessment
Appendix D.1 Biological Technical Report
Appendix D.2 Rare Plant Memorandum
Appendix E Archaeological Resources Inventory Study
Appendix F Energy Usage Letter
Appendix G Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix H Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Appendix I CAP Consistency Checklist
Appendix J Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix K Hydrology Report
Appendix L PDP Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) Appendix M Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Technical Memorandum Appendix N Local Transportation Analysis
Appendix O Noise Assessment
Appendix P SMUSD Letter
Appendix Q.1 VWD Water and Sewer Study
Appendix Q.2 Water and Wastewater Capital Fees

Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page ix
Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ACC Advanced Clean Cars
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AF Acre Feet
AFY Acre Feet Per Year
AGS Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc.

AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AMI Area Median Income
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
ANSI American National Standards Institute
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQIA Air Quality Impact Assessment
AQMD Air Quality Management District
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAU Business-As-Usual
BMP Best Management Practices
BTA Bicycle Transportation Account
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Program
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Cal/OSHA State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CaRFG California Reformulated Gasoline
CalRecycle Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS California Approved Samplers
CBC California Building Code
CC&R Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCSYA Critical Coarse Sediment Yield Areas
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLIS Compensation and Liability Information System
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page x
CFD Community Facilities District
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CFS Cubic Feet Per Second
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIWBM California Integrated Waste Management Board
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e CO2 Equivalent
COPPS Community Oriented Police and Problem Solving
CORRACTS Corrective Action Sites
CPTED Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CSUSM California State University San Marcos
CWA Clean Water Act
CWC California Water Code
CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan
CY Cubic Yard
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted Decibel
DDE Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DOF Department of Finance
DOT Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DU Dwelling Unit
DU/Acre Dwelling Unit/Acre
DWR Department of Water Resources
E East
EDCO EDCO Waste and Recycling
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page xi
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV Electric Vehicle
EWPCF Encina Water Pollution Control Facilities
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FPA Focused Planning Area
FRA Federal Rail Administration
FT Feet
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FT/S Feet per Second
GHG Greenhouse gas
GO-Biz Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development GPA General Plan Amendment
GPD Gallons Per Day
GW Gigawatt
GWP Global Warming Potential
HA Hydrologic Area
HAPs Hazardous Air Pollutants
HCFC Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HFC Hydrofluorocarbons
HFRA Health Forests Restoration Act
HMBP Hazardous Material Business Plan
HMP Hydromodification Plan
HP Horsepower
HP-h Horsepower Hour
HRA Hazards Risk Assessment
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
H&SC Health and Safety Code
IBC International Building Code
IC/EC Institutional Controls/ Engineering Controls
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IFC International Fire Code
IIRP Individual Integrated Resource Plan
IN Inch
in/sec inch per second
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan
JRMP Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program
Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page xii
KBtu One Thousand British Thermal Units
kV Kilovolt
kWh Kilowatt-hour
Lbs/Day Pounds per Day
LED Light Emitting Diode
Leq Equivalent Sound Level
LI Light Industrial
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LTS Less than Significant
LTSM Less than Significant with Mitigation
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MEP Maximum Extent Possible
MG Million Gallon
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
MHCP Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan
MM Mitigation Measure
MMT Million Metric Tons
MPH Miles Per Hour
MRF Meadowlark Reclamation Facility
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4s Separate Storm Sewer Systems
MSSC Minor Street Stop Controlled Intersection
MT Metric Ton
MU2 Mixed Use 2
MU3 Mixed Use 3
MWD Metropolitan Water District
N2 Nitrogen
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NBL Northbound Lane
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Planning
NCTD North County Transit District
NEVs Neighborhood Electric Vehicles
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSLU Noise Sensitive Land Use
NTA Northern Tributary Area
O2 Oxygen
O3 Ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page xiii
OPR Office of Planning and Research
Pb Lead
PDP Priority Development Project
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PFF Public Facility Fee
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter
POC Point of Confluence
PPB Parts Per Billion
PPHM Parts Per Hundred Million
PPM Parts Per Million
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PV Photovoltaic
RAQS Regional Air Quality Strategies
RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
REL Reference Exposure Levels
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMP Risk Management Plan
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG Reactive Organic Gas
ROZ Ridgeline Overlay Zone
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RZ Rezone
S.F. Square Feet
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCIC South Coastal Information Center
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDAB San Diego Air Basin
SDAPCD San Diego Air Pollution Control District
SDCWA San Diego County Water Authority
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SDP Site Development Plan
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SIP State Implementation Plans
SLCP Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
Table of Contents
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page xiv
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMFD San Marcos Fire Department
SMFPD San Marcos Fire Protection District
SMUSD San Marcos Unified School District
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SRA State Responsibility Areas
SR-78 State Route 78
SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWQMP Stormwater Quality Management Plan
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
T-BACT Toxics Best Available Control Technology
TCA Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated
TCP Traditional Cultural Properties
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIAG Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSD Treatment, Storage and Disposal
UBC Uniform Building Code
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
V/C Volume-To-Capacity
Vdb Vibration Velocity
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
VWD Vallecitos Water District
WB Westbound
WELO Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance
WMA Watershed Management Area
WQIP Water Quality Improvement Plan
WUI Wildland Urban Interface
ZEB Zero Emission Bus
ZEV Zero Emission Vehicle
μg/m3 Micrograms Per Cubic Meter

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 1-1

1.0 Executive Summary

1.1 Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to develop 119 multi -family residential units, 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of commercial use and associated common and private open space as contemplated on a 2.51 acre site located on Capalina Road in the City of San Marcos.

The project applicant is requesting the following discretionary approvals from the City to allow for development of the proposed project:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA22-0003) – A General Plan Amendment would be required to change the existing Mixed Use 3 (MU3) designation to Mixed Use 2 (MU2) • Rezone (R22-0003) - A rezone would be required to change the existing Mixed Use 3 (SP) (MU- 3-SP)) zoning to Mixed Use 2 (MU-2).
• Site Development Plan (SDP22-0007) - The Site Development Plan approval would be required to construct 119 multi-family residential units and 4,000 s.f. of commercial space and address the details of the architectural style, building elevation, fencing, landscaping, among other criteria, within the development.

1.2 Summary of Significant Effects/Mitigation
Table 1 -1 provides a summary of potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the project, mitigation measures identified to reduce and/or avoid the environmental effects, and a determination of the level of significance of each impact following implementation of the identified mitigation measures. The analysis shows that, with implementation of mitigation measures, all project impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. Detailed analyses of significant environmental effects and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3 of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

In addition to mitigation measures, regulatory standards for grading, construction, and environmental protection have been incorporated into the project design to reduce adverse environmental effects.

These include, but are not limited to, grading design and earthwork specifications, erosion control measures, Best Management Practices for pollutant control during construction, and biofiltration basins to handle and treat runoff.

The mitigation measures listed in Table 1-1 will reduce impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources/tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils. As shown in Table 1 -1, all impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance.

Table 1-1. Summary of Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After
Mitigation
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Potential to impact avian
species protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act if tree
Implementation of MM-BIO-1,
refer to Section 3.3.6 Less than significant

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-2
Impact Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After
Mitigation
removal, vegetation removal, or
other construction activities
occur during the nesting season.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1: Due to grading and ground
disturbing activities, the project
has the potential to impact
unidentified archeological
resources on the project site.

Implementation of MM-CR-1
through MM-CR-3, refer to
Section 3.4.6
Less than significant
CR:2 There is a potential for
project construction activities to
disturb previously unidentified
human remains on the project
site.

Implementation of MM-CR-4,
refer to Section 3.4.6 Less than significant
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Project grading may result
in disturbance of previously
unknown paleontological
resources.

Implementation of MM-GEO-1,
refer to Section 3.6.6 Less than significant

1.3 Areas of Controversy
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on May 1, 2023, for a 30-day public review and comment period. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held on May 11, 2023.

Comments received during the NOP public scoping period were considered part of the preparation of this EIR. The NOP and written comments are included in Appendices B.2 and B.3 to this EIR. Topics raised during the NOP comment period and scoping meeting include:
• Biological Resources: biological resource inventory, impact/mitigation, M HCP alignment, cumulative effects analysis, rare plants (brodiaea), vegetation characterization, and nesting bird avoidance;
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18; • Hydrology/Water Quality: design of water quality features to minimize potential for mosquito breeding sources;
• Land Use: Request to change the project to a park instead of a mixed -use residential development;
• Noise: existing noise in the area from the SPRINTER, traffic, and adjacent commercial uses; • Public Services (police): concerns regarding crime and loitering; • Transportation (pedestrian): pedestrian connectivity crosswalks), paths of travel from the SPRINTER station to the project area, lighting for pedestrians; and

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-3
• Transportation (vehicular): congestion at SR -78/Rancho Santa Fe ramp, cut through traffic/speeding, and parking.

These concerns are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EIR.

1.4 Issues to be Resolved
An EIR is an informational document intended to inform the public agency decision makers and the public of the significant effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.

The lead agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making “Findings” for each significant effect. The issues to be resolved by the decision makers for the project include whether or how to mitigate the associated significant effects, including whether to implement a project alternative.

Issues to be resolved that are directly related to the proposed project include the choice among the alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects. In particular, the decision makers must decide if the significant impacts to biologica l resources, cultural resources/tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils have been mitigated to less than significant. Lastly, the decision makers must determine whether any of the project alternatives would substantially reduce significant effects while still meeting key objectives of the project.

1.5 Project Alternatives
Three alternatives are proposed to provide an understanding of how environmental effects could be reduced by varying the design and scope of the project. Table 1-2 provides a comparison of the impacts of project alternatives to the impacts of the proposed project.

1.5.1 No Project/No Development Alternative
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented, and the project site would remain undeveloped and in its current condition. No grading or construction would occur on the project site under this alternative. T he project site is currently undeveloped and supports disturbed habitat.

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 would 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 sid ewalk 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, SR -78 Interchanges, National Pollutant Discharge Eli mination System, Tech Improvements, and Parks, and Habitat Conservation. Payment of these fees prov ide 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.

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-4

1.5.2 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. Per the City’s General Plan, the project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3), which is a mixed -use non -residential designation with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. A development scenario that would meet the requirements of the MU-3 (SP) zoning would include a four-story mixed-use office building with 90,000 s.f. of office use and 10,000 s.f. of retail uses along the Capalina Road frontage , with a floor area ratio 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 below grade (subterranean). Overall, the development footprint would be the same, however, more grading and excavation would be required to prepare for subterranean parking.

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 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.

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.

1.5.3 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 four 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.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the number of residential units constructed on the project site. Compared to the proposed project, which generates 874 ADT, this alternative would reduce ADT by 30%. This results in a corresponding decrease in decrease in vehicular-related air and GHG emissions and noise from offsite traffic compared to the proposed project. Public services, utilities and service systems, and energy demands would also proportionally decrease. Footprint specific impacts, such as those related to biological re sources, 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

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-5
fewer residential units would be constructed. This alternative would meet the majority of the project objectives as detailed in Table 1-3.

1.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 1 -2 provides a qualitative comparison of the impacts for each alternative compared to the proposed project. As shown in Table 1-2 the No Project/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 Guidelin es 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.

Table 1-2. 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)

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-6
Environmental Topic Proposed Project
No Project/No
Development
Alternative
No Project/Existing
Plan Alternative
Reduced Intensity
Alternative
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)
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 Table 1-3. 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
Does not meet
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
meets this
objective

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-7
Objective Proposed
Project
No Project/No
Development
No
Project/Existing
Plan Alternative
Reduced
Intensity
Alternative
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

1.0 Project Summary
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 1-8

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 2-1

2.0 Project Description, Location and Environmental Setting This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of San Marcos to evaluate the potential effects associated with the construction and implementation of the proposed Capalina Apartments Project (proposed project) as described in Section 2.2 of this (EIR.) The EIR is intended to provide information to the San Marcos City Council, public agencies, stakeholders and organizations, and the general public regarding the potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the proposed project.

2.1 Project Objectives
The following objectives describe the underlying purpose of the proposed project and provide a basis for identification of a range of reasonable alternatives evaluated in the EIR. • 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.
• 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 and air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• 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. • 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. • Incorporate deed restricted affordable housing into a portion of the proposed project.

2.2 Project Description
The approximate 2.51-acre development site is located in the City of San Marcos in northern San Diego County. Specifically, the site is located on the north side of Capalina Road, between N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street in the Business/Indust rial District (project site). The assessor parcel number (APN) is 219-115-33-00 (Figure 2-1).

The project applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Development Plan. If approved, these entitlements would allow for the development of a multi-family apartment project on the project site with some commercial uses.

The proposed project would allow for the development of 119 apartments and associated common and private open spaces and 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of commercial use. The proposed project includes infrastructure improvements as described in greater detail below. The conceptual site plan is included in
Figure 2-2.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-2

2.2.1 Discretionary Actions
As mentioned above, the requested project entitlements/discretionary actions, and permits by the City include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Development Plan, Each of these actions is described in more detail below. The project plans are included as Appendix A.

General Plan Amendment (GPA22-0003) – A General Plan Amendment would be required to change the existing Mixed Use 3 (MU3) designation to Mixed Use 2 (MU2).

Rezone (R22-0003) - A rezone would be required to change the existing Mixed Use 3 (MU-3-SP) zoning to Mixed Use 2 (MU-2).

Site Development Plan (SDP22 -0007) - The Site Development Plan approval would be required to construct 119 multi-family residential units and 4,000 s.f. of commercial and address the details of the architectural style, building elevation, fencing, landscaping, among other criteria, within the development.

2.2.2 Project Characteristics
This section details the characteristics of the proposed project.

2.2.2.1 Land Use
Residential Land Use and Density Bonus
The project proposes 119 residential apartments on 2.51 gross acres for a proposed density of 47 dwelling units/acre. Six of the units would be affordable at the very low -income level (30-50% of the Area Median Income or AMI)

1. The site plan exhibit is included as Figure 2-3 at the end of this section.

The project site is located within the SM -7 Mixed Use Transit Corridor as identified in the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Smart Growth Concept Map for North County. The project applicant would utilize the State Density Bonus Program and a m inimum of 5% of the units would be affordable housing units, as defined under the State Density Bonus Law, California Government Code (Section 65915 – 65918) as enacted by California Assembly Bill No. 2345 (State Density Bonus). The Density Bonus Law allow s for parking reductions and, in addition, the allowance of “incentives” or “concessions” from the local jurisdiction to assist with the construction and economic viability of the project.

Chapter 20.305 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance addresses the Density Bous law and states that it is the intent of the City to encourage and facilitate development of affordable housing and to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the City’s Housing Element.

The proposed project would mainly rely on the State Density Bonus law parking ratios for residential parking. However, the proposed project would use an incentive, as provided by the State Density Bonus law, in order to adjust the proposed residential parking from 147 spaces to 142 spaces and adjust the commercial parking from 12 spaces to 5 spaces. The proposed project is also requesting waivers for development standards relating to minimum floor area ratio (FAR) and setbacks.

1 Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint of a region’s income distribution- half of the families in a region earn more than the median and half earn less than the median. This can also be looked at as the Median household income.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-3
Commercial Use
The project proposes 4,000 s.f. of commercial use. This would be located on the ground floor in Building A along a portion of the Capalina Road project frontage.

W. Mission Road Right-of-Way Dedication
The proposed project includes a right-of-way dedication of 12,632 s.f. (0.29 acres) along the northern project boundary related to a future design of W. Mission Road.

Open Space
A total of 34,582 s.f. of open space is proposed. This represents approximately 32 percent of the project site. There are two main categories of open space proposed for the project – common open space and private open space.

Common Open Space
Common open space includes both indoor and outdoor common space. The outdoor common space would be 25,700 s.f. and includes 24,415 s.f. at grade (pool, spa, outdoor “living room”, open turf area with play equipment and passive open space areas) and a 1,285 s.f. rooftop deck. The proposed common indoor space would be 1,250 s.f. and includes a fitness area and meeting room. All common open space would be for the use of future residents and would be maintained by the property management company.

Private Open Space
Private open space is associated with private patio and balcony areas on the residential units and totals 7,632 s.f. Private open space ranges from 396 s.f. to 2,706 s.f. 50 to 80 s.f. per unit, depending on the unit layout and location.

Landscape Plan
The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of trees, shrubs, grasses and groundcover and the plant selection emphasizes low and moderate water use species. Proposed tree species include: Marina strawberry tree, Chinese flame tree, African sumac, Brisbane b ox, true green elm, crape myrtle, sweetshade, sweet bay, shrubby yew podocarpus, Carolina laurel, holly oak, tipu tree, and pink trumpet tree. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) and Municipal Code, Title 20. The landscape concept plan is included as Figure 2- 4 and the complete landscape plan and planting palette is included in Appendix A.2.

Slope Easement Vacation
The proposed project would abandon/vacate a City slope easement per recorded document 2004- 0229021. This easement is located in the northwestern corner of the project site.

2.2.2.2 Architectural Design
The residential units would be spread across two buildings, identified as Building A and Building B.

Building A is an L -shaped building fronting Capalina Road, would be four stories tall, and have a maximum height of approximately 56 feet. Building B, which is a rectangular shape and fronts on W.

Mission Road, would also be four stories and have a maximum height of approximately 51 feet. The

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-4
residential units with direct line-of-sight to W. Mission Road would have enhanced balcony and patio shielding consisting of 5 -foot barriers The barriers would be constructed of a non -gapping material consisting of masonry, ¼ inch thick glass, earthen berm, or any combination of these materials.

Overall, the project proposes 11 studio/one bath units (600 s.f.), 53 one bedroom/one bath units (ranging from 680 s.f. to 710 s.f.), 6 two bedroom/one bath units (925 s.f.), 41 two bedroom/two bath units (1,080 s.f.), and 8 three bedroom/2 bath units (1,130 s.f.). Proposed materials include stucco walls, composite shingle roof material, resawn wood fascia, trim detailing, and metal railing. Elevations for Building A are presented in
Figures 2 -5a and 2 -5b. Elevations for Building B are presented in Figures 2-6a and 2-6b. The proposed recreation area is presented in Figure 2-7.

2.2.2.3 Walls, Fencing, and Lighting
Walls and fencing within the proposed project are functional boundaries framing outdoor spaces and complementary pieces of the landscape design. Walls and fences create partitions between private open space, screen the development from roadways and enhance the overall site design.

Fencing and Walls
The project proposes the use of black tubular steel fencing. Along the northern project boundary, the fencing would be six feet in height with a steel access gate which would provide pedestrian access to the sidewalk on W. Mission Road and to the NCTD bus stop. On the western project boundary, the fencing would also be six feet in height. On the eastern project boundary, 42-inch tubular steel fencing is proposed atop the retaining wall. The retaining wall would vary from 1 foot to 6 feet, with the lower heights near Capalina Road and W. Mission Road and the highest point along the middle of the project’s eastern boundary.

Lighting
Lighting for the proposed project would be used to accent landscaping and provide safety and accent lighting for then apartment buildings. All lighting fixtures for the proposed project would be energy efficient, architecturally appropriate, and designed to minimize glare, conflict, and light pollution, while providing illumination levels that create a safe environment for both vehicles and pedestrians. Street area lights would be full cut -off fixtures and would utilize house -side shields to reduce light tr espass and prevent light pollution. Common area lighting would be used to enhance and complement the character of the development. Lighting would be required to conform with the City’s lighting ordinance and standards, (San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20, Section 20.300.080).

2.2.2.4 Access, Circulation and Parking
Access and Circulation
Access to the project site would be via two unsignalized driveways on Capalina Road. Both driveways would be ungated and will be 24 feet wide. The ramps at the driveway aprons would have truncated domes and would meet the American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) standards as required by the City’s standards.

Internal vehicular movement would be via 24 -foot-wide drive aisles. No vehicular access is offered from W. Mission Road.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-5
The proposed project would provide frontage improvements on Capalina Road which would include a sidewalk which would connect to the existing sidewalk to the west. A pedestrian gate for use by residents would also be provided on the northern side of the project to connect to the existing sidewalk on W. Mission Road. This would also provide easy access to the North County Transit District (NCTD) bus stop on W. Mission Road adjacent to the project site.

Parking
The project proposes a total of 147 commercial spaces, with 142 spaces for the proposed residential use and five spaces for commercial use. Three of the 147 parking spaces would be ADA spaces. An additional eight parking spaces would be provided off -site a long Capalina Road along the project frontage. Electric vehicle (EV) parking is incorporated in the project parking and includes 8 spaces with Level 2 EV chargers, 15 EV capable spaces and 36 EV ready spaces. The proposed project would mainly rely on the S tate Density Bonus law parking ratios for residential parking. However, the proposed project would use an incentive, as provided by the State Density Bonus law, in order to adjust the proposed residential parking from 147 spaces to 142 spaces and adjust the commercial parking from 12 spaces to 5 spaces.

2.2.2.5 Grading and Construction Phase
The project is anticipated to start construction in 2025. The project would be constructed in one phase and all construction materials would be stored on site. Grading would consist of approximately 4,030 cubic yards (cy) of cut material and 12,270 cy of f ill material requiring an import of approximately 8,240 cy of material. Assuming 20 work days for materials import and the use of a 15 cy truck, there would be approximately 28 truck loads per day during grading. No blasting or rock crushing is proposed as part of the project.

The import and export of earth material is guided by Section 17.32.080 of the City’s Municipal Code and prior to any import of soils, a haul route would be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grading and other earth moving activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, per Section 17.32.180 of the City’s Municipal Code.

The project would comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust Control. This rule limits airborne dust beyond the property line and the property line and roadway dust associated with construction equipment and trucks.

2.2.2.6 Public Utilities and Services
Water and Wastewater Facilities
The project site is within the service area of Vallecitos Water District (VWD) for water service and sewer service. The project would connect to the existing 8-inch water main and 8-inch sewer main in Capalina Road. The project would also construct an 8-inch water main through the project site to create a looped water main connecting Capalina Road and W. Mission Road and dedicate an easement to VWD through the project’s drive aisle. Please see section 2.2.3.4 for a discussion of off -site utilities improvements.

Site Drainage and Stormwater Management
Storm drain systems and connections would be designed to accommodate the proposed future development. Two biofiltration basins are proposed to mitigate the storm water quality for the project

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-6
(BMP-A and BMP-B). BMP-A is located near the northeast corner of the site and BMP-B is located near the northwest corner of the site. The biofiltration basins would collect the storm water runoff from the building and proposed parking lots and convey the s torm water through storage tanks, storm drain systems and curb and gutters. Hydromodification flow-control and 100-year detention conjunctive use facility is proposed as BMP -C within the project parking area and drive aisle. All storm water quality and drainage facilities would be required with final engineering submittals in conformance with the 2023 City of San Marcos Best Management Practices Design Manual, and the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan and Drainage Study.

Electricity and Gas
The project would be served by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) for electricity and gas service. The design for the dry utilities connection are still under preparation, however the project would connect to existing infrastructure within Capalina Road or W. Mission Road. This work would take place within existing right-or-way and would not disturb any vegetation. The project would also relocate an SDG&E transformer located on Capalina Road.

Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste collection and recycling services to the proposed project would be provided by EDCO Waste & Recycling. Non -recyclable waste, including general trash and green materials, is collected and transported to the Sycamore Sanitary Landfill in Santee. Recyclable materials are transferred to the Escondido Resources Recovery Transfer Station for further processing.

Fire Protection
The San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) would provide fire protection for urban and wildland fires and emergency services to the project site. SMFD services San Marcos with four stations, the closest of which is Fire Station No. 1 located at 180 W. Mission Road, approximately 2 miles east of the project site.

Police Protection
Police protection for the proposed project would be provided by the County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department. The County Sheriff provides contract law enforcement services to the City of San Marcos through the station located at 182 Santar Place located within City limits.

Schools
The project site is within the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) boundary. SMUSD is 49 square miles in size and encompasses most of the City of San Marcos and portions of the Cities of Vista, Escondido, and Carlsbad, as well as unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego between these cities. Students generated by the project would attend La Mirada Academy (elementary and middle school) and San Marcos High School.

Parks
There are 24 community parks, 13 neighborhood parks and three recreation centers in the City. The closest park to the project site is Innovation Park. Innovation Park, located at 1151 Armorlite Drive and has a dog park, pickleball court, play equipment, permanent restrooms, and picnic tables.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-7
Libraries
The City is served by the San Diego County Library. The San Marcos Branch is located at 2 Civic Center Drive, approximately 2.25 miles southeast of the project site.

2.2.2.7 Offsite Improvements
Water Infrastructure Improvements
The project would also construct approximately 530 feet of 8-inch water main through the project site to create a looped water main connecting Capalina Road and W. Mission Road and dedicate an easement to VWD through the project’s drive aisle. A portion of this improvement would be offsite and within W. Mission Road.

Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements
Two scenarios are considered for sewer service on the project site, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. The following offsite improvements would be required, depending on the scenario that is implemented, and would be required to be in place prior to project occupancy. These improvements would occur within already paved roadways.

Scenario 1
• Upsize approximately 1,860 feet of existing 8-inch and 10 -inch sewer main within Pacific Street and Descanso Avenue with a 12-inch main (CA-4 through CA-8); and • Upsize approximately 1,094 feet of existing 10-inch sewer main within Descanso Avenue and Las Posas Road with a 15-inch main (CA-9 through CA-14).

Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would re -route existing sewer flows from Seminole Street south to Grand Avenue, rather than north to pipes CA-7 through CA-14, located in Descanso Avenue and Las Posas Road, which were determined to have deficient capacity in Scenario 1.

Scenario 2 relies on pending VWD -Board approved improvements associated with the South Pacific Industrial project which would construct of a sewer main extension in Pacific Street between Seminole Street and Grand Avenue (pipes ALT-2 and ALT-3).

Under Scenario 2, the proposed project would:
• Construct a pipe (ALT-1) to connect the existing sewer main in Seminole Street to the new main in South Pacific Street (ALT-2 and ALT-3); and
• Sever the connection to the existing sewer main in the northern portion of Pacific Street.

Given the current deficiencies in sewer segments CA-4 through CA-14, the proposed project may also need to implement the following improvements under Scenario 2 :, unless VWD determines they are no longer needed based upon future modeling and coordination with the project applicant.:
• Upsize approximately 1,860 feet of existing 8-inch and 10 -inch sewer main within Pacific Street and Descanso Avenue with a 12-inch main (CA-4 through CA-8); and

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-8
• Upsize approximately 1,094 feet of existing 10-inch sewer main within Descanco Avenue and Las Posas Road with a 15-inch main (CA-9 through CA-14).

The EIR assumes these improvements may still be required under Scenario 2 to provide the most conservative analysis.

Transportation Infrastructure Improvements
The proposed project would widen along the project frontage of Capalina Road to provide an additional 12 feet to accommodate a bike lane, on- street parking, a 5 -foot sidewalk and a vegetated swale to handle public street runoff.

Roadway Restriping
As recommended in the Local Transportation Analysis prepared for the project (CRA 2023b), the project applicant would restripe and extend the westbound left turn pocket on Capalina Road at N.

Rancho Santa Fe Road by approximately 125 feet. The project woul d also restripe the centerline in Capalina Road to provide a two -way left turn lane. These improvement would be completed prior to project occupancy.

2.2.2.8 Project Design Features
The project incorporates the following design features and would adhere to specific regulatory requirements that would minimize potential environmental effects. These are summarized, in Table 2- 1 located at the end of this section.

Table 2-1. Project Design Features
Aesthetics
• Implementation of the Landscape Plan to provide a cohesive and visually appealing planting scheme.
• Compliance with the City of San Marcos Street Lighting Standards and Specifications and San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20, Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards.

Air Quality
• Compliance with SDACPD Rule 55 – Fugitive Dust.
• In accordance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0 (Architectural Coatings), the project would utilize low - volatile organic compound (VOC) paint that does not exceed 100 grams of VOC per liter for interior surfaces and 150 grams of VOC per liter for exterior surfaces. • Heavy diesel construction equipment shall be rated Tier IV or better.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-9
• Designated parking for car-share, carpool, vanpool, EV and/or park-and-ride spaces on site. • Provision of a workspace in the community building and common office space in the commercial are for telecommuting employees.
• Compliance with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Municipal Code, Title

20. • Installation of electric (rather than natural gas) tank water heaters. • None of the units will have fireplaces.
• Planting of shade trees.

Energy
• Ensure proper maintenance of all construction equipment per manufacturer recommendations. • Installation of rooftop solar consistent with Title 24.

Geology and Soils
• Implement all recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation (AGS 2022).

Hazards
• Future residents shall be notified of potential annoyances commonly associated with proximity to airports (e.g., noise, vibrations, and overflights) through the recording of overflight notification documents as outlined in the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Chapter

20.265 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Post-construction BMPs include, but are not limited to:
• Biofiltration basins
• Vegetated swale
• Stormwater detention system

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-10
Noise
• Grading, excavation, and other earth moving activities would occur between 7:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. No grading, excavation and other earth moving activities would occur on the weekends or holidays in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, Section 17.32.180. • The residential units with direct line-of-site to W. Mission Road will have enhanced balcony and patio shielding consisting of 5 -foot barriers The barriers will be constructed of a non -gapping material consisting of masonry, ¼ inch thick glass, earthen ber m, or any combination of these materials.
• To ensure compliance with CCR Title 24, a final noise assessment is required prior to the issuance of the first building permit to identify the interior noise requirements based upon architectural and building plans. Interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL ca n be obtained with conventional building construction methods and providing a closed window condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning) and upgraded windows for all sensitive rooms (e.g., bedrooms and living spaces).

Public Services – Fire Protection, Police Protection and Schools • The applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD 2001-01 (Fire and Paramedic). • The applicant/developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD98-01 (Police).
• The applicant shall pay the San Marcos Unified School District developer fees that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The current residential fee is $4.79 per square foot and the current commercial fee is $0.78 per square foot.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-11

2.3 Environmental Setting

2.3.1 Existing Land Use and Setting
On-Site
The project site is currently undeveloped, vacant land. Per the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project, the project site appeared to be vacant pastureland from prior to 1939 until approximately 1974, when the northwestern perimeter of the property appeared to be vacant, rough- graded land. By 1980, the project site appeared to be vacant, rough-graded land with what appeared to be an area graded for uses as a vehicle parking area on the southeastern portion of the property.

By 1996, the property appeared to be vacant, weed -abated land. By 2005, a vehicle parking area appears to be to be located on the southeastern perimeter of the subject property. By 2012, the vehicle parking area was removed and the property appeared to be vacant, weed -abated land (The Phase 1 Group 2022). The entire site is occupied with disturbed habitat with a few ornamental trees (Dudek 2023a).

Surroundings
The project area is developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses. To the east of the project site is the Crossroad Shopping retail center with various strip commercial establishments such as restaurants and salon services (MU-3 zone). To the south, on the opposite side of Capalina Road, is a church (B-P zone) and the El Dorado mobile home community (R-MHP zone). To the west is an adjacent parcel (APN 219-115-35) containing the former Mission Center Shopping Center, with various existing strip commercial establishments, a market and parking areas. A liquor store remains in operation on the site. This 1.42-acre parcel is burdened by a San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) easement, and additionally a 1987 reciprocal easement agreement which grant s the project parcel an express easement for ingress, egress, and parking across the entirety of APN 219 -115-35. The project applicant is proposing to accommodate all parking onsite and does not anticipate using this area, under the terms of the reciprocal easement agreement, as part of the project. To the north of the project site is W. Mission Road, the SPRINTER rail line, and the Inland Rail Trail. North of that is an undeveloped area zoned MU-1 and then single family residential uses (R-1-7.5 zone).

2.3.2 Existing General Plan and Zoning
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
The project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3), 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 Pl an, 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).

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-12
Existing Zoning Designation
The project site has a zoning designation of MU-3 (SP). According to Section 20.225.060 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this zone is intended to “support a job -based mixed-use area combining a variety of commercial and office uses integrated as a cohesive development. This business -oriented area shall be complementary to the MU-1 and MU-2 Zones; residential uses are not permitted in the MU-3 (SP) Zone. Typical uses include commercial retail, business services, administrative and office uses, institutional and government uses, business support and financial uses, restaurants, and health care facilities. Horizontal and vertical mixed use is permitted” (City of San Marco 2021).

2.3.3 Regional Setting
The following provides a general description of various aspects of the project’s environmental setting.

Additional descriptions of the project’s environmental setting as it relates to environmental issue areas can be found in Chapter 3.

2.3.3.1 Climate
The weather of the San Diego region, as in most of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi -permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters. The average summertime high tempera ture in the region is approximately 74°F, with highs approaching 76°F in August on average. The average wintertime low temperature is approximately 49°F. Precipitation in the local area is approximately 10 inches per year, with the bulk of precipitation falling between December and March.

2.3.3.2 Air Basin
The City and project site is within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAB is one of 15 air basins that geographically divide the State of California. The SDAB lies in the southwest corner of California and comprises the entire San Diego region, covering 4,260 square miles, and it is an area of high air pollution potential.

The SDAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds.

The SDAB is currently classified as a federal nonattainment area for ozone (O 3) and a state
nonattainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns (coarse particulate matter (PM
10)), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (fine particulate matter (PM2.5)), and O3.

2.3.3.3 Soils
The earth materials present at the site consist of surficial deposits of undocumented artificial fill and topsoil/alluvium overlying sedimentary rock assigned to the Santiago Formation. The site is geologically mapped as sitting near the boundary of the Sa ntiago Formation and undifferentiated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock although metasedimentary/metavolcanic rock was not encountered during the geotechnical study. The following is a brief description of the subsurface materials encountered (AGS 2022).

2.3.3.4 Terrain and Topography
The project site is located within the 7.5-minute San Marcos Quadrangle map. The site is generally flat and with elevations ranging from 580-600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-13

2.3.3.5 Watersheds and Hydrology
The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San Diego Region is divided into eleven hydrologic units. The project site is located in the Richland Hydrologic Subarea (904.52) within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area (904.5) of the Carlsbad Watershed (Hydrologic Unit (904). The project site discharges to a public storm drain system which flows to an un -named tributary that flows to San Marcos Creek (passing through Lake San Marcos) to Batiquitos Lagoon, which discharges to the Pacific Ocean.

2.3.3.6 Regional Biology
The City of San Marcos Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) has not been finalized or implemented, and the City is no longer an active participant in the NCCP program and the subregional Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) conservation planning effort. However, it is the City’s General Plan policy to comply with the conservation policies identified in the MHCP through use of the Draft San Marcos Subarea Plan as an implementation tool.

The project site is not located within a Focused Planning Area (FPA) in the City’s Draft Subarea Plan.

Based upon the biological resources study prepared for the project (Dudek 2023a), the entire site is disturbed habitat. The site is regularly mowed and maintained, and is dominated by species commonly found in disturbed areas including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), tocalote ( Centaurea melitensis ), short -pod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana ), and various species of bromes (Bromus sp.) and erodium ( Erodium sp.). There were six native species throughout the site including California encelia ( Encelia californica ), mulefat ( Baccharis salicifolia ) coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya) and gumplant (Grindelia camporum). Lastly, there are some non-native trees scattered throughout the site including Mexican fan palms ( Washingtonia robusta ) and Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle). Rare plant surveys were conducted in 2021 and 2023 and no rare plants were observed on the project site.

2.4 Intended Uses of EIR
The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.).

The EIR is an informational document that provides the City’s decision makers, public agencies, responsible and trustee agencies, and members of the public with information about (1) the potential for significant adverse environmental impacts that would result from the development of the proposed project, (2) possible ways to minimize any significant environmental impacts, and (3) feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid significant impacts associated with the proposed projec t (California Public Resources Code, Section 21002.1[a]; 14 CCR 15121[a]).

Responsible and trustee agencies may use the EIR to fulfill their legal authority to issue permits for the proposed project. The analysis and findings in the EIR reflect the indepen dent judgment of the City.

Lead Agency
As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, a “Lead Agency” means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The City is the lead agency for the proposed project because it would perform the entitlement processing of the proposed project. As the designated lead agency, the City has assumed responsibility for preparing the EIR, and the analysis

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-14
and findings in the EIR reflect the City’s independent judgment. When deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City will use the information in the EIR to consider potential impacts to the physical environment associated with the proposed project.

Responsible Agencies
As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, a “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies other than the lead agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. Subsequent to certification of the Final EIR, agencies with permitting aut hority over all or portions of the proposed project would use the Final EIR as the basis for their evaluation of environmental effects related to the proposed project that would culminate with the approval or denial of applicable permits.

Trustee Agencies
As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, a “Trustee Agency” means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. The California Department of Fis h and Wildlife (CDFW) is a Trustee Agency with regard to the fish and wildlife of the state, to designate rare and endangered native plant, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and other areas administered by the department. CDFW is a Trustee Agency for the project.

2.4.1 Scope of the EIR
For the proposed project, the City determined that a Project EIR, as defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15161, was required. The City made this determination based on the scope and the location of the proposed project, as well as preparation of an Initial Study in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15063 (included as Appendix B.1 to the EIR).

The EIR evaluates all subject areas listed in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, with the exception of those subject areas determined not to have a potentially significant impact on the environment, as determined during preparation of the Initial Study (refer to Chapter 5 of the EIR). Chapter 3 of the EIR evaluates in detail, the following subject areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, cumulative impacts, and growth-inducing impacts.

As a “Project EIR,” the EIR is “focused primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15161). In addition, as a Project EIR, the EIR examines all phases of the proposed project includin g planning, construction, and operation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15161). Where environmental impacts have been determined to be significant, the EIR recommends mitigation measures directed at reducing or avoiding those significant environmental impacts.

2.4.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
CEQA establishes mechanisms to inform the public and decision makers about the nature of the proposed project and the extent and types of impacts that the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project would have on the environment should the pr oposed project or alternatives be implemented. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated May 1, 2023, to interested agencies, organizations, and parties. The NOP

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-15
was also posted to the State Clearinghouse CEQANet portal. State Clearinghouse assigned a state identification number (SCH No 2023050006) to the EIR.

The NOP is intended to encourage interagency and public communication regarding the proposed action so that agencies, organizations, and individuals are afforded an opportunity to respond with specific comments and/or questions regarding the scope and content of the EIR.

A public scoping meeting was held on May 11, 2023 in the Valley of Discovery Room at San Marcos City Hall and three community members attended. The 30 -day public scoping period ended on May 30, 2023. A total of nine NOP comment letters were received.

Comments received during the NOP public scoping period were considered part of the preparation of the EIR. The NOP and written comments are included in
Appendices B.2 and B.3 to the EIR. Topics
raised during the NOP comment period and scoping meeting include:
• Biological Resources: biological resource inventory, impact/mitigation, MHCP alignment, cumulative effects analysis, rare plants ( brodiaea), vegetation characterization, and nesting bird avoidance;
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18; • Hydrology/Water Quality: design of water quality features to minimize potential for mosquito breeding sources;
• Land Use: Request to change the project to a park instead of a mixed -use residential development;
• Noise: existing noise in the area from the SPRINTER, traffic, and adjacent commercial uses; • Public Services (police): concerns regarding crime and loitering; • Transportation (pedestrian): pedestrian connectivity (crosswalks), paths of travel from the SPRINTER station to the project area, lighting for pedestrians; and • Transportation (vehicular): congestion at SR -78/Rancho Santa Fe ramp, cut through traffic/speeding, and parking,
Public scoping comments regarding the proposed project’s potential impact on the environment have been incorporated in the analysis in the EIR in Sections 3.3 (Biological Resources), 3.4 (Cultural Resources), 3.9 (Hydrology/Water Quality), 3.10 (Land Use – level of service analysis for traffic), 3.11 (Noise), 3.13 (Public Services), 3.15 (Transportation), 3.16 (Tribal Cultural Resources), and 4.0 (Alternatives).

2.4.3 Draft EIR and Public Review
This Draft EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. The Draft EIR will be made available to members of the public, responsible agencies, and interested parties for a 45 -day public review period in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105.

Public review of the Draft EIR is intended to focus “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (14 CCR 15204). The Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR will be filed with the State Clearinghouse as required by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15085. In addition,

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-16
the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR will be distributed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15087.

Interested parties may provide comments on the Draft EIR in written form. The EIR and related technical appendices are available for review during the 45-day public review period at:

City of San Marcos
Development Services Department Counter
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
The document is also available online at: https://www.san -marcos.net/departments/development- services/planning/environmental-review-sustainability/environmental-documents.

Interested agencies and members of the public may submit written comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR to the City’s Development Services Department at the address above, addressed to Chris Garcia, Senior Planner, or emailed at: [email protected] Comments on the Draft EIR must be received by the close of business on the last day of the 45 - day review period.

2.4.4 Final EIR Publication and Certification
Once the 45-day public review period has concluded, the City will review all public comments on the Draft EIR and provide a written response to all written comments pertaining to environmental issues as part of the Final EIR. The Final EIR will include all written comments received during the public review period; responses to comments; and, if applicable, edits and errata made to the Draft EIR. The City will then consider certification of the Final EIR (14 CCR 15090). If the EIR is certified, the City may consider project approval (14 CCR 15092).

When deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City will use the information provided in the Final EIR to consider potential impacts to the physical environment. The City will also consider all written comments received on the Draft EIR during the 45- day public review period in making its decision to certify the Final EIR as complete and compliant with CEQA and in making its determination whether to approve or deny the proposed project. Environmental considerations, as well as economic and social factors, will be weighed by the City to determine the most appropriate course of action.

Prior to approving the proposed project, the City must make written findings and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to any significant and unavoidable environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR (14 CCR 15091, 15093). If the p roposed project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and San Diego County Clerk within five working days after project approval (14 CCR 15094.)
Subsequent to certification of the Final EIR, agencies with permitting authority over all or portions of the proposed project will use the Final EIR’s evaluation of the proposed project’s environmental effects in considering whether to approve or deny applicable permits.

2.5 Matrix of Project Approvals
Consistent with the City’s General Plan and San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20, the proposed project requires certain entitlements be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City.

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-17
The requested entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and Site Development Plan.

These entitlements, listed and described in Table 2-2, would govern the development of the project site.

The City will use the EIR and associated documentation in its decision to approve or deny the required discretionary permits. Other responsible and/or trustee agencies can use the EIR and supporting documentation in their decision-making process to issue additional approvals.

Table 2-2. Required Actions and Approvals
Agency Required Action/Approval
City of San Marcos – Lead Agency
• General Plan Amendment
• Rezone
• Site Development Plan
• Grading Plan/Permit
• Public Improvement Plan/Permit
• Landscape Plan/Permit
• Building Permits
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit (State Water Resources Control Board Order 2009-09-DWQ and MS4 Permit R9-2015-0001).

Vallecitos Water District Approval for water and sewer service

2.6 Project Inconsistencies with Applicable Regional and General Plans Throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR, the project has been evaluated in relation to the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of: the City’s General Plan and San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20 (Section 3.10, Land Use); Regional Air Quality Strategy (Section 3.2, Air Quality); San Diego Air Pollution Control District policies (Section 3.2, Air Quality); City’s Climate Action Plan (Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions); Regional Water Quality Control Board permits (Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality); the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (Section 3.3, Biological Resources); Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans (Sections 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.10, Land Use, and 3.11, Noise); and various other applicable regional and local plans and policies.

2.7 List of Past, Present and Reasonably Anticipated Future Projects in the Project Area
CEQA requires an EIR to analyze cumulative impacts. Section 15355 of CEQA Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for analyzing significant cumulative impacts in an EIR. The discussion of cumulative impacts “need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone,” but in stead is to be “be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness” (CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)). The discussion should also focus only on significant effects resulting from the project’s incremental effects and the effects of other projects. According to Section 15130(a)(1), “an EIR should not discuss impacts which do not result in part from the project evaluated in the EIR.”

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-18
Cumulative impacts can result from the combined effect of past, present, and future projects located in proximity to the project under review. Therefore, it is important for a cumulative impacts analysis to be viewed over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review.

According to Section 15130(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact analysis may be conducted and presented by either of two methods:
• A list of past, present, and probable activities producing related or cumulative impacts; or • A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

With the exception of the impact analyses of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, the cumulative list approach has been used in this cumulative analysis, as discussed below. The cumulative impacts of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions have been evaluated using the summary of projections method because the geographic scope of such impacts tends to be broad and area wide.

An inventory of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the project site is presented in
Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Cumulative Projects
No. Project Location Description(1)
City of San Marcos
1 CRP III Mission, LLC 528 W. Mission Road Redevelop existing 10.83 acre industrial park with 3 new industrial buildings.
2 El Dorado II Specific
Plan
Southwest corner of Richmar
Avenue and Pleasant Way
72 MFR units and 2,000 s.f. of
commercial
3 Hughes SMCC Northeast corner of Pacific Street 67,410 sf industrial building 4 Karl Strauss Brewery
& Tasting Room
Northeast corner of Las Posas
Road and Vallecitos Road 10,528 s.f. of commercial
5 Lab Holding Southwest corner of Grand Avenue
and Linda Vista Drive
102 MFR units, 8 live/work units and
63,641 s.f. of commercial
6 Lanikai Senior
Residential
Northwest corner of E. Mission
Road and Woodward Street 115 MRF units (age-restricted for 55+) 7 Lonnie Tabbaa Southwest corner of W. Mission
Road and N. Las Posas Road
Gas station, car wash, commercial drive
thru and convenience store
8 Main Square Southeast corner of San Marcos
Boulevard and McMahr Road
486 MFR units and approximately
44,000 s.f. of commercial
9 Marcos Specific Plan Grand Avenue and Linda Vista
Drive
63,000 sf commercial, 7 live-work units,
102 condos

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-19
No. Project Location Description(1)
10 Mariposa II/Phase 1 Richmar Avenue and Los Olivos
Drive
100 MFR affordable units to replace 40
existing MFR units (net increase of 60
units)

11 Mariposa II/Phase 2 Richmar Avenue and Los Olivos
Drive
96 MFR affordable units to replace 30
existing MFR units (net increase of 66
units)
12 McDonald Group 1100 W. San Marcos Boulevard
(Former Sears site) 82 MFR units and 5,000 s.f. commercial 13 Mercy Hill and Marian
Center Borden Road 22,800 s.f. of institutional uses
14 Meritage Homes
(Grand Vista)
West of Las Posas Road and Palm
Road intersection 120 MFR units
15 Mission 316 West Northeast corner of E. Mission
Road and Woodward Street 67 MFR units
16 Murai-Sab N. Las Posas Road 89 SFR units
17 Pacific Commercial Northeast corner of Grand Avenue
and N. Pacific Street 122-room hotel
18 Pacifica San Marcos S. Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Creek Street 31 MFR units and 4,375 s.f. commercial
19 Pacific Specific Plan Las Posas Road and La Mirada 449 MFR units 20 Pico Investments 236 Pico Avenue 16 MFR units
21 Restaurant Row
Specific Plan 1020 W. San Marcos Boulevard
202 MFR units, 10,400 s.f. commercial
space, 1.5 acre park site, and street
improvements
22 San Marcos Highlands North end of N. Las Posas Road 187 SFR units and 21.68 acres passive park
23 Santa Fe Las Flores Northwest corner of S. Santa Fe
and N. Las Flores Drive

54 MFR units
24 University District
Holdings 158 S. Twin Oaks Valley Road
Formation of five commercial
condominium units within two approved
commercial buildings
25 Villa Serena Northwest corner of Richmar
Avenue and Marcos Street
Demolish 136 MFR units and construct
148 MFR units (net increase of 12 units)
26 Woodmont Land
Company
Northeast corner of Twin Oaks
Valley Road and Windy Way 11,430 s.f. preschool
27 Woodward 46 Specific
Plan
East side of Woodward St, north of
E. Mission Road 46 MFR units
Notes: (1) SFR = Single-Family Residential, MFR= Multi-Family Residential

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-20
Figure 2-1. Regional Map

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 2-21
Figure 2-2. Conceptual Site Plan

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-22
Figure 2-3. Site Plan Exhibit

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-23
Figure 2-4. Conceptual Landscape Plan

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-24
Figure 2-5a. Building A - North and West Elevations

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-25
Figure 2-5b. Building A - South and East Elevations

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-26
Figure 2-6a. Building B – North and West Elevations

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marco Page 2-27
Figure 2-6b. Building B – South and East Elevation

2.0 Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 2-28
Figure 2-7. Recreation Area Rendering

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 2.7-1

3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis
Sections 3.1 through 3.17 provide the project- and cumulative-level environmental impact analysis for the proposed project.

After preparation of the Initial Study for the proposed project (Appendix B.1), it was concluded that impacts to agriculture/forestry resources, mineral resources and wildfire would be less than significant. However, it was also concluded that the following issue areas could possibly result in significant impacts: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and services systems. Therefore, this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for impacts for these issues.

The 17 environmental topics analyzed in Sections 3.1 through 3.17 are organized as follows:
• Introduction – provides a brief overview of each section. • Existing Conditions – describes the existing environmental conditions on the project site as it relates to the specific environmental topic being addressed in the subchapter. • Regulatory Setting – describes the federal, state, regional, and local regulatory requirements applicable to the proposed project.
• Thresholds of Significance – describes the thresholds by which the significance of project impacts are determined. A “no impact” conclusion means the project will not have any impacts for a given threshold. A “less than significant impact” conclusion means the project may have an impact; however, the impact is not to a level that would be deemed significant per the given threshold. A “significant impact” means the project has an impact that meets or exceeds a threshold and mitigation is required to reduce the impact. • Project Impact Analysis – analyzes the project-level impacts, by threshold. • Cumulative Impact Analysis – analyzes the cumulative-level impacts of the project. Cumulative projects considered in this analysis are listed in Table 2-3 in Chapter 2.0, Project Description. • Mitigation Measures – identifies the mitigation measures to reduce project - and/or cumulative-level impacts to below a level of significance. • Conclusion – briefly summarizes the analysis of each section.

The focus of the environmental analysis in each of the following sections is the suite of proposed actions as described in Chapter 2.0, Project Description.

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-2

3.1 Aesthetics
Introduction
This section addresses the aesthetic resources of the proposed project area and the potential effects that implementation of the proposed project may have related to aesthetics, including impacts to degradation of visual character and lighting/glare. The a nalysis also considers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, and applicable State and Local regulations, including the City of San Marcos General Plan. The General Plan is available on the City’s website.2 In the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project ( Appendix B.1), it was determined that there would be no potential for the project to have an adverse impact on a scenic vista, nor would the project damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Therefore, these issue will not be discussed further in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Section 5.1, Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant – Aesthetics, of the EIR provides additional information on this topic.

Table 3.1 -1 summarizes the project - and cumulative -level impact analysis for each threshold of significance.

Table 3.1-1. Aesthetics Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance Project Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
#1 - In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#2 - Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.

Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Without
Mitigation

3.1.1 Existing Conditions
Visual Character
The following is a description of the existing visual characteristics and visual quality of the project site and surrounding area.

2 http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-3
The City of San Marcos is in the northern portion of San Diego County. The majority of the City is located on the valley floor, with State Route 78 (SR-78) running through the center of the City. Landforms such as the mountain ranges to the north and south of San Marcos contribute to its scenic corridors.

The project site is located on the north side of Capalina Road, generally between N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and Pacific Street. The site is generally flat and with elevations ranging from 580-600 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The project site is currentl y undeveloped, vacant land and the entire site is characterized as disturbed habitat (Dudek 2023a). There are a few ornamental trees on the project site.

Figures 3.1-1 presents an overview of the project site and a key view map. Figures 3.1-2 through

3.1-5 present photos of the project site viewed from offsite.

The project area is characterized as a developed, urban location with a mix of commercial and residential uses. To the east of the project site is the Crossroad Shopping retail center with various strip commercial establishments such as restaurants and salon services. To the south on the opposite side of Capalina Road is a church, a fast food establishment, a bicycle retail store, and the El Dorado mobile home community. To the west is an adjacent parcel containing the former Mission Center Shopping Center, with various existing strip commercial establishments, a market and parking areas.

A liquor store remains in operation on the site. To the north of the project site is W. Mission Road, the SPRINTER rail line, and the Inland Rail Trail. North of that is an undeveloped area, with single family residential uses to the north.

Existing Light and Glare Conditions
The project site is currently undeveloped and thus does not contain any existing sources of light or glare. Additionally, the project site does not contain any reflective surfaces that would function as sources for glare. The project vicinity contains sources of nighttime lighting typical of commercial and residential uses. The project site is adjacent to developed areas and typical lighting sources in the project vicinity would include outdoor lighting fixtures on structures, in parking areas, and street lights on poles. Additionally, the project site is adjacent to W. Mission Road and vehicular headlights are visible at night. There are no sources of substantial glare present in this area.

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the local regulations related to aesthetics that are applicable to the proposed project.

Local
San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element The following goal and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element pertain to aesthetics and visual quality:
• Goal COS-3: Protect natural topography to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of San Marcos.
o Policy COS-3.1: Preserve scenic resources, including prominent landforms such as Double Peak, Owens Peak, San Marcos Mountains, Merriam Mountains, Cerro de Las Posas, Franks Peak, and canyon areas through conservation and management policies.

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-4
o Policy COS -3.2: Encourage and maintain high -quality architectural and landscaping designs that enhance or complement the hillsides, ridgelines, canyons, and view corridors that comprise the visual character in San Marcos.
o Policy COS -3.3: Continue to work with new development and redevelopment project applicants in designing land use plans that respect the topography, landforms, view corridors, wildlife corridors, and open space that exists. o Policy COS-3.4: Evaluate potential impacts to visual and aesthetic resources, including the potential to create new light sources, while still maintaining and being sensitive to rural lighting standards.

The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Table 3.10 -7 in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with all the applicable goals and policies.

San Marcos Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance. Title 20 The provisions of Title 20 of the San Marcos Municipal Code are referred to as the Zoning Ordinance.

The San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20 is the primary implementation tool for the policies of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance provides more detailed direction related to design and development standards; permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses; and other regulations such as lighting and sign regulations. The land uses specified in the Zoning Ordinance are based upon and consistent with the land use policies set forth in the General Plan. Specifically, building design, setbacks, lighting, and signage standards as well as open space requirements for development to protect open space and ambient light levels in the city. T he lighting standards of the Ordinance require energy -efficient lighting that limits light and glare for private projects, with exceptions for specialized streetscape lighting. Private developments are required to submit lighting plans to ensure consistency with dark sky needs of the region (City of San Marcos 2023a).

Title 20, Section 20.300.080, Site Planning and General Development Standards The City of San Marcos Street Lighting Standards and Specifications describes the lighting and glare standards for the city. These standards require lighting to be directed downward and limit the type and spacing of lighting to maintain reasonable lighting levels that do not contribute to light pollution. The City uses International Dark Sky Association thresholds to inform its own testing, leading to a policy that allows for the use of energy -efficient lighting sources that include, but are not limited to, light- emitting diode (LED) and induction lighting technologies (City of San Marcos 2023b).

Title 20, Chapter 20.260, Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone The City of San Marcos adopted a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone in November 2008, set forth in Ordinance 2008-1314, to minimize visual impacts to important ridgelines. These guiding principles are in place to protect natural viewsheds, mi nimize physical impacts to ridgelines, and establish innovative site and architectural design standards. The Ordinance identifies primary and secondary ridgelines within the City, plus buffer zones, and Ridgeline Overlay Zones (ROZ), surrounding these ridgelines (City of San Marcos 2023b). No primary or secondary ridgelines are located within or adjacent to the project site. The nearest primary ridgeline is within the North City Area #1 map and includes Owens Peak and “P” Mountain. This primary ridgeline is located approximately 1.35 miles northwest of the project site.

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-5

3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines , visual quality and aesthetics impacts are considered potentially significant if the project would:
• Threshold #1: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanize d area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
• Threshold #2: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

3.1.4 Project Impact Analysis
Construction
Project construction involves grading and site preparation activities to prepare the site for future buildings and infrastructure improvements. Construction could require staging areas with construction equipment and supplies, and portable trailers to serve as temporary office space or storage. Grading on the site would change or alter the existing topography on the project site to prepare the site for development. The project plans are included in Appendix A.2.

Operations
The project proposes 119 multi -family residential units and 4,000 s.f. of commercial floor area on

2.51 acres. The conceptual site plan is included as Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2. The residential units would be spread across two buildings identified as Buildin g A and Building B. Building A is an L -shaped building fronting Capalina Road that would be four stories in height and have a maximum height of 56 feet. Building B is a rectangular -shaped building fronting W. Mission Road. Building B would also be four stories and have a maximum height of approximately 51 feet.

The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of trees, shrubs, grasses and groundcover and the plant selection emphasizes low and moderate water use species. The landscape concept plan is included as Figure 2 -4 in Chapter 2. Proposed tree species include the following: Marina strawberry tree, Chinese flame tree, African sumac, Brisbane box, true green elm, crape myrtle, sweetshade, sweet bay, shrubby yew podocarpus, Carolina laurel, holly oak, tipu tree, and pink trumpet tree. The proposed project would also comply with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and Municipal Code, Title 20.

Elevations for Building A are presented in Figures 2 -5a and 2 -5b. Elevations for Building B are presented in Figures 2-6a through 2-c. The proposed recreation area is presented in Figure 2-7.

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-6

Threshold #1: In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is i n an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The City of San Marcos (which includes the project site) is considered an urbanized area per the Public Resources Code (PRC). Per PRC Section 21071, an “urbanized area” is defined as “(a) an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria: (1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons, or (2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.” As of July 1, 2022, the US Census Bureau (USCB) estimated the population of San Marcos to be 94,854 persons (USCB 2023).

While this is less than 100,000 persons, the City of San Marcos is contiguous with the City of Escondido, which has an estimated population of 151,074 persons as of July 1, 2022 (USCB 2019).

The combined estimated population of these two contiguous cities is 245,928 persons, which is well over the 100,000 persons threshold. Thus, the City would be considered an urbanized area per CEQA.

Therefore, the first question of this aesthetics threshold does not apply to the proposed project, as it is directed at non-urbanized areas.

The second part of this threshold is for projects in urbanized areas, which applies to the project. A significant impact would occur if the project conflicts with the applicable zoning and other regulations that govern scenic quality. Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of the landscape, which is subjective and varies.

The project site is currently zoned Mixed Use 3 (MU -3 (SP)) and includes a rezone request to change the zoning to Mixed Use 2 (MU-2). The project has been designed to meet the development standards of the MU-2 zone, with the exception of the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) and the minimum setback requirements. California’s Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) provides for additional density as well as incentives and waivers for qualifying projects. The project applicant is requesting a waiver for the reduced FAR and the setback. The project FAR would be 1.24 compared to the 1.75 minimum FAR identified in the MU -2 Development Standards (Table 20.225 -2 of the Municipal Code). The building setback along W. Mission Road would be 0 feet. This reduced setback is based upon the City’s request for additional right -of-way along W. Mission Road. The building placement was shifted south, and the setback from W. Mission Road was reduced to 0 feet. The exceptions are allowed with the requested waivers. The pro ject meets all other aspects of the MU -2 Development Standards including the City's commercial parking ratio through the allocation of an incentive, as provided under the State Density Bonus law.

The City of San Marcos adopted a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone in November 2008, set forth in Ordinance 2008-1314, to minimize visual impacts to important ridgelines. These guiding principles are in place to protect natural viewsheds, mi nimize physical impacts to ridgelines, and establish innovative site and architectural design standards. The Ordinance identifies primary and secondary ridgelines within the City, plus buffer zones, or ROZ surrounding these ridgelines (City of San Marcos 2023b).

No primary or secondary ridgelines are located within or adjacent to the project site. The nearest primary ridgeline is within the North City Area #1 map and includes Owens Peak and “P” Mountain.

This primary ridgeline is located approximately 1.35 miles n orthwest of the project site. The project would not result in any visual impact to primary and secondary ridgelines. Therefore, the project would

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-7
not conflict with the ordinance. Additionally, there is a general lack of public vantage points in the project vicinity.

The project’s consistency with goals and policies related to scenic views and aesthetics is presented in Table 3.10-7 in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. No conflicts were identified.

The project design incorporates architectural treatments and design to break up the bulk and scale of the proposed buildings. This includes building articulation and setbacks with varied rooflines. The proposed landscaping plan would further enhance the pr oject site through implementation of a comprehensive and aesthetically pleasing landscape design, which would be maintained by the project owner. The landscape plan is included as Appendix A2 of the EIR. With approval of the requested waivers, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be
less than significant.

Threshold #2: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Exterior lighting proposed for the project shall be guided by the City of San Marcos Street Lighting Standards and Specifications and San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20, Section 20.300.080, Light and Glare Standards. These standards require downward-directed LED lighting, with the exception of specialized streetscape lighting or architectural detail lighting, which aid in the preservation of dark - sky conditions that are needed by the local observatories. The location, type, and direction of the lighting wou ld be reviewed during the Improvement Plan review to ensure compliance with City requirements.

Lighting in the project vicinity is associated with roadway lighting along W. Mission Road and lighting associated with existing commercial and residential uses in the area and immediately adjacent to the project site. Development of the proposed project would introduce permanent lighting to a site that is currently undeveloped and does not have lighting.

Excessive, poorly designed, or unshielded lighting can be detrimental to astronomical observations.

Two observatories are located in San Diego County: Palomar Observatory, located over 20 miles northeast of the proposed project site, and Mount Laguna Obser vatory - located approximately 50 miles southeast of the proposed project site.

The project’s lighting plan is included in Figure 2 -7 in Chapter 2. As proposed, the project’s exterior lighting would include street and parking area lighting on 18-foot poles, wall pack lighting, pedestrian- scale lighting, and wall sconces. All lighting proposed for the project would be energy efficient, architecturally appropriate fixtures designed to minimize glare, conflict, and light pollution, while providing illumination levels that create a safe environment for both vehicles and pedestrians. To achieve these goals, all areas of the community would be aptly lit to coincide with their relevant use and activities. Street area lights would be fully cut-off fixtures and would utilize building-side shields to reduce light trespass and prevent light pollut ion. Common area lighting within the project would be used to enhance and complement the character of the development. Lighting would need to be varied and appropriate for each use within the common areas of the development.

The project does not propose features that would be characterized as creating a new source of glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. The proposed materials include stucco walls, composite shingle roof material, resawn woo d fascia, trim detailing, and metal railing. components would be neutral in color. The roof and wall colors and materials are not reflective and would not create significant sources of glare.

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-8
Since the project would be required to comply with the lighting standards set forth by the City, all lighting would be shielded to minimize light scatter and maintain dark sky conditions, and the proposed materials to be used in the homes are not glare -inducing, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be
less than significant.

3.1.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projects contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.

Projects contributing to a cumulative aesthetic impact include those within the project viewshed. The viewshed encompasses the geographic area within which the viewer is most likely to observe the proposed project and surrounding uses. Typically, this is delineated based on topography, as elevated vantage points, such as scenic vistas, offer unobstructed views of expansive visible landscapes.

From Owen’s Peak and “P” Mountain, the closest primary ridgelines to the project site, viewers may be able to see cumulative projects in the same viewshed, and potentially portions of the project site.

The proposed buildings would be four stories and have a maximum height of approximately 56 feet.

There is existing development in the project vicinity and the project would not substantially contrast with the visual patterns of the area. The project would appear as an extension of the already urbanized landscape. When the proposed project is considered with other cumulative projects in the same viewshed, cumulatively, the increase in development would blend in with the existing urban landscape and would not result in a significant visual impact. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to a cumulative change in the visual character of the surrounding area.

Cumulative effects of lighting are visible over a wide area, due to the potential for lighting from a number of projects to create sky glow. Currently, the project site does not have night lighting since it is undeveloped. Lighting in the project vicinity is associated with roadway lighting along W. Mission Road and lighting associated with existing commercial and residential uses in the area and immediately adjacent to the project site. As described in Section 3.1.4, the project would introduce new lighting sources at the project site; however, these fixtures would be shielded to minimize light scatter and maintain dark sky conditions and would be required to comply with the lighting standards set forth by the City. Cumulative projects would also be required to adhere to the lighting standards of the jurisdictions in which they are located. When the proposed project is considered with other cumulative project adding night lighting, the impact would be less than significant due to the compliance with lighting standards set forth in the City that minimize light scatter and maintain dark sky conditions. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to sky glow such that a new significant cumulative sky glow impact would occur. Cumulative impa cts would be less than
significant.

3.1.6 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis in section 3.1.4 and 3.1.5, aesthetics impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-9

3.1.7 Conclusion
The project site is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including the scenic resource protection policies in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan (refer to Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning). Implementation of the proposed project would reasonably result in changes to the visual character of the site by allowing a mixed -use residential development; however, impacts would be minimal due to a general lack of public vantage points and the developed nature of the project vicinity.

Landscaping associated with the project would also soften views of the project site from adjacent uses.

Lighting and glare impacts were also determined to be less than significant, as the future multi-family buildings would not include highly reflective finishes or excessive lighting. Further, exterior lighting proposed for the project would comply with the City of San Marcos Street Lighting Standards and Specifications and the San Marcos Municipal Code. Cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, aesthetic impacts are concluded to be less than significant.

Figure 3.1-1. Site Photos Key Views

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-10
Figure 3.1-2. View 1 – From the South

Figure 3.1-3. View 2 - From the West

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-11
Figure 3.1-4. View 3 - From the North

Figure 3.1-5. View 4 - From the East

3.1 Aesthetics
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.1-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-1

3.2 Air Quality
Introduction
This section identifies, describes, and evaluates air quality issues associated with the proposed project. This section analyzes short -term construction impacts and long -term operational impacts to air quality and determines whether the project would resul t in a significant air quality impact. This section is based upon the following report, which is included as Appendix C of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)3:

Air Quality Assessment, Capalina Apartments Residential Development Project , prepared by LDN Consulting, June 19, 2023 (LDN 2023a).

Table 3.2-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level air quality impacts, by threshold.

Table 3.2-1. Air Quality Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance Project Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
#1 - Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without Mitigation
#2 - Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without Mitigation
#3 - Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without Mitigation
#4 – Result in other emissions (such as
those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without Mitigation

3.2.1 Existing Conditions
This section introduces the meteorologic/climate conditions for the project area and presents the current physical setting and pollutant levels in the proximity of the proposed project.

Meteorology/Climate
Climate within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) area often varies dramatically over short geographical distances with cooler temperatures on the western coast gradually warming to the east as prevailing winds from the west heats up. Most of southern California is dominated by high-pressure systems for

3 Full references for documents cited in this section are included in Chapter 7, References, of this EIR.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-2
much of the year, which keeps San Diego mostly sunny and warm. Typically, during the winter months, the high-pressure systems drop to the south and brings cooler, moister weather from the north.

Meteorological trends within the City of San Marcos produce daytime highs typically ranging between 64ºF in the winter to approximately 88ºF in the summer with August usually being the hottest month.

Daytime Low temperatures range from approximately 37ºF in the winter to approximately 59ºF in the summer. Precipitation is generally about 16.2 inches per year. Prevailing wind patterns for the area vary during any given month during the year and vary depending on the time of day or night. The predominant pattern though throughout the year is usually from the west or westerly (LDN 2023a).

Baseline Air Quality
Regional
The project site is located in the land use jurisdictions of the City of San Marcos (City) within the County of San Diego, within the northwestern coastal portion of the SDAB under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAB is one of 15 air basins that geographically divide the State of California.

Project area air quality can best be characterized from ambient measurements made by the SDAPCD.

SDAPCD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout San Diego County, which measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether the ambient air quality meets national and state air quality standards. Pursuant to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been achieved. Generally, if the recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. As explained further below, these standards are set by USEPA or the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated as “unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the standard or is expected to meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. Areas that achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation are re-designated as maintenance areas and must have approved maintenance plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards. The California Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, calls for the designation of areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment,” but based on the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) rather than the NAAQS.

Current attainment designations for the SDAB are presented in Table 3.2 -2. As shown, the SDAB currently exhibits a non-attainment status for the federal 8-hour standard for ozone (O3). Additionally, the SDAB is either in attainment or unclassified for federal standards of 1 -hour O3, carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO 2), and lead (Pb). The SDAB is also in attainment of state air quality standards for all pollutants except for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. An attainment plan is available for O3.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-3
Table 3.2-2. San Diego County Air Basin Attainment Status by Pollutant Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (O3) – 8-hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
Ozone (O3) – 1-hour Attainment Nonattainment(1)
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Unclassifiable(2) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment Nonattainment(3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified Source: SDAPCD 2023.

Notes: (1) The federal 1 -hour standard of 12 parts per hundred million (pphm) was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans. (2) At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
(3) The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has not reclassified the region to attainment yet due to (1) incomplete data, and (2) the use of non-California Approved Samplers (CAS). While data collected does meet the requirements for designation of attainment with federal PM 2.5 standards, the data completeness requirements for state PM 2.5 standards substantially exceed federal requirements and mandates and have historically not been feasible for most air districts to adhere to given local resources. SDAPCD has begun replacing most regional filter -based PM 2.5 monitors as they reach the end of their useful life with continuous PM2.5 air monitors to ensure collected data meets stringent completeness requirements in the future. SDAPCD anticipates these new monitors will be approved as "CAS" monitors once CARB reviews the list of approved monitors, which has not been updated since 2013.

Local
The SDAPCD air quality monitoring stations located in Carmel Mountain Ranch and Camp Pendleton are the closest stations to the project area. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the two most recent years of monitoring data from the Carmel Mountain Ranch and Camp Pendleton monitoring stations.

Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution, as identified by CARB, include children, the elderly, an d people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes.

The immediate project vicinity is developed primarily with commercial uses. The site is bounded by West Mission Road to the north, and by Capalina Road to the south. Existing commercial and retail uses are located on the west, east, and south of the site. The El Dorado Park mobile home community is located across the street from the project site on the south side of Capalina Road. There are also existing single-family residential uses north of West Mission Road, and west of N Rancho Santa Fe Rd.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-4
Table 3.2-3. Two Year Ambient Air Quality Summary Near the Project Site (Camp Pendleton or Carmel Mountain Ranch Stations)
Pollutant(1) Averaging
Time CAAQS NAAQS 2021 2022
Days
Exceeded
Over 2 Years
O3
(ppm)
1 hour 0.09 ppm No Standard 0.07 0.08 0
8 hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.06 0.07 0
PM10
(µg/m(3)
24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 PM10 Data Not Available for Monitoring Sites near Project Site. Annual(2) 20 µg/m3 No Standard PM2.5(3)
(µg/m3)
24 hour No Standard 35 µg/m3 23.5 14.9 N/A
Annual(2) 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 8.5 7.6 N/A
NO2
(ppm)
Annual(2) 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.013 0.013 N/A
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm 0.059 0.059 N/A
CO(2)
(ppm)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm 3.0 2.2 N/A
8 hour 9 ppm 9 ppm 1.8 1.2 N/A
Source: LDN 2023a.

Notes: (1) SO2 is only monitored at the El Cajon Monitoring Station. Within the entire County of San Diego, SO2 emissions within the County are essentially Zero for all metrics including the Average, Maximum 24 hour and mph 1-hour standards. The highest 1 -hr measurement identified is 0.004 ppm and the most restrictive standard (CAAQS for SO2) is 0.25 ppm.
(2) Annual arithmetic mean
(3) Data was collected from Carmel Mountain Ranch station which began in 2019. All other data presented was collected at the Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station.

Pollutants and Effects
Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, w ith an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. The criteria air pollutants that are monitor ed by the USEPA are ozone (O 3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns or 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10, and PM2.5) sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). These pollutants, as well as toxic air contaminants (TACs), are discussed in the following text. In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility -reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants. E xamples of sources and effects of these pollutants are identified below:

Ozone (O3): A strong smelling, pale blue reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms.

It is a product of the photochemical process involving the sun's energy. O 3 exists in the upper atmosphere O3 layer, as well as at the earth’s surface. O 3 at the earth's surface causes numerous adverse health effects, including lung inflammation, tissue damage, and impaired lung functioning, is a major component of smog, and can damage materials such as rubber, fabrics, and plastics.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-5
It should be noted that Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) is a family of poisonous, highly reactive gases. These gases form when fuel is burned at high temperatures. NOx pollution is emitted by automobiles, trucks, and various non-road vehicles (e.g., construction equipment, boats, etc.) as well as industrial sources such as power plants, industrial boilers, cement kilns, and turbines. NOx often appears as a browning gas. It is a strong oxidizing agent and plays a major role in the atmospheric reactions with Volatil e Organic Compounds (VOCs) which produce ozone on hot summer days (LDN 2023a).

Carbon Monoxide (CO): Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, and toxic gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO interferes with the blood's ability to carry oxygen to the body's tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects includi ng fatigue, headaches, confusion, and dizziness.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2): NO2 is formed when nitrogen (N 2) combines with oxygen (O 2). Its life span in the atmosphere ranges from one to seven days. NO2 is typically created during combustion processes and is a major contributor to smog formation and acid deposition. NO2 may result in numerous adverse health effects, including respiratory damage. It absorbs blue light, resulting in a brownish -red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility.

Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 10 Microns in Diameter (PM 10): A major air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles of soot, dust, smoke, fumes, and aerosols. The size of the particles (equal to 10 microns or smaller, about 0.0004 inch or less in diameter) allows them to easily enter the lungs where they may be deposited, resulting in adverse health effects, including allergies, asthma, and respiratory illness. PM
10 also causes visibility reduction.

Particulate Matter Less Than or Equal to 2.5 Microns in Diameter (PM 2.5): A similar air pollutant consisting of tiny solid or liquid particles which are 2.5 microns or smaller (which are often referred to as fine particles). These particles are formed in the atmosphere from primary gaseous emissions that include sulfates formed from SO
2 released from power plants and industrial facilities and nitrates that are formed from NOx released from power plants, automobiles, and other types of combustion sources.

The chemical composition of fine particles depends mostly on location of the emissions, time of year, and weather conditions. The adverse health effects of PM

2.5 are similar to those of PM10.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): Typically, strong smelling, colorless gas that is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. SO2 and other sulfur oxides contribute to the problem of acid deposition as well as adverse health effects including respiratory constriction and, with continued exposure, increased incidents of pulmonary symptoms.

Lead (Pb): Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Lead has historically been emitted from vehicles combusting leaded gasoline, as well as from industrial sources. With the phase -out of leaded gasoline, large manufacturing facilities are the sources of the greatest amount of lead emissions. Lead has the potential to accumulate over time and cause gastrointestinal, central nervous system, kidney, and blood diseases upon prolonged exposure. Lead is also classified as a probable human carcinogen.

Visibility Reducing Particles: These are particles in the air that obstruct visibility.

Sulfates: Sulfates are salts of Sulfuric Acid and occur as microscopic particles (aerosols) resulting from fossil fuel and biomass combustion. The increase the acidity of the atmosphere and form acid rain.

Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S): A colorless, toxic, and flammable gas with a recognizable smell of rotten eggs or flatulence, H2S occurs naturally in crude petroleum, natural gas, volcanic gases, and hot springs.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-6
Exposure to low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may cause irritation to the eyes, nose, or throat. It may also cause difficulty in breathing for some asthmatics. Brief exposures to high concentrations of H
2S (greater than 500 parts per million) can cause a loss of consciousness and possibly death.

Vinyl Chloride: Also known as chloroethene, vinyl chloride is a toxic, carcinogenic, colorless gas with a sweet odor. It is an industrial chemical mainly used to produce its polymer, polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants. A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic noncancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is conside red a TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two -step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two- step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “ Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air po llution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of e ffective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over 5 years.

Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by several sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ sy stems and may be experienced on either short -term (acute) or long -term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.

CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel -fueled engines” (i.e., diesel particulate matter [DPM]) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust.

Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks.

DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on -road diesel engines of trucks, buses, and cars and off-road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy -duty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM. To reduce the cancer risk associated with diesel particulate matter, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000).

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to air quality, including federal, state, and local guidelines.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-7
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementing most aspects of the Clean Air Act, including s etting National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants, setting hazardous air pollutant standards, approving state attainment plans, setting motor vehicle emission standards, issuing stationary source emission standards and permits, and establishing acid rain control measures, stratospheric O 3 protection
measures, and enforcement provisions. Under the Clean Air Act, NAAQS are established for the criteria pollutants O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead and shown in Table 3.2-4.

The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The NAAQS for CO, Lead and those based on annual averages or arithmetic mean are not to be exceeded more than once per year. NAAQ S for O 3, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are
based on statistical calculations over 1 - to 3-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The Clean Air Act requires the USEPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health bas ed on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames. These plans must include pollution control me ans that demonstrate how the standards will be met as expeditiously as possible. The NAAQS were amended in July 1997 to include an additional standard for O 3, and to adopt a standard
for fine particulates (PM2.5). In June 2002, a stringent statewide PM2.5 standard was adopted. In 2012, the PM2.5 standard was lowered further based on air quality monitoring data.

Table 3.2-4. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Average
Time
California Standards(1) National Standards(2)
Concentration(3) Method(4) Primary(3)(5) Secondary
(3)(6)
Measurement
Method(7)
Ozone
(O3)(8)
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry

Same as Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry
8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3) 35 µg/m3
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)(9)
24 Hour 50 µg/m3
Gravimetric
or Beta
Attenuation
150 µg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)(9)
24 Hour No Separate State Standard Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3
Gravimetric
or Beta
Attenuation

12.0 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8 hour 9.0 ppm (10mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm (10
mg/m3)
-
Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry 1 hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8 Hour
(Lake
Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3)

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-8
Pollutant Average
Time
California Standards(1) National Standards(2)
Concentration(3) Method(4) Primary(3)(5) Secondary
(3)(6)
Measurement
Method(7)
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2) (10)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemilumi-
nescence

0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3) (8)
Same as Primary
Standard Gas Phase
Chemilumi-
nescence
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)

0.100 ppm(8)
(188/ µg/m3) -
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2) (11)
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
-
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence

0.030 ppm(10)
(for Certain
Areas)
-
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectropho-
tometry
(Pararoo-saniline
Method)9
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)

0.14 ppm(10)
(for Certain
Areas) (See
Footnote 9)
-
3 Hour - 0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
75 ppb
(196 µg/m3) -
Lead(12) (13)
30 Day
Average 1.5 µg/m3
Atomic
Absorption
- -
Calendar
Quarter - 1.5 µg/m3
Same as Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Rolling 3-
Month
Average
- 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles
8 Hour See footnote 13
No National Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Ion Chroma-
tography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride(12)
24 Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 µg/m3)
Gas Chroma-
tography

1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded.

All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies.

3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.

4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.

5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-9
Pollutant Average
Time
California Standards(1) National Standards(2)
Concentration(3) Method(4) Primary(3)(5) Secondary
(3)(6)
Measurement
Method(7)

6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.

7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA.

8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.

9. On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m3 . The existing national 24- hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3 , as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3 . The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.

10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.

11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

12. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

14. In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.

Source: CARB 2016, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
mg/m3= milligrams per cubic meter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
To gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Primary standards set limits for the protection of public health, including those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly, or sensitive receptors. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare and include protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Research has shown that chronic exposure to O 3 at levels that just marginally meet
clean air standards may nevertheless have adverse health effects. State and federal agencies, therefore, have promulgated a more stringent 8 -hour O
3 standard that better reflects human health
response to more chronic exposure, shown in Table 3.2 -4. U.S. EPA set the 2008 ozone standard to 75 parts per billion (ppb) and required all areas of the country to meet this monitored concentration by July 20, 2018. The areas that were not able to demonstrate compliance with this standard hav e now been classified as an ozone nonattainment area. U.S. EPA revised the standard to 70 ppb in 2015

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-10
but some areas, including San Diego County, have still not met the 2008 standard and their attainment status changed in level of severity.

State
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS)
In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to CARB, with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, responding to the federal Clean Air Act, and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.

The CARB has established California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standards before a basin can attain the standard. Air quality is considered “in attainment” if pollutant levels are continuously below the CAAQS and violate the standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O
3, CO, SO 2 (1-hour and 24 -hour), NO2, PM10, and PM 2.5 and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

Additionally, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility -reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants in California. The CAAQS cur rently in effect in California are also shown in Table 3.2-4 and include the most recently adopted federal standards for chronic (8-hour) O3 exposure and for ultra -small diameter particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM 2.5).

CAAQS restrict four additional contaminants: visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Current attainment designations for the SDAPCD are presented in Table 3.2-2.

California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), signed into law in 1988, requires all areas of the state to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. Air pollution from commercial and industrial facilities is regulated by local air quality management districts, whereas mobile sources of air pollution are regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the USEPA. All air pollution control districts have been formally designated as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each state air quality standard, as shown in Table 3.2-2. Areas in California where ambient air concentrations of pollutants are higher than the state standard are considered to be in “non-attainment” status for that pollutant.

If there are inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, districts are considered “unclassified.”
Local
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Although CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local air quality management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The project i s located within the SDAB and is subject to SDAPCD guidelines and regulations. In San Diego County, O
3 and particulate matter are the pollutants of main
concern, because exceedances of the CAAQS for those pollutants are experienced here in most years.

In J anuary 2021, SDAPCD sent a request to EPA to reclassify San Diego County from Serious Nonattainment to Severe Nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and from Moderate to Severe Nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQs. EPA granted this request in April 2021. SDAPCD prepared

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-11
and submitted to the USEPA, via CARB, ozone attainment plans identifying control measures and associated emissions reductions necessary to demonstrate attainment of the 75-ppb 2008 standard by July 20, 2027 and attainment of the 70-ppb 2015 standard by August 3, 2033. Reclassification imposes additional requirements under the CAA (for example, transportation control strategies and measures to offset emissions increases from vehicle miles traveled) that will help ensure the area has the tools needed to attai n the standard. The 2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ozone Standards (SDAPCD 2020) addresses all requirements for both ozone standards.

SDAPCD and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plan for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the SDAB. The Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) for the SDAB was initially adopted in 1991 and most recently updated in 2022.The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the CAAQS for O

3. The RAQS details how the region will manage and reduce O3 precursors (NOx and VOCs) by identif ying measures and regulations intended to reduce these contaminants. The control measures identified in the RAQS generally focus on stationary sources; however, the emissions inventories and projections in the RAQS address all potential sources, including those under the authority of CARB and USEPA. Incentive programs for reduction of emissions from heavy -duty diesel vehicles, off-road equipment, and school buses are also established in the RAQS.

The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County and the cities in the County, to project future emissions and then determine from that th e strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the County as part of the development of their general plans. Projects that produce less growth than predicted by SANDAG would generally conform to the RAQS.

City of San Marcos General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan identifies one goal and several policies regarding air quality. Those policies that are applicable to the project are listed below:
• Goal COS-4: Improve regional air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
o Policy COS-4.1: Continue to work with the U.S. EPA, CARB, SANDAG, and the SDAPCD to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards.
o Policy COS-4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
o Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.

Policy COS-4.8: Encourage and support the generation, transmission, and use of renewable energy.

The Environmental Justice Element of the City’s General Plan identifies one goal and a policy regarding air quality, listed below:
• Goal EJ -1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce impacts associated with climate change.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-12
o Policy EJ-1.9: Continue to work with the U.S. EPA, CARB, SANDAG, and the SDAPCD to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards.

The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Table 3.10 -7, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to air quality.

3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
The State of California has developed guidelines to address the significance of air quality impacts based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines which provides guidance that a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
• Threshold #1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; • Threshold #2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
• Threshold #3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Threshold #4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
To determine whether a project would: (a) result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or (b) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM
10 or PM 2.5 or exceed quantitative thresholds for O 3
precursors, nitrogen oxides (NO x) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), project emissions may be evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the SDAPCD, the agency responsible for air quality planning, monitoring, and enforcement within this basin. As part of its air quality permitting process, the SDAPCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 for the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments (AQIAs) (SDAPCD 2019).

For CEQA purposes, these screening criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that a project’s total emissions would not result in a significant impact to air quality. Since SDAPCD does not have AQIA thresholds for emissions of VOCs, the use of the Coachella Valley VOC threshold from the South Coast Air Quality Management District is acceptable.

The thresholds listed in Table 3.2-5 represent screening-level thresholds that can be used to evaluate whether project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality for both construction and operation. Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a signi ficant impact.

If emissions exceed these thresholds, modeling would be required to demonstrate that the project’s total air quality impacts result in ground -level concentrations that are below the State and Federal AAQS, including appropriate background levels. For nonattainment pollutants (PM10 and PM2.5 plus O3, with O3 precursors NOx and VOCs), if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 3.2-5, the project could have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants and thus could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-13
Table 3.2-5. Screening-Level Criteria for Air Quality Impacts Pollutant Total Emissions (Pounds/Day)
Construction Emissions
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 250
Sulfur Oxide (SOx) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 75
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) (SCAQMD) 75
Operational Emissions
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 250
Sulfur Oxide (SOx) 250
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550
Lead and Lead Compounds 3.2
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (1) 75
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) SCAQMD(1) 75
Source: LDN 2023a.

Note (1) The USEPA uses the term Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and CARB’s Emission Inventory Branch uses the term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) to essentially define the same thing. There are minor deviations between compounds that define each term; however, for purposes of the air quality study, they are assumed to be essentially the same due to the fact that SCAQMD interchanges these terms and because CalEEMod directly calculates ROG in place of VOC.

In addition to impacts from criteria pollutants, project impacts may include emissions of pollutants identified by the state and federal government as toxic air contaminants (TACs) or Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). SDAPCD Regulation XII establishes accep table risk levels and emission control requirements for new and modified facilities that may emit additional TACs. Under Rule 1210 (adopted in 1996 and revised several times, most recently 2021), emissions of TACs that result in a cancer risk of 10 in 1 million or less and a health hazard index of one or less would not be required to notify the public of potential health risks. If a project has the potential to result in emissions of any TAC or HAP that results in a cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 milli on, the project would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact and would be required to implement toxics best available control technology (T-BACT) (SDAPCD 2021).

SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) also prohibits emission of any material which causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person (SDAPCD 1976). A project that proposes a use which would produce ob jectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of offsite receptors. Projects

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-14
that may cause odor conflicts include certain types of commercial uses (e.g., auto body shops, furniture repair), industrial, public (e.g., landfill, wastewater treatment facilities), and agricultural operations (CARB 2005). The impacts associated with con struction and operation of the project were evaluated for significance based on the aforementioned significance criteria.

3.2.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold #1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan As part of the RAQS and SIP planning process, the SDAPCD develops an emission inventory, based on growth projections from SANDAG and existing emissions figures within the SDAB. The SDAPCD then uses the emission inventory to conduct modeling to demonstrate that the SDAB will attain and maintain the state and federal O
3 standards. This inventory could be thought of as an “emissions budget” for the SDAB, accounting for current emissions as well as previously approved projects consistent with current General Plan policies.

The project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3), which is a mixed-use non -residential designation with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. The project includes a General Plan amendment request to change the existing MU3 designation to Mixed Use 2 (MU2), which has a maximum FAR of 2.25. The proposed project seeks to construct 119 multi-family residential units with 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of commercial space. The existing site MU3 designation would allow for a 90,000 s.f. office use with 10,000 s.f. of retail and 400 parking spaces. Development under the MU3 designation under this scenario would result in approximately 2,200 ADT, compared to the project, which would generate 874 ADT. Since the largest component o f air quality emissions are typically derived from vehicular trips, the site would be considered less intense. Therefore, t he project’s development intensity and density would decrease from its current General Plan designation.

The project is therefore considered consistent with the County’s RAQS and would comply with the state’s SIP. Impacts would be
less than significant.

Threshold #2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard Air quality impacts associated with the proposed project would likely come from two potential sources.

The first is related to project construction, such as impacts related to construction equipment emissions and haul trucks for soils import. The second is operational from mobile source emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the proposed project as well as natural gas emission sources.

Presented below are the analyses and findings for these two impact areas.

Construction Emissions Analysis
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a temporary, but substantial, impact on local air quality. These emissions are generally associated with grading, heavy equipment usage, blasting, and from construction worker commutes. Dust emissions and impacts vary with the level of activity, specific operations conducted, and prevailing winds. For the proposed project, rough grading activities assume site preparation, grading, paving, building construction and architectural coating.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-15
Construction grading operations for the project are anticipated to include 4,030 cubic yards (cy) of cut material and 12,270 cy of fill material requiring an import of approximately 8,240 cy of fill material.

CalEEMod modeling assumed a default load size of approximately 15 cy per truck for a total of 515 loads (1,030 trips) during project grading. Assuming 20 work days for materials import and the use of a 15 cy truck, there would be approximately 28 truckloads per day during grading. The project would start grading in late 2024 with residential construction to start shortly thereafter.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 2020.4.0 was used to calculate the emissions associated with the construction of the project and uses methodologies presented in the US EPA AP - 42 document with emphasis on Chapter 11.9. It should be noted that CalEEMod 2022 is available, though since its release, it has been updated 29 times. Utilization of the current release version 2022.1.1.13 is anticipated to result in similar to lower air quality emission calculations compared to the 2022.04.0 model. Also, the 2020 version is considered more conservative and would therefore still be relevant for this analysis (LDN 2023a). The AERSCREEN dispersion model was used to determine the concentration for air pollutants at any location near the pollutant genera tor as well as to predict the maximum exposure distance and concentrations. The following design features were assumed within the CalEEMod analysis:
• All heavy diesel construction equipment would be classified as Tier IV • In accordance with Rule 67 of the California Air Resource Board, only Low VOC paints shall be utilized onsite.
• Compliance with SDAPCD’s fugitive dust rules and fugitive dust control measures which would be provided by the City of San Marcos.

Table 3.2-6 presents construction-related emissions. As shown in Table 3.2-6, construction emissions for all criteria pollutants would be below the screening level thresholds. Therefore, construction-related air emissions would not violate any air quality standards and impacts are less than significant.

Table 3.2-6. Construction Emissions (lbs/day)
Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10
(Dust)
PM10
(Exhau
st)
PM10
(Total)
PM2.5
(Dust)
PM2.5
(Exhau
st)
PM2.5
(Total)
2024 0.66 23.37 17.80 0.12 10.36 0.23 10.59 4.30 0.22 4.52 2025 39.82 5.92 30.78 0.06 1.36 0.07 1.41 0.36 0.07 0.43 Total
Construction
Emissions 39.82 23.37 30.78 0.12 10.36 0.23 10.59 4.30 0.22 4.52 Screening
Level
Threshold 75 250 550 250 - - 100 - - 55
Exceed
Threshold? No No No No - - No - - No
Source: LDN 2023a.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-16
Operational Emissions Analysis
Daily project operations would generate emissions from sources such as area, energy, mobile, waste and water use. Area Sources include consumer products, landscaping, and architectural coatings as part of regular maintenance. Operational emissions were cal culated using the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 model for both summer and winter scenarios. The traffic inputs for CalEEMod were adjusted to be consistent with the proposed project traffic study. Based on that study, the proposed project would generate 874 net average daily trips (CRA 2023). The project traffic trip distances are based on an average trip distance within the County which can be calculated using the total daily VMT within the county (86,284,768) miles divided by the total trips in the County (16,007,853) or roughly 5.4 miles.

Table 3.2-7 summarizes project-related operational emissions, including vehicular and fixed -source emissions. As shown, total operational emissions of the project would be below the SDAPCD screening thresholds for all criteria pollutants in both summer and winter. Th erefore, operation-related impacts would not violate any air quality standard and would be less than significant.

Table 3.2-7. Operational Emissions (lbs/day)
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Summer Scenario
Area Source 3.37 0.11 9.82 0.00 0.05 0.05
Energy Use 0.03 0.22 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Emissions 1.91 1.58 13.98 0.03 3.01 0.82
Total 5.31 1.91 23.90 0.03 3.08 0.89
Screening
Level Threshold
75 250 550 250 100 55
Above threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Scenario
Area Source 3.37 0.11 9.82 0.00 0.05 0.05
Energy Use 0.03 0.22 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02
Mobile Emissions 1.84 1.71 14.75 0.03 3.01 0.82
Total 5.23 2.05 24.67 0.03 3.08 0.89
Screening
Level Threshold
75 250 550 250 100 55
Above Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: LDN 2023a.

Notes: Daily pollutant generation assumes trip distances within CalEEMod.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-17
Threshold #3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Sensitive receptors are defined as schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, or day -care centers, as well as residential receptors in the project vicinity. The project site is located across the street from the El Dorado Park mobile home community and there are also existing single-family residential uses in the project vicinity. The threshold related to sensitive receptors addresses whether the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of criteria pollutants or TACs.

As identified above, if a project has the potential to result in emissions of any TAC that results in a cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 million or substantial non-cancer risk, the project would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact.

To address the potential for emissions of construction-related TAC emissions to result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, a screening health risk assessment was conducted for construction emissions. The risk -driving toxic air contaminant that would be emitt ed during construction would be diesel particulate matter.

Risks were calculated based on the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment update guidance. Cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation or oral dose, by a cancer potency factor, the age sensitivity factor, the frequency of time spent at home, and the exposure duration divided by averaging time, to yield the excess cancer risk. Based upon the air quality modeling, worst- case onsite PM
10 from onsite construction exhaust would cumulatively produce 0.0044 tons over the construction duration (320 calendar days) or an average of 1.44x10-4 grams/second (LDN 2023a).

Utilizing these figures and based on the AERSCREEN dispersion model, the maximum 1 -hr concentration is 0.349 µg/m3 during the worst-case construction period. The annual concentration is

0.0279 µg/m3. Therefore, the inhalation cancer risk is 3.74 per million over the construction duration.

This risk would be expressed at the point of maximum exposure 75 meters (246 feet) away. As a condition of project approval, the project would be required to utiliz e Tier 4 diesel equipment. Since the threshold is 10 per million exposed with T -BACT installed, the project would have a less than significant impact and would be in compliance with the City’s thresholds. It should be noted that sensitive residential receptors are adjacent to the project site. Since the maximum risk is 3.74 per million exposed (and the threshold is 10 per million), all sensitive receptors would have cancer risks at or less than 3.74 per million exposed which would also represent a less than significant impact (LDN 2023a).

There are known chronic health risks associated with diesel exhaust which are considered non-cancer risks. Non-Cancer risks or risks defined as chronic or acute are also known with respect to diesel particulate matter and are determined by the hazard index . To calculate hazard index, diesel particulate matter concentration is divided by its chronic Reference Exposure Levels (REL). Where the total equals or exceeds one, a health hazard is presumed to exist. RELs are published by the Office of Environmental H ealth Hazard Assessment. Diesel Exhaust has a REL of 5 μg/m 3 and targets the
respiratory system (LDN 2023a). The hourly concentration of 0.349 µg/m 3 divided by the REL of 5 µg/m3 yields a Health Hazard Index of 0.07, which is less than one. Therefore, based on thresholds for non-cancer risks, non-cancer health risks are also considered less than significant.

Therefore, toxic air contaminant impacts associated with the project would be less than significant.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-18
Threshold #4: Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Construction
Construction activities associated with development of the project site could generate trace amounts of substances such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, methane, dust, organic dust, and endotoxins. Any generation of odors related to these subs tances would occur intermittently during construction. Construction activities may also generate odors associated with diesel equipment at various locations. Odors would be strongest at the source and would quickly dissipate. The buffer between the project site and nearby residences, combined with the short term and intermittent duration of any odor emissions, would ensure construction-related impacts are less than significant.

Operation
Future development on the project site includes multi-family residences. This type of use is not typically characterized as one that would generate odors, compared to uses such as industrial and manufacturing. Therefore, odor-related impacts from future uses on the project site are determined to be
less than significant.

3.2.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. For purposes of assessing the proposed project’s cumulative impact with respect to air quality, the cumulative analysis is based upo n a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document air quality.

As part of the RAQS and SIP planning process, the SDAPCD develops an emission inventory, based on growth projections from SANDAG (which are based on land use designations) and existing emissions figures within the SDAB. The SDAPCD then uses the emission inventory to conduct modeling to demonstrate that the SDAB will attain and maintain the state and federal O 3 standards. This inventory
could be thought of as an “emissions budget” for the SDAB, accounting for current emissions as well as previously approved projects consistent with current General Plan policies.

Projects that are consistent with the currently adopted General Plan are determined to be consistent with SDAB’s air quality plans, including the RAQS and the SIP. If a project proposes development that is consistent with or less than estimates provided in the General Plan, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS or SIP. Provided a project’s emissions are consistent with the projections within the RAQS and SIP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on O
3 within the SDAB.

The project site has an existing General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3), which is a mixed-use non-residential designation. The project includes a General Plan amendment request to change the existing MU3 designation to Mixed Use 2 (MU2). Th e project proposes 119 multi -family residential units with 4,000 s.f. of retail and would generate 874 ADT. The existing site MU3 designation would allow for 90,000 s.f. of office use with 10,000 s.f. of retail and 400 parking spaces

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-19
and would generate approximately 2,200 ADT. Since the largest component of air quality emissions are typically derived from vehicular trips, development under the proposed project would be considered less intense. The project’s development intensity and density will decrease from its current General Plan designation, which is what has served as the basis of SANDAG’s growth projections. In addition, the project would conform to local air district significance thresholds. The project is therefore considered consistent with the County’s RAQS and would comply with the state’s SIP. Cumulative Impacts would be
less than significant.

3.2.6 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5, project and cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

3.2.7 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation during construction or operation, nor would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS or SIP. Additionally, due to the nature of the project, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations nor would a substantial number of people be exposed to objectionable odors.

3.2 Air Quality
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.2-20

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-1

3.3 Biological Resources
Introduction
This section provides a biological resources impact analysis for the proposed project. The analysis in this section is based upon the following reports prepared by Dudek, which are included as Appendix D.1 and D.2 of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
• Biological Resources Letter Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos .

Prepared by Dudek, June, 2023 (Dudek 2023a)
• Focused Rare Plant Survey Report for the Capalina Apartments Project , City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California. June 2023 (Dudek 2023b).

In the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project ( Appendix B.1), it was determined that there would be no potential for the project to have an adverse impact to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, no impact to state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact to wildlife corridors and nursery sites. Section 5.2, Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant – Biological Resources, of the EIR provides additional information on these topics.

Table 3.3 -1 summarizes the project - and cumulative -level impact analysis by threshold for the proposed project.

Table 3.3-1. Biological Resources Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance Project Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
#1: Have a substantial adverse effect
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Significant Impact Less than
Significant
Mitigated to Less
Than Significant
#2: Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without Mitigation
#3: Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without Mitigation

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-2

3.3.1 Existing Conditions
The 2.51-acre project site is currently undeveloped, vacant land located just north of Capalina Road.

Per the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project, the project site appeared to be vacant pastureland from prior to 1939 until approximately 1974, when the northwestern perimeter of the property appeared to be vacant, rough -graded land. By 1980, the project site appeared to be vacant, rough-graded land with what appeared to be an area graded for uses as a vehicle parking area on the sou theastern portion of the property. By 1996, the property appeared to be vacant, weed - abated land. By 2005, a vehicle parking area appears to be to be located on the southeastern perimeter of the subject property. By 2012, the vehicle parking area was remov ed and the property appeared to be vacant, weed-abated land (The Phase 1 Group 2022).

The project site is surrounded by existing commercial development and roads. The site is generally flat and with elevations ranging from 580 -600 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The entire site is occupied with disturbed habitat (Figure 3.3-1).

Vegetation Mapping and Biological Surveys
To locate and characterize natural vegetation communities, including habitats for special -status species, within the project area, Dudek conducted biological field surveys in May 2021, September 2022, and May 2023, including a biological reconnaissance survey, vegetation mapping, general habitat assessment, and two focused rare plant survey.

Vegetation communities and land covers within the survey area were mapped in the field based on general physiognomy and species composition. Data was recorded using the ArcGIS Field Maps application over aerial base map imagery of the study area. Following fieldwork, remaining vegetation mapping was completed using ArcGIS on a desktop.

The vegetation community and land cover mapping follow the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County which is based on the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.

All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified to subspecies or variety, if applicable, to determine sensitivity status. Moreover, all plant species encountered in the field were recorded. Latin and common names for plant species wi th a California Rare Plant Rank follow the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, Latin names follow the Jepson Interchange List of Currently Accepted Names of Native and Naturalized Plants of California (Jepson 2021) and common names follow the California Natural Community list (CDFW 2021) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2021).

Rare Plant Surveys
Dudek botanist Erin Bergman conducted a reference check for threadleaf brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), Orcutt’s brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), and San Diego button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) on the morning of May 21, 2021, before conducting rare plant surveys. These species were the only ones that were determined to have a potential to occur within the project site. This reference check was based on collections documented within the Calflora database. The Calflora database offers GPS point locations for plant species across California (Calflora 2022). Ms. Bergman collected coordinates from the database as close to the site as possible to ensure phenology would be similar. Ms. Bergman

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-3
targeted two locations for Brodiaea within a two to five-mile radius of the project site and one location for San Diego button celery within five miles of the project site. Ms. Bergman observed all species in full bloom (in high densities) before going to the site to perform the field surveys. On May 21, 2021, temperatures for the reference check were between 69°F and 77°F, winds were 0 to 4 miles per hour, and skies were clear.

Immediately after the reference check, the botanist conducted a focused special -status rare plant survey within the project site on May 21, 2021. The full rare plant survey report is included as Appendix C to the biology report (Appendix D.1 of this document).

An additional focused rare plant survey, with an emphasis on thread -leaved brodiaea ( Brodiaea filifolia; CRPR 1B.1, CE, FT) and Orcutt’s brodiaea ( Brodiaea orcuttii; CRPR 1B.1) was conducted on May 31, 2023, by botanist Charles Adams. The reference check was conducted on May 30, 2023, one day prior to conducting the rare plant survey. This reference check was based on known populations within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project site. Mr. Adams observed both species in full bloom (in high densities). The temperatures for the reference check were between 63°F and 70°F, winds were 0 to 4 miles per hour, and skies were overcast. Conditions for the focused rare plant survey were the same as those for the reference check. Surveys for special-status species were conducted within the project site by walking transects. Mr. Adams used both the Collector mobile application and Dudek forms mobile application to record data. Transects were included in the Collector mobile application as guidance. These transects were spread at a distance of 10 feet to cover every section of the project site, including areas with high -density vegetation. Mr. Adams followed these 10 -foot transect lines across the project site. This focused special -status plant survey conformed to the app ropriate guidelines of the prior survey(s). The 2023 focused rare plant survey memorandum is in Appendix D.2.

No rare plants were observed within the project site during the focused rare plant survey conducted by Erin Bergman in May 2021, or during the follow-up focused rare plant survey conducted by Charles Adams on May 31, 2023.

Vegetation Communities
The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) organizes vegetation into habitat group types:

Wetland Communities, Rare Upland, Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Annual Grassland, and Other (SANDAG 2003). Only one vegetation community, disturbed habitat, was identified and mapped during a general biological survey conducted in September 2022 within the project site and is described in more detail below.

Disturbed Habitat
Areas classified as disturbed habitat are areas that have been physically disturbed and are no longer recognizable as a native or naturalized vegetation association but they may continue to retain soil substrate. If vegetation is present, it is almost enti rely composed of non -native vegetation, such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species. Examples of these areas may include graded landscapes, graded firebreaks, graded construction pads, temporary construction staging areas, off -road-vehicle trails, areas repeatedly cleared for fuel management, or areas that are repeatedly used in ways that prevent revegetation (e.g., parking lots, trails that have persisted for years).

Disturbed habitat occupies the entire project site. The site is regularly mowed and maintained, and is dominated by species commonly found in disturbed areas including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and various species of bromes (Bromus sp.) and erodium (Erodium sp.). There were six native

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-4
species throughout the site including California encelia ( Encelia californica ), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia) coyote brush ( Baccharis pilularis ssp. consanguinea ), telegraph weed ( Heterotheca grandiflora), western ragweed ( Ambrosia psilostachya) and gumplant ( Grindelia camporum). All of these species were present in limited capacity and scattered throughout the site. Specifically, the one individual mulefat that was present was singular in nature and growing along the fence line adjacent to a paved parkin g lot that bordered the site, so it did not constitute a native riparian vegetation community formation. None of the native plant species found are associated with sensitive habitats.

Lastly, there are several non -native trees scattered throughout the site including Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) and Peruvian pepper tree ( Schinus molle ). Disturbed habitat would be categorized under Group F – Other Lands.

Disturbed Habitat
The small strip of land that is designated as public right -of-way along the project’s frontage onto Capalina Road is 0.15-acres and consists of disturbed habitat.

Developed Area
Adjacent to the project site is a 1.42- acre area consisting of an old, paved parking lot. This would be characterized as a developed area. This adjacent parcel is burdened by a San Diego County Water Authority easement, and additionally a 1987 reciprocal easement agreement which grants the project parcel an express easement for ingress, egress, and parking across the entirety of APN 219-115-35.

The project applicant is proposing to accommodate all parking onsite and does not anticipate using this area, under the terms of the reciprocal easement agreement, as part of the project.

Rare Plant Survey/Special-Status Plants
Based on review of the site, three special-status plant species had a high potential to occur within the project site: Orcutt’s brodiaea, threadleaf brodiaea and San Diego button celery. No rare plants were observed within the project site during the focus ed rare plant survey conducted by Erin Bergman in May 2021, or during the follow-up focused rare plant survey conducted by Charles Adams on May 31, 2023.

Special Status Wildlife Species
Attachment B of the Biological Resources Report (Appendix D.1 of the EIR) summarizes the wildlife species observed on the project site. No special -status wildlife species were observed within the project site during the biological surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022. No special -status wildlife species are expected to occur within the project site based on reasoning including but not limited to available occurrence data, habitat requirements, site elevation, level of disturbance, and surrounding urbanization.

During the general habitat assessment, the site was assessed for potential presence of suitable fairy shrimp habitat. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the site (regular mowing and anthropogenic activity), lack of road ruts, earthen depressions, as well as lack of vernal pool associated plant species, it was determined that fairly shrimp were not expected within the project site due to lack of suitable habitat and conditions.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-5
There is no federally designated critical habitat for special-status wildlife located within the project site (USFWS 2022b).

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Army Corps of Engineers – Clean Water Act Recognizing the potential for continued or accelerated degradation of the Nation's waters, the U.S.

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA), formerly known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The objective of the CWA is to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service – Endangered Species Act The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for enforcing the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Wildlife Coordination Act, and reviews and comments on applications for Section 404 CWA permits submitted to the USACE. If the proposed project is determined to have an adverse effect on a species that is federally listed as threatened or endangered, consultation with the USFWS would be required. If the proposed project may result in “take” of a federally listed species, an incidental take permit would be required. “Take” is defined in the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The project site does not contain any areas mapped as “critical habitat,” as mapped by USFWS.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 703 et seq.) is a federal statute that implements treaties with several countries on the conservation and protection of migratory birds. The number of bird species covered by the MBTA is extensive and is listed in 50 CFR 10.13. The regulatory definition of “migratory bird” is broad and includes any mutation or hybrid of a listed species and includes any part, egg, or nest of such bird (50 CFR 10.12). Migratory birds are not necessarily federally listed endangered or threatened birds under the ESA. The MBTA, which is enforced by USFWS, makes it unlawful “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory bird or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation. The applic able regulations prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (50 CFR 21.11).

State
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has the authority to reach an agreement with an agency or private party proposing to affect intermittent or permanent wetlands habitat, pursuant to Sections 1601-1616 of the California Fish and Game Cod e. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires notification to CDFW prior to diversion of, obstruction of, use of material from, or deposition of materials in any river, stream, or lake. In accordance with its policy of “no net loss of

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-6
wetland habitats,” the Department requires mitigation for all impacts to any wetlands, regardless of acreage.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050, et seq.) generally parallels the main provisions of the Federal ESA and is administered by the CDFW. Its intent is to prohibit “take” and protect state listed endange red and threatened species of fish, wildlife, and plants. Unlike its federal counterpart, the CESA also applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates).

Natural Community Conservation Planning
CDFW's Natural Community Conservation Planning ( NCCP) program is an effort by the State of California, and numerous private and public partners, that takes a broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of biological diversity. An NCCP identifies and provides for the regional or areawide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity.

Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
The MHCP is a comprehensive conservation planning process that addresses the needs of multiple plant and animal species in Northwestern San Diego County. The MHCP encompasses the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach , and Vista. Its goal is to conserve approximately 19,000 acres of habitat, of which roughly 8,800 acres (46 percent) are already in public ownership and contribute toward the habitat preserve system for the protection of more than 80 rare, threatened, or endangered species.

The City of San Marcos began preparing a draft of the City Subarea Plan of the MHCP in December 1999 and although the City’s Draft Subarea Plan has not yet been approved by the USFWS and CDFW, the plan is a component of the adopted MHCP, and is currently being used as a guide for open space design and preservation within the City. The intent of the City’s Draft Subarea Plan is to identify a citywide preserve system that meets local and regional biological goals while minimizing fiscal and economic impacts to the City and adverse impacts on private property owners. To help achieve this goal, certain areas, known as focused planning areas (FPAs), have been designated with parcel -level preserve goals which would contribute to achieving local and regional conser vation goals while minimizing adverse effects on property rights and property values.

The project site is located within the MHCP. The proposed project site is situated within an urbanized area, is surrounded by paved roads and/or commercial developments, and does not act as a wildlife corridor. It is not designated as a Biological Core and Linkage Area or MHCP Focused Planning Area.

Local
San Marcos General Plan
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan contains several policies pertaining to the protection of biological resources. The following goals and policies apply to the project:
• Goal COS -1: Identify, protect, and enhance significant ecological and biological resources within San Marcos and its adaptive Sphere of Influence.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-7
o Policy COS-1.1: Support the protection of biological resources through the establishment, restoration, and conservation of high quality habitat areas. o Policy COS-1.2: Ensure that new development, including Capital Improvement Projects, maintain the biotic habitat value of riparian areas, oak woodlands, habitat linkages, and other sensitive biological habitats.
• Goal COS-2: The City is committed to conserving, protecting, and maintaining open space, agricultural, and limited resources for future generations. By working with property owners, local organizations, and state and federal agencies, the City can limit the conversion of resource lands to urban uses.
o Policy COS -2.1: Provide and protect open space areas throughout the City for its recreational, agricultural, safety, and environmental value. o Policy COS-2.2: Limit, to the extent feasible, the conversion of open space to urban uses and place a high priority on acquiring and preserving open space lands for recreation, habitat protection and enhancement, flood hazard management, water and agricult ural resources protection, and overall community benefit.
o Policy COS-2.6: Preserve healthy mature trees where feasible; where removal is necessary, trees shall be replaced at a ratio of 1:1.

The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As shown in Table 3.10 -7 in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies.

3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines define “significant effect on the environment” as a “substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines further indicate that there may be a significant effect on biological resources if the project would:
• Threshold #1: Have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Depart ment of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Threshold #2: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Threshold #3: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

As noted above, it was determined that there would be no impact to riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities, no impact to state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact to wildlife corridors and nursery sites. Section 5.2, Environmental Effe cts Found Not to be Significant – Biological Resources, of this EIR provides additional information on these topics. The Initial Study is included in Appendix B.1.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-8

3.3.4 Project Impact Analysis
The proposed project is expected to permanently impact the entire project site through grading and development of the project site.

Threshold #1: Have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Direct and Indirect Impacts – Special - Status Plants Species No rare plants or special-status were observed within the project site during either of the focused rare plant survey conducted in May 2021 and May 2023. The potentially occurring rare plant species are presumed absent from the site based on focused survey s conducted under suitable conditions and timing for detection (i.e., reference populations were blooming). The proposed project would not impact any special status or rare plant species.

Direct and Indirect Impacts - Special - Status Wildlife Species No special-status wildlife was observed within the project site during the biological surveys conducted in 2021 and 2022. No special -status wildlife species are expected to occur within the project site based on reasoning including but not limited to available occurrence data, habitat requirements, site elevation, level of disturbance, and surrounding urbanization. Suitable habitat for sensitive species of the region (coastal sage scrub, riparian, vernal pools) is lacking from the site. Further, there is no federally designated critical habitat (USFWS 2022b) for special -status wildlife located within the project site.

The entire project site is disturbed habitat supporting species commonly occurring in urbanized areas.

A total of five commonly occurring wildlife species were detected on the project site and include house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American crow ( Corvus brachyrhynochos) and mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any direct or indirect impacts to special status wildlife species.

Direct and Indirect Impacts - Nesting Birds
The proposed project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed or ground disturbing activities occur during the breeding and nesting season (typically February 1 to September 15). Impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Clearing, grubbing and construction activities, if conducted during the breeding and nesting season, could directly or indirectly impact species protected under the MBTA. This represents a significant impact (Impact BIO-1) and mitigation is required. • Impact BIO-1: Potential to impact avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act if tree removal, vegetation removal, or other construction activities occur during the nesting season.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-9
Threshold #2: Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Existing ornamental vegetation would be removed during project construction and new trees and landscaping would be planted. Specifically, four Mexican fan palms are proposed to be removed to prepare the site for development. General Plan Policy COS -2.6 requires that any removed trees be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. The proposed landscape plan includes 82 trees. The project would replace trees at an approximate 20:1 ratio, which greatly exceeds the requirements of Policy COS -2.6.

Proposed tree species to be planted per the landscape plan include Marina strawberry tree, Chinese flame tree, African sumac, Brisbane box, true green elm, crape myrtle, sweetshade, sweet bay, shrubby yew podocarpus, Carolina laurel, holly oak, tipu tree, and pink trumpet tree. The landscape plan is included as Appendix A.2. The project would not conflict with any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. No impact is identified for this issue area.

Threshold #3: Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The project site is located within the MHCP. However, t he project site is not located within a FPA as defined in City’s Draft Subarea Plan nor is it identified as a Biological Core and Linkage area (Dudek 2023a). The MHCP organizes vegetation into habitat group types: Wetland Communities, Rare Upland, Coastal Sage Scrub, Chaparral, Annual Grassland, and Other. (SANDAG 2003). Only one vegetation community, disturbed habitat, was identified within the project site. Disturbed habitat impacts are considered less th an significant in the City’s Draft Subarea Plan. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified and no mitigation is required.

3.3.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projects contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. For purposes of assessing the proposed project’s cumulative impact with respect to biological resources the cumulative analysis is based upon a list approach. All of the cumulative projects within the city identified in Table 2 -3 are considered in this cumulative analysis.

The biological cumulative impact analysis focuses on those projects that would have a similar type of biological resource impact as the proposed project. The project has the potential to impact species protected under the MBTA.

The cumulative projects which remove trees or vegetation during the nesting season could also have the potential for impacts to species protected under the MBTA. These impacts are avoided through restrictions on construction timing, or the performance of p re-construction surveys to ensure that nesting birds would not be impacted. This is similar to the mitigation identified for the proposed project and would ensure that cumulative impacts are less than significant.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-10

3.3.6 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would be required as a condition of project approval:

Impact BIO-1 Nesting Birds
MM-BIO-1 Construction-related ground -disturbing activities (e.g., clearing/grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and other intensive activities) that occur during the breeding season (typically February 1 through September 15) shall require biological survey for n esting bird species to be conducted within the limits of grading within 72 hours prior to construction. This survey is necessary to ensure avoidance of impacts to nesting raptors and/or birds protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503 and 3513. If any active nests are detected, the area shall be flagged and mapped on the construction plans or a biological resources figure, and the information provided to the construction supervisor and any pe rsonnel working near the nest buffer. Active nests will have buffers established around them (e.g., 250 feet for passerines to 500 feet for raptors) by the project biologist in the field with brightly colored flagging tape, conspicuous fencing, or other ap propriate barriers or signage. The project biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to avoid inadvertent impacts to these nests. The project biologist may adjust the 250 -foot or 500-foot setback at his or her discretion depending on the species and the location of the nest (e.g., if the nest is well protected in an area buffered by dense vegetation). However, if needed, additional qualified monitor(s) shall be provided in order to monitor active nest(s) or other project activities in order to ensure all of the project biologist’s duties are completed. Once the nest is no longer occupied for the season, construction may proceed in the setback areas.

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

3.3.7 Conclusion
Based on the presence of suitable avian nesting habitat, pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds would be conducted to ensure that no impacts on nesting birds that are afforded protection under the MBTA occur (see mitigation measures MM-BIO-1). Mitigation measure MM-BIO-1 requires a preconstruction survey if construction is proposed during the nesting season. If nesting birds are found, avoidance measures would be implemented to minimize impacts. With the implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-1, direct impacts on nesting birds would be less than significant. All other biological resources impacts were determined to be less than significant.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-11
Figure 3.3-1. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types

Source: Dudek 2023a.

3.3 Biological Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.3-12
Figure 3.3-2. Proposed Impacts to Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types

Source: Dudek 2023a.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-1

3.4 Cultural Resources
Introduction
This section identifies the cultural resources on the project site and analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources. Cultural resources considered in this analysis include archaeological (prehistoric) resources and historical resources. Tribal Cultural Resources are analyzed in Section 3.16 of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 4 The analysis in this section is based upon the following report prepared by Dudek, which is included as Appendix E of the EIR:
• Archaeological Resources Inventory Report for the Capalina Apartments Project, City of San Marcos, California (Dudek 2023c)
The archaeological resources inventory report included a record search, literature review, correspondence with Native American contacts, and field survey. The analysis also considers the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G and applicable State and Local regulations, including the City of San Marcos General Plan. The archaeological resources inventory report and significance evaluation are included as Appendix E of the EIR and the General Plan is available on the City’s web site.
5 In the Initial Study checklist prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B.1), it was determined that there would be no potential for the project to have an adverse impact to historic resources since none were identified on the site. Section 5.4, Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant – Cultural Resources of this EIR provides additional information on this topic.

Table 3.4-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level cultural resources impacts, by threshold.

Table 3.4-1. Cultural Resources Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance Project-Level
Impact
Cumulative-Level
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
#1 – Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5.

Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Mitigated to Less
Than Significant
#2 – Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries.

Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Mitigated to Less
Than Significant

4 Full references for documents cited in this section are included in Chapter 7, References, of this EIR. 5 http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-2

3.4.1 Existing Conditions
Records Search
Previous Cultural Resources Reports
A records search request was submitted to the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on September 16, 2022 and the results were provided on September 27, 2022. The records search results identified that 59 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project area. Of the 59 previous studies, five studies intersect the project area. These studies consist of an archaeological report, a cultural resources inventory report, a cultural resources assessment report, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and a records search and literature review. Overall, the entire project area has been previously studied with negative results identified.

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The SCIC records search did not identify any cultural resources within the project area. The records search did identify 32 cultural resources within the one-mile search radius of the project area. Of the total 32 resources identified in the one -mile buffe r, 17 are prehistoric resources, 14 are historic resources, and one is a multi -component site. No historic addresses are located within the project area, however, 11 are located within the one-mile search radius.

Archival Research
In addition to the SCIC records search, Dudek conducted an on -line review of historical aerial photographs of the project area and general vicinity, to help determine the possible development and land use of the project area in the past. Historical aerial photographs of the project area were available for 1938, 1947, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1978, 1980-1991, 1993-2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2022 (NETR 2022). Table 3.4 -2 summarizes the historical aerial photographic review.

Table 3.4-2. Historical Aerial Photograph Review
Date Description
1938 to 1953 Project area was undeveloped, however, Capalina Road to the south and W. Mission Road to the north are observed
1964 to 1967 The project area remains undeveloped; however, residential development can be observed to the south and northeast of the project area 1978 Commercial development is observed immediately west and east of the project area, and within the surrounding vicinity
1980 The vegetation within the project area appears to be cleared, and a building pad is observed within the eastern section of the project area. 1984 Some light grading can be observed on the eastern and northern borders of the project area.
1985 to 1987 The eastern section of the project area is used as a dirt parking lot for vehicles.
1993 The southeastern section of the project area has undergone some grading activities

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-3
Date Description
1994 to 2002 No changes observed in the project area.
2003 A small rectangular sandy area is observed within the northern section of the project area
2009 The rectangular box is no longer observed within the project area. 2009 to present The project area remains undeveloped to the present.

Historical topographic maps of the project area were reviewed (earliest map available is 1893). The historical topographic maps from 1970 to 2018 shows the Second San Diego Aqueduct trending north to south to the west of the project area. No historic -age structures were identified within the project area.

Tribal Correspondence and Coordination
On September 16, 2022, Dudek requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the project area. The SLF consists of a database of known Native American resources. The NAHC replied on November 9, 2022 a nd the SLF search came back negative. The NAHC provided a list of Native American tribes and individuals/organizations with traditional geographic association that might have knowledge of cultural resources in this area.

Outreach letters were mailed November 14, 2022, to all Native American representatives included on the NAHC contact list. These letters attempted to solicit additional information relating to Native American resources that may be impacted by the project. Native American representatives were requested to define a general area where known resources intersect the project area. Two responses have been received to date, one from the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and one from the Pechanga Band of Indians.

The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians responded on December 12, 2022, stating that the project area is located within their Traditional Use Area and Specific Area of Historic interest and the potential exists that the project may impact TCRs or Traditional Cu ltural Properties (TCPs). They recommend archaeological and tribal monitoring for any ground disturbing activities.

The Pechanga Band of Indians responded on December 23, 2022, stating that the project is located near a TCP and three Ancestral Placename Villages with 18 previously recorded sites within one mile of the project. The Pechanga Band of Indians pointed out th at Agua Hedionda Creek is located near the project boundary and expressed concern as they historically buried their Ancestors near long-term waters, and native soils likely remain intact beneath the plow-zone, meaning there is a high potential to encounter sensitive subsurface resources during ground -disturbing activities associated with the project. They are recommending monitoring by a San Diego County qualified archaeologist and a professional Pechanga Tribal Monitor during earthmoving activities.

Archaeological (Prehistoric) Resources
Dudek archaeologist Makayla Murillo conducted an intensive level pedestrian survey of the proposed project area on October 12, 2022. Saving Sacred Sites Native American monitor Jessica Alexander participated in the pedestrian survey. All survey work was co nducted employing standard archaeological procedures and techniques consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Five-meter interval survey transects were conducted in an east -west direction for the project area.

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-4
Within the transects, the ground surface was examined for prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire -affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soi l depressions, features indicative of the current or former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls, post holes, foundations), and historic artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics, building materials). Ground disturbances such as burrows, cut banks, and drainages were also visually inspected for exposed subsurface materials.

The project area is relatively flat and undeveloped with a small east facing slope along the western boundary. Some disturbances were observed, such as stockpiled imported rock on the northwesternmost portion of the project area. Ground visibility was fair (25-50%) in areas where the ground surface was obscured by vegetation. Approximately 75% of the project area was obscured by dead grass and a few dispersed palm trees. Modern debris (e.g., refuse, plastic fragments, irrigation pipes, glass fragments) is s trewn throughout the project area. The pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural resources within the project area.

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to cultural resources, including state and local guidelines.

Federal/State
Native American Heritage Values
Federal and state laws mandate that consideration be given to the concerns of contemporary Native Americans with regards to potentially ancestral human remains associated funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony. Consequently, an important element in assessing the significance of the study site has been to evaluate the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed Project.

The category termed “Traditional Cultural Properties” in discussions of cultural resource management performed under federal auspices is also potentially relevant to prehistoric sites. According to Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), “Traditional” in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Examples of properties possessing such significance include the following:

1. A location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world;

2. A rural community whose organization, buildings and structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long-term residents;

3. An urban neighborhood that is the traditional home of a particular cultural group, and that reflects its beliefs and practices;

4. A location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and/or

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-5

5. A location where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.

State
Native American Historic Cultural Sites
The Native American Historic Cultural Sites law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Nati ve American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the NRHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Repatriation Act), enacted in 2001, required all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes.

Health and Safety Code 7050.5
This code establishes that any person who knowingly mutilates, disinters, wantonly disturbs, or willfully removes any human remain in or from any location without authority of the law is guilty of a misdemeanor. It further defines procedures for the discov ery and treatment of Native American remains.

Health and Safety Code 8010-8011
This code is intended to provide consistent state policy to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural material are treated with dignity and respect. The code extends policy coverage to non-federally recognized tribes and federally recognized groups.

Assembly Bill 2461
The section provides procedures for private land owners to follow upon discovering Native American human remains. Land owners are encouraged to consider culturally appropriate measures if they discover Native American human remains as set forth in California PRC 5097.98.

Senate Bill 18
SB 18, approved in 2004, amends the California Civil Code and the California Government Code, requiring cities and counties to contact and consult with California Native American tribes prior to adopting or amending any general plan or specific plan, or designating land as open space in order to preserve or mitigate impacts to specified Native American places, features and objects that are located within a city’s or county’s jurisdiction. SB 18 also requires cities and counties to hold in strict confidence any information about the specific identity, location, character, or use of these resources.

In 2005, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published Tribal Consultation Guidelines to guide

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-6
cities and counties on the process of engaging in consultation in accordance with SB 18. The NAHC maintains a list of California Native American Tribes with whom cities and counties must consult pursuant to SB 18.

Assembly Bill 52
AB 52 was approved in 2014 and adds new requirements regarding consultation with California Native American Tribes and consideration of tribal cultural resources. The law went into effect on July 1, 2015, and after that date, if requested by a California N ative American Tribe, lead agencies must consult prior to the release of a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Draft EIR. Tribal Cultural Resources are discussed in Section 3.16 of the EIR.

Local
San Marcos General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan contains several policies pertaining to the protection of archaeological, and historic resources. The following goals and policies apply to the project:
o Policy COS-2.5: Continue to review future development proposals to ensure that cultural resources (including prehistoric, historic, paleontological, and SB 18 Tribal resources) are analyzed and conserved in compliance with CEQA requirements. • Goal COS -11: Continue to identify and evaluate cultural, historic, archaeological, paleontological, and architectural resources for protection from demolition and inappropriate actions.
o Policy COS-11.1: Identify and protect historic and cultural resources including individual properties, districts, and sites (e.g., archaeological sites) in compliance with CEQA. o Policy COS -11.2: Prohibit the demolition or removal of a historic structure without evaluation of the condition of the structure, the cost of rehabilitation, and the feasibility of alternatives to preservation in place including but not limited to relocati on, or reconstruction offsite, and/or photo-preservation.
o Policy COS-11.3: Identify opportunities for adaptive reuse of historic sites and buildings to preserve and maintain their viability.

San Marcos Archaeological and Historical Resources Consultant Guidelines The City of San Marcos published guidelines for archaeological and historical resources consultants in January 2023. The guidelines are generally meant to aid third party consultants who prepare archaeological or architectural history inventories, surveys, evaluations, and other technical documents. These guidelines include information pertaining to the minimum qualifications, records searches, tribal outreach, pedestrian surveys, reporting, research design, findings, discussion and evaluations, management conclusions, references, and appendices of inventories, surveys,

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-7
evaluations, and other technical documents (City San Marcos 2023). Dudek prepared the archaeological resources inventory report in accordance with these guidelines.

3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
The determination of significance for cultural resources is based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G .

Impacts to cultural resources would be significant if the proposed project would:
• Threshold #1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
• Threshold #2: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

As noted above, it was determined that there would be no potential for impact to historic resources since none were identified on the site. Section 5.4, Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant – Cultural Resources of this EIR provides additional information on this topic. The Initial Study is included as Appendix B.1 of this document.

3.4.4 Project Impact Analysis
The project site is vacant. Ground disturbing activities can result in impacts to archaeological resources if they are present on the project site. The following analysis discusses the potential for the proposed project to impact cultural resources.

Threshold #1: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

The archaeological resources inventory for the project indicates that there is low-moderate sensitivity for identifying intact subsurface archaeological deposits during implementation (Dudek 2023c). The SCIC records search and the pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural resources within the project area; however, 32 cultural resources were identified within the 1 -mile radius. The review of aerial photographs also reveals the project area has been disturbed by clearing activities. An intensive pedestrian survey of the project area did not identify any cultural resources; however, the project area has not been developed, and because alluvial soils are present throughout the project area from depths ranging from one to five feet deep, there is potential for subsurface cultural resources to exist on the project site. This represents a
potentially significant impact (Impact CR-1) and mitigation is required.
• Impact CR-1 Due to grading and ground disturbing activities, the project has the potential to impact unidentified archaeological resources on the project site.

Threshold #2: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

The archaeological resources field survey conducted for the project did not identify any human remains or find any indications that they would be expected to be found on the project site. If human remains are encountered during project construction, there is a potential for a significant impact (Impact CR-
2).
• Impact CR-2 There is a potential for project construction activities to disturb previously unidentified human remains on the project site.

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-8
State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Adherence to State Health and Safety C ode Section 7050.5 is mandated and is reiterated as a mitigation measure in Section 3.4.6.

3.4.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. For purposes of assessing the proposed project’s cumulative impact with respect to cultural resources, the cumulative analysis is ba sed upon a list approach to determine the proposed project’s contributing effect on potential cumulative impacts on cultural resources. All of the cumulative projects identified in Table 2 -3 are considered in this cumulative analysis.

Archaeological Resources
While no resources were identified on the project site during the archaeological resources reconnaissance, it was determined that there could be a potential for unidentified resources to be encountered subsurface during project grading. Other cumulative projects would be required to assess the potential for impact to archaeological resources and provide mitigation measures or avoidance measures to reduce significant impacts to cultural resources consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the City. Additio nally, the lead agency is required to consult with tribes pursuant to the requirements of SB 18 and/or AB 52. The City requires standard conditions of approval related to construction monitoring by an archaeologist to ensure there are no inadvertent impact s to archaeological resources. Cumulative impacts would be
less than significant.

3.4.6 Mitigation Measures
Archaeological Resources (Impact CR-1)
The following cultural resources mitigation measures shall apply for ground disturbing activities during the project construction phase.

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

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-9
investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground disturbing activities. Any project -specific Monitoring Plans and/or excavation plans prepared by the project archaeologist shall include the TCA Tribe requirements for pr otocols and protection of tribal cultural resources that were agreed to during the tribal consultation.

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

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

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

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

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-10
to the Planning Division and the TCA Tribe, preferably through e -mail, of the start and end of all ground disturbing activities.

Prior to the release of any grading bonds, or prior to the issuance of any project Certificate of Occupancy, an archaeological monitoring report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the construction monitoring shall be submitted by th e Qualified Archaeologist, along with any TCA Native American monitor’s notes and comments received by the Qualified Archaeologist, to the Planning Division Manager for approval. Once approved, a final copy of the archaeological monitoring report shall be retained in a confidential City project file and may be released, as a formal condition of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation, to San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Pechanga Band of Indians, or any parties involved in the project specific monitoring or consultation process. A final copy of the report, with all confidential site records and appendices, will also be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center after approval by the City.

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

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

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

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-11
appropriate mitigation to address the negative impact to the resource, such as, but not limited to, the funding of an ethnographic study and/or a data recovery plan, as determined by the City in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tri be. The TCA Tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the determination and implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation and the drafting and finalization of any ethnographic study and/or data recovery plan, and/or other culturally appropriate mitigation. Any archaeological isolates or other cultural materials that cannot be avoided or preserved in place as the preferred mitigation shall be temporarily stored in a secure location on site (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologi st and TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre -Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will be inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American monitor.

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

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

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

If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be

3.4 Cultural Resources
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.4-12
protected (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by State law, the Medical Examiner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority.

If the Medical Examiner recognizes the remains to be Native American, and not under his or her jurisdiction, then he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent, who shall be afforded 48 hours from the time access is granted to the discovery site to make recommendations regarding culturally appropriate treatment.

If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ (in place) until after the Medical Examiner makes its determination and notifications, and until after the Most Likely Descendent is identified, at which time the archae ological examination of the remains shall only occur on site in the presence of the Most Likely Descendent. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public.

According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). In the event that the Applicant/Owner and the Most Likely Descendant are in d isagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC.

In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a location free from future disturbance (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(e) and 5097.94(k)).

3.4.7 Conclusion
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3.4.4, the potential exists for impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources during project grading. These potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources would be mitigated to below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-3.

Specifically, implementation of these mitigation measures provides for the presence of archaeological and Native American monitors during ground disturbing activities that would be able to identify any previously unidentified cultural and/ or historical resources, to prevent inadvertent disturbance of any intact cultural deposits that may be present. Should any resources be identified, implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM -CR-3 would ensure proper handling and treatment of such resources by providing for a p roper evaluation to determine whether additional archaeological work is necessary.

To further ensure impacts to Native American archaeological resources are protected, implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-3 provides additional protections for significant resources, and describes the process for proper treatment and handling to ensure impacts are minimized.

Potential impacts to human remains would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure MM-CR-4, which specifies that remains shall not be further disturbed until the San Diego County Coroner has determined origins of the remains and final treat ment has been agreed to with input of Native American Tribes, as necessary. Therefore, with incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to below a level of significance.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.5-1

3.5 Energy
Introduction
This section describes the existing setting of the project site with respect to energy use and conservation, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project.

Appendix G and Appendix F of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) discusses the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy to ensure that energy implication s are considered in project -related decision -making processes. As such, this section analyzes the energy impacts of the proposed project. Specifically, this section summarizes the existing conditions in the project area, discusses the regulatory framework, and discloses estimated energy use during the construction and operational phases of the proposed project. This analysis considers the electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel (petroleum) demand of the proposed project.

The analysis is based on the following report, which is included as Appendix F of this document6:
• Energy Usage Letter, Capalina Apartments Residential Development Project, prepared by LDN Consulting, June 19, 2023 (LDN 2023b).

Table 3.5-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level energy impacts, by threshold.

Table 3.5-1. Energy Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance Project-Level Impact Cumulative-Level Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
Threshold #1: Result in
potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation.

Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Without Mitigation
Threshold #2: Conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency.

Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Without Mitigation

3.5.1 Existing Conditions
The environmental setting for the proposed project related to electricity, natural gas, and petroleum, including associated service providers, supply sources, and estimated consumption, is discussed below.

6 Full references for documents cited in this section are included in Chapter 7, References, of this EIR.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-2
Electricity
California uses more energy than all other states except Texas. However, due to the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s energy use per capita is less than in almost all other states (except Hawaii). In 2022, California was the nation's fourth- largest electricity producer and accounted for about 5% of all U.S. utility-scale (1-megawatt and larger) power generation. Renewable resources, including hydropower and small-scale (less than 1-megawatt) customer-sited solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, supplied about half of California's total in -state electricity generation. In 2022, natural gas -fired power plants provided 42% of the state's total net generation. Coal fuels only a small amount of Californi a's in-state net generation, all of it from one industrial cogeneration plant. California imports more electricity than any other state and typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state. In 2022, in- state utility-scale electricity generation equaled about four -fifths of California's electricity sales, and the rest of the state's supply came from out of state. Wildfires in California and surrounding states threaten both imports of electricity and transmission within the state (EIA 2023). California consumed 247,250 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2021 (EIA 2022).

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) provides electric and natural gas services to a population of 1.4 million business and residential accounts. SDG&E distributes energy service through 1.49 million electric meters and 905,000 natural gas meters in a 4,100-square-mile service area that includes San Diego County and southern Orange County (SDG&E 2022a). SDG&E is a subsidiary of Sempra Energy and would provide electricity to the proposed project.

The Path to Net Zero: A Decarbonization Roadmap for California (Roadmap) examines the implications to the State and SDG&E service area of transitioning to a carbon neutral (net zero emissions) economy by 2045, as mandated in the California Climate Crisis (See Section 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting below).

Electricity is expected to play a central role in decarbonization. Clear priorities include the need to expand electrification and supplies of solar and wind power, invest in a diverse set of electric generation resources that will help ensure the electric grid is reliable and lastly, to provide much larger volumes of clean fuels.

Electrification is central to decarbonizing the transportation and building sectors. As such, electricity usage and demand is expected to increase. According to the Roadmap, the State of California can expect a 96% projected increase in electric consumption between 2020-2045 and a 60% projected increase in net peak demand for the same period. SDG&E projects approximately a 100% increase in electric consumption for its service area between 2020 and 2045 and an 85% increase in net peak demand. California had 85 gigawatt (GW) total capacity in 2020 and is projected to need 356 GW of capacity by 2045. As described in the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, the scale of transformation needed over the next decade to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and meet ambitious climate goals is extraordin ary. This is why Governor Newsom and the Legislature invested over $15 billion in climate action through the 2021/2022 California Comeback Plan, and why the 2022 –2023 budget marks the beginning of the California Climate Commitment—the governor’s multi-year plan to invest $54 billion in climate action.

This plan includes $2.1 billion for clean energy investments, such as long duration storage, offshore wind, green hydrogen, and industrial decarbonization (CARB 2022). California is planning to expand and reinforce its electrical grid through investment and regional cooperation, increase in -state renewable energy as well as renewable energy imports, increase storage, particularly behind the meter PV storage, work toward changing consumer behavior (e.g., charging electric vehicles during the day when solar energy is available) and investing in development and implementation of technology that allow electric vehicles (EVs) to transmit energy back into the grid.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-3
SDG&E believes meeting carbon neutrality will require installing 40 GW of new battery storage as well as 20 GW of dispatchable generation from 100% clean hydrogen generation by 2045. Moreover, in addition to existing natural gas generation, they believe that 4 GW of electricity from natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration will be needed to support reliability as the electric sector decarbonizes. Combined, these flexible resources can provide clean electricity when the sun is not shining and the wi nd is not blowing, and ensure that high electricity demand during the summer months can be reliably met (SDG&E 2022b). SDG&E’s 2022 Individual Integrated Resource Plan (IIRP) is designed to meet key statutory requirements related to ensuring system reliabi lity, reducing GHG emissions with the best-fit resources at the lowest possible cost, and satisfying the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program goals. To that end, SDG&E is anticipating procuring 56% of its power from renewable resources for the 202 1-2024 RPS Compliance Period, which is well above the State’s

38.4% requirement.

Additionally, within SDG&E’s service area, charging infrastructure will help to enable transportation electrification. SDG&E projects 900,000 EVs will operate in their service area in 2030 and 3,230,000 EVs in 2045. Similarly, 180,000 EV chargers are projected in SDG&E’s service area in 2030 and 640,000 EV chargers are projected in 2045 (SDG&E 2022b).

Natural Gas
California is the nation's second -largest natural gas consumer (after Texas). Total natural gas consumption in 2021 totaled 2,101 billion cubic feet. In 2021, about 33% of the natural gas delivered to California consumers went to the state's industrial sector, and about 31% went to the electric power sector, where it fuels more than two -fifths of the state's total electricity generation. The residential sector, where three in five California households use natural gas for home heating, accounted for 22% of natural gas use, and the commercial sector consumed about 12%. The transportation sector used about 1% as compressed natural gas vehicle fuel. California's natural gas output has declined steadily since 1985, and the state now accounts for less than 1% of the nation's total natural gas reserves and production. California's natural gas production is less than one-tenth of the state's total consumption (EIA 2023).

The California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) regulates natural gas utility rates and services provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Gas Company, SDG&E, Southwest Gas, and several smaller natural gas utilities. SDG&E pr ovides natural gas service to the Counties of San Diego and Orange and would provide natural gas to the proposed project. SDG&E is a wholesale customer of SoCalGas and currently receives all its natural gas from the SoCalGas system (CPUC 2021).

Petroleum
California is the nation's second-largest consumer of refined petroleum products, after Texas, and accounts for about 8% of U.S. total consumption. In 2021, California was the nation's largest consumer of jet fuel and the second-largest consumer of motor gasoline, after Texas. The transportation sector used about 83% of the petroleum consumed in the state. The industrial sector accounted for about 13% of state petroleum use, and the commercial sector consumed about 3%. The residential sector, where about 1 in 27 California households heat with petroleum products, mostly propane, used about 1%. A minimal amount of petroleum is used for electricity generation. Total petroleum consumption was estimated to be 605 million barrels. (EIA 2023).

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-4
Technological advances, market trends, consumer behavior, and government policies could result in significant changes in fuel consumption by type and in total. At the federal and state levels, various policies, rules, and regulations have been enacted to i mprove vehicle fuel efficiency, promote the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce transportation‐source air pollutants and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Market forces have driven the price of petroleum products steadily upward over time, and technological advances have made use of other energy resources or alternative transportation modes increasingly feasible.

California requires that motorists use, at a minimum, a specific blend of motor gasoline called CaRFG (California Reformulated Gasoline) to reduce emissions from motor vehicles. California refineries produce cleaner fuels in order to meet state environment al regulations. Refineries in the state often operate at or near maximum capacity because of the high demand for those petroleum products and the lack of interstate pipelines that can deliver those cleaner fuels into the state (EIA 2023).

Largely as a result of and in response to these multiple factors, gasoline consumption within the state has declined in recent years, and availability of other alternative fuels/energy sources has increased.

The quantity, availability, and reliability of t ransportation energy resources have increased in recent years, and this trend may likely continue and accelerate. Increasingly available and diversified transportation energy resources act to promote continuing reliable and affordable means to support vehicular transportation within the state. California is part of the West Coast Green Highway, an extensive network of electric vehicle DC fast charging stations located along Interstate 5, and the state has more than 14,000 public electric vehicle charging stations. As of December 31, 2021, California had more than 563,000 registered all-electric vehicles, the most of any state. California also requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to 100% zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleets. Beginning in 2029, all transit agency new bus purchases must be ZEBs (EIA 2023). Further, Executive Order N-79- 20 calls for elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. By setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 203 5, the Governor’s Executive Order establishes a target for the transportation sector that helps put the state on a path to carbon neutrality by 2045. It is important to note that the Executive Order focuses on new vehicle sales for automakers, and therefore does not require Californians to give up the existing cars and trucks they already own.

The primary mechanism for achieving the Zero -Emission-Vehicle target for passenger cars and light trucks is the Advanced Clean Cars II Program discussed below in Section 3.5.2 Regulatory Setting.

As stated above SDG&E’s Decarbonization Roadmap projects 900,000 EVs will operate in their service area in 2030 and 3,230,000 EVs in 2045. Similarly, 180,000 EV chargers are projected in SDG&E’s service area in 2030 and 640,000 EV chargers are projected in 2045 (SDG&E 2022b).

Gasoline and other vehicle fuels are commercially provided commodities and would be available to the proposed project through commercial outlets.

Existing Infrastructure
The proposed project is within the SDG&E service area and would connect to the existing underground line at the project frontage with Capalina Road.

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. On the federal level, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are three fe deral agencies with substantial influence

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-5
over energy policies and programs. On the state level, CPUC and California Energy Commission (CEC) are two agencies with authority over different aspects of energy. Relevant federal, state, and local energy-related regulations are summarized below. This information helps to place the impact analysis within its proper regulatory context.

Federal
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (1975)
The Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act established the first fuel economy standards for on - road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2012, new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 FR 62624–63200). Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States.

Energy Independence and Security Act (2007)
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) aims to increase energy security, develop renewable energy production, and improve vehicle fuel economy. The following are provisions related to energy efficiency:
• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Section 202)
• Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301–325) • Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441)
This federal legislation requires ever -increasing levels of renewable fuels (the RFS) to replace petroleum. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.

The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the act, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that lay the foundation for achieving significant reductions in GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the renewable fuels sector in the United States. The updated program is referred to as “RFS2” and includes the following:
• EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline. • EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. • EISA established new categories of renewable fuel, and set separate volume requirements for each one.

EISA required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-6
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green” jobs.

State
The discussion below focuses primarily on those policies, regulations, and laws that directly pertain to energy-related resources. Refer to Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, which addresses various policies, regulations, and laws targeted to the reduction of GHG emissions that are expected to achieve co -benefits in the form of reduced demand for energy -related resources and enhanced efficiencies in the consumption of energy-related resources.

State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC and CPUC approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided, and identified policies, strategies, and actions that are cost-effective and environmentally sound for California's consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, a second Energy Action Plan was adopted by the CEC and CPUC to reflect various policy changes and actions of the prior two years.

At the beginning of 2008, the CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new energy action plan. This determination was based in part on a finding that the state’s energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, the CEC and CPUC prepared an “update” that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (2002) requires the California Energy Commission to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The Energy Commission shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state's economy, and protect public health and safety. (Pub. Res. Code § 25301(a)).

The CEC adopts an Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR, pronounced eye' -per) every two years and an update every other year. The most current report is the 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update which covers a broad range of topics, including building decarbonization, energy efficiency, challenges with decarbonizing California’s gas system, quantifying the benefits of the Clean Transportation Program and the California Energy Demand Forecast. At the time of writing, the 2023 Update is currently in the review process.

California Renewables Portfolio Standards
Senate Bill 1078 (2002)
This bill established the California Renewables Portfolio Standards (RPS) Program and required that a retail seller of electricity purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources as defined in any given year, culminating in a 20% standard by December 31, 2017. These retail sellers include electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-7
electric service providers. The bill relatedly required the CEC to certify eligible renewable energy resources, design and implement an accounting system to verify compliance with the RPS by retail sellers, and allocate and award supplemental energy paymen ts to cover above -market costs of renewable energy.

Senate Bills 107 (2006), X1-2 (2011), 350 (2015), and 100 (2018) Senate Bill (SB) 107 (2006) accelerated the RPS established by SB 1078 by requiring that 20% of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by 2010 (not 2017). Additionally, SB X1-2 (2011) requires all California utilities to generate 33% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2020. Specifically, SB X1 -2 set a three -stage compliance period: by December 31, 2013, 20% shall come from renewables; by December 31, 2016, 25% shall come from renewables; and by December 31, 2020, 33% shall come from renewables.

SB 350 (2015) requires retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.

In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy - efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency.

SB 100 (2018) accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030 be secur ed from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 also states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California by 2045. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016)
In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 32, which extended the horizon year of the state’s codified GHG reduction planning targets from 2020 to 2030, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepares scoping plans to guide the development of statewide policies and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Many of the policy and regulatory concepts identified in the scoping plans focused on increasing energy efficiencies and the use of renewable resources and reducing the consumption of petroleum-based fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framework creates co-benefits for energy-related resources. Additional information on AB 32 and SB 32 is provided in Section 3.7 of this EIR.

SB 375 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (2008) The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction mandates. As codified in California Governme nt Code, Section 65080, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (San Diego Association of Governments) to include a

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-8
Sustainable Communities Strategy in its regional transportation plan. The focus of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also a part of a bigger effort to addr ess other development issues within the general vicinity, including transit and VMT, which influence the consumption of petroleum -based fuels.

Additional information on SB 375 is provided in Section 3.7 of this EIR.

Assembly Bill 1279, California Climate Crisis Act (September 2022) This Bill requires the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. The bill also requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 85% compared to 1990 levels and directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to achieve these goals.

Senate Bill 1020, 100% Clean Electric Grid (September 2022) This bill creates clean electricity targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040 with the intent of advancing the state’s trajectory to the existing 100% clean electricity retail sales by 2045 goal.

The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality The 2022 Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 85% below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in sh ort-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. The plan calls for a need to take an unprecedented transformation and aggressively seek reductions to reduce the need of fossil fuels by moving to zero emission transportation, electrifying the cars, buses, trucks, and trains.

The plan relays on external controls and requires partnership and collaboration with the federal government, other U.S. states, and other jurisdictions around the world for California to succeed in achieving its climate targets.

California Building Standards
Title 24 Standards
Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Because homes and businesses use nearly 70% of California’s electricity and are responsible for a quarter of GHG emissions, the CEC was mandated to periodically update and adopt building standards to increase energy efficiency of buildings and reduce GHGs. Part 6 of Title 24 implemented this mandate so that every three years the CEC updates the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) for new construction and renovations to existing residential and non-residential buildings (CEC 2022).

The 2019 Title 24 standards were approved and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission in December 2018. The standards required that all low -rise residential buildings shall have a photovoltaic system meeting the minimum qualification requir ements such that annual electrical output is equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage. Notably, net energy metering rules limit residential rooftop solar generation to produce no more electricity than the home is expected to consume on an annual basis. Single-family homes built with the 2019 standards used about 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards,

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-9
while new nonresidential buildings used about 30% less energy mainly to lighting upgrades (CEC 2018).

Energy Code
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) improves upon the 2019 Energy Code for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 building code went into effect January 1, 2023 and focused on four key areas in new construction: encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, establishing electric -ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expanding solar PV system and battery storage standards, and strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality (CEC 2022).

California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11).

In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as CALGreen and establis hes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and i nterior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground -up, new construction of commercial, low-rise residential and state-owned buildings and schools and hospitals.

The CALGreen 2016 standards required mandatory reduction in indoor and outdoor water use, diversion of demolition waste, mandatory inspections of energy systems, inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations for designated parking spaces and use of low-pollutant-emitting exterior and interior finish materials.

The current CALGreen standards were last updated in 2022 and went into effect January 1, 2023 and focuses on battery storage system controls, demand management, heat pump space and water heating, and building electrification. The 2022 CALGreen update elimi nates the two -tiered menu of compliance prerequisites and enforces a single tiered menu of provisionary options. Mandatory requirements include many updated EV charging requirements for multi and single family developments.

State Vehicle Standards
Although the focus of the state’s vehicle standards is on the reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions, one co-benefit of implementation of these standards is a reduced demand for petroleum- based fuels.

Assembly Bill 1007 (2005)
AB 1007 (2005) required the CEC to prepare a statewide plan (State Alternative Fuels Plan) to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with the other state, federal, and loc al agencies. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in- state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-10
AB 1493 (2002), EO S-1-07 (2007), and EO B-16-12 (2012) In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, AB 1493 was enacted in 2002. AB 1493 requires CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and EO S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels. EO B -16-12 su pports and facilitates development and distribution of Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs).

Advanced Clean Cars Program (2012 and 2022), EO N-79-20 (2020), and Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program (2018)
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, an emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025 that combined standards for smog producing pollutants and greenhouse gases into one program. The package includes elements to red uce smog -forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide fuels for clean cars.

CARB’s latest rule (2022) is known as Advanced Clean Cars II which continues the concept of increasing stringency for fuel -efficiency standards and increasing the number of ZEVs. California enjoys the largest zero-emission vehicle market in the nation with more than 16% of new vehicles sold being zero-emissions or plug -in hybrids. The regulations are two -pronged. First, it amends the Zero - emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of zero-emission vehicles, and relies on currently available advanced vehicle technologies, including battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell electric and plug -in hybrid electric -vehicles, to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards.

Second, the Low -emission Vehicle Regulations were amended to include i ncreasingly stringent standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog -forming emissions (CARB 2023).

EO N-79-20 calls for elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. By setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035, the Governor’s Executive Order establishes a target for the transportation sector th at helps put the state on a path to carbon neutrality by 2045. It is important to note that the Executive Order focuses on new vehicle sales for automakers, and therefore does not require Californians to give up the existing cars and trucks they already own. The primary mechanism for achieving the ZEV target for passenger cars and light trucks is the Advanced Clean Cars II Program discussed above.

As part of the Executive Order, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) was tasked with preparing a Zero -Emission Vehicle Market Development Strategy along with the accompanying California State agency ZEV Action Plans.

In addition to the Advanced Clean Cars II, the Clean Miles Standard regulation will also help enable the goal of 100% ZEV sales in 2035 by creating demand for ZEVs. This regulation has aggressive requirements for electric miles that will transition ride -hailing fleets to zero -emission operations starting in 2023 and ramping up through 2030.

AB 2700, Transportation Electrification: Electrical Distribution and Grid Updates (2022) This law will enable more strategic -grid planning and investment to ensure California has the grid it needs to accommodate widespread transportation electrification when needed to meet the state’s carbon neutrality goals. With more -strategic planning and i nvestment, AB 2700 will help ensure the electrification of the transportation sector is cost -effective, facilitates progress towards the state’s goals, and maximizes benefits for all utility customers. Supported by a broad coalition of

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-11
environmental, equity, labor, fleet, utility, and EV charging organizations, AB 2700 directs utilities to conduct strategic grid planning and investment to ensure the grid is proactively prepared to accommodate all the new electric cars and trucks coming over the next decade thanks to state goals and regulations like the Advanced Clean Cars , Advanced Clean Trucks , and Advanced Clean Fleets rules. It requires fleet data already collected by state agencies to be shared with California utilities, so that they can use that data in their existing grid planning processes to better anticipate electricity demand and propose necessary upgrades.

Local
SDG&E Integrated Resource Plan
The Integrated Resource Planning (“IRP”) process is the statewide approach to electric resource planning established by SB 350 that is intended to achieve California’s GHG emissions reduction goals for the electric sector in a manner that preserves reliability and ensures reasonable cost. According to SDGE’s 2022 Individual Integrated Resource Plan (IIRP), SDG&E supports the State’s ambitious efforts to reduce GHG emissions and is committed to the State’s vision of a clean energy future. In its study, The Path to Net Zero: A Decarbonization Roadmap for California, SDG&E lays out an implementable strategy for achieving statewide decarbonization while continuing to prioritize grid reliability, affordability, and equity. SDG&E’s IIRP is designed to meet key statutory requirements related to ensuring system reliability, reducing GHG emissions with the best-fit resources at the lowest possible cost, and satisfying the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program goals. To that end, SDG&E is anticipating procuring 56% of its power from renewable resources for the 2021-2024 RPS Compliance Period, which is well above the State’s 38.4% requirement.

SDG&E’s IIRP submits two Conforming Portfolios that achieve targets of 30 and 25 million metric tons (MMT) for the year 2035. SDG&E’s Conforming Portfolios demonstrate that it is well positioned to achieve the State’s climate and reliability goals under bo th the 25 MMT and 30 MMT benchmark scenarios. This advantage is due in part to the following:
• SDG&E’s early compliance with RPS requirements, with around 56% of its energy mix expected from renewable resources in Compliance Period 4 (2021-2024); • SDG&E’s aggressive adoption of energy storage; and
• The absence of coal resources in SDG&E’s portfolio.

While SDG&E’s portfolio is primarily made up of solar and natural gas resources, SDG&E’s modeling resulted in planned existing and new resources consisting primarily of solar, storage, and wind resources, with small amounts of demand response and firm, zer o-emitting resources (e.g., geothermal). The total capacity of these planned existing and new resources in 2035 is 1,546 MW.

SDG&E is fully compliant with RPS and long-term contracting requirements (SDG&E 2022a).

SDG&E Path to Net Zero
The Path to Net Zero: A Decarbonization Roadmap for California (Roadmap) examines the implications of the transition to net zero emissions for the state and the region that SDG&E serves. It also includes SDG&E’s recommendation for California to achieve carbon neutrality and is the first publicly available analysis to use the industry standard for electric reliability and industry modeling software in modeling how to decarbonize California by 2045. Although the state reduced GHG emissions by ~36 MMT from 2009 to 2019, it will need to reduce emissions at 4.5 times the pace of historical reductions going forward to reach Net Zero by 2045. The Roadmap aims to advance current research on California’s

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-12
decarbonization pathways. As many other studies have highlighted, electricity is expected to play a central role in decarbonization. Clear priorities include the need to expand electrification and supplies of solar and wind power, invest in a diverse set o f electric generation resources that will help ensure the electric grid is reliable and lastly, to provide much larger volumes of clean fuels.

Electrification is central to decarbonizing the transportation and building sectors under the Roadmap.

It is estimated that electric generation capacity will need to increase to 356 gigawatts (GW) by 2045 in California to meet this increasing demand for clean electricity, approximately four times the capacity that existed in 2020. The Roadmap foresees in-state solar and wind generation providing the bulk of this capacity. Wind and solar are excellent resources for providing low -cost clean energy, but to help ensure reliability, the California electric system must also develop more flexible res ources, such as energy storage and clean dispatchable generation. This is especially important as the need for clean, reliable electricity increases from transportation and building electrification. SDG&E believes this will require installing 40 GW of new battery stora ge as well as 20 GW of dispatchable generation from 100% clean hydrogen generation by 2045. Moreover, in addition to existing natural gas generation, they believe that 4 GW of electricity from natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration will be needed to support reliability as the electric sector decarbonizes. Combined, these flexible resources can provide clean electricity when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing and ensure that high electricity demand during the summer months can be reliably met (SDG&E 2022b).

City of San Marcos General Plan
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) includes various policies related to reducing GHG emissions and the co -benefit of reducing energy consumption. Applicable policies include the following:

Land Use and Community Design Element
• Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use. • Policy LU -2.3: Promote landscaping (e.g., native, drought tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.
• Policy LU -2.7: Promote the installation of trees to reduce the urban heat -island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.
• Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.

Conservation and Open Space Element
• Policy COS -4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
• Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.
• Policy COS-4.8: Encourage and support the generation, transmission, and use of renewable energy.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-13
Environmental Justice
• Policy EJ -1.13: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
• Policy EJ-1.14: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.
• Policy EJ-1.15: Encourage and support the generation, transmission, and use of renewable energy.

The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Table 3.10-7 of Section 3.10, Land Use. As detailed in Section 3.10.4, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to energy.

City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan
Consistent with AB 32, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2013 as a long - range plan to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change impacts associated with City government operations and with implementation of the City’s General Plan. An updated CAP was adopted on December 8, 2020. The 2020 CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP, and establishes GHG emission targets and identifies achievable, locally based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions provides more details on the CAP as it pertains to specific GHG reduction targets.

According to the CAP, energy use in the City includes electricity and natural gas consumption, which accounted for 39% of the City’s total emissions in 2012. Two strategies would reduce emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption by increasing b uilding energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. Legislative reductions from State energy efficiency and renewable energy programs will contribute to reducing transportation emissions by increasing the amount of renewable energy available statewide and improving energy efficiency requirements for new developments. At the local level, GHG emissions reductions would be achieved by improving energy efficiency of new developments beyond State requirements, both increasing the amount of renewable energy generated locally, and reducing the amount of non -renewable energy consumed locally. The success of these strategies relies on coordination with local utilities, organizations, and agencies, participation from the community, and administration of new or revised local policies and programs.

The CAP outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reduction targets. Strategies and measures related to energy include the following:
• Strategy 4: Increase Building Energy Efficiency Electricity and natural gas consumption in buildings accounts for a majority of GHG emissions from the energy sector. Although legislative reductions related to State actions will help reduce emissions associated with building energy, additional reductions are achievable by increasing building efficiency in the City. This strategy aims to reduce emissions by reducing energy used by residential consumers through increased energy efficiency. This strategy includes one measure that would reduce the City’s emissions by approximately 1,280 MTCO
2e in 2030.
o Measure E-1: Require New Residential Developments to Install Alternatively-Fueled Water Heaters. Starting in 2022, require all new single-family and multi-family residential projects

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-14
to install non -natural gas water heaters. Non -natural gas water heater options include electric HPWH, instantaneous electric, electric tank solar water heater with HPWH backup, or solar water heater with electric tank backup
• Strategy 5: Increase Renewable and Zero -Carbon Energy: Over a quarter of the City’s GHG emissions in 2012 were generated through the consumption of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation (i.e., natural gas —fired or coal power plants). Trans itioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy electricity generation will reduce emissions and provide a more sustainable source of electricity. The City would reduce emissions by increasing renewable energy generated locally and participating in a community choice aggregation (CCA) or similar program to increase the amount of grid supplied renewable energy. This strategy includes two measures that would reduce the City’s emissions by approximately 35,100 MTCO 2e in 2030.

Additional activities that would support this strategy would occur through partnerships with local and regional agencies.
o Measure E-2: Require Installation of PV systems at New Non -Residential Developments.

Starting in 2022, require all new non-residential developments to install PV systems with a minimum of two watts per square foot of gross floor area. o Measure E-3: Increase Grid-Supply Renewable and Zero-Carbon Electricity. Join a program to increase grid -supply renewables and zero -carbon electricity to 95% by 2030 with a maximum customer opt-out rate of 3%.

3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
According to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to energy if it would:
• Threshold #1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
• Threshold #2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

3.5.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold #1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The project proposes up to 119 multi -family residential units and 4,000 square feet (s.f.) of commercial use within two four -story buildings situated on approximately 2.51 gross acres.

Additionally, electric vehicle (EV) parking is incorporated in the project parking and includes 8 spaces with Level 2 EV chargers, 15 EV capable spaces and 36 EV ready spaces. The project seeks a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone of the project site from Mixed Use 3 SP (MU -3 (SP)) to Mixed Use (MU-2).

The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Mixed Use 3 (MU3), which is a mixed-use non-residential designation with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. A constructible concept plan for buildout of the site under the existing Land U se designation was prepared for comparison purposes. The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario is assumed to include construction of a multi-story office building consisting of 90,000 s.f. of office use, 10,000 s.f. of retail use and 400 parking spaces.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-15
The total area including the parking would have a total gross floor area of 158,000 s.f. and would have a FAR of 1.5. The Energy Usage Letter prepared for the proposed project includes analysis of energy use during construction and operation of the proposed project as well as a comparison of energy use under the proposed project with energy use anticipated under the General Plan Buildout scenario (LDN 2023b).As explained in more detail below, the Energy Usage Letter concluded that implementation of the prop osed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary impacts related to electricity, natural gas or petroleum during construction or operations and impacts would be less than
significant.

Construction
Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a 10 to 11-month duration. Grading for the project will consist of approximately 4,030 cubic yards (cy) of cut material and 12,270 cy of fill material requiring an import of approximately 8,240 cy of fill material. For the purposes of a conservative comparison, these construction assumptions are anticipated to be the same for the General Plan Buildout scenario.

Electricity
Temporary electric power for as -necessary lighting and electronic equipment (such as computers inside temporary construction trailers and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) would be provided by SDG&E. The amount of electricity used during project construction would be minimal because typical demand stems from the use of electronic equipment, in addition to electrically powered hand tools. As the electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and minimal, impacts related to electric ity consumption during project construction are determined to be less than
significant.

Natural Gas
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed project. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect on the environment; therefore, impacts would be less
than significant.

Petroleum
The majority of the energy used during construction would be from petroleum. Energy usage for construction equipment is best estimated using total horsepower hours (HP -h) and an assumed thermal efficiency of 30%. Based on the equipment, quantity, work time, and horsepower, the project would require a total of 477,570 hp -h as shown in Table 3.5 -2. Based on this, the project would consume roughly 28,944 gallons of diesel for construction. The project would require essentially the same energy during construction as the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario. Proper maintenance of all construction equipment per manufacturer recommendations is included as a project design feature.

Construction energy from workers, vendors and haulage are based on the estimated VMT for the total construction duration which is 438,141 miles for the proposed project. In California, the average fuel economy for on-road vehicles is 24.1 miles per gallon or 0.0415 gallon per mile. Based on this, the vehicular trips would consume roughly 18,183 gallons during construction (LDN 2023b).

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-16
In total, construction of the project is estimated to consume a total of 47,127 gallons of petroleum from off-road equipment and worker vehicle and vendor truck trips during the construction phase.

Within the County, the estimated petroleum use in 2024 would be 1.5 billion gallons per year (CARB 2022b). On-road vehicles are regulated by state and federal regulations and vehicular fleet efficiencies are improving each year. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be maintained as needed per manufacturer recommendations. The project would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes. Since the projected energy usage of the project and the General Plan Buildout scenario would be essentially the same, the project would not consume more energy than would otherwise be consumed through the construction of the General Plan Buildout scenario. While construction activities would consume petroleum-based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction. Further, the petroleum consumed related to construction would be typical of construction projects of similar types and sizes and would not necessitate new petroleum resources beyond what are typically consumed in California. Therefore, because petroleum use during project construction would be temporary and minimal and would not be wasteful or inefficient, impacts related to energy use during construction would be
less than significant.

Table 3.5-2 Proposed Construction Phase and Duration Equipment Equipment
Identification
Construction
Days
Hours per
Day
Horsepower
(HP) Load Factor Quantity Horsepower
Hours (HP-h)
Site Preparation 3
Graders 8 187 0.41 1 1,840.08
Scrapers 8 367 0.48 1 4,227.84
Tractors/ Loaders/
Backhoes 7 97 0.37 1 753.69
Grading 6
Graders 8 187 0.41 1 3,680.16
Rubber Tired
Dozers 8 247 0.4 1 4,742.40
Tractors/ Loaders/
Backhoes 7 97 0.37 1 1,507.38
Building
Construction 220
Cranes 8 231 0.29 1 117,902.40
Forklifts 7 89 0.2 2 54,824.00
Generator Sets 8 84 0.74 1 109,401.60
Tractors/ Loaders/
Backhoes 6 97 0.37 1 47,374.80
Welders 8 46 0.45 3 109,296.00
Paving 10
Pavers 8 130 0.42 1 4,368.00
Paving Equipment 8 132 0.36 1 3,801.60

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-17
Equipment
Identification
Construction
Days
Hours per
Day
Horsepower
(HP) Load Factor Quantity Horsepower
Hours (HP-h)
Rollers 8 80 0.38 2 4,864.00
Architectural
Coating 40
Air Compressors 6 78 0.48 1 8,985.60
Total Horsepower Hours 477,569.55
Total Diesel Fuel (Gal) @ 16.5 hp-h/gal 28,944
Source: LDN 2023b.

Notes: The equipment list is based upon equipment inventory and estimates within CalEEMod 2020.4.0 Operations
Electricity
The operation of the project would require electricity for multiple purposes, including cooling, lighting, appliances, and various equipment. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in electricity usage.

The electrical energy usage expected to be utilized by the project was compared to the General Plan Buildout scenario in Table 3.5-3. Based on the results, the project would consume 527,277 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year, which is 1,324,523 kWH less than would be consumed under the General Plan Buildout scenario. California consumed 247,250 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2021 (EIA 2022) and consumption is expected to increase as a result of electrification of the building and transportation sectors needed to meet ambitions climate goals. To meet these goals, the State has created a multi- year plan to invest $54 billion in climate action including clean/renewable energy investments, expansion and reinforcement of the energy grid and increasing energy storage (CARB 2022a). The project would also implement applicable City CAP measures that would reduce operational electricity consumption, including installing electric water heaters. While this would increase electricity use, it would result in less natural gas use and is more efficient than heating water with natural gas as 15% of the energy is lost in the exhaust. Reductions from implementation of the City’s CAP measures were not included in the calculations in Table 3.5-3. Reductions from Title 24 of the California Building Code (2019) were accounted for in the calculations and would improve the efficiency of the project in terms of energy consumption. The 2022 Title 24 standards have not yet been included into CalEEMod 2020.4.0 but would essentially reduce energy consumption for both scenarios.

Table 3.5-3 Annual Energy Use for Proposed Project and MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario Energy Source Proposed Project MU3 General Plan
Buildout Scenario Difference
Natural Gas Usage
(kBTU/Year) 874,730 1,824,900 -950,170
Electrical Usage (kWH) 527,277 1,851,800 -1,324,523
Source: LDN 2023b.

Notes: kBTU = One thousand British Thermal Units
kWH= Kilowatt Hours

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-18
In summary, although electricity consumption would increase at the project site due to project implementation, the project would be required to comply with Title 24 and the City’s CAP by implementing energy-efficiency measures. Furthermore, the project wou ld be subject to the Title 24 building code that is adopted at the time building permits are obtained and thus may be subject to a more stringent energy standard than what was assumed herein. Additionally, the project would consume less electricity compared to the General Plan Buildout scenario. For these reasons, electricity consumption of the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, and impacts would be
less than significant.

Natural Gas
The natural gas usage expected to be utilized by the project was compared to the General Plan Buildout scenario in Table 3.5- 3. Based on the results, the project would be expected to consume 874,730 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per year, which is 950,170 kBTU less than would be consumed under the General Plan Buildout scenario. As previously discussed, the project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Prior to building permit application, the applicant would ensure that project plans would meet Title 24 requirements applicable at that time, as required by state regulations, through their plan review process. Additionally, the project would implement the Cit y’s CAP measure that reduces operational natural gas consumption, which requires the installation of electric water heaters.

In summary, although natural gas usage would increase due to project implementation, project design features would be implemented, and usage would be decreased through green building standards.

Additionally, the project would consume less natural gas compa red to the General Plan Buildout scenario. For these reasons, the natural gas consumption of the project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.

Petroleum
Vehicle travel to and from the project site would be the largest contributor to petroleum use. The project would generate 874 average daily trips (ADT), which is 1,326 ADT less than the 2,200 ADT anticipated under the General Plan Buildout scenario. This reduction would be a 60% reduction in trips and fuel requirements. Over the lifetime of the proposed project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by residents is expected to increase. As RPS increases and as electric vehicle operations become more standardized, energy consumption and efficiency will decrease. Additionally, EV parking is incorporated in the project parking plan and includes 8 spaces with Level 2 EV chargers, 15 EV capable spaces and 36 EV ready spaces. As such, the amount of petrol eum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time.

In summary, although the project would increase petroleum use during operation, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use (605 million barrels) and due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. Additionally, the proposed project would use less petroleum during operation than the General Plan Buildout scenario would. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than
significant.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-19
Threshold #2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Construction
The majority of the energy used during construction would be from petroleum. On-road vehicles are regulated by state and federal regulations and vehicular fleet efficiencies are improving each year.

Additionally, all construction equipment shall be maintained as needed per manufacturer recommendations. The project would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be
less than significant.

Operation
Section 3.5.2 includes a description of all the federal, state, and local policies and programs that the project would be required to comply with. The proposed project would follow applicable energy standards and regulations during the construction phases. The proposed project would be built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable building regulations at the time of construction, including Title 24 Building Standards, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code), and California Green Building Standards. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with all actions in the CAP Consistency Review Checklist, many of which reduce the usage of non -renewable energy, as discussed in detail in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Appendix I of this EIR.

Table 3.5-4 describes the CAP measures that are applicable to a multi -family residential project and how the proposed project will comply. As shown, the project provides electric vehicle parking, including 8 spaces with Level 2 EV chargers, 15 EV capable spaces and 36 EV ready spaces, which will help meet state goals toward carbon neutrality and elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles. For the reasons stated, the proposed project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3.5-4. Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Checklist Measures CAP Consistency Checklist Measures Project Compliance
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T-2)
Will the project install electric vehicle charging
stations (Level 2 or better) in at least five percent
of the total parking space provided on-site?
The project proposes a total of 147 on-site parking
spaces and 8 of those will provide Level 2 electric
vehicle charging stations. The project also includes
15 EV capable spaces and 36 EV ready spaces.

The project has been designed to meet the
requirements of Measure T-2.

Transportation Demand Management (Measure T-
9)
Will the project develop and implement a TDM plan
that includes, at minimum, all of the TDM
strategies listed below?
Provide discounted monthly transit pass or provide
at least 25 percent transit fare subsidy to
residents/employees.

Provide designated car-share, carpool, vanpool,
and/or park-and-ride parking spaces.

Transit Discount: The property manager will
provide transit information to the owners and
make a good faith effort in offering discounted
transit fares. The property management company
will provide a newsletter to inform the residents
there are options for reduced transit passes.

Designated Parking: The project will provide
designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, EV and/or
park-and-ride spaces on site.

Pedestrian Connections: The project proposes
sidewalks along the project frontage along

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-20
CAP Consistency Checklist Measures Project Compliance
Provide pedestrian connections between all
internal uses and to all existing or planned external
streets around the project site(s).

Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or bicycle
racks, showers, and clothes lockers.

Encourage telecommuting for employees (allow
one telecommute day per week or compressed
work weeks) or provide a telecommute work center
with common office space and equipment
available to residents.

Capalina Road. Sidewalks are also proposed
surrounding the main building and recreational
area providing direct access to the dwelling units,
fitness center, leasing office, and retail land use
component of the proposed project. Lastly,
sidewalks are proposed along the south and west
side of the buildings on the north side of the
property connecting directly to existing sidewalk
facilities along West Mission Road.

Bicycle Spaces: The project will provide bicycle
racks and residents will have access to showers
and secure bicycle storage within each of their
residences. Additionally, adjacent to the fitness
center, as part of the onsite restrooms, a shower
and two sets of bike racks will be provided on site.

Telecommuting: The project will have space
available in the community room for residents to
telecommute. Each residence will also have a
suitable area for telecommuting. Additionally, the
project will have common office space as part of
the commercial portion that will promote
telecommuting.

The project has been designed to meet the
requirements of Measure T-9.

Water Heaters (Measure E-1)
Will the project install one of, or a combination of,
the following water heater types in place of natural
gas heaters?
The project will install electric tank water heaters
within all units. Natural gas water heaters will not
be used. The project has been designed to meet
Measure E-1.

Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E-2)
Will the project install photovoltaic systems with a
minimum capacity of two watts per square foot of
gross floor area?
The project will install photovoltaic systems with a
capacity of two watts per square feet of gross floor
area. The project has been designed to meet
Measure E-2.

Landscaping Water Use (Measure W-1)
Will the project comply with the City’s Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance?
The project will comply with the City’s Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The project has
been designed to meet Measure W-1.

Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C-2)
For multi-family residential, if the project is
providing more than 10 parking spaces, will the
project plant at least one tree per five parking
spaces provided?
The project proposes 147 parking spaces, which
would require 29 trees to meet the requirements
of Measure C-2. Per the landscape concept plan,
the project will plant 82 trees. The project exceeds
the requirements of Measure C-2.

3.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Potential cumulative impacts on energy would result if the proposed project, in combination with past, present, and future projects, would result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This could result from development that would not incorporate sufficient building energy efficiency features, would not achieve building energy efficiency standards, or would result in the unnecessary use of energy during construction and/or operation. The cumulative projects within the areas serviced by the energy service

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-21
providers would be applicable to this analysis; this includes existing aging structures that are energy inefficient. Projects that include development of large buildings or other structures that would have the potential to consume energy in an inefficient manner would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact. Projects that would mostly include construction, such as transportation infrastructure, could also contribute to a cumulative impact; however, the impact of these projects would be limited because they would typically not involve substantial ongoing energy use.

As described previously, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy due to various design features and adherence to applicable requirements. Similar to the proposed project, the cumulative projects would be subject to CALGreen, which provides energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential buildings. CALGreen would implement increasingly stringent energy efficiency standards that would require the proposed project and the cumulative projects to minimize the wasteful and inefficient use of energy. In addition, cumulative projects would be required to meet or exceed the Title 24 building standards, further reducing the inefficient use of energy. Future development would also be required to meet even more stringent requirements, including the objectives set in the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

Furthermore, various federal and state regulations, including the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Cars Program and Clean Miles Standard would serve to reduce the transportation fuel demand of cumulative projects. In consideration of cumulative energy use, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Thus, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. As such, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a potential cumulative impact.

Impacts are less than significant.

3.5.6 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

3.5.7 Conclusion
The Energy Usage Letter prepared by LDN (2023b) included a comparative analysis of energy use that would be consumed by the proposed project and the General Plan Buildout scenario (which is the site’s existing land use.) The analysis demonstrated that energy use during construction would be temporary and minimal and would likely be the same under either land use scenario. The proposed project would comply with regulatory requirements and building standards as well as ensuring that all construction equipment is maintained per manufacturer’s specifications. As such, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity, and impacts would be less than significant.

The analysis concluded that while operations of the proposed project would consume more energy at the project site under existing conditions, the project would be required to comply with Title 24 and the City’s CAP by implementing energy efficiency measure s. Additionally, the project would use less energy – both in terms of electricity/natural gas and petroleum use – when compared to the General Plan Buildout scenario. For these reasons, energy consumption of the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy consumption, including the City’s General Plan policies.

As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

3.5 Energy
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
San Marcos Page 3.5-22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-1

3.6 Geology and Soils
Introduction
This section analyzes the potential for impacts related to geology and soils for the proposed project, including seismic activity, liquefaction, landslides, loss of topsoil, soil erosion, soil stability and soil expansion.

The following report has been prepared to help analyze the geological and geotechnical impacts of the proposed project and is included in its entirety in Appendix G of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR):

Due Diligence Geotechnical Study – Proposed Capalina Apartments, APN 466120002, Capalina Road east of North Rancho Santa Fe, San Marcos, California. Prepared by Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (AGS). Dated May 13, 2022
In the Initial Study checklist prepared for the proposed project (Appendix B.1), it was determined that there would be no potential for the project to have an adverse impact associated with the ability of soils to support the use of septic or alternative wastewater systems, as no septic or alternative wastewater systems are included as part of the project. Since the proposed project would be served by Vallecitos Water District for sewer service, no septic or alternative wastewater systems are proposed. Section 5.5, Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant – Geology and Soils, of this EIR provides additional information on these topics.

A summary of the project- and cumulative-level geology and soils analysis, by threshold, is provided in Table 3.6-1.

Table 3.6-1. Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance Project-Level
Impact
Cumulative Level
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
#1 - Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#2 - Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong
seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#3 - Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#4 - Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-2
Threshold of Significance Project-Level
Impact
Cumulative Level
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
landslides?
Without
Mitigation
#5 - Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#6 - Be located on a geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#7 - Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#8 - Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Significant
Mitigated to Less
than Significant

3.6.1 Existing Conditions
This section details the existing conditions on the project site including topography, soils, groundwater, and the project site’s location to major faults.

Topography
The project site is located south of W. Mission Road and north of Capalina Road in San Marcos, California. The site is undeveloped and surrounded by commercial development to the west and east and roads to the north and south. The site is somewhat level, separated into an upper and lower pad, with a 5- to 6-foot high gentle slope running north-south that separate the two pads. Elevations range from approximately 580 feet near the southwest corner to 600 feet near the northeast corner. The site is currently vacant and is covered with seasonal grasses (AGS 2022).

Soils
Regionally, the project site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges province occupies the southwestern portion of California and extends southward to the southern tip of Baja California. In general, the province consists of young, steeply sloped, northwest trending mountain ranges underlain by metamorphosed Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous- aged extrusive volcanic rock and Cretaceous -aged igneous plutonic rock of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. The westernmost portion of the province is predominantly underlain by younger marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges’ dominant structural feature is northwest - southeast trending crustal blocks bounded by active faults of the San Andreas transform system (AGS 2022).

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-3
The earth materials present at the site consist of surficial deposits of undocumented artificial fill and topsoil/alluvium overlying sedimentary rock assigned to the Santiago Formation. The site is geologically mapped as sitting near the boundary of the Sa ntiago Formation and undifferentiated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock although metasedimentary / metavolcanic rock was not encountered during the geotechnical study. The following is a brief description of the subsurface materials encountered (AGS 2022).

Artificial Fill - Undocumented
Artificial fill soils mantle portions of the site. These soils consist of light brown to red and orange brown silty sand with some angular pieces of rock observed in a few test pits. These materials may be related to the spreading of the end dump piles on the site or previous grading activities on the site. Deeper deposits were observed near the slope along the westerly side of the site and may be related to offsite grading activities or the previous installation of the offsite water lines. The fill materials were generally observed to be dry to slightly moist and loose with abundant roots.

Topsoil/ Alluvium (Undifferentiated)
One to five feet of topsoil/alluvium was observed to overlie the Santiago Formation. These materials consist of brown to dark brown clayey sands and sandy clays in a dry to moist and loose/soft to medium dense / firm condition.

Santiago Formation
Middle Eocene age sedimentary rock assigned to the Santiago Formation was observed to underlie the project site below the fill and topsoil material. The depth to the Santiago Formation ranged from approximately 2 to 8 feet below the existing surface. The f ormation consisted of soft to moderately hard interbedded silty sandstone, clayey sandstone, and sandy claystone. The unit was observed to be soft and highly weathered in the upper two feet and slightly less weathered below. Abundant iron oxide staining and carbonate development were observed.

Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depths explored. Localized perched groundwater may develop at a later date, most likely at or near fill/bedrock contacts, due to fluctuations in precipitation, irrigation practices, or factors not evident at the time of AGS field explorations.

Seismicity
The project site is located in tectonically active southern California and would likely experience shaking effects from future earthquakes. The type and severity of seismic hazards affecting the site are to a large degree dependent upon the distance to the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the underlying soil characteristics. The seismic hazard may be primary, such as surface rupture and/or ground shaking, or secondary, such as liquefaction or dynamic settlement.

Surface Fault Rupture
Surface fault rupture is a break in the ground surface during, or as a consequence of, seismic activity.

Fault rupture occurs most often along pre -existing fault traces. Based on literature review and aerial photographic analysis performed during the geote chnical investigation, no known active faults have been mapped at or near the subject site. The nearest known active surface fault is the Newport -

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-4
Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone which is approximately 11.5 miles west - southwest of the subject site. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is very low (AGS 2022).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which the buildup of excess pore pressures, in saturated granular soils due to seismic agitation, results in a temporary “quick” or “liquefied” condition. Dependent upon the thickness of undocumented fill and the existing water table, the liquefaction potential would be evaluated for the site. The underlying sedimentary rock is not considered susceptible to liquefaction.

Upon conclusion of remedial grading, the site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction (AGS 2022).

The project site is identified as having Zero to Low Susceptibility for liquefaction per Figure 6-1 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (2012).

Dynamic Settlement
Dynamic settlement occurs in response to an earthquake event affecting loose sandy earth materials.

The potential of dynamic settlement at the subject site is anticipated to be “very low” due to the presence of the shallow sedimentary rock (AGS 2022).

Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is defined as the finite, lateral displacement of gently sloping ground as a result of pore pressure build-up or liquefaction in a shallow underlying deposit during an earthquake. Since the potential for liquefaction is very low, the potential for lateral spreading is also very low (AGS 2022).

Seismically Induced Landsliding
Significant slopes are not located adjacent to the site. The shallow slope along the west side of the property line is not expected to be prone to seismically induced landsliding. Seismically induced landsliding is not considered to be a hazard at the site.

Earthquake Induced Flooding
Earthquake induced flooding can be caused by tsunamis, dam failures, or seiches. A seiche is a free or standing-wave oscillation on the surface of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin. Due to the lack of a freestanding body of water nearby, the potential for a seiche impacting the site is considered to be non-existent. Considering the lack of dams located above the site, earthquake induced flooding caused by a dam failure is considered to be nonexistent. AGS review of the 2009 Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency, indicates that the site is not within the tsunami inundation limits.

Paleontological Resources
The project site lies within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. This province consists of a series of ranges separated by northwest trending valleys; subparallel to branches of the San Andreas Fault. The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America, extends from the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and the Los Angeles Basin, south to Baja California. It is bound on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest -southeast oriented fault blocks. Major fault zones and

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-5
subordinate fault zones found in the Peninsular Ranges Province typically trend in a northwest - southeast direction.

Within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, the project site lies within the Peninsular Ranges Region. This region is primarily underlain by plutonic igneous rocks that formed from the cooling of molten magmas deep within the earth's crust. These mag mas were generated during subduction of an oceanic crustal plate that was converging on the North American Plate between 120 and 90 million years ago. Over this long period of time, extensive masses of plutonic rocks accumulated within the crust. Intense heat associated with these plutonic intrusions metamorphosed the ancient sedimentary rocks that were already there. These metasediments are now preserved in the Peninsular Ranges Region as marbles, slates, schist, quartzites, and gneiss. Younger undeformed sedimentary rocks occur in various areas of the Peninsular Ranges Region. The Peninsular Ranges Region contains paleontological resources in Quaternary alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in many of the mountain valleys (County of San Diego 2009).

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project (AGS 2022), the geologic conditions underlying the site consist of undocumented artificial soils, and topsoil/alluvium. Middle Eocene age sedimentary rock assigned to the Santiago Formation was observed to underlie the project site below the fill and topsoil material. The site is geologically mapped as sitting near the boundary of the Santiago Formation and undifferentiated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock although metasedimentary / metavolcanic rock was not encountered during the geological study (AGS 2022).

The site is also mapped as including Young Alluvial Flood Plain deposits from the Holocene and late Pleistocene. The Eocene epoch is part of the Tertiary Period in the Cenozoic Era, and lasted from about 56 to 34 million years ago. The Quaternary Period is divided into two epochs: the Pleistocene (2.588 million years ago to 11.7 thousand years ago) and the Holocene (11.7 thousand years ago to today).

According to the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance of Paleontological Resources, sedimentary rock units in the Peninsular Ranges Region may have the potential to contain paleontological resources (County of San Diego 2009).

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations related to geology and soils.

Federal
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provides a set of mitigation plan requirements that emphasize State and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. States are encouraged to complete a “Standard” or an “Enhanced” N atural Mitigation Plan. “Enhanced” plans demonstrate increased coordination of mitigation activities at the State level, and if completed and approved, will increase the amount of funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

California’s updated St ate Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX in 2007. The City of San Marcos is one of the communities covered by the 2023 County of San Diego Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is a countywide plan that identifies risks posed by natural and manmade disasters.

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-6
Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1999 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies, including the American Red Cross, that (1) provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; (2) supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and (3) supplements other federal emergency oper ations plans developed to address specific hazards. The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a pre sidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.

USGS Landslide Hazard Identification Program
The United States Geological Survey (USGS), in fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113, created the National Landslide Hazards Program to reduce long -term losses from landslide hazards by improving understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. FEMA is the responsible agency for the long-term management of natural hazards.

International Building Code
The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code developed by the International Code Council that provides the basis for the CBC. The purpose of the IBC is to provide minimum standards for building construction to ensure public safety, health, and welfare. Prior to the creation of the IBC, several different building codes were used; however, by the year 2000, the IBC had replaced these previous codes and is updated every three years. The 2021 IBC code is currently in effect.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is the State law that focuses on hazards from earthquake fault zones. The purpose of this law is to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture by regulating structures designated for human occupancy near act ive faults. As required by the act, the California Geological Survey has delineated Earthquake Fault Zones along known active faults in California.

California Geologic Survey
The California Geologic Survey provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. The California Geologic Survey’s Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (2008), provides guidance for evaluation and mitigation of earthquake -related hazards for projects within designated zones of required investigation.

California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
Enacted to promote conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits, the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act requires that all cities address in their General Plans the significant aggregate resources classified by the State Geologist and designated by the State Mining and Geology Board. The law also ensures that significant aggregate resources are recognized and considered before land use decisions are made that may compromise the availability of these resources.

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-7
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was enacted in 1997 to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to map areas subject to seismic hazards.

A geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design before development permits will be granted. Additionally, the Act requires a Standardized Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement form be completed by real estate sellers if a property is within one of the designated natural hazards areas.

Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act (effective June 1, 1998), requires “that sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a ‘Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement’ when the property being sold lies within one or more state -mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone.” SHMA specifies two ways in which this disclosure can be made:
• The Local Option Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code; or
• The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code.

The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement can be substituted for the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement if it contains substantially the same information and substantially the same warning as the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement. Both the Alquist -Priolo Act and the SHMA require that real estate agents, or sellers of real estate acting without an agent, disclose to prospective buyers that the property is located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Seismic Hazard Mapping Zone.

California Uniform Building Code
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), also known as Title 24, California Building Standards Codes contain the laws regarding the construction of buildings. Title 24, Part 2 of the California Uniform Building Code (UBC) specifies standards for geologic and seismic hazards, other than surface faulting.

Chapter 23 of the California UBC addresses seismic safety, and includes regulations for earthquake - resistant design and construction. The 2022 Triennial Edition of the Title 24, California Building Standards Code went into effect January 1, 2023.

Local
County of San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the County of San Diego prepared the Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2010. The plan serves as both a county-wide plan and a plan for local jurisdictions that identifies risks posed by natural and human-made disasters before a hazard event occurs. This plan was last revised in 2023 to reflect changes to both the hazards threatening San Diego County, as well as the programs in place to minimize or eliminate those hazards. The plan includes overall goals and objectives shared by many jurisdictions, as well as specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items for each of the participating jurisdictions, including the City of San Marcos, developed to help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction.

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-8
San Marcos General Plan Safety Element
The Safety Element of the San Marcos General Plan contains several policies pertaining to natural geologic hazards. The following goal and policies apply to the project:
• Goal S-1: Reduce risks to the community from earthquakes by regulating new development and redevelopment to prevent the creation of new geologic and seismic hazards. o Policy S-1.1: Reduce the risk of impacts from geologic and seismic hazards by applying current and proper land use planning, development engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements.
o Policy S-1.2: Investigate specific groundwater levels and geologic conditions underlying all new development or redevelopment proposals in areas where potential fault rupture, liquefaction, or other geologic hazards are suspected.

The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use. As detailed in Table 3.10 -7 in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies.

3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
As defined in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines , project impacts to geological resources are considered significant if the project would:
• Threshold #1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; • Threshold #2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking; • Threshold #3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; • Threshold #4: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides;
• Threshold #5: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; • Threshold #6: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
• Threshold #7: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; • Threshold #8: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

As noted above, it was determined that there would be no impact associated with the ability of soils to support the use of septic or alternative wastewater systems. Section 5.5, Environmental Effects Found

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-9
Not to Be Significant – Geology and Soils, provides additional information on these topics. The Initial Study is included in Appendix B.1.

3.6.4 Project Impact Analysis
This section provides a project -level impact analysis for the eight thresholds related to geology and soils. The proposed project would be graded to create building pads for future multi-family residential and commercial uses, and associated infrastructure . Grading for the project would consist of approximately 4,030 cubic yards (cy) of cut material and 12,270 cy of fill material requiring an import of approximately 8,240 cy of material. No blasting or rock crushing is proposed.

Threshold #1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issu ed by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
The project site is located within a seismically active region, as is all of southern California; however, the project site not located on or adjacent to any known active faults. According to the California Earthquake Hazard Zone Application, the City of San Marcos is not identified as a jurisdiction affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (California Department of Conservation 2023). Therefore, the site is not located within a currently established Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The neares t known active-fault zone is the Newport -Inglewood – Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located approximately

11.5 miles west of the subject site. The risk associated with ground rupture hazard is very low (AGS 2022).

Project structures would be designed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) (2022 or most current version at time of building) for resistance to seismic shaking. The project would be constructed in accordance with other CBC criteria, current seismic design specifications of the Structural Engineers Association of California, other applicable regulations, and all applicable requirements of the State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA).

Additionally, the project would implement all 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. The detailed recommendations are included in Chapter 6 of the geotechnical report, which is included as Appendix F of this document.

With adherence to all regulations and recommendations, the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts would be
less than significant.

Threshold #2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The project site is located in tectonically-active southern California. The type and magnitude of seismic hazards affecting the site are dependent on the distance to causative faults, the intensity, and the

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-10
magnitude of the seismic event. Per the geotechnical study (AGS 2022), the site is not located within a currently established Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known active -fault zone is the Newport -Inglewood – Rose Canyon Fault Zone, locat ed approximately 11.5 miles west of the subject site. The risk associated with ground rupture hazard is low.

As described in Threshold #1, the project would be designed in accordance with the latest CBC, current design specification of the Structural Engineers Association of California, other applicable regulations, all applicable requirements of the State of Cal ifornia Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), and recommendations from the preliminary geotechnical investigation (AGS 2022). With adherence to all regulations and recommendations, impacts related seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Threshold #3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Seismic-related Ground Failure
The geotechnical study (AGS 2022) indicated that there are no active faults mapped on the project site and the site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the project site is very low (AGS 2022).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, generally fine sands and silts are subjected to strong ground shaking. The soils lose shear strength and become liquid; potentially resulting in large total and differential ground surface settlements as well as p ossible lateral spreading during an earthquake. Seismically induced settlement can occur in response to liquefaction of saturated loose granular soils, as well as the reorientation of soil particles during strong shaking of loose, unsaturated sands.

The project site is identified as having Zero to Low Susceptibility for liquefaction per Figure 6-1 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (San Marcos 2012). Per the geotechnical study, dependent upon the thickness of undocumented fill and the existing water table, the project site has potential for liquefaction. The underlying sedimentary rock is not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Upon conclusion of remedial grading, the site would not be considered susceptible to liquefaction (AGS 2022). Therefore, the project would not result in seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold #4: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site is somewhat level, separated into an upper and lower pad, with a 5 - to 6-foot-high gentle slope running north-south that separate the two pads. Elevations range from approximately 580 feet near the southwest corner to 600 feet near the northeast corner. There are no significant slopes located adjacent to the project site and the shallow slope along the west edge of the property is not expected to be prone to seismically induced landsliding. Further, the project site is identified as having Zero to Low Susceptibility for soil slip, surficial landslides, or debris flow per Figure 6 -1 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012).

According to the geotechnical study, given the relatively flat gradients across the site and the surrounding area, landsliding, mass wasting, and/or surficial instability onsite is considered to be

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-11
remote. Additionally, significant slopes are not located adjacent to the site. The shallow slope along the west side of the property line is not expected to be prone to seismically induced landsliding.

Seismically induced landsliding is not considered to be a hazard at the site (AGS 2022). Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold #5: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Proposed site improvements require grading and soil import of approximately 8,240 cy of material.

The project would be under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Construction Permit, which prohibits sediment or pollutant release from the project site and requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that would incorporate erosion and sediment control measures during and after grading operations to stabilize th ese areas. Therefore, the proposed project would incorporate BMPs and recommendations that would minimize erosion and loss of topsoil. The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold #6: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
According to the geotechnical study prepared by AGS (2022), the surficial soil types consist of artificial fill/undocumented fill and topsoil/alluvium overlain atop of Middle Eocene age sedimentary rock assigned to the Santiago Formation. The fill materials were generally observed to be dry to slightly moist and loose with abundant roots. The topsoil materials consist of brown to dark br own clayey sands and sandy clays in a dry to moist and loose/soft to medium dense / firm condition. The Santiago formation consisted of soft to moderately hard interbedded silty sandstone, clayey sandstone, and sandy claystone. The unit was observed to be soft and highly weathered in the upper two feet and slightly less weathered below. The artificial fill deposits, topsoil/alluvium, and upper highly weathered portion of Santiago Formation are expected to be compressible and collapse -prone and would be removed and replaced with compacted fill (AGS 2022).

According to the geotechnical study, due to the presence of the dense underlying Santiago Formation the potential for subsidence/settlement and ground fissuring is unlikely. The potential of dynamic settlement at the subject site is anticipated to be “very low” due to the presence of the shallow sedimentary rock. Additionally, since the potential for liquefaction is very low, the potential for lateral spreading is also very low (AGS 2022).

The project site is somewhat level with elevations ranging from 580 to 600 feet. There are no significant slopes nearby and the shallow slope along the west edge of the property is not expected to be prone to seismically induced landsliding. Further, the project site is identified as having Zero to Low Susceptibility for soil slip, surficial landslides, or debris flow per Figure 6-1 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012).

Site preparation and fill material replacement would be completed consistent with the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation (AGS 2022). Grading would be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical engineer and eng ineering geologist or their authorized representative in accordance with the recommendations and earthwork specifications of the geotechnical investigation and the current grading ordinance of the City of San Marcos.

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-12
In summary, the proposed project would incorporate techniques and recommendations that would minimize the potential for unstable conditions that could result in on - or off-site, landslide, lateral spread, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold #7: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? According to the geotechnical investigation prepared by AGS (2022), the expansion potential of the encountered soils is expected to be very low to medium when classified in accordance with ASTM D - 4829. It is possible that some materials with a “high” expansion potential may be encountered.

However, the expansion potential of these materials is not considered to pose a hazard for the proposed project. With adherence to the geotechnical report recommendations, which include removal and compaction during grading, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.

Threshold #8: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The proposed project site lies within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of southern California. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project (AGS 2022), the geologic conditions underlying the site consist of undocum ented artificial soils, and topsoil/alluvium. Middle Eocene age sedimentary rock assigned to the Santiago Formation was observed to underlie the project site below the fill and topsoil material. The site is geologically mapped as sitting near the boundary of the Santiago Formation and undifferentiated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock although metasedimentary / metavolcanic rock was not encountered during the geological study (AGS 2022). The site is also mapped as including Young Alluvial Flood Plain deposits from the Holocene and late Pleistocene. The Eocene epoch is part of the Tertiary Period in the Cenozoic Era, and lasted from about 56 to 34 million years ago. The Quaternary Period is divided into two epochs: the Pleistocene (2.588 million years ago to 11.7 thousand years ago) and the Holocene (11.7 thousand years ago to today).

According to the San Diego County Guidelines for Determining Significance of Paleontological Resources, sedimentary rock units in the Peninsular Ranges Region may have the potential to contain paleontological resources (County of San Diego 2009). Therefore , there is a potential that the site could contain paleontological resources that could be disturbed during grading activities for the project. This represents a potentially
significant impact (Impact GEO-1) and mitigation is required. • Impact GEO-1: Project grading may result in disturbance of previously unknown paleontological resources.

3.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. For purposes of assessing the proposed project’s cumulative impact with respect to geology and soils, the cumulative analysis is bas ed upon a list approach to determine the proposed project’s contributing effect on potential cumulative impacts on related to

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-13
geology and soils. All of the cumulative projects identified in Table 2 -3 are considered in this cumulative analysis.

Due to the localized nature of geology and soils, cumulative projects would address potential impacts to geology and soils on a project -by-project basis, as potential geologic hazards and soil composition varies by site. Each cumulative project would be required to assess individual and site-specific geologic conditions, which would inform construction and development of each site. All cumulative development would be subject to similar requirements to those imposed and implemented for the proposed project a nd would be required to adhere to applicable regulations, standards, and procedures.

Further, as discussed in Section 3.6.4, the project site has the potential to yield paleontological resources. Thus, impacts to paleontological resources from implementation of the project would be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Some of the p rojects on the cumulative list are located in areas that support sedimentary rock units of the Santiago Formation. Certain types of sedimentary rock units have the potential to contain paleontological resources. Similar to the project, the presence of these resources is typically unknown until earthwork activities commence for project construction.

It is expected that cultural resources studies would be prepared for all cumulative projects to assess potential impacts. For the cumulative projects that are wi thin sensitive areas for paleontological resources, the expectation is that mitigation measures would be included to require consultation with a paleontologist or a construction monitor to ensure that impacts to this resource to do not occur. As such, the proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts for geology and soils.

Impacts would be
less than significant.

3.6.6 Mitigation Measures
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 for the project. The following mitigation is required.

3.6.7 Conclusion
Based upon the analysis presented in Sections 3.6.3 and 3.6.4, impacts associated with seismicity, liquefaction, landslides, erosion/loss of topsoil, compressible soils, and expansive soils, were determined to be less than significant. The project would ad here to all recommendations in the preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the project (AGS 2022). Due to the fact that sedimentary rock units of the Santiago Formation have the potential to contain paleontological resources, there is a potenti al that the site could contain paleontological resources that could be disturbed during grading activities for the project. Incorporation of mitigation measure MM -GEO-1 would require a paleontologist to identify areas where paleontological resources may be present and to monitor the initial cut in any areas that may have the potential to contain paleontological resources.

This would reduce the potential for impact to paleontological resources to below a level of significance.

3.6 Geology/Soils
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.6-14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-1

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Introduction
This section analyzes the potential for the proposed project to have impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This section analyzes short -term construction impacts and long -term operational impacts and determines whether the proposed project woul d conform to the City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan (CAP). This section is based upon the following report, which is included as Appendix H of the Environmental Impact report (EIR)7:

Greenhouse Gas Assessment, Capalina Apartments Residential Development, prepared by LDN Consulting, June 19, 2023 (LDN 2023c)
The project’s Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist (CAP Checklist) is included as Appendix I. A discussion of the project’s consistency with the requirements of the CAP Checklist is provided later in this section. The CAP is available on the City’s web site.8 Table 3.7-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level GHG impacts, by threshold.

Table 3.7-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance Project Direct
Impact
Project Cumulative
Impact
Impact After
Mitigation
#1 - Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant Without
Mitigation
#2 - Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant Without
Mitigation

3.7.1 Existing Conditions
Global Climate Change
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). The Earth's temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun’s energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere.

The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build-up of heat in the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface.

This natural process contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable

7 Full references for documents cited in this section are included in Chapter 7, References, of this EIR. 8 http://www.san-marcos.net/departments/development-services/planning/climate-action-plan

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-2
environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs into the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect, and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.

GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. GHGs include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), water vapor, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. To simplify greenhouse gas calculations, both CH 4 and N 2O are converted to an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide, or CO 2e. CO2e is calculated by multiplying the calculated levels of CH4 and N2O by a Global Warming Potential (GWP). GWPs for both CH4 and N2 are presented within the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report as being 25 and 298, respectively (IPCC 2007)

9. A brief description of each GHG follows (LDN 2023c):

Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is widely reported as the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas because it currently accounts for the greatest portion of the warming associated with human activities. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally as part of the global carbon cycle, but human act ivities have increased atmospheric loadings through combustion of fossil fuels and other emissions sources. Natural sinks that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (e.g., oceans, plants) help regulate carbon dioxide concentrations, but human activities can disturb these processes (e.g., deforestation) or enhance them
Methane. CH4 comes from many sources, including human activities such as coal mining, natural gas production and distribution, waste decomposition in landfills, and digestive processes in livestock and agriculture. Natural sources of methane include wetlands and termite mounds.

Nitrous Oxide. N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to GHGs, including federal, state, and local guidelines.

Federal
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on April 2, 2007, that CO
2 is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs.

9 The IPCC 2007 report was updated in 2021 and now recommends adding a 100 year timeline to the GWP discussions (GWP-100). For CH 4 the GWP is between 27 -30 and the GWP for N 2O is 273 (US EPA, 2023). Since CalEEMod is the adopted computer model for calculating GHGs, the earlier GWPs within CalEEMod were utilized.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-3
Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for GHG under the CAA On December 7, 2009, USEPA signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the CAA:
• Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed GHGs —carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations; and • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution which threatens public health and welfare. These findings do not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities; however, this action is a prerequisite to finalizing USEPA’s proposed GHG emission standards for light -duty vehicles, which USEPA proposed in a joint proposal including the Department of Tr ansportation's (DOT) proposed CAFE standards on September 15, 2009.

Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:

1. Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.

2. Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium - and heavy-duty trucks and create a sepa rate fuel economy standard for work trucks.

3. Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances.

State
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets, building energy, mobile sources, renewable energy procurement, water, solid waste, and water.

State Climate Change Targets
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (June 2005) established the following statewide goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Assembly Bill 32. In furtherance of the goals established in EO S-3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32 (Núñez and Pavley). The bill is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (September 27, 2006). AB 32 provided initial direction on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-4
Executive Order B -55-18 to Achieve Carbon Neutrality (September 2018) establishes a statewide policy for the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The goal is an addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing the state’s GHG emissions. CARB will work with relevant state agencies to ensure that future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.

California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan . Under AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for and is recognized as having the expertise to carry out and develop the programs and regulations necessary to achieve the GHG emissions reduction mandate of AB 32. Therefore, in furt herance of AB 32, CARB adopted regulations requiring the reporting and verification of GHG emissions from specified sources, such as industrial facilities, fuel suppliers and electricity importers (see Health & Safety Code Section 35830; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§95100 et seq.). CARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions. AB 32 authorized CARB to adopt market-based compliance mechanisms to meet the specified requirements. Finally, CARB is ultimately responsible for monitoring compliance and enforcing any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emission reduction measure, or market-based compliance mechanism adopted.

In 2007, CARB approved a limit on the statewide GHG emissions level for year 2020 consistent with the determined 1990 baseline (427 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e). CARB’s adoption of this limit is in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 38550.

Further, in 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (2008 Scoping Plan) in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 38561. The 2008 Scoping Plan established an overall framework for the measures to be implemented to reduce California’s GHG emissions for various emission sources/sectors to 1990 levels by 2020. The 2008 Scoping Plan evaluated opportunities for sector-specific reductions, integrated all CARB and Climate Action Team 10 early actions and additional GHG reduction features by both entities, identified additional measures to be pursued as regulations, and outlined the role of a cap-and-trade program.

In the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of approximately 28.5% from the otherwise projected 2020 emissions level, i.e., those emissions that would occur in 2020, a bsent GHG -reducing laws and regulations (referred to as “Business -As-Usual” [BAU]). For purposes of calculating this percent reduction, CARB assumed that all new electricity generation would be supplied by natural gas plants, no further regulatory action would impact vehicle fuel efficiency, and building energy efficiency codes would be held at 2005 standards.

In the 2011 Final Supplement to the 2008 Scoping Plan’s Functional Equivalent Document, CARB revised its estimates of the projected 2020 emissions level in light of the economic recession and the availability of updated information about GHG reduction regulations. Based on the new economic data, CARB determined that achieving the 1990 emissions level by 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of 21.7% (down from 28.5%) from the BAU conditions. When the 2020 emissions level projection was updated to account for newly implemented regulatory measures, including Pavley I (model years 2009–2016) and the Renewables Portfolio Standard (12% to 20%), CARB determined

10 The Climate Action Team is comprised of state agency secretaries and heads of state agencies, boards, and departments; these members work to coordinate statewide efforts to implement GHG emissions reduction programs and adaptation programs.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-5
that achieving the 1990 emissions level in 2020 would require a reduction in GHG emissions of 16% (down from 28.5%) from the BAU conditions.

In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework (First Update) defined the state’s GHG emission reduction priorities for the next 5 years and laid the groundwork to start the transition to the post -2020 goals set forth in EO S-3-05 and EO B-16-2012. The First Update found that California was on track to meet the 2020 emissions reduction mandate established by AB 32, noted that California could reduce emissions further by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 if the state realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals.

In November 2017, CARB released California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan for public review and comment. This update includes CARB’s strategy for achieving the state’s 2030 GHG target as established in Senate Bill (SB) 32 (discussed below). The strategy includes continuing the Cap -and- Trade Program through 2030,
11 inclusive policies and broad support for clean technologies, enhanced industrial efficiency and competitiveness, prioritization of transportation sustainability, continued leadership on clean energy, putting waste resources to beneficial use, supporting resilient agricultural and rural economics and natural and working lands, securing California’s water supplies, and cleaning the air and public health. When discussing project -level GHG emissions reduction actions and thresholds, the 2017 Scoping Plan states “[a]chieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.” However, the 2017 Scoping Plan also recognizes that such an achievement “may not be feasible or appropriate for every project … and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.” CARB’s Governing Board adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan in December 2017.

The 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 85% below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The actions and outcomes in the plan will achieve significant reductions in fossil fuel combustion by deploying clean technologies and fuels, further reductions in short-lived climate pollutants, support for sustainable development, increased action on natural and working lands to reduce emissions and sequester carbon, and the capture and storage of carbon. The plan calls for a need to take an unprecedented transformation and aggressively seek reductions to reduce the need of fossil fuels by moving to zero emission transportation, electrifying the cars, buses, trucks, and trains. The plan relays on external controls and requires partnership and collaboration with the federal government, other U.S. states, and other jurisdictions around the world for California to succeed in achieving its climate targets.

Executive Order B-30-15. EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under EO S -3-05 and AB 32. EO B -30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long -term goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in EO S -3-05. To facilitate achievement of this goal, EO B-30-15 calls for an update to CARB’s Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO2e.

The EO also calls for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission reduction

11 In July 2017, AB 398 was enacted into law, thereby extending the legislatively authorized lifetime of the Cap -and-Trade Program to December 31, 2030.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-6
programs in support of the reduction targets. Sector-specific agencies in transportation, energy, water, and forestry were required to prepare GHG reduction plans by September 2015, followed by a report on action taken in relation to these plans in June 2016.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197. SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills that set a new statewide GHG reduction target; make changes to CARB’s membership and increase legislative oversight of CARB’s climate change-based activities; and expand dissemination of GHG and other air quality-related emissions data to enhance transparency and accountability. More specifically, SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B -30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly, in order to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to CARB as nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, an d toxic air contaminants (TACs) from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions reduction measures when updating the scoping plan.

Assembly Bill 1279, California Climate Crisis Act (September 2022) requires the state to achieve net zero GHG emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. The bill also requires California to reduce statewide GHG emissions by 85% compared to 1990 levels and directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to achieve these goals.

Senate Bill 1020, 100% Clean Electric Grid (September 2022) creates clean electricity targets of 90% by 2035 and 95% by 2040 with the intent of advancing the state’s trajectory to the existing 100% clean electricity retail sales by 2045 goal.

California Building Standards
Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. While not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes Buildi ng Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new buildings and alterations or additions to existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. The California Energy Commission (CEC) is required by law to adopt standards every 3 years that are cost effective for homeowners over the 30 -year lifespan of a building. These standards are updated to consider and incorporate new energy efficient technologies and construction methods. As a r esult, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment.

The 2019 Title 24 standards were approved and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission in December 2018. The 2019 standards became effective January 1, 2020. The standards required that all low-rise residential buildings shall have a photovoltaic system meeting the minimum qualification requirements such that annual electrical output is equal to or greater than the dwelling’s annual electrical usage. Notably, net energy metering rules limit residential rooftop solar generation to produce no more electricity than the home is expected to consume on an annual basis.

Single-family homes built with the 2019 standards will use about 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards, while new nonresidential buildings will use about 30% less energy mainly to lighting upgrades (CEC 2018).

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-7
The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) improve upon the 2019 Energy Code for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.

Title 24, Part 11 . In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as CALGreen and establishes minimum mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground- up, new construction of commercial, low -rise residential and state -owned buildings and schools and hospitals. The CALGreen 2016 standards became effective on January 1, 2017. The mandatory standards require mandatory reduction in indoor and outdoor water use, diversion of construction and demolition waste, mandatory inspections of ener gy systems, inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations or designated parking spaces capable of supporting future charging stations, and use of low-pollutant-emitting exterior and interior finish materials.

The CALGreen standards also include voluntary efficiency measures that are provided at two separate tiers and implemented at the discretion of local agencies and applicants. CALGreen’s Tier 1 standards call for a 15% improvement in energy requirements; stricter water conservation, 10% recycled content in building materials, 20% permeable paving, 20% cement reduction, and cool/solar -reflective roofs.

CALGreen’s more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a 30% improvement i n energy requirements, stricter water conservation, 75% diversion of construction and demolition waste, 15% recycled content in building materials, 30% permeable paving, 25% cement reduction, and cool/solar-reflective roofs.

The newest CALGreen Standards were updated in 2022 and became effective on January 1, 2023.

The updated Code includes modifications to current codes and project buildings will need to comply with the most recently adopted standards. Mandatory requirements include many updated Electric Vehicle Charging requirements for multi and single family developments (California Title 24, Part 11, 2022).

Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. Performance of appliances must be certified through the CEC to demonstrate compliance with standards. New appliances regulated under Title 20 include:
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers; room air conditioners and room air -conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool heaters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry-type distribution transformers; power supplies; te levisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing for each type of appliance covered under the regulations and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, wa ter performance and water design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non -federally regulated appliances.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-8
Mobile Sources
State Vehicle Standards. AB 1493 requires CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and EO S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels. The Advanced Clean Cars Program is an emissions control program to reduce smog -forming pollution, GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide fuels for clean cars. EO B-16-12 supports and facilitates development and distribution of Zero Emissions Vehicles.

Senate Bill 375 (2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 required CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light-truck sector for 2020 and 2035. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are then responsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The goal of the SCS is to establish a forecasted development pattern for the region that, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If an SCS is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, a metropolitan planning organization must prepare an Alternative Plannin g Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(K), a sustainable communities strategy does not (1) regulate the use of land; (2) supersede the land use authority of cities and counties; or (3) require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it. Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.

In 2010, CARB adopted the original SB 375 targets for the regional metropolitan planning organizations. The targets adopted for SANDAG in 2010 were a 7% reduction in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions by 2020 and a 13% reduction by 2035, measured r elative to 2005 GHG emissions. In 2018, CARB adopted the second round of SB 375 reduction targets, and increased SANDAG’s 2020 target to a 15% reduction in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions and the 2035 target to a 19% reduction, using the same 2005 baseline (CARB 2021).

In December 2021, SANDAG adopted its 2021 Regional Plan, which contains the region’s current SCS (Appendix D of the Regional Plan). The SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis determined that the San Diego region reduced per capita CO
2 emissions by 17.9% in 2020 compared to 2005
baseline, which exceeds the 2020 target set for SANDAG of 15% reduction. It was noted that measurement data was significantly impacted by COVID -19 due to intermittent stay -home orders, changes in employment, employee work location, telework, tourism travel, package and food delivery, cross-border travel restrictions, declines in public transit ridership, and price of gasoline, among many other impacts. SANDAG estimated that implementation of the SCS would result in a 20% CO 2 emissions reduction for cars and light-duty trucks by 2035. The GHG reductions for the 2021 Regional Plan were calculated using the CARB model EMFAC 2014 and adjustment factors provided by CARB to account for differences in emissions rates between EMFAC 2007 (used to set the original targets in 2010) and EMFAC 2014 (SANDAG 2021).

The 2021 Regional Plan provides a big picture vision for how the San Diego region will grow through 2050 and beyond with an implementation program to help make the plan a reality. Within the Regional Plan, SANDAG introduced a transformative vision for tran sportation in San Diego County that completely reimagines how people and goods could move throughout the region in the 21st century.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-9
The plan outlines the “5 Big Moves” which are: Complete Corridors, Transit Leap, Mobility Hubs, Flexible Fleets, and the Next OS. The SANDAG Board of Directors will be asked to adopt the 2021 Regional Plan in late 2021. Once adopted, it will become the reg ion’s long -term plan to be implemented incrementally through the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).

Advanced Clean Cars Program. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025 that combined standards for smog producing pollutants and greenhouse gases into one program. The package includes elements to reduce smog-forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars. To improve air quality, CARB also has implemented new emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the USEPA and the NHTSA, also adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025.

Advanced Clean Cars II Program (2022). CARB’s latest rule is known as Advanced Clean Cars II which continues the concept of increasing stringency for fuel-efficiency standards and increasing the number of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in the vehicle fleet starting with model year 2026 until mo del year 2035 when all new vehicles sold in the state must be ZEVs. The Board approved the proposed ACC II regulations in August 2022 . The Final Statement of Reasons will be released and the proposed regulation will go to the Office of Administrative Law to become final.

EO N -79-20, Zero Emission by 2035 , calls for elimination of new internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035. By setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035, the Governor’s Executive Order establishes a target for the transportation sector that helps put the state on a path to carbon neutrality by 2045. It is important to note that the Executive Order focuses on new vehicle sales for automakers, and therefore does not require Californians to give up the existing cars and trucks they already own. The primary mechanism for achieving the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) target for passenger cars and light trucks is the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Program.

As part of the Executive Order, the Governors Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) was tasked with preparing a Zero -Emission Vehicle Market Development Strategy along with the accompanying California State agency ZEV Action Plans.

In addition to ACC II, the Clean Miles Standard regulation will also help enable the goal of 100% ZEV sales in 2035 by creating demand for ZEVs. This regulation will have aggressive requirements for electric miles that will transition ride -hailing fleets to zero -emission operations starting in 2023 and ramping up through 2030. This regulation was approved by the CARB Board in 2021.

Senate Bill 350. In 2015, SB 350 – the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act – was enacted into law. As one of its elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector, recognizing that such electrification is req uired for achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction targets (see California Public Utilities Code, Section 740.12).

Renewable Energy Procurement
SB 1078 (2002) established the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which requires an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities equivalent to at least 1% of sales, with an aggregate goal of 20% by 2017. This goal was subsequently accelerated, requiring utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-10
SB X1 2 (2011) expanded the RPS by establishing that 20% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33% by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. Under the b ill, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal solid waste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location. In addition to the retail sellers previously covered by the RPS, SB X1 2 added local, publicly owned electric utilities to the RPS.

SB 350 (2015) further expanded the RPS by establishing that 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030 be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy-efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency.

SB 100 (2018) has further accelerated and expanded the RPS, requiring achievement of a 50% RPS by December 31, 2026 and a 60% RPS by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a new statewide policy goal that calls for eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources to supply 100% of electricity retail sales within the State of California by December 31, 2045.

Water
EO B-29-15 In response to drought-related concerns, EO B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the d irectives have since become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projec ts with smaller landscape areas.

Statewide Emergency Water Conservation Regulations (2022) . On January 4, 2022, the California State Water Board adopted its first emergency regulation of 2022 that prohibits certain wasteful water use practices statewide, including turning off decorative water fountains, pausing irrigation system when it’s raining and for two days after rain, use an automatic shutoff nozzle on water hoses, don’t use water to clean sidewalks and driveways and avoid overwatering of trees. This regulation was readopted in December 2022.

On May 24, 2022, the State Water Board adopted a second statewide emergency water conservation regulation that bans using potable (drinkable) water on decorative or non -functional grass at commercial, industrial, and institutional properties – including ar eas of nonfunctional turf under homeowners’ association control. It went into effect on June 10, 2022. It also requires urban water suppliers to implement all demand -reduction actions under Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans (unless otherwis e allowed). It will remain in effect for one year from the effective date, unless the Board modifies it, readopts it, or ends it before then.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-11

Solid Waste
AB 939, Integrated Waste Management Act (1989) redefined solid waste management in terms of both objectives and planning responsibilities for local jurisdictions and the state. The Act was adopted to reduce the volume and toxicity of solid waste that is landfilled and incinerated by requiring local governments to prepare and implement plans to improve the management of waste resources. AB 939 required each of the cities and unincorporated portions of the counties to divert a minimum of 25% of the solid waste sent to landfills by 1995, and 50% by the year 2000 through source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe landfill disposal and transformation. This law established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, later the Califo rnia Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

AB 1327, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act (1991) required adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials within a project site.

SB 1016, Solid Waste Disposal Measurement Act (2008) introduced a new diversion measurement system, which was based on a City's population and disposal tons to calculate a per capita disposal rate expressed in pounds per person per day. SB 1016 builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simp lified measure of the City's recycling performance. Under this measurement system, a city needs to annually dispose of an amount equal to or less than its "50 percent equivalent per capita disposal target" calculated by CalRecycle.

AB 341, Mandatory Commercial Recycling (2011) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020, and annually thereafter. This law requires California commercial or public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week, and multifamily dwellings of five or more units, to arrange for recycling services.

AB 1826, Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (2014) requires local governments to establish organic waste recycling programs. In addition, it requires businesses and multifamily residences of at least five units that generate four cubic yards or more of solid waste per week to arrange for organic waste recycling services.

Senate Bill 1383, Short -Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic (2016) is a statewide effort to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCP). Specifically, the law sets the following targets: 1) Reduce statewide disposal of organic waste by 50% by January 1, 2020 and by 75% by January 1, 2025 (based on 2014 levels), and 2) rescue at least 20% of currently disposed of edible food for human consumption by 2025.

Increasing the amount of solid waste that is recycled, reused, or composted will reduce GHG emissions primarily by 1) reducing the energy requirements associated with the extraction, harvest, and processing of raw materials and 2) using recyclable material s that require less energy than raw materials to manufacture finished products. Increased diversion of organic materials (green and food waste) will also reduce GHG emissions (CO
2 and CH4) resulting from decomposition in landfills by redirecting this material to processes that use the solid waste material to produce vehicle fuels, heat, electricity, or compost.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-12
Local
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan
Consistent with AB 32, the City adopted a CAP in September 2013 as a long-range plan to reduce GHG emissions and mitigate climate change impacts associated with City government operations and with implementation of the City’s General Plan. An updated CAP was adopted on December 8, 2020.

The CAP set the following citywide targets:
• 4% below 2012 levels (575,000 MT CO
2e) by 2020.
• 42% below 2012 levels (347,000 MT CO2e) by 2030.

The City has also developed a Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist (CAP Checklist), in conjunction with the CAP, to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

The CAP Consistency Guidance Memo dated July 15, 2020 summarizes the methodology and application of a GHG screening threshold which is set at 500 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MT CO
2e] per year as outlined in the CAP. Projects that are projected to emit fewer than 500 MT CO2e annually would not make a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change and would not need to provide additional analysis to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. This screening threshold is for new development projects consistent with the City’s General Plan. When such a project exceeds the screening threshold, the project would be required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the CAP Checklist.

In most cases, compliance with the CAP Checklist would provide the CEQA streamlining path to allow project specific environmental documents, if eligible, to tier from and/or incorporate by reference the CAP’s programmatic review of GHG impacts. Projects th at are consistent with the General Plan and implement CAP Checklist GHG reduction measures may incorporate by reference the CAP’s cumulative GHG analysis. The City’s CAP meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to development projects.

If a project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation(s), it can be determined to be consistent with the CAP projections and can move forward to Step 2 of the CAP Checklist.

For projects seeking a General Plan Amendment, such as the proposed project, the CAP Checklist requires a comparative analysis to determine if the General Plan Amendment results in an equivalent or less GHG -intensive project when compared to the existing d esignations. In addition to providing evidence to support the conclusion that the project would generate fewer emissions than existing designations, these projects would demonstrate consistency with the CAP through completion of Step 2 of the CAP Checklist.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-13
If a General Plan Amendment results in a more GHG-intensive project, the project is required to prepare a quantitative GHG analysis based on applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines.

City of San Marcos General Plan
Land Use and Community Design Element
• Goal LU-2: Promote development standards and land use patterns that encourage long -term environmental sustainability.
o Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use. o Policy LU -2.3: Require the incorporation of green building practices, technologies, and strategies into development projects per code standards. o Policy LU-2.7: Promote the installation of trees to reduce the urban heat-island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.

Conservation and Open Space Element
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of San Marcos General Plan identifies one goal and two policies regarding GHGs that are applicable to the proposed project:
• Goal COS-4: Improve regional air quality and reduce GHG emissions that contribute to climate change.
o Policy COS-4.3: Participate in regional efforts to reduce GHG emissions. o Policy COS-4.4: Quantify community-wide and municipal GHG emissions, set a reduction goal, identify and implement measures to reduce GHG emissions as required by governing legislation.
o Policy COS-4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
o Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment.

Mobility Element
Additionally, the Mobility Element of the City of San Marcos General Plan identifies one goal and associated policy that addresses GHG emission reductions through minimized vehicle miles traveled and reduced fuel consumption:
• Goal M-3: Promote and encourage use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, bicycles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and walking, within the City. o Policy M-3.1: Develop an integrated, multimodal circulation system that accommodates transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; provides opportunities to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions; and reinforces the role of the street as a public space that unites the City.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-14
Environmental Justice Element
The following goal and policies in the City of San Marcos General Plan, Environmental Justice Element are applicable to greenhouse gas emissions:
• Goal EJ -1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce impacts associated with climate change.
o Policy EJ-.1.5: Promote the installation of trees to reduce the urban heat-island effect and green infrastructure to reduce stormwater runoff (See Policy LU-2.7). o Policy EJ -1.6: Require new developments to prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to minimize vehicle trip generation and promote alternative modes of travel within the City. (See Policy M-1.3) o Policy EJ 1 -8: Develop an integrated, multimodal circulation system that accommodates transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; provides opportunities to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; and reinforces the role of the street as a public space that unites the City. (See Policy M-3.1)
o Policy EJ-1.11: Participate in regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (See Policy COS-4.3)
o Policy EJ-1.12: Quantify community-wide and municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, set a reduction goal, identify and implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by governing legislation. (See Policy COS-4.4) o Policy EJ-1.13: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community. (See Policy COS-4.5)
o EJ-1.14: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. (See Policy COS-4.6)
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Table 3.10-7 in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions.

3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies two evaluation criteria to determine the significance of GHG emissions. A significant impact would be identified if the project would:
• Threshold #1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
• Threshold #2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases.

The City developed a CAP Checklist, in conjunction with the CAP, to provide a streamlined review process for proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-15
The CAP Consistency Guidance Memo summarizes the methodology and application of a GHG screening threshold which is set at 500 MT CO 2e per year. Projects that are projected to emit fewer than 500 MT CO2e annually would not make a considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change and would not need to provide additional analysis to demonstrate consistency with the CAP. This screening threshold is for new development projects consistent with the City’s General Plan.

When such a project exceeds the screening threshold, the project would be required to demonstrate consistency with the CAP through the CAP Checklist.

In most cases, compliance with the CAP Checklist would provide a streamlined CEQA review path to allow project specific environmental documents, if eligible, to tier from and/or incorporate by reference the CAP’s programmatic review of GHG impacts. Projects that are consistent with the General Plan and implement CAP GHG reduction measures may incorporate by reference the CAP’s cumulative GHG analysis. The City’s CAP meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to development projects.

If a project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation(s), it can be determined to be consistent with the CAP projections and can move forward to Step 2 of the CAP Checklist.

For projects seeking a General Plan Amendment, such as the proposed project, the CAP Checklist requires a comparative analysis to determine if the amendment results in an equivalent or less GHG- intensive project when compared to the existing designations. In addition to providing evidence to support the conclusion that the project would generate fewer emissions than existing designations, these projects would demonstrate consistency with the CAP through completion of Step 2 of the CAP Checklist.

If a land use designation amendment results in a more GHG-intensive project, the project is required to prepare a quantitative GHG analysis based on applicable sections of the CEQA Guidelines.

3.7.4 Project Impact Analysis
The GHG analysis focuses on a relative comparison between the proposed project and the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario. GHGs related to construction and daily operations were calculated using the CalEEMod 2020.4.0 GHG model. The construction module in C alEEMod was used to calculate the emissions associated with the construction of the project. The CalEEMod input/output model is shown in Attachments A and B of the GHG report in Appendix H of this document. It should be noted that CalEEMod 2022 model has been released, though since its release, it has been updated 29 times. Utilization of the current release version 2022.1.1.13 is anticipated to result in lower GHG emissions than the 2020.4.0 model did which makes the 2020 version more conservative. Since the methodology of this analysis is to compare the relative intensities between the General Plan buildout scenario and the proposed project to determine if consistency with the CAP would indeed generate a less than significant impact, CalEEMod 2020.4.0 is sufficient (LDN 2023c).

The project would start grading some time in 2024 with residential construction to start shortly thereafter. Grading would consist of approximately 4,030 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 12,270 CY of fill material requiring an import of approximately 8,240 CY of fill material. Emissions generated by earthwork activities associated with grading were analyzed within CalEEMod using a “Grading Equipment Passes” methodology which has been approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As noted in the CalEEMod documentation, this methodology was

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-16
approved by CAPCOA (CAPCOA 2021). Since CalEEMod was used for GHG emissions estimation from construction, this methodology was assumed.

Threshold #1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
The following analysis presents the anticipated emissions for the proposed project and for a development project that would be consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Mixed Use 3 (MU3).

Proposed Project
Construction Emissions
Construction-related GHG emissions include emissions from site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating, including truck traffic, soils import activities, and worker trips. Emissions for construction of the proposed project were calculated based on emission factors from the latest CalEEMod 2020.4.0 GHG model. The project would start grading sometime in 2024 with residential construction to start shortly thereafter. Earthwork activities for the project include an import o f 8,240 CY of soil. Earthwork associated with grading within CalEEMod uses a “Grading Equipment Passes” methodology which has been approved by SCAQMD and CAPCOA (LDN 2023c).

Table 3.7-2 presents the anticipated construction emissions for the proposed project. As shown in Table 3.7-2, anticipated construction related GHG emissions for the proposed project are estimated at 413.62 MTCO
2e over the construction life of the project. Per guidance from SCAQMD, the construction-related emissions are amortized over a 30-year period because impacts from construction activities occur over a relatively short-term period of time and they contribute a relatively small portion of the overall l ifetime project GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008). SDAPCD does not have guidance on this topic and SCAQMD’s recommended methodology has been widely accepted throughout the State. This amortized figure estimates project construction would contribute 13.78 MT per year of CO2e.

Table 3.7-2. Expected Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary (Proposed Project) Year Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
Total CO2e
(metric
tons/year)
2024 0.00 270.39 270.39 0.03 0.01 274.49
2025 0.00 137.71 137.71 0.02 0.00 139.13
Total Construction Emissions 413.62
Yearly Average Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) 13.78 Source: LDN Consulting 2023c.

Note: Expected Construction emissions are based upon CalEEMod modeling assumptions for equipment and durations listed in Table 4.1 of the GHG Report (LDN 2023c).

Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Once construction is completed the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from daily operations, including sources such as area, energy, mobile, solid waste, and water uses, which are calculated within CalEEMod. Area sources include consumer products, landscaping, and architectural

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-17
coatings as part of regular maintenance. Energy sources would be from electricity and natural gas use.

Mobile sources are from vehicular traffic. Solid waste generated in the form of trash is also considered as decomposition of organic material breaks down to form GHGs. Water sources include standard residential uses including landscaping activities. GHGs from water are also indirectly generated through the conveyance of the resource via pumping throughout the state and as necessary for wastewater treatment. For consistency with the CAP, the project was analyzed under the Year 2030 scenario. Also, no hearth (fireplace) options were included in the modeling. A design feature has been included in the project description to indicate exclusion of fireplaces from the project.

Electrical energy-intensity factors were updated in CalEEMod 2020.4.0 to reflect San Diego Gas and Electric’s (SDG&E) latest emissions rates which SDG&E provided to CAPCOA for the model update.

CalEEMod 2016.3.2 (the model prior to 2020.4.0) was based on default emissions from 2009 which included a 10.5% RPS factor as indicated by the California Public Utilities Commissions (CPUC) (CPUC 2016). The default CalEEMod 2020.4.0 emissions are now 540 pounds per megawatt hour (lbs/MWh) which when compared with the defaults in 2016.2 represents a 33% p achievement for RPS in 2020 which is consistent with SBX1 -2. In accordance with SB 100, SDG&E will achieve an RPS of 60% in 2030.

Table 3.7 -3 identifies what the emissions in 2030 will be assuming a 60 percent RPS is achieved as required by current law.

Table 3.7-3. SDG&E Energy Intensity Factors
GHG 2009 Factors
(lbs/MWh) w/10.5% RPS
Current RPS Factors
2020 33% Achieved
(lbs/MWh)
Current RPS Factors
2030 60% Achieved
(lbs/MWh)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 720.49 539.98 322.38
Methane (CH4) 0.029 0.033 0.0197
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.006 0.004 0.0024
Source: LDN 2023c.

The project traffic engineer estimated that the project would generate 874 daily trips (CRA2023).

These traffic numbers were utilized within the CalEEMod analysis. Additionally, it was assumed that an average of 10% of the structural surface area would be re-painted each year.

Since the proposed project seeks a General Plan amendment, the proposed project’s analysis is based on a comparison between estimated emissions from the proposed use(s) and what would otherwise be approved under the existing General Plan. If a project’s proposed amendment to the General Plan would result in consistent or lower GHG emissions than development under the General Plan, the project would be required to implement the applicable CAP measures identified in Step 2 of the CAP Checklist.

Table 3.7-4 describes the CAP measures that are applicable to a multi -family residential project and how the proposed project would l comply.

Table 3.7-4. Project Consistency with Applicable CAP Checklist Measures CAP Consistency Checklist Measures Project Compliance
Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T-2)
Will the project install electric vehicle charging
stations (Level 2 or better) in at least five
The project proposes a total of 147 on-site parking
spaces and 8 of those will provide Level 2 electric
vehicle charging stations. The project also includes
15 EV capable spaces and 36 EV ready spaces.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-18
CAP Consistency Checklist Measures Project Compliance
percent of the total parking space provided on-
site?
The project has been designed to meet the
requirements of Measure T-2.

Transportation Demand Management (Measure
T-9)
Will the project develop and implement a TDM
plan that includes, at minimum, all of the TDM
strategies listed below?
• Provide discounted monthly transit pass
or provide at least 25 percent transit
fare subsidy to residents/employees.
• Provide designated car-share, carpool,
vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking
spaces.
• Provide pedestrian connections between
all internal uses and to all existing or
planned external streets around the
project site(s).
• Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or
bicycle racks, showers, and clothes
lockers.
• Encourage telecommuting for employees
(allow one telecommute day per week or
compressed work weeks) or provide a
telecommute work center with common
office space and equipment available to
residents.

Designated Parking: The project will provide
designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, EV and/or
park-and-ride spaces on site.

Pedestrian Connections: The project proposes
sidewalks along the project frontage along
Capalina Road. Sidewalks are also proposed
surrounding the main building and recreational
area providing direct access to the dwelling units,
fitness center, leasing office, and retail land use
component of the proposed project. Lastly,
sidewalks are proposed along the south and west
side of the buildings on the north side of the
property connecting directly to existing sidewalk
facilities along West Mission Road.

The project has been designed to meet the
requirements of Measure T-9.

Water Heaters (Measure E-1)
Will the project install one of, or a combination
of, the following water heater types in place of
natural gas heaters?
The project will install electric tank water heaters
within all units. Natural gas water heaters will not
be used. The project has been designed to meet
Measure E-1.

Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E-2)
Will the project install photovoltaic systems with
a minimum capacity of two watts per square foot
of gross floor area?
The project will install photovoltaic systems with a
capacity of two watts per square feet of gross floor
area. The project has been designed to meet
Measure E-2.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-19
CAP Consistency Checklist Measures Project Compliance
Landscaping Water Use (Measure W-1)
Will the project comply with the City’s Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance?
The project will comply with the City’s Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The project has
been designed to meet Measure W-1.

Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C-2)
For multi-family residential, if the project is
providing more than 10 parking spaces, will the
project plant at least one tree per five parking
spaces provided?
The project proposes 147 parking spaces, which
would require 29 trees to meet the requirements
of Measure C-2. Per the landscape concept plan,
the project will plant 82trees. The project exceeds
the requirements of Measure C-2.

Table 3.7-5 presents the proposed project’s operational emissions summary. As shown in Table 3.7 - 5, the project would generate 614.79 MT CO 2e per year incorporating any CAP measures. When amortized construction emissions are added in, the project would generate 628.57 MT CO2e. Including the GHG reduction associated with CAP Measure T -2, the provision of eight Level 2 electric vehicle charging stations, the project would generate 615.37 MT CO2e per year. The project would be required to implement all CAP measures and these measures would further reduce GHG emissions. However, since the intent of this analysis is to compare the proposed project with the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario, not all CAP measures were calculated as a GHG reduction.

Table 3.7-5. Proposed Project Operational Emissions Summary (MT/Year) Source Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e (MT/Yr)
Area 0.00 1.45 1.45 0.00 0.00 1.48
Energy 0.00 123.66 123.66 0.01 0.00 124.20
Mobile 0.00 417.96 417.96 0.03 0.02 424.87
Waste 11.96 0.00 11.96 0.71 0.00 29.64
Water 2.55 23.56 26.12 0.26 0.01 34.60
Operations Total 614.79
Construction Emissions (See Table 3.7-2 above) 13.78
Construction and Operations 628.57
CAP Measure T-2: EV Charger Reduction -13.2
Project GHG Emissions 615.37
Source: LDN 2023c.

Note: The data is presented in decimal format and may have rounding errors.

MU3 General Plan Buildout Emissions
The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site is Mixed Use 3 (MU3), which is a mixed-use non-residential designation with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.50. A constructible concept plan for the existing site was prepared for comparison purposes. The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario includes the construction of a multi -story office building consisting of 90,000 square feet (s.f.) of office use, 10,000 s.f. of retail use and 400 parking spaces. Parking would require both a

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-20
parking garage and ground level outside for this scenario. The total area including the parking would have a total gross floor area of 158,000 s.f. and would have a FAR of 1.5.

The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario is assumed to have a similar construction footprint as the proposed project. A similar construction model was prepared based on default settings though did include manual updates similar to the project to reflect an i dentical cut/fill/import scenario. The equipment list and durations are identical for the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario as shown in Table 4.1 of the GHG report (Appendix H of this document).

Table 3.7-6 presents the construction
emissions from the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario. Note that the construction emissions are not the same as the proposed project since the building land uses and areas are different.

Table 3.7-6. MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario - Annual Construction CO2e Emissions Summary Year Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
(MT)
2024 0.00 262.39 262.39 0.03 0.01 266.20
2025 0.00 149.30 149.30 0.02 0.01 151.35
Total Construction Emissions 417.55
Yearly Average Construction Emissions (Metric Tons/year over 30 years) 13.92 Source: LDN 2023c.

Once construction is completed the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would generate GHG emissions from daily operations, including area, energy, mobile, solid waste, and water uses, which were calculated similar to the proposed project using CalEEMod. Applicable CAP measures considered in this analysis include Measures T-2 (Electric Vehicle Charging Stations) and Measures E -2 (Photovoltaic Installation).

Traffic projections for the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario were not included within the project traffic study but the traffic engineer estimated that this scenario would generate 2,200 trips. This analysis uses a 5.4 mile trip distance which is consist ent with the project’s air quality assessment which uses methodologies looking at EMFAC total VMT divided by the total number of trips within the County of San Diego (LDN 2023c). It should be noted that the air quality assessment used a 2025 scenario and the VMT per trip may be slightly different in 2030. Since the project comparison would utilize the same year regardless, any changes in VMT per trip would be inconsequential. This trip distance was used for the illustrative comparative analysis only (LDN 2023c).

Under this scenario, different CAP Checklist measures would apply since it would be a non-residential project. The CAP measures required for the non-residential development would include:
• Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T -2) – The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would have 400 parking locations and would include 20 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. • Transportation Demand Management (Measure T -9) – The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would implement all of the TDM strategies identified in Measures T-9. • Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E-2) – The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would install photovoltaic systems with a minimum capacity of two watts per square foot of gross floor area (200 kilowatts).

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-21
• Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C-2) – The MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would plant at least one tree per five parking spaces provided for a minimum of 80 trees.

Table 3.7-7 presents the operational emissions summary for the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario.

As shown in Table 3.7-7, the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would generate 1,488.14 MT CO2e per year without incorporating any CAP measures. This scenario would be required to implement all of the applicable CAP measures identified above and these measures would further reduce GHG emissions. When reduction for CAP Measures T -2 and E -2 are consi dered, the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario would generate 1,219.26 MT CO2e per year.

Table 3.7-7. MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario Operational Emissions Summary (MT/Year) Source Bio-CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
(MT/Yr)
Area 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
Energy 0.00 368.17 368.17 0.02 0.00 369.67
Mobile 0.00 983.01 983.01 0.08 0.05 999.61
Waste 19.12 0.00 19.12 1.13 0.00 47.37
Water 5.31 48.53 53.84 0.55 0.01 71.48
Operations Total 1,488.14
Construction Emissions (See Table 3.7-6) 13.92
Construction and Operations 1,502.06
CAP Measure T-2: EV Charger Reduction -182
CAP Measures E-2: Solar PV Installation -100.8
MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario Project GHG Emissions 1,219.26 Source: LDN 2023c.

Comparison of the Proposed Project and the MU3 General Plan Buildout Scenario When the proposed project’s GHG emissions are compared to the GHG emissions under the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario, it is estimated that the proposed project would result in 49.5% lower GHG emissions (615.37 MT CO2e per year compared to 1,219.26 MT CO2e per year) compared to the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario. This is driven largely by the reduced number of vehicle trips that would occur under the proposed project compared to buildout under the General Plan.

The project would also implement all of the CAP Checklist measures that are applicable to multi-family housing. Projects that propose a General Plan Amendment and have GHG emissions that are less than would be anticipated for a project that would be consistent with the General Plan and implement CAP GHG reduction measures may incorporate by reference the CAP’s cumulative GHG analysis. The City’s CAP meets the requirements under Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines as a qualified plan for the reduction of GHG emissions for use in cumulative impact analysis pertaining to development projects. The CAP Checklist provides a streamlined review process for the GHG emissions analysis of proposed new development projects that are subject to discretionary review and trigger environmental review pursuant to CEQA. As such, the proposed project would not generate greenhouse gas

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-22
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold #2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs
As discussed under GHG Threshold #1, above, when the proposed project’s GHG emissions would be approximately 49,5% lower compared to the GHG emissions under the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario. The City’s CAP and the General Plan includes goals and poli cies related to GHG emissions, as detailed in Section 3.7.2 of the EIR. The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Table 3.10 -7 in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions.

In summary, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.

3.7.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect.

The CAP outlines strategies and measures that the City will undertake to achieve its proportional share of State GHG emissions reduction targets. The CAP is a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of the CAP (City of San Marcos 2020). As presented in Section 3.7.4, the project complies with the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect is determined not to be cumulatively cons iderable and impacts would be
less than significant.

3.7.6 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Sections 3.7.4 and 3.7.5, project and cumulative greenhouse gas impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.

3.7.7 Conclusion
The analysis above considered the GHG emissions of the proposed project in comparison to the emission that would be anticipated from a project that was consistent with the existing General Plan (MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario). When the proposed project’s GHG emissions are compared to the GHG emissions under the MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario, the project results in 49.5% lower GHG emissions (615.37 MT CO
2e per year compared to 1,219.26 MT CO 2e per year) compared to a General Plan (MU3 General Plan Buildout scenario. This is driven largely by the reduced number of vehicle trips that would occur under the proposed project compared to buildout under the General

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-23
Plan. The project would also implement all the CAP Checklist measures that are applicable to multi - family housing. The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s CAP.

In addition to the City’s CAP, the General Plan includes goals and policies related to GHG emission, as detailed in Section 3.7.2. The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Table 3.10-7 in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions.

In summary, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs and impacts would be less than significant.

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.7-24

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-1

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Introduction
This section analyzes the potential for the proposed project to have impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The following documents was used in the preparation of this section and are included in their entirety as Appendix J of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR):
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA Report), Vacant Property Northeast Side of Capalina Road , APN 219-115-33- 00, San Marcos, California. Prepared by The Phase One Group. March 28, 2022.

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 1 ESA) was undertaken to assess the likelihood of any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) that might be present on-site as a result of current or historical land uses or adjacent uses. The Phase 1 ESA included site reconnaissance of the project site, reconnaissance of adjoining properties, a review of the historical usage of the project site, and a review of relevant documentation provided by various public and private sources. Regulatory information w as also reviewed from federal, state, and local agencies through various electronic databases listing possible hazardous waste-generating facilities on and within the vicinity of the project site.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process defines a REC as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.

De minimis con ditions are not recognized environmental conditions” (ASTM 2013). De minimis conditions are those that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.

ASTM Designation E 1527-13 also defines Historical RECs. They define a ‘Historical REC’ (HREC) as “A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls)” (ASTM 2013).

Table 3.8-1 summarizes the hazards/hazardous materials and cumulative -level impact analysis, by threshold, for the proposed project.

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-2
Table 3.8-1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance Project-Level
Impact
Cumulative-Level
Impact
Impact after
Mitigation
#1: Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#2: Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact No Impact No Impact
#4: Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#5: For a project located within an airport
land use plan, or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles or a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project
area
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#6: Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation
#7: Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Without
Mitigation

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-3

3.8.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions on the project site and vicinity related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Historical Land Uses
Aerial photographs, topographic maps, and previous reports of the project site were reviewed for evidence of past land uses that had the potential to have impacted the project site through the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances and/or petrol eum products. Per the Phase I ESA, the project site appeared to be vacant pasture land from prior to 1939 until approximately 1974, when the northwestern perimeter of the project site appeared to be vacant, rough -graded land. By 1980, the project site appeared to be vacant, rough -graded land with what appeared to be an area graded for uses as a vehicle parking area on the southeastern portion of the project site. By 1996, the project site appeared to be vacant, weed-abated land. By 2005, a vehicle parking area appears to be to be located on the southeastern perimeter of the project site. By 2012, the vehicle parking area was removed and the project site appeared to be vacant, weed-abated land.

Database Review
An environmental regulatory database review of local, state, and federal regulatory databases was conducted for the project site and facilities within one mile of the project site. The databases, including the Envirosite Corporation, Federal National Prior ities List, Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERLIS), Federal CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) List, Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS) Program, Federal RCRA Non -CORRACTS Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facilities List, Federal RCRA Generator List, Federal Institutional Controls/ Engineering Controls (IC/EC), and Federal Emergency Response Notification Systemtrack the pre sence of underground storage tanks, hazardous waste generation, and hazardous material releases. The project site was not listed on any of the regulatory databases reviewed.

The adjacent property to the southeast, 1560 Capalina Road, is listed as a CalEPA Site and HAZMAT San Diego County site on the Envirosite environmental database report. However, based on the current regulatory statuses of the adjacent properties, the adjacent properties are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern to the project site. One CERCLIS NFRAP site is listed within one - half mile of the project site and one RCRA CORRACTS TSD site is listed within one mile of the site.

However, based on the relative distance, regulatory status, and/or inferred direction of groundwater flow, the listed sites are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.

Site Reconnaissance
As presented in the Phase 1 ESA prepared for the proposed project, the project site and surrounding properties were systematically traversed on foot in March 2022 by The Phase One Group. The offsite survey was performed by observing adjacent properties fro m the project site and adjacent public streets.

The project site was observed to be vacant rough -graded land covered with weeds and a couple of palm trees. The perimeter of the project site is surrounded by a chain-link fence with a gate on the southwest side of the project site along Capalina Road. No structures were observed onsite. Several small piles of what appeared to be construction debris in the form of large rocks were observed along the northwestern portion of the project site. At the time of The Phase One Group’s site visit, the site

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-4
was unoccupied. No evidence of the use of reportable quantities of hazardous materials and petroleum products or the generation of hazardous waste was observed on the site project site during the site visit.

Wildland Fire
The project site is 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 and is surrounded by areas identified as a Non -VHFHSZ (CalFire 2009). 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 Zones (City of San Marcos 2012). A discussion of fire protection services for the proposed project is discussed in Section

3.13, Public Services.

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting
This section details the federal, state, and local regulations governing hazards and hazardous materials.

Federal
Chemical Accident Prevention Provision
The provisions listed under Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) set forth the list of regulated substances and thresholds, the petition process for adding or deleting substances to the list of regulated substances, the requirements for owners or operators of stationary sources concerning the prevention of accident releases, and the state accidental release prevention programs approved under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act.

Federal Aviation Regulations, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has primary responsibility for the safety of civil aviation, imposes height restrictions in order to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace to protect flights and surrounding structures. In certain cases , the FAA should be notified of proposed development pursuant to Section 77.11 of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The notification of proposed development enables the FAA to provide a basis for:
• Evaluating the effect of the construction or alteration on operational procedures and proposed operational procedures;
• Determinations of the possible hazardous effect of the proposed construction or alteration of air navigation;
• Recommendations for identifying the construction or alteration in accordance with current FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K dated August 1, 2000, Obstruction Marking and Lighting; • Determining other appropriate measures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation; and
• Charting and other notification to airmen of the construction or alteration.

Certain jurisdictions can request an FAA evaluation of proposed development when certain features appear to be potentially hazardous.

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-5
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provided a new set of mitigation plan requirements for state and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. States are encouraged to complete a “Standard” or an “Enhanced” Natural Mitigation Plan. “Enhanced” plans demonstrate increased coordination of mitigation activities at the state level, and, if completed and approved, increase the amount of funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. California’s updated State Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted in October 2010, and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Region IX. The City of San Marcos is one of the communities covered by the County of San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, described below, which is a countywide plan that identifies risks posed by natural and human-made disasters.

Hazardous Materials Transport
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates transportation of hazardous materials between states. State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies ar e California Highway Patrol (CHP) and the California Department of Transportation. Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers for transportation of hazardous waste on public roads, including explosives that may be used for blasting.

International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC), created by the International Code Council, is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The IFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The IFC and the International Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required for fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the IFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The IFC is updated every three years.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non -hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled the USEPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 (SWDA), as amended by the RCRA of 1976. In general, both the scope and requirements of the SWDA, as amended by RCRA, were significantly expanded and reinforced.

State
The state regulations that govern hazardous materials are equal to or more stringent than federal regulations. California has been granted primary oversight responsibility by USEPA to administer and

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-6
enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations have detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human health and the environment. Several key state laws pertaining to hazardous wastes are discussed below. In addition, the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the Integrated Waste Management Act also regulate the generation of hazardous materials, also described below.

California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act provides the basic authority for conducting emergency operations following a proclamation of emergency by the governor and/or appropriate local authorities. Local government and district emergency plans are considered to be extensions of the California Emergency Plan, established in accordance with the Emergency Services Act.

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is Chapter 9 of CCR Title 24. It is created by the California Building Standards Commission and is based on the IFC created by the International Code Council, described above. It is the primary means for authorizing and enfor cing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety.

The CFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The CFC a nd the California Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equip ment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The CFC is updated every three years. The CFC is adopted by reference as Chapter 17.64 –California Fire Code in the City of San Marcos Municipal Code.

California Health and Safety Code, Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans, and Inventory Two programs found in the California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 are directly applicable to the CEQA issue of risk due to hazardous substance release. In San Diego County, these two programs are referred to as the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) program and the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP), which is the state adaptation of CFR Part 68, described above.

The Department of Environmental Health is responsible for the implementation of the HMBP program and CalARP in San Diego C ounty. The HMBP and CalARP programs provide threshold quantities for regulated hazardous substances. When the indicated quantities are exceeded, an HMBP or Risk Management Plan (RMP) is required pursuant to the regulation. Congress requires USEPA Region 9 to make RMP information available to the public through the USEPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
This act requires the development and implementation of household hazardous waste disposal plans.

The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board, oversees compliance with this act and enforces operational plans for solid waste facilities.

Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-7
is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the California Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), CHP, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act (California Government Code Section 8850 et seq.), the state developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Quick response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is a key element of this plan. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers the plan, coordinating the responses of other agencies, including USEPA, CHP, RWQCBs, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.

Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)
The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the Cortese List.

The Cortese List is a planning document used by the state and local agencies to provide information about hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Sec tion 65962.5 requires Cal/EPA to develop an updated Cortese List annually, at minimum. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other California state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.

Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act is implemented by regulations contained in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 26 that describe requirements for the proper management of hazardous wastes. The act created the state hazardous waste management program, which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26 regulations list more than 800 potentially hazardous materials and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, transporting, and disposing of such wastes. Under these regulations, the generator of hazardous waste material must complete a manifest that accompanies the material from the point of generation to transportation to the ultimate disposal location, with copies of the manifest filed with the DTSC.

Unified Program
Cal/EPA delegates to qualifying local agencies oversight and permitting responsibility for certain state programs pertaining to hazardous waste and hazardous materials. This is achieved through the Unified Program, created by state legislation in 1993 to c onsolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following emergency and management programs:
• Hazardous materials release response plans and inventories (business plans); • California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP); • Underground Storage Tank Program;
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans;
• Hazardous Waste Generator and On -site Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs; and

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-8
• California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous material management plans and hazardous material inventory statements.

The County of San Diego is the designated certified unified program agency for all local jurisdictions within the San Diego region, including San Marcos.

State Responsibility Area Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14 Natural Resources, Department of Forestry Fire Protection)
These regulations constitute the basic wildland fire protection standards of the California Board of Forestry. They have been prepared and adopted for the purpose of establishing minimum wildfire protection standards in conjunction with building, construction, and development in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs). Title 14 regulates that the future design and construction of structures, subdivisions, and developments in an SRA shall provide for basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection measures.

Local
Airport Land Use Commission and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing or proposed airport; coordinate planning at state, regional and local levels; prepare and adopt airport land use policies; review plans or regulations submitted by local agencies; and review and makes recommendation regarding the land use, building heights, and other issues related to air navigation safety and the promotion of air commerce. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is the ALUC for the San Diego region.

The closest public airport to the project site is the McClellan -Palomar Airport located in the City of Carlsbad, approximately 7.5 miles west of the project site. The McClellan -Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) contains policies to promote land use compatibility between the McClellan- Palomar Airport and the adjacent and proximate land uses, to the extent these areas are not already developed with existing uses, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). Using airport-related forecasts and background data approved by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, the plan reflects anticipated growth of the airport over a 20 -year horizon. The plan includes land use compatibility criteria and identifies policies applicable to the airport and surrounding land uses.

According to the McClellan-Palomar ALUCP and Figure 6-5 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site lies within Review Area 2 of the airport influence area. The influence area is regulated by the ALUC, which regulates land uses in th e area to be compatible with airport -related noise, safety, airspace protection, and over -flight factors through review of development proposals within the airport influence area. Review Area 2 consists of limits on heights of structures in areas of high t errain. Residential development in Review Area 2 may be subject to annoyances commonly associated with proximity to airports, such as noise, vibration, and overflights.

County of San Diego Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the County of San Diego prepared the Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan serves as both a county-wide plan and a plan for local jurisdictions that identifies risks posed by natural and h uman-made disasters before a hazard event occurs. The plan includes overall goals and objectives shared by many jurisdictions, as well as specific

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-9
goals, objectives, and mitigation action items for each of the participating jurisdictions to help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that could potentially affect their jurisdiction. Goals, objectives, and action items for the City of San Marcos are included in this plan.

San Marcos Fire Department Hazard Risk Analysis and Wildland Urban Interface Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), adopted in December 2007, was developed by the San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) with guidance from the County of San Diego, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the United States Forest S ervice. The CWPP supplements San Diego County, Department of Planning and Land use documents. Supplemental to the CWPP, the SMFD published the Hazard Risk Analysis (HRA) for internal City use, incorporating new and existing information relating to wildfire risk within the City to better quantify true risk and management needs. The HRA quantifies, clarifies, and manages the wildland urban interface (WUI) responsibility and meets the requirements of the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 for community fire planning.

City of San Marcos, Ordinance 2003-1216
The City Ordinance 2022-1525 amends Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code to adopt the most recent version of the California Fire Code. Currently, this ordinance requires all buildings or structures to provide and maintain an effective fuel modification zone of 150 feet.

City of San Marcos General Plan
The Safety Element of the San Marcos General Plan contains several goals and policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials. The following goals and policies apply to the proposed project:
• Goal S-3: Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property results from structure or wildland fire hazards.
o Policy S-3.1: Require development to be located, designed, and constructed to provide adequate defensibility and reduce the risk of structural loss and life resulting from wildland fires. Development will consider hazards relative to terrain, topography, accessibility, and proximity to vegetation. One such provision for development to minimize the risk of structural loss and life shall be the inclusion of overhead fire sprinklers. o Policy S-3.2: Provide sufficient level of fire protection service to reduce risk from urban and wildland fire. Advocate and support regional coordination among fire protection and emergency service providers.
o Policy S-3.3: Require development to provide additional access roads when necessary to provide for safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently. o Policy S-3.4: Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers to assess fire hazards before and after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, commensurate with both short- and long-term fire prevention needs. • Goal S-4: Protect life, structures, and the environment from the harmful effects of hazardous materials and waste.

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-10
o Policy S -4.1: Promote and support the proper disposal, handling, transport, delivery, treatment, recovery, recycling, and storage of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
o Policy S-4.2: Require areas of known or suspected contamination to be assessed prior to reuse or redevelopment. Plan for reuse of contaminated areas in a manner that is compatible with the nature of the contamination and subsequent remediation efforts. o Policy S-4.3: Require that land uses using hazardous materials be located and designed to ensure sensitive uses, such as schools, hospitals, day care centers, and residential neighborhoods, are protected.
o Policy S-4.4: Avoid locating sensitive uses near established hazardous materials users or industrial areas where incompatibilities would result, except in cases where appropriate safeguards have been developed and implemented.
• Goal S -5: Establish and maintain an effective emergency response program to respond to disasters and maintain continuity-of-life support functions during an emergency. o Goal S-5, Policy S-5.3: Develop, implement, and maintain an effective evacuation program for areas of risk in the event of a disaster.
• Goal S-7: Comply with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. o Policy S-7.1: Record an overflight notification document in association with the approval of any new residential land use within the AIA overflight notification area consistent with the ALUCP.

The Environmental Justice Element of the San Marcos General Plan contains several goals and policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials. The following goals and policies apply to the proposed project:
• Goal EJ -1: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance air quality, and reduce impacts associated with climate change.
o Policy EJ-1.21: Require areas of known or suspected contamination to be assessed prior to reuse or redevelopment. Plan for reuse of contaminated areas in a manner that is compatible with the nature of the contamination and subsequent remediation efforts (See Policy S-4.2).
o Policy EJ-1.22: Require that land uses using hazardous materials be located and designed to ensure sensitive uses, such as schools, hospitals, day care centers, and residential neighborhoods, are protected (See Policy S-4.3).
o Policy EJ-1.23: Avoid locating sensitive uses near established hazardous materials users or industrial areas where incompatibilities would result, except in cases where appropriate safeguards have been developed and implemented (See Policy S-4.4).

The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. The Safety Element also identifies goals and policies related to seismic, flood, and fire hazards. As detailed in Table 3.10 -7 of Section 3.10, the project is consistent with all the applicable goals and policies.

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-11

3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance
Based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G, the following significance criteria have been developed for hazardous materials compliance. A significant impact to or resulting from hazards and hazardous materials would be identified if the project were determined to result in any of the following:
• Threshold #1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
• Threshold #2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
• Threshold #3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Threshold #4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
• Threshold #5: For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Threshold #6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
• Threshold #7: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

3.8.4 Project Impact Analysis
The following analysis discusses impacts associated with the thresholds of significance identified in Section 3.8.3, Thresholds of Significance, above.

Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could pose a threat to human health or the environment. Hazards with all existing development include the risks associated with potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment.

Threshold #1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Construction
During construction of the proposed project, there is a potential for accidental upset of fuels, lubricants, or various other liquids needed to operate heavy equipment on the project site. These materials include diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, co ncrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. Direct impacts to human health and

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-12
biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the buildings could occur in case of accidental spill or upset; however, existing federal and state standards are in place for the handling, storage, and transport of these materials. These include, but are not limited to, the Federal Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations), California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation container and licensing requirements for transportation of hazardous waste on public roads, the International Fire Code, The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, Califo rnia’s Hazardous Waste Control Law, the California Fire Code, California Health and Safety Code Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, the California Integrated Waste Management Act, regulations developed by California Occupations Safety and Health Administration, and the state Hazardous Waste Control Act.

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

Because compliance with all standards is required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations, no significant impacts to the public or the environment are expected due to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project construction or operation. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be
less than significant.

Threshold #2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Construction
As discussed under Threshold 1, above, construction of the proposed project would entail transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. As such, although the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction could result in accidental spill or upset, the proposed project would be required to comply with existing environmental regulations that would ensure that the public and environment are protected.

Operations
Future uses proposed within the project area are limited to multi - family residential uses and commercial uses. These types of land uses are not typically characteristic of generating, releasing, or using large amounts of hazardous materials. Industrial uses are not proposed as part of the proposed project. The only hazardous materials anticipated for transport, use, or disposal associated with the completed project are routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products. As stated above, the use,

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-13
handling, and disposal of these products are addressed by household hazardous waste programs that are part of the IWMP of the County of San Diego.

Because compliance with all standards is required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations, no significant impacts to the public or the environment are expected due to the release of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts are less than significant.

Threshold #3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school to the project site is La Mirada Academy, a K-8 school located 0.66 mile southwest of the project site, with State Route-78 and additional development between the project site and the school.

Additionally, the uses proposed by the project would not be characterized as those that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances. No schools are located within 0.25 mile of the project site. No impact is identified for this issue area.

Threshold #4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

As part of the Phase 1 ESA prepared for the proposed project, various federal, state, and local regulatory database searches were conducted. The findings of the Phase I ESA concluded that the proposed project site is not located on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

However, based on the relative distance, regulatory status, and/or inferred direction of groundwater flow, the listed sites are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.

Aerial photographs, topographic maps, and previous reports of the project site were reviewed for evidence of past land uses that had the potential to have impacted the project site through the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous substances and/or petrol eum products. Per the Phase I ESA, the project site appeared to be vacant pastureland from prior to 1939 until approximately 1974, when the northwestern perimeter of the project site appeared to be vacant, rough -graded land. By 1980, the project site appeared to be vacant, rough -graded land with what appeared to be an area graded for uses as a vehicle parking area on the southeastern portion of the project site. By 1996, the project site appeared to be vacant, weed-abated land. By 2005, a vehicle parking ar ea appears to be to be located on the southeastern perimeter of the subject project site. By 2012, the vehicle parking area was removed and the project site appeared to be vacant, weed-abated land.

The site reconnaissance confirmed that no obvious indications of the use, storage, or generation of hazardous materials/wastes or petroleum products were observed on or adjacent to the project site.

The Phase I prepared for the proposed project concluded t here is a low likelihood that recognized environmental conditions are present at the project site as a result of the current or historical land

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-14
uses or from a known and reported off -site source. Therefore, the proposed project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Impacts are less than significant.

Threshold #5: For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

The public airport closest to the project site is the McClellan -Palomar Airport, located approximately five miles to the west. According to Figure 6 -5 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is located within Review Area 2 of the airport influence area. Review Area 2 limits the heights of structures in areas of high terrain. The project site would not be characterized as an area of high terrain, defined as a maximum height of 795 feet above meal sea level (AMSL) or as in an area of Terrain Penetration to Airspace Surfaces. The elevations on the site range from approximately 580 to 600 feet AMSL. Proposed buildings would be four stories high and range from approximately 51 to 56 feet in heights. The project site is outside of the 60 dBA noise contour generated by airport noise as illustrated in the ALUCP. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, all residential development within Review Area 2 is required to record overflight notification documents as outlined in the McClellan -Palomar ALUCP and p er Chapter 20.265 of the City’s Municipal Code, notifying residents of potential annoyances commonly associated with proximity to airports, such as noise, vibration, and overflights. This would be required as a condition of project approval. As such, with recording of overflight notification, impacts would be
less than significant.

Threshold #6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan governs the operations of the City during a disaster. This plan addresses response to moderate evacuation scenarios, including the identification of evacuation points an d general routes. While specific evacuation routes have not been established, several main thoroughfares would serve as primary evacuation corridors in an emergency. Additionally, San Marcos is included in the San Diego County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was developed to serve as both a county-wide plan and a plan for local jurisdictions to identify risks posed by natural and human-caused disasters before a hazardous event occurs.

Access to the project site would be via two unsignalized driveways on Capalina Road. Both driveways will be ungated and would be 24 feet wide. Internal vehicular movement will be via 24-foot-wide drive aisles. No vehicular access is proposed from West Mission Road.

The proposed project would not impact any roadway or staging areas that are identified in any emergency planning documents. In summary, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Threshold #7: Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

Implementation of the proposed project would result in a developed area with structures, and landscape vegetation. The project site is 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

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Capalina Apartments Draft EIR October 2023
City of San Marcos Page 3.8-15
(2009) and is surrounded by areas identified as 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 (City of San Marcos 2012). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized area or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Impacts would be less than significant.

3.8.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
A “cumulative impact” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental effects. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)(B), an adequate discussion of a p roject’s significant cumulative impact, in combination with other closely related projects, can be based on either: (1) a list of past, present, and probable future producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or a related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. For purposes of assessing the proposed project’s cumulative impact with respect to hazards, the cumulative analysis is based upon a list approach to determine the proposed project’s contributing effect on potential cumulative impacts related to hazards. All of the cumulative projects identified in Table 2-3 are considered in this cumulative analysis.

Hazards impacts are generally site specific and thus handled on a site -by-site basis. All projects identified in Table 2-3 would require the identification of existing hazardous materials on site, and would be required to comply with existing regulations r elated to use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. Similarly, all related projects would be required to analyze and properly mitigate any impacts to the existing evacuation plan if impacts are identified.

With regard to wildfire hazards, all of the projects proposed within the urban/wildland interface are required to meet minimum fire fuel modification and/or clearing requirements in addition to meeting the applicable standards of the various fire codes in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

Currently that is the 2022 California Fire Code, 2022 California Building Code, San Diego County requirements for Enhanced Building Construction and California State Fire Marshal requirements for fire resistive construction. For projects within the City, these requirements are implemented through preparation of and compliance with a Fire Protection Plan, other project-specific design features, which are reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. As such, through compliance with existing regulations, cumulative impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

3.8.6 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3.8.4 and 3.8.5, no impacts were identified and no mitigation measures are required.

3.8.7 Conclusion
As discussed in Section 3.8.4, above, the project site is currently vacant and is not listed on any hazardous materials sites. Furthermore, construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in the release of any significant hazar dous materials or the routine transport, use, or disposal of such materials. Development of the proposed project would not result in any safety hazards resulting from proximity to the McClellan-Palomar Airport, however, the project site is located within Review Area 2 of the McClellan-Palomar airport influence area and, although not significant, future residents on the project site may be subject to periodic nuisance from aviation activity including noise, vibration, and overflights. Recordation of overflig ht notification documents that detail the

San Marcos City CouncilMarch 26, 2024

San Marcos City Council
March 26, 2024