4.3.1 Alternative Location
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City considered the potential for alternative locations to the project. There are sites within the City that are similarly zoned for light - industrial use under the General Plan that could be dev eloped or redeveloped with a light -industrial project with potentially less impacts to biological resources on site. However, the project applicant does not control another site within the City of comparable land area that is surrounded by existing infrastructure, near existing transit and specifically, near existing business operations. 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.” Because the City is highly urbanized and is largely built 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-3
out, obtaining another site of a similar size in a similar location is not considered feasible. As such, an alternative location was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the EIR.
4.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS EIR
4.4.1 Description of Alternatives
The following alternatives are under consideration for this project:
• No Project/No Development Alternative (Section 4.4.3) • Reduced Development Intensity Alternative (Section 4.4.4) Alternatives considered and removed from further consideration are summarized in Section 4.3.
4.4.2 Summary of Project Impacts
Project- and cumulative-level impacts associated with implementation of the project are evaluated in Sections 3.1 through 3.1 8 of this Draft EIR. As identified in Table 1 ‐1, in Chapter 1 ( Executive Summary), construction and/or operation of the project would have the potential to cause the following significant but mitigable environmental impacts:
• Impact BIO-1: Construction of the project would result in potential impacts to special-status species • Impact BIO-2: Construction of the project would result in potential impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities
• Impact BIO-3: Construction of the project would result in potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waterways
• Impact CR-1: Unknown archaeological resources may occur on the project site, and the project has the potential to disturb such unidentified resources during project grading. • Impact CR-2: There is a potential for project construction activities to disturb previously unidentified human remains on the project site.
• Impact GEO-1: Paleontological resources may be adversely impacted during excavation. • Impact TRA-1: The project VMT per employee would exceed 16.07 VMT per employee (15% below regional average) threshold.
• Impact TCR-1: There is potential for project construction to adversely affect previously unidentified tribal cultural resources (TCRs).
4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-4
4.4.3 No Project/No Development Alternative
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project would not be implemented , and the project site would remain undeveloped. However, this no project/no development alternative does not preclude future development on site, as industrial uses would still be allowed under the current Light Industrial land use designation for the site.
The project site is currently undeveloped and supports 16 vegetation communities. These vegetation communities and land covers identified are categorized into three community subgroups: sensitive uplands, sensitive wetlands/riparian habitat, and non-sensitive uplands. Sensitive uplands within the review area consist of Diegan coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub -Baccharis dominated, non-native grassland-artichoke-thistle dominated, non -native grassland-broadleaf dominated, valley needle grassland, and wildflower fields. Sensitive wetlands/riparian habitats within the review area include Arundo-dominated riparian habitat, disturbed wetlands, emergent wetlands, San Diego Mesa claypan vernal pools, southern willow scrub, and Tamarisk scrub. Non -sensitive uplands consist of disturbed habitat and Eucalyptus woodland.
Habitat on the project site would not be impacted under this alternative, but also may not be conserved.
4.4.3.1 Comparison of the Effects of the No Project/No Development Alternative to the Project
Aesthetics
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the site would remain in its current condition and the visual character of the site would not change. Existing vegetation would remain on site, and no grading or landform modification would occur under this alternative. Compared to the project, this alternative would reduce impacts. However, as discussed in Section 3.1.4, the project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics and no mitigation would be required. Impacts to aesthetics under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project, but under either scenario would not be significant. Therefore, although changes to aesthetics under this alternative would be reduced in comparison to the project, this alternative would not eliminate any potential significant impacts to aesthetics.
Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, air pollutant emissions assoc iated with construction, including emissions associated with grading, site preparation, site finishing and building finishing, would not occur. Implementation of this alternative would not introduce any uses that could generate air pollutant emissions. This alternative would not result in any air quality emissions. As discussed in Section 3.2.4, impacts to air quality from project construction and operation would be 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-5
less than significant and no mitigation is required. Nevertheless, compared to the project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce air quality impacts.
Biological Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require any ground -disturbing activities. As such, this alternative would not result in the direct loss of approximately 2.6 acres of vegetation communities in the region and would not result in potential impacts to special-status species, riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities, nor jurisdictional wetlands and waterways. Because impacts to biological resources would be avoided under the No Project/No Development Alternative, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 through MM-BIO-12 proposed for the project would not be implemented or required for this alternative . Thus, compared to the project, this alternative would result in a reduced level of direct impact to biological resources.
Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require any ground -disturbing activities.
Therefore, there would be no potential to impact unknown archaeological resources potentially located within the project site. Further, there would be no potential to disturb previously unidentified human remains that may be present on the project site. As such, MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 proposed for the project would not be implemented or required for this alternative. Although there may be a reduced level of direct impact to cultural resources, any previously undiscovered on -site resources could be subject to continued degradation due to lack of pr eservation of the undeveloped site. Nonetheless, compared to the project, this alternative would result in a reduced level of impact to cultural resources as no ground disturbance would occur.
Energy
Under the No Project Alternative, energy use associated with construction or operation of the proposed development, including from electricity use and natural gas use, would not occur. No construction would occur; therefore, no construction -related energy impacts associated with the construction equipment and worker and vendor vehicles would occur as they would with the project. This alternative would not introduce any people or uses that would generate energy use, and in comparison to the project, this alternative would reduce energy use. However, as described in Section 3.5, Energy, of this EIR, the project’s impacts related to energy emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, compared to the project’s less than significant impact to energy, the No Project Alternative would have no impacts.
Geology and Soils
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project site would remain in its current state.
Existing topography and on -site soils would not be disturbed by any development. Although the 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-6
project site would still be subject to potential seismic hazards such as seismic ground shaking, under this alternative, no structures would be present on site. Thus, the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic hazards would be reduced compared to development implementing the project.
Because no development would occur under this alternative, no potential impacts to paleontological resources would occur during project construction, and mitigation would not be required under this alternative as it is for the project. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced under this alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with electricity and natural gas use, water use, and solid waste hand ling associated with future industrial development would not occur. This alternative would not introduce any people or uses that would generate greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, since this alternative would not generate project - related automobile trips, GHG emissions associated with vehicular trips would not occur. In comparison to the project, this alternative would result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on site. However, as described in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR , the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Th erefore, although the No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce GHG emissions on site, this alternative would not eliminate any potential significant impacts to GHG emissions.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no land uses would be introduced that could result in the use or generation of hazardous materials. In comparison to the project, this alternative would not have th e potential for transport, accidental release or spill of hazardous materials during construction of the project, and would not expose people or structures to the potential of wildland fires, as the site would remain undeveloped. However, as described in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, the project’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Therefore, although the No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce the potential for hazards on site, this alternative would not eliminate any potent ial significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology/Water Quality
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no development would occur and no impervious surfaces would be created. The existing on-site hydrologic conditions, drainage patterns, and drainage volumes would remain unaltered. Water quality would also remain unchanged. However, as described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the project’s impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. Therefore, although the No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce potential hydrology and water quality impacts on site, this alternative would not eliminate any potential significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-7
Land Use and Planning
Under this alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped and none of the discretionary approvals identified for the project would be required. However, this alternative would not meet many of the overall goals of the City’s General Plan, including accommodating growth in areas that can sustain a concentration of a variety of uses in areas suitable for multimodal transportation, or achieving balanced distribution of land uses to meet the needs of businesses. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designation for the project site. Nonetheless, because discretionary approvals would not be required under this alternative, impacts to land use and planning would be slightly reduced compared to the project.
Noise
The project site is currently vacant and does not generate any noise into the surrounding area. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped and would not create any new sources of construction or operational noise. Additionally, this alternative wou ld not generate any groundborne vibration. However, as described in Section 3.11 , Noise, of this EIR , the project’s impacts related to noise would be less than significant. Therefore, although the No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce construction and operational noise on site, this alternative would not eliminate any potential significant impacts to noise.
Population and Housing
The project site is currently undeveloped. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not induce population growth in the area, as no development would occur. As described in Section 3.12 , Population and Housing, of this EIR, the project would result in no impacts to displacement of existing housing or people, as none are present on site. Thus, although the project would result in less-than- significant impacts to substantial population growth in the area , b ecause no employees would be added to the site under the No Project/No Development Alternative, impacts under this alternative would be reduced compared to the project.
Public Services
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in an increase in demand for public services, since no population-generating development would occur. Specifically, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not increase the demand for police and fire protection services, nor would this alternative increase the demand on parks, school s, and library services. As stated in Section 3.13, Public Services, of this EIR, the project would result in less -than-significant impacts to public services. Nonetheless, because this alternative would not result in new employee generating development on site, impacts on public services would be reduced compared to the project. 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-8
Recreation
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would not be an increased demand for park and recreational facilities. As such, payment of the City’s Public Facility Fees by the applicant would not be required. However, under this alternative, open space dedication proposed as part of the project would not be incorporated. Nonetheless, because this alternative would not result in increased demands to parks and recreation, impacts would be reduced compared to the project.
Transportation
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not result in the generation of vehicular trips, since there would be no development. Therefore, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts identified to occur as a result of the project would not occur under this alternative.
Compared to the project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate all impacts identified for the project, and implementation of the proposed MM-TRA-1 and MM-TRA-2 would not be required. Compared to the project, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate significant and unavoidable impacts related to transportation.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not require any ground -disturbing or other construction/development activities. Therefore, there would be no potential to impact unknown tribal cultural resource s potentially located within the project site. As such, MM -CR-1 through MM -CR-4 proposed for the project would not be implemented or required under this alternative. Compared to the project, this alternative would result in a reduced level of impact to tribal cultural resources.
Utilities and Service Systems
The light industrial building would not be constructed under the No Project/No Development Alternative. As such, the increase in demand for water service, wastewater service, and solid waste handling services would be eliminated. As discussed in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR, impacts to utilities and services systems were determined to be less than significant under the project. Nonetheless, because no development would occur under this alternative, the demand for utilities would be eliminated. Th erefore, impacts to ut ilities and service systems would be reduced under this alternative compared to the project.
Wildfire
The No Project Alternative would not introduce any development and would therefore not impair any emergency response plan or evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risk, nor expose occupants to hazards. As discussed in Section 3.18, Wildfire, of this EIR, impacts to wildfire were determined to be 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-9
less than significant under the project. Nonetheless, because no development would occur under this alternative, no impacts related to wildfire exacerbation would occur under this alternative.
Conclusion
Since the No Project/No Development Alternative would not directly provide for any development, overall impacts would be less than that of the project or eliminated entirely. There are some potential benefits of the project that would not be realized under this alternative, including providing additional job opportunities, maximizing development in areas with consistent land use and zoning designations, and restoring, managing, and conserving biological and potential (unknown) cultural/tribal cultural resources. As the No Project/No Development Alternative would not develop the site, this alternative would not fulfill project objectives 1 through 5.
4.4.4 Reduced Development Intensity Alternative
CEQA Section 15126.6, requires consideration of alternatives to the project that are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant adverse impacts associated with the project. As discussed throughout Chapter 3, except for significant and unavoidable transportation impacts related to VMT, the project would result in less -than-significant impacts or no impact, with and without implementation of mitigation measures.
Per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020) Table 1: Sample Small Projects, projects that are consistent with the General Plan and generate fewer than 110 daily trips using San Diego Association of Governments’ trip generation rates, would not require further VMT analysis (City of San Marcos 2020). Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, a 21,800- square-foot warehouse building would be developed. The substantial reduction in light industrial size from 67,410 s quare feet under the project, to 21,800 s quare feet under this alternative would be required in order to fall under the Small Project criteria (i.e., less than 110 daily trips) and avoid VMT impacts.
Similar to the project, this alternative would develop a light -industrial use consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site . Other improvements, such as circulation, landscaping and utility connections would occur as required. Off -site improvements beyond those required by mitigation measures would not occur under this alternative. The reduced development footprint area under th is alternative would be made into usable open space area for employees. The employee count under this alternative would remain the same as the project, at approximately 60 emplo yees.
4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-10
4.4.4.1 Comparison of the Effects of the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative to the Project
Aesthetics
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would develop an industrial warehouse on the currently undeveloped site . As no site plan is available for this alternative, it is assumed that both development of the project and development of this alternative would result in similar outcomes as it relates to buildout of a currently vacant site. As discussed in Section 3.1 , Aesthetics, of this EIR, impacts to aesthetics from project development would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Compared to the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in similar, less than significant aesthetic impacts.
Air Quality
Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, air pollutant emissions associated with project construction including emissions associated with grading, site preparation, site finishing and building finishing would occur, similar to the project, or slightly reduced.
However, this alternative would likely result in reduced air pollutant emissions compared to the project, due to the reduced building footprint. The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty equipment operations and heavy-duty trucks, and the associated health impacts to sensitive receptors. As discussed in Section 3.2.4 of this EIR, impacts to air quality from project construction and operation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. Compared to the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in similar, less than significant air quality impacts.
Biological Resources
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in a reduced ground disturbance area on the project site. Because reduced ground disturbance would occur under this alternative, there would be less potential to impact existing biological resources on site. However, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would still result in potential impacts to vegetation and habitat on site, and would require mitigation similar to MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-12, proposed for the project.
With implementation of mitigation measures similar to those proposed for the project, this alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts to biological resources compared to the project.
Cultural Resources
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in less ground-disturbance compared to the project. Therefore, the potential to impact unknown archaeological resources located within the 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-11
project site, as well as unidentified human remains, would occur within a smaller area compared to the project, resulting in potentially reduced impacts. However, as with the project, implementation of mitigation measures similar to MM -CR-1 through MM -CR-4 would be required to reduce potential impacts to unknown/unidentified cultural resources. With implementation of mitigation measures similar to those proposed within the project, this alternative is expected to result in a similar level of less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources compared to the project.
Energy
Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, development would result in construction and operational energy use. Energy use during construction would primarily be associated with construction equipment, as -necessary lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers inside temporary construction trailers and HVAC, similar to the project. Natural gas is not anticipated to be used during construction, similar to the project, and would be temporary and negligible if used.
Petroleum would be used thr oughout construction of the alternative and would be similar to the project. Ultimately, like the project, the petroleum consumed related to construction would be typical of construction projects of similar types and sizes and would not be wasteful or inefficient.
The operation of this alternative would also require electricity for multiple purposes, similar to the project. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative demand for energy use is expected to be similar to that required to serve the project, or slightly reduced. Similar to the project, this alternative would be required to comply with building requirements (including Title 24 standards) designed to ensure efficient energy use, reduce energy demand, and comply with state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements. As such, demand for energy is determined to be comparable to the project under this alternative. Therefore similar, less -than-significant impacts to energy would occur under this alternative.
Geology and Soils
Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, ground-disturbance areas would be reduced.
However, development under this alternative would be subject to the same potential seismic hazards, such as seismic ground shaking. This alternative would also require abiding by geological recommendations, such as the ones identified in the geotechnical evaluation for the project. Similar to the project, paleontological resources have the potential to be impacted during excavation because the potential for paleo ntological resources to be located on the project site is considered high.
Mitigation similar to MM -GEO-1 under the project is expected to be required under this alternative.
Compared to the project, this alternative would result in similar less-than-significant impacts to geology and soils with the exception of impacts to paleontological resources , which would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-12
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction of the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in construction GHG emissions that are primarily associated with use of off-road construction equipment, on-road vehicles, vendor trucks, and worker vehicles, similar to the project. Construction GHG emissions under this alternative would be similar or may be slightly reduced as a result of the decreased building footprint, and potential decrease of required construction equipment and construction schedule.
Estimated annual operational GHG emissions from this alternative would be similar or slightly reduced compared to the project as the employee count would likely be reduced. Thus, this alternative would result in overall similar GHG emissions compared to the project, and impacts would remain less than significant.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Similar to the project, there is the potential for the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative to generate hazardous materials during construction; however, existing federal and state standards are in place for the handling, storage and transport of these materials. Because the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in similar but reduced development of industrial uses on site, operation of this alternative would result in similar use of hazardous materials on site that would be utilized under the project. Therefore, compared to the project, this alternative would result in similar less-than-significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Hydrology/Water Quality
As described above, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in a similar, slightly reduced, ground disturbance area on the project site. Due to the reduced building footprint , it is assumed that this alternative would introduce less impervious surfaces to the site compared to the project. Development of both the project and this alternative would alter the existing on-site hydrologic conditions, drainage patterns, and drainage volumes. It is expected that this alternative , like the project, would also incorporate all required and applicable best management practices to avoid any violations of water quality standards, or otherwise modify or adversely affect surface and groundwater quality. Therefore, a s compared to the project, this alternative would result in similar less-than- significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the project, development of this alternative would be consistent with land uses identified in the City’s General Plan and would also be consistent with adjacent land uses. As outlined in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to land use and planning. Therefore, because this alternative would similarly develop 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-13
the project site with a warehouse consistent with the light-industrial land use designation and zoning for the site, this alternative would also result in less than significant impacts.
Noise
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative could potentially result in reduced noise levels as a result of the reduced building footprint under this alternative. As analyzed in Section 3.11 of this EIR, noise impacts associated with the project were det ermined to be less than significant. Construction noise of this alternative is expected to be similar to that of the project, although the construction schedule for this alternative would be slightly shorter. Operationally, this alternative would result in similar or slightly reduced noise generation to that of the project due to the layout. Development of this alternative would be expected to comply with the City’s noise ordinance regarding generation of noise at the property line. Therefore, as compared to the project, this alternative may result in slightly reduced noise, but would still result in similar, less-than-significant impacts.
Population and Housing
Similar to the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would not introduce residential development on site, and would not result in direct growth inducement in the area . As analyzed in Section 3.12 of this EIR, population and housing impacts associated with the project were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, as compared to the project, this alternative would result in similar, less-than-significant impacts.
Public Services
Similar to the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in an increase in demand for public services due to the development of a currently vacant site . As analyzed in Section 3.13 of this EIR, public service impacts associated with the project were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, as compared to the project, this alternative would result in similar, less - than-significant impacts.
Recreation
Similar to the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would not result in an increase in demand for parks and recreation services over existing conditions, as no residents or substantial population generation would be associated with development of Industrial uses on site. Under this alternative, the reduced building footprint area would be developed into usable open space on site.
Therefore, this alternative would provide more usable open space than that of the project, although such open space for industrial development is not required. As analyzed in Section 3.14, Recreation, of this EIR, recreation impacts associated with the project were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, as compared to the project, this alternative would result in similar, less-than-significant impacts. 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-14
Transportation
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be served by similar vehicle traffic during construction compared to the project. Construction traffic impacts under this alternative are expected to be less than significant, as with the project. During operation, project access points for this alternative would be reconfigured to adequately serve the reduced building footprint. It is anticipated that this alternative would be required to provide adequate emergency access, similar to the project.
As outlined in Section 3.15 , Transportation, of this EIR, the project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT.
Per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 2020) Table 1: Sample Small Projects, projects that are consistent with the General Plan and generate fewer than 110 daily trips using San Diego Association of Governments’ trip generation rates, would not require further VMT analysis (City of San Marcos 2020). Under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, a 21,800- square-foot warehouse building would be developed. The substantial reduction in warehouse size from 67,410 square feet under the project, to 21,800 square feet under this alternative would be required in order to fall under the Small Project criteria (i.e., less than 110 daily trips) and avoid VMT impacts.
Therefore, the development of a 21,800 -square-foot warehouse under this alternative would reduce transportation impacts to less than significant in comparison to the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.
Tribal Cultural Resources
This alternative would result in development within a slightly reduced footprint on the project site. As such, this alternative would have slightly less potential to affect unknown tribal cultural resources compared to the project. It is expected that this alternative would require implementation of mitigation measures similar to MM -CR-1 through MM -CR-4 proposed for the project. Thus, with the implementation of mitigation, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be similar to the project and would be less than significant.
Utilities and Service Systems
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be expected to similarly increase demand for water service, wastewater service, and solid waste over existing vacant conditions due to development of industrial uses. Demand for water service, wastewater service, and solid waste to service 21,800 square feet of industrial warehouse uses proposed under this alternative would be similar or slightly reduced to that required to serve the project. As such, demand for utilities and service systems is determined to be comparable to the project’s less than significant impact. 4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-15
Wildfire
As discussed in Section 3.18 of this EIR, impacts to wildfire were determined to be less-than-significant under the project. The site is located in an urbanized, infill area and is not located in any fire hazard severity zones or near any local responsibility areas, state responsibility areas, or near lands classified as very high fire hazards severity zones. Like the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative’s development of 21,800 square feet of industrial warehouse uses would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire codes. This alternative would therefore not exacerbate wildfire risk nor expose occupants to hazards or other significant risks of loss, injury, or death concerning wildland fires. Impacts related to wildfire under this alternative are expected to be similar to the project.
Conclusion
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would reduce the building footprint area on site.
Similar to the project, this alternative would develop a light-industrial use consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designation for the site. Other improvements, such as circulation, landscaping and utility connections would occur as required. Off -site improvements beyond those required by mitigation measures would not occur under this alternative. The reduced development footprint area under this alternative would be made into usable open space area for employees. It is expected that the employee count under this alternative would be reduced as a result of the substantially reduced warehouse size.
The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would potentially provide a slightly reduced level of impact in some environmental analysis areas including air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases and tribal cultural resources. As described above, mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives, with the exception of objective 3, as this alternative would not maximize the allowable development footprint on site. Overall, it is determined that impacts associated with the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be less than those associated with development of the project.
4.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Table 4 -1 provides a qualitative comparison of the impacts for each Alternative compared to the project. As shown in Table 4-1, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate all of the significant impacts identified for the project. However, th e 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.
4 Alternatives
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 4-16
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that if the No Project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then an environmentally superior alternative should be identified among the other alternatives.
Among the other alternatives, not including the project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative because it would potentially provide a reduced level of impact in some environmental analysi s areas including air quality, greenhouse gas, and geology and soils. However, such impacts under this alternative would still remain as less than significant, similar to the project. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would also result in decreased footprint specific impacts, such as those related to cultural resources, biological resources, and tribal cultural resources. However, mitigation measures would still be required to mitigate impacts to these environmental resources. Under this alterna tive, significant and unavoidable transportation impacts under the project would be reduced to less than significant, as this alternative would screen out of VMT due to the 21,800-square-foot building size falling under the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines Small Project criteria (i.e., less than 110 daily trips).
This alternative would meet all of the project objectives, with the exception of objective 3, as this alternative would not maximize the allowable development footprint on site.
Table 4-1
Comparison of Impacts of Project and Alternatives
Environmental Topic Project
No Project/No
Development Alternative
Reduced Development
Intensity Alternative
Aesthetics LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced)
Air Quality LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced)
Biological Resources LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same/Reduced) Cultural Resources LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same/Reduced) Geology and Soils LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same/Reduced) Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same/Reduced) Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) Hydrology and Water Quality LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) Land Use LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same)
Noise LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same)
Population and Housing LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same) Public Services LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same)
Recreation LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (Same)
Transportation SU No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Reduced)
Tribal Cultural Resources LTSM No Impact (Reduced) LTSM (Same/Reduced) Utilities and Service Systems LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (same) Wildfire LTS No Impact (Reduced) LTS (same)
Notes: Impact Status: LTS = Less -Than-Significant Impact; LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation ; SU = Significant and Unavoidable .
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 5-1
5 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO
BE SIGNIFICANT
As required by Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines, the following is a discussion of the environmental effects that were considered as part of this environmental impact report (EIR) but were determined to have “No Impact” and, therefore, are not discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR. Agriculture/Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources were the only environmental issue areas eliminated from Chapter 3 and are briefly discussed below.
As discussed in Chapter 2 , Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting, of this EIR, the project proposes development of a 67,410 -square-foot light industrial building on approximately
2.61 acres within the 10.46-acre project site.
5.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
The project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation – Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CDOC 2016). As a result, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses.
Furthermore, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use or designated as land under the Williamson Act, nor is the project site zoned for forest land or timberland production (City of San Marcos 2012 ).
Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. No impact would occur regarding conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or forest land.
Designated farmland does not exist within the vicinity of the project site. The project would not result in substantial changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non -agricultural use. The project site is designated “Light Industrial” by the City of San Marcos (City) and is surrounded by developed land to the north, south and west. Given the extent of development surrounding the project site, the project would not result in the conversion of any existing farmland, and no impact would occur.
5.2 MINERAL RESOURCES
According to the City’s General Plan – Conservation and Open Space, the City has land classified in all four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) (City of San Marcos 2012). The different MRZs are defined as follows:
• MRZ-1: Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. • MRZ-2: Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. 5 Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 5-2
• MRZ-3: Areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data.
• MRZ-4: Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.
California does not require that local governments protect land designated as MRZ -1, MRZ -3, or MRZ-4. However, the City is responsible for recognizing lands designated as MRZ -2 and protecting these areas from premature development incompatible with mining. City lands designated as MRZ - 2 include small portions between Double Peak, little Mt. Whitney (San Marcos) , and Franks Peak , and small portions in the northern sphere of influence within Twin Oaks Valley Neighborhood (City of San Marcos 2012) . These locations do not overlap with the project site; therefore, no loss of known mineral resources would occur.
Furthermore, the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any local general plan, specific plan, or other land use p lan (City of San Marcos 2012). Thus, due to the location and nature of the project, there would be no impact to mineral resources.
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 6-1
6 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15126.2(b), requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, including those impacts that can be mitigated but not reduced to a less -than-significant level. Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the pr oject and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts, where feasible.
As discussed in this EIR, implementation of the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to transportation (related to vehicle miles traveled). For all other environmental issue areas, the project would result in no impact or impacts that are either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
6.2 GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines mandates that the growth inducing nature of a proposed project be discussed. This CEQA Guideline states the growth-inducing analysis is intended to address the potential for the proposed project to “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Further, the CEQA Appendix G Checklist (Population and Housing) also mandates that a CEQA document speak to the proposed project’s likelihood to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
A project may be distinguished as either facilitating planned growth or inducing unplanned growth.
Facilitating growth is relating to the establishment of direct employment, population, or housing growth that would occur within a project site. Inducing gro wth is related to lowering or removing barriers to growth or by creating an amenity or facility that attracts new population/economic activity. For purposes of this EIR analysis, a significant growth inducement impact would occur if the project, and associated infrastructure improvements, directly or indirectly removes obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would significantly burden existing community services, the environment or cause a demand for General Plan Amendments. This section contains a discussion of the growth inducing factors related to the project and as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d). A project is defined as growth inducing when it directly or indirectly:
1. Fosters population growth
2. Includes the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment
3. Removes obstacles to population growth
6 Other CEQA Considerations
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 6-2
4. Taxes existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects
5. Encourages or facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environments, either individually or cumulatively
It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
The project would require a temporary construction workforce and a permanent operational workforce, both of which could potentially induce population growth in the project area. The temporary workforce would be needed to construct the light industrial building and associated improvements. The number of construction workers needed during any given period would largely depend on the specific stage of construction, but would likely range from a dozen to several dozen workers on a daily basis.
The project is proposed to support the expansion of the existing operations of Hughes Circuits Inc., currently located adjacent to the project site to the south, at 546 S. Pacific Street. As such, the project’s temporary and permanent employment requirements could likely be met by the City of San Marcos’s (City) existing labor force without people needing to relocate into the project region, and the project would not stimulate population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans.
As discussed above, the City of San Marcos is forecasted to grow from 94,258 persons in 2016 to 119,098 persons in 2050, which is a population increase of 24,840 (SANDAG 2021). As such, the project-related increase of approximately 60 employees would represent a nominal percentage of the City’s projected future population.
Projects that physically remove obstacles to growth, or projects that indirectly induce growth, are those that many provide a catalyst for future unrelated development in the area. The project would involve installation of domestic water lines, storm drain lines, and sewer lines within the project site. The purpose of these new utilities is solely to serve the needs of the project, and not to provide capacity for future projects or growth. In addition, since the surroundi ng project area is already served by existing wet and dry utilities, the project would not expand domestic water, sanitary sewer, or stormwater drainage infrastructure into areas not previously served by such utilities.
Further, given that the surrounding project area is already served by existing wet and dry utilities, it is unlikely that the project would tax existing community service facilities or require construction or expansion of new regional-scale facilities with capacity to serve more than just the project. Although street improvements are planned as part of the project, including site access to the project, the project would not extend an existing roadway facility into an area that is not currently provided vehi cular access; thus, the project would not result in indirect population growth by providing vehicular access to an area presently lacking such access.
6 Other CEQA Considerations
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 6-3
Based on the proximity of the project site to existing facilities, the average response times in the project area, the ability for nearby cities to respond to emergency calls, and the fact that the project site is already located within the San Marcos Fire Protection District and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department service areas, the project would be adequately served by public services without the construction of new, or the expansion of existing, facilities. Although the project could potentially result in an incremental increase in calls for service to the project site compared to existing conditions, this increase is expected to be nominal (as opposed to new residential or commercial/retail land uses, which do result in greater increase in calls for se rvice) and would not result in the need for new or expanded fire or police facilities. Lastly, since the project would not directly or indirectly induce unplanned population growth in the City, it is not anticipated that many people would relocate to the City as a result of the project, and an increase in school-age children requiring public education is not expected to occur as a result. Thus, the need for new or expanded school facilities is not required.
In conclusion, the project could cause population growth through new job opportunities. However, this growth falls well within San Marcos and regional growth projections for population and housing. The project would not remove obstacles to population growth, and would not cause an increase in population such that new community facilities or infrastructure would be required outside of the project site. Lastly, the project is not expected to encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly af fect the environment, as explained above. For these reasons, the project is not considered to be significantly growth inducing.
6.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(c), requires that an EIR identify any significant irreversible environmental changes associated with the project. Such changes include, for example, the intensification of land use or irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the project.
6.3.1 Change in Land Use that Commits Future Generations to Similar Uses
According to the City’s General Plan, the land use and zoning designations for the project site are Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial (L-I), respectively (City of San Marcos 2012, 2022). As discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR, the project is consistent with the project site’s land use and zoning designations applied by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As such, although construction of the project would develop a total of 67,410 square feet of light industrial space on the project site, the City already committed the site to light industrial (and similar) uses when the City designated and zoned the site as Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial (L-I), respectively.
Land uses surrounding the project site include industrial and mixed commercial development to the north and south, a public recreational park (Bradley Park) to the west, and undeveloped land to the 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 6-4
east. The project would support the expansion of the existing operations of Hughes Circuits Inc., currently located adjacent to the project site to the south, at 546 S. Pacific Street. Since the project site is located near and adjacent to existing urbanized uses, including other industrial uses, the project would not result in land use changes that would commit future generations to uses that already occur in the project area. Thus, implementation would not commit future generations to similar uses, given that this proposed use is already found throughout the City.
6.3.2 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
Potential environmental accidents of concern include those events that would adversely affect the environment or public due to the type or quantity of materials released and the receptors exposed to that release. Construction activities associated with the project would involve some risk of environmental accidents. However, these activities would be conducted in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and would follow professional industry standards for safety. Once operational, any materials associated with environmental accidents would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Use of any such materials would not adversely affect the environment or public due to the type or quantity of materials released and the receptors exposed to that release.
6.3.3 Large Commitment of Nonrenewable Resources
Commitment of nonrenewable resources includes issues related to increased energy consumption, loss of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. There would be an irretrievable commitment of labor, capital, and materials used during constructi on and operation of the project.
Nonrenewable resources would primarily be committed in the form of fossil fuels such as fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by equipment associated with construction of the project. Consumption of other non -renewable or slowly renewable resources would also occur. These resources would include lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, and metals such as steel, copper, and lead.
To ensure that energy implications are considered in project decisions, CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessa ry consumption of energy (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21100[b][3]). Energy conservation implies that a project’s cost -effectiveness be reviewed not only in dollars, but also in terms of energy requirements. For many projects, cost - effectiveness may be determined more by energy efficiency than by initial dollar costs. A lead agency may consider the extent to which an energy source serving a project has already undergone environmental review that adequately analyzed and mitigated the effects of energy production.
Consistent with PRC Section 21100(b)(3), Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and a ruling set forth by the court in California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland, potentially significant energy 6 Other CEQA Considerations
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 6-5
implications of a project must be considered in an EIR to the extent relevant and applicable to that project. Accordingly, based on the energy consumption thresholds set forth in both Appendix F and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the project’s estimate d energy demands (both short -term construction and long -term operational demands) were evaluated (see Section 3.5, Energy, of this EIR). The overall purpose of the energy analysis was to evaluate whether the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
As further assessed in the energy analysis, for new development, such as that proposed by the project, compliance with California Title 24 energy efficiency requirements is considered demonstrable evidence of efficient use of energy. The project would provide for and promote energy efficiencies beyond those required under other applicable federal and state standards and regulations, and in so doing would meet or exceed all Title 24 standards. On this basis, the project would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
6 Other CEQA Considerations
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 6-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-1
7 REFERENCES
CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of San Marcos. 2020. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. City of San Marcos, California.
November 16, 2020. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 25036/637412185038870000.
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2020. “State Area Designations.” October 2020. Accessed February 2022. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
City of San Diego. 2007. City of San Diego Draft General Plan Final PEIR. Section 3.2, Air Quality.
Accessed November 16, 2023. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/ planning/genplan/pdf/peir/eir3p2airqualityfinal.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2022. “City of San Marcos General Plan, Proposed Land Use Map.” December 2022. Accessed November 2023. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ 5e31b267da2435584e40b8eb/t/636bd91602c70967c3060c1e/1668012312949/ SMGP_DraftProposedLandUseMap_11x17_220902.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2023. “City of San Marcos Zoning Map.” Accessed November 2023. https://maps.san-marcos.net/portal/apps/instant/minimalist/ index.html?appid=8a52e7442cdf4b62bd2fa570a64f59a2.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2021. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California” (online ed., v8-03 0.39). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society.
Accessed January 2022. www.rareplants.cnps.org.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” December 2, 2021. Accessed February 2022. https://www3.epa.gov/region9/ air/maps/index.html.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Accessed March 15, 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
WeatherSpark. 2023. “Climate and Average Weather Year Round in San Marcos.” Accessed November 11, 2023. https://weatherspark.com/y/1898/Average-Weather-in-San-Marcos- California-United-States-Year-Round.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-2
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Section 3.1: Aesthetics
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2022. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed April 21, 2022. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed April 21, 2022. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8478.
City of San Marcos. 2022. City of San Marcos Municipal Code. Accessed April 21, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021a. “QuickFacts – San Marcos City, California.” Updated July 1, 2021.
Accessed April 21, 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanmarcoscitycalifornia.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021b. “QuickFacts – Escondido City, California.” Updated July 1, 2021.
Accessed April 21, 2022. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/escondidocitycalifornia.
Section 3.2: Air Quality
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide, Version 2020.4.0. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants, in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. September. Accessed November 2021. http://caleemod.com/.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.
CARB. 2009. “Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control.” December 2009.
CARB. 2011. Recommended Area Designation for the 2010 Federal Sulfur Dioxide Standard.
June 2011. CARB Staff Report: June 2011 - SO2 Area Designation Recommendations.
CARB. 2016. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. Accessed October 14, 2020. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
CARB. 2017. “Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10)” August 2017. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/inhalable-particulate-matter-and-health. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-3
CARB. 2019a. “Glossary.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/glossary.
CARB. 2019b. “Ozone & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ozone-and-health.
CARB. 2019c. “Nitrogen Dioxide & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/nitrogen-dioxide-and-health.
CARB. 2019d. “Carbon Monoxide & Health.”https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide- and-health.
CARB. 2019e. “Sulfur Dioxide & Health.” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/sulfur-dioxide-and-health.
CARB. 2019f. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed October 14, 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm.
CARB. 2020. State Area Designations. October 2020. Accessed February 2022. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
CARB. 2022. “Ambient air quality data.” [digital CARB data]. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics.
Accessed February 2022 at https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php.
CDPH. 2019. Epidemiologic Summary of Coccidioidomycosis in California, 2018. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/ CocciEpiSummary2018.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan. Adopted February 14, 2012. http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan.
County of San Diego. 2007. Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report and Format and Content Requirements – Air Quality. Land Use and Environment Group. Department of Planning and Land Use. Department of Public Works. March 19, 2007.
County of San Diego. 2011. San Diego County General Plan Update: Final Environmental Impact Report. EIR No. 02-ZA-001. SCH No. 2002111067. August 2011. Accessed November 13, 2014. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/gpupdate/environmental.html.
County of San Diego. 2021. County of San Diego Human and Health Services Agency, Monthly Communicable Disease Report. May 2021. Volume 5, Issue 5: June 15, 2021. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/Epidemiology/ Monthly%20CD%20Report_May%202021.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. EPA/600/R-10/076F. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
February 2013.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-4
EPA. 2016. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen—Health Criteria. EPA/600/ R-15/068. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 2016.
EPA. 2018. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” March 8, 2018. Accessed October 14, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants.
EPA. 2021a. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” December 2, 2021.
Accessed February 2022 at https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/index.html.
EPA. 2021b. “Air Data: Access to Air Pollution Data.” September 22, 2021. Accessed February 2022 at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report.
NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Interim Report of the Committee on Changes in New Source Review Programs for Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11208.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program.
Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.
February 2015. Accessed January 2019. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/ 2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
October 2015. Accessed April 2017. http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/ The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf.
SANDAG. 2021. SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 10, 2021. Accessed April 2022. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan.
SDAPCD (San Diego Air Pollution Control District). 1976. Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV.
Prohibitions. Rule 51. Nuisance. Effective November 8, 1976. Accessed June 2017. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/ APCD_R50-1-51.pdf.
SDAPCD. 1979. Rules and Regulations. Regulation IV. Prohibitions. Rule 67.7. Cutback and Emulsified Asphalts. Effective August 29, 1979. Accessed June 2017. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/ dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R67-7.pdf.
SDAPCD. 1997. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Effective August 13, 1997. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R50.pdf.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-5
SDAPCD. 2005. Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County. December 2005.
Accessed March 2021. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/ sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/PM-Measures.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2009a. 2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision. April 2009. Accessed October 2017. http://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/ 2009-RAQS.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2009b. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. June 24, 2009.
Accessed October 2017. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/ sdc/apcd/PDF/Rules_and_Regulations/Prohibitions/APCD_R55.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2012. Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone Standard for San Diego County. Adopted December 5, 2012. San Diego, California: SDAPCD. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/ 8_Hour_O3_Maint-Plan.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2015a. SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings.
June 24, 2015. https://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SD/CURHTML/R67.0.1.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2015b. Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Report for San Diego County.
SDAPCD. 2016. 2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County.
December 2016. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/ Air%20Quality%20Planning/2016%20RAQS.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2017. Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan 2016. Effective June 30, 2017. Accessed December 2017. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/monitoring/ 2016_Network_Plan.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2019. Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessments (HRAs). May 2019. Accessed January 2020. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Toxics_Program/APCD_Hot_Spots_Supplemental_Guidelines.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2020. Rule 20.2 – New Source Review Non-Major Stationary Sources. October 16, 2020. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/ Rule-20.2.pdf.
SDAPCD. 2021. Rule 20.3 – New Source Review Major Stationary Sources and PSD Stationary Sources. October 14, 2021. Accessed April 2022. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/ sdapcd/documents/rules/current-rules/Rule-20.3-2021.pdf. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-6
SDAPCD. 2022. Supplemental Guidelines for Submission of Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Program Health Risk Assessment (HRAs). July 2022. https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/ sdapcd/documents/permits/air-toxics/Hot-Spots-Guidelines.pdf.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2000. Operational Guidelines (version 1.0) for Geological Fieldwork in Areas 1 Endemic for Coccidioidomycosis (Valley Fever).
Section 3.3: Biological Resources
AMEC Earth & Environmental, Conservation Biology Institute, Onaka Planning & Economics, and The Rick Alexander Company. 2003. Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Plan, Volume I. March.
AOS (American Ornithological Society). 2020. “Check-List of North and Middle American Birds.” http://checklist.aou.org/.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Populations and Natural Communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 20, 2018.
CDFW. 2021. RareFind, Version 5.2.14 (Commercial Subscription). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, California: CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2020. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan. Adopted February 14, 2012. https://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. December 9, 1983; revised June 2, 2001. https://cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf.
CNPS. 2021. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California” (online ed., v8-03 0.39).
Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed January 2022. www.rareplants.cnps.org.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1979; reprinted 1992. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ documents/classification-of-wetlands-and-deepwater-habitats-of-the-united-states.pdf. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-7
Crother, B.I. 2012. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding, 7th ed. Edited by J.J. Moriarty. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular No. 39. August 2012. http://home.gwu.edu/~rpyron/publications/ Crother_et_al_2012.pdf.
Cypher, E. 2002. General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines. California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program. Last revised July 2002. https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Website_Refs/20020700.pdf.
Google Earth. 2021. Google Earth Imagery. Accessed January 2021.
Helix Environmental Planning. 2005. Figure 4: Vegetation and Sensitive Resources/Impacts for the San Marcos Superior Ready Mix Parcel [map].
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. October 1986.
Jepson Flora Project. 2020. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed July 2022. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.
NABA (North American Butterfly Association). 2016. “Checklist of North American Butterflies Occurring North of Mexico.” Adapted from North American Butterfly Association (NABA) Checklist & English Names of North American Butterflies, eds. B. Cassie, J. Glassberg, A.
Swengel, and G. Tudor. 2nd ed. Morristown, New Jersey: NABA. Accessed July 2022. http://www.naba.org/pubs/enames2_3.html.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County.
March 2008.
SDNHM (San Diego Natural History Museum). 2002. “Butterflies of San Diego County.” Revised September 2002. http://www.sdnhm.org/archive/research/entomology/sdbutterflies.html.
SDNHM. 2021. San Diego County Plant Atlas Project: The Plants of San Diego and Imperial Counties, California. Online ed. Accessed January 2022. http://www.sdplantatlas.org.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Environmental Laboratory, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. January 1987. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-8
USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. September 2008.
Accessed January 2022. http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/reg_supp.aspx.
USACE. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-
12. ACOE, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Accessed January 11, 2021. https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/regulatory/pdf/ Ordinary_High_Watermark_Manual_Aug_2008.pdf.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol.
USFWS. 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed January 2022. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
USFWS. 2021b. “National Wetlands Inventory.” Washington, D.C.: USFWS. Accessed January 2022. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2020a. Web Soil Survey [web application]. Accessed January 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
USDA. 2020b. California State PLANTS Checklist. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA. Accessed July 2022. https://plants.usda.gov/dl_state.html.
USDA. 2021. “Soil Data Access (SDA) Hydric Soils List.” USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed April 2021. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/ FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html.
USGS. 2021a. “National Hydrography Dataset, Flowline Map” [map]. Accessed January 2022. http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html.
USGS. 2021b. “Data for San Marcos, California” [digital GIS data]. National Hydrography Dataset.
Accessed January 2022. http://nhd.usgs.gov/https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/ FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcseprd1316620.html.
Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego, California: San Diego Natural History Museum.
Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder, eds. 2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd ed. (MSW3 database). http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-9
Section 3.4: Cultural Resources
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed April 5, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument?id=8478.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2022. Historical Aerials. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2022. Web Soil Survey [web application]. Accessed January 2022. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
Section 3.5: Energy
APA (American Planning Association). 2011. Planning for Wind Energy. https://planning-org- uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/legacy_resources/research/wind/pdf/pas566.pdf.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2021a. “Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed December 2021 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about.
CARB. 2021b. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet. August 20, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2021-08/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf.
CARB. 2022. EMFAC 2021. Accessed September 2022. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2021. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Adopted February 20, 2019.
CEC. 2022a. “Electricity Consumption by Entity.” Accessed September 2022. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.
CEC. 2022b. “Gas Consumption by Entity.” Accessed September 2022. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan. Adopted February 14, 2012. http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan.
City of San Marcos. 2020. City of San Marcos Final Climate Action Plan. Adopted December 2020.
Accessed September 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 25084/637435406644270000.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-10
CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2021. 2021 California Renewables Portfolio Standards Annual Report. November 2021. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/ cpuc-website/industries-and-topics/documents/energy/rps/cpuc-2021-rps-annual-report-to- legislature.pdf.
CPUC. 2022. “Natural Gas and California.” Accessed September 2022. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/natural_gas/.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2021a. “California Electricity Profile 2020.” Released November 4, 2021. Accessed September 2022. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/ california/index.php.
EIA. 2021b. “Natural Gas Consumption By End Use (California, 2020).” Released August 31, 2022.
Accessed September 2022. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_cons_sum_a_EPG0_VC0_mmcf_a.htm.
EIA. 2022. “California State Profile and Energy Estimates – Table F16: Total Petroleum Consumption Estimates, 2020.” Accessed September 2022. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/ data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_pa.html&sid=US&sid=CA.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. “Overview for Renewable Fuel Standard.” Last updated June 7, 2017. Accessed April 2022. https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard- program/overview-renewable-fuel-standard.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2015. Small Wind Site Assessment Guidelines. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63696.pdf.
NREL. 2022. “PVWatts Model.” https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2021. SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 10, 2021. Accessed April 2022. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/ 2021-regional-plan.
SDG&E (San Diego Gas & Electric). 2022. “About Us.” Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.sdge.com/more-information/our-company/about-us.
The Climate Registry. 2021. Default Emission Factors. May 1. Accessed March 2022. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-Default-Emission- Factor-Document.pdf?mc_cid=4b45d12237&mc_eid=5f138d1baa. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-11
Section 3.6: Geology and Soils
California Building Standards Commission. 2020. California Uniform Building Code. Updated January 1, 2020. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Approved February 14, 2012. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument?id=8476.
Cohen, K.M., S.C. Finney, P.L. Gibbard, and J.-X. Fan. 2022. “The ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart.” Episodes 36: 199–204. 2013; updated. https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2022-02.pdf.
Colbert, M. W. 2006. “Hesperaletes (Mammalia: Perissodactyla), a new tapiroid from the middle Eocene of southern California.” Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. 26(3): 697–711.
County of San Diego. 2009. Guidelines for Determining Significance: Paleontological Resources .
San Diego, California: County of San Diego Land Use and Environment Group, Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works. Approved March 19, 2007; modified January 15, 2009.
County of San Diego. 2017. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Updated October 2017.
Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/ emergency_management/HazMit/2018/2018%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf.
Deméré, T.A., and S.L. Walsh, 1993. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Prepared for the San Diego Planning Commission.
DOI (U.S. Department of Interior). 2000. Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal & Indian Lands. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/programs_paleontology_quick% 20links_Assessment%20of%20Fossil%20Management%20on%20Federal%20%26%20India n%20Lands%2C%20May%202000.pdf.
English, W.A., and P.W. Prutzman. 1926. “Geology and Oil Resources of the Puente Hills Region, Southern California, with a Section on the Chemical Character of the Oil.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 768. https://doi.org/10.3133/b768.
Haug, C.; Nyborg, T.; and Vega, F. J. 2013. “An exceptionally preserved upogebiid (Decapoda:
Reptantia) from the Eocene of California.” Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana 65(2):
235–248.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-12
Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., Bovard, K.R., Alvarez, R.M., Watson, M.J., and Gutierrez, C.I. 2007. Geologic map of the Oceanside 30X60 quadrangle, California. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map RGM-2. Scale 1:100,000.
Kennedy, M.P. and S.S. Tan. 2007. Geologic map of the Oceanside 30X60 quadrangle, California.
California Geological Survey, Map pamphlet.
López-Torres, S.; Silcox, M.T.; Holroyd, P.A. 2018. “New omomyoids (Euprimates, Mammalia) from the late Uintan of southern California, USA, and the question of the extinction of the Paromomyidae (Plesiadapiformes, Primates).” Palaeontologia Electronica 21(3).
Mihlbachler, M.C., and T.A. Deméré. 2009, A new species of Brontotheriidae (Perissodactyla, Mammalia) from the Santiago Formation (Duchesnian,Middle Eocene) of Southern California:
Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History, v. 41, p. 1–36.
Mihlbachler, M.C. and T.A. Deméré, 2010. Phylogenetic status of Metarhinus pater (Brontotheriidae:
Perissodactyla) from Southern California and species variation in Metarhinus from the middle Eocene of North America. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 30(4): 1229–1244.
Schoellhamer, J.E., J.G. Vetter, R.F. Yerkes, and D.M. Kinney. 1981. Geology of the Northern Santa Ana Mountains, California. U.S. Geological Survey Paper 420-D. 109p.
SDNHM. 2023. Paleontological Records Search- Hughes Circuits Project. Unpublished Records Search Results Letter from the San Diego Natural History Museum, San Diego, California. Letter by Kirstin Mueller. February 6, 2023.
SVP (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. http://vertpaleo.org/ The-Society/Governance-Documents/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.
Theodor, J.M. 1999. “Protoreodon walshi, a New Species of Agriochoerid (Oreodonta, Artiodactyla, Mammalia) from the Late Uintan of San Diego County, California. ” Journal of Paleontology 73(6): 1179–1190.
Tomiya, S. 2011. “A New Basal Caniform (Mammalia: Carnivora) from the Middle Eocene of North America and Remarks on the Phylogeny of Early Carnivorans.” PLOS ONE 6(9).
Tomiya, S. 2013. “New carnivoraforms (Mammalia) from the middle Eocene of California, USA, and comments on the taxonomic status of 'Miacis' gracilis .” Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 16, Issue 2; 14A; 29p.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-13
Zack, S.P.; Poust, A.W.; Wagner, H. 2022. “Diegoaelurus, a new machaeroidine (Oxyaenidae) from the Santiago Formation (late Uintan ) of southern California and the relationships of Machaeroidinae, the oldest group of sabertooth mammals.” PeerJ. 10.
Section 3.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA and Climate Change:
Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. January 2008.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
Building on the Framework. May 2014. Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/
cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
CARB. 2015. “Glossary of Terms Used in GHG Inventories.” https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/ faq/ghg_inventory_glossary.htm.
CARB. 2017a. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017. Accessed October 14, 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf.
CARB. 2017b. Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy. March 2017. Accessed October 14, 2020 at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/final_SLCP_strategy.pdf.
CARB. 2021a. “Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data: 2000-2019 GHG Inventory (2021 Edition).” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data?utm_medium=email&utm_ source=govdelivery.
CARB. 2021b. “Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed December 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about.
CARB. 2021c. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet. August 20, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf.
CARB. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/2022-sp_1.pdf.
CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2016. “Climate Action Team Reports.” Accessed December 2016. http://climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/index.html. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-14
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan. Adopted February 14, 2012. http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan.
City of San Marcos. 2020. City of San Marcos Final Climate Action Plan. Adopted December 2020.
Accessed March 2021. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/
showpublisheddocument?id=25084.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009a. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB 97. December 2009.
CNRA. 2009b. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. Accessed October 14, 2020. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf.
CNRA. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk: An Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. July 2014. Accessed October 14, 2020. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf.
CNRA. 2016. Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans. March 2016. Accessed October 14, 2020. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/Safeguarding% 20California-Implementation%20Action%20Plans.pdf.
CNRA. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update: California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.
January 2018. Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/ safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018-update.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. “Sulfur Dioxide Designations: EPA Completes Second Round of Sulfur Dioxide Designations.” Accessed June 30, 2016. https://www.epa.gov/ sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-second-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations.
EPA. 2017. “Climate Change.” Last updated January 19, 2017. Accessed May 19, 2021 at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange_.html.
EPA. 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2019. EPA 430-R-21-005.
April 2021. Accessed July 2021 at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021- 04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-main-text.pdf.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-15
EPA and NHTSA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2016. EPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond. August 2016. Accessed October 14, 2020 at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100P7NL.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NL.PDF.
EPA and NHTSA. 2018. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient 'SAFE' Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Vehicles and Light Trucks. Proposed Rule August 2018. Accessed October 14, 2020 at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-08-24/pdf/ 2018-16820.pdf.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. IPCC Second Assessment: Climate Change 1995. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.
Accessed October 14, 2020 at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed October 14, 2020 at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed October 14, 2020 at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf.
IPCC. 2018. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Accessed May 19, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/ 2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-16
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2018. Indicators of Climate Change in California. May 9, 2018. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/ 2018caindicatorsreportmay2018.pdf.
OPR (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
PBL (PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). 2020. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2019 Report. Accessed October 14, 2020. https://www.pbl.nl/ sites/default/files/downloads/pbl-2020-trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse-gas- emissions-2019-report_4068.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
October 2015. Accessed April 2017. http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/ The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf.
SANDAG. 2021. SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 10, 2021. Accessed April 2022. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan.
Section 3.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Accessed April 28, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Cortese List Data Sources. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Approved February 14, 2012. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument?id=8476.
County of San Diego. 2017. Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Updated October 2017.
Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/ emergency_management/HazMit/2018/2018%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf.
DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2022. “EnviroStor.” Accessed April 28, 2022. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/.
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2022. “Sites and Facilities.” Accessed April 28, 2022. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress= Search+GeoTracker.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-17
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Amended December 1, 2011. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://www.lee-associates.com/elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/ McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf.
San Marcos Fire Department. 2007. Wildlife Urban Interface/Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Adopted December 2007. Accessed March 30, 2021.https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showdocument?id=3680.
Section 3.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies. 2021. Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan. Accepted December 13, 2021. July 15, 2022. https://projectcleanwater.org/download/carlsbad-wma-wqip-updated-2021/.
City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Adopted February 14, 2021. Accessed June 1, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument?id=8478.
City of San Marcos. 2012b. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Adopted February 14, 2021.
Accessed June 1, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8476.
City of San Marcos. 2012c. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument?id=8480.
County of San Diego. 2020. County of San Diego BMP Design Manual for Permanent Site design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management. Effective September 15, 2020.
Accessed June 1, 2022. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/ watersheds/DevelopmentandConstruction/BMP_Design_Manual.html.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. 06073C0789H. Dated May 16, 2012. Accessed June 1, 2022. https://msc.fema.gov/ arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/mscprintb_gpserver/jf5dace4591c24dee9ca4 ea39c23549a3/scratch/FIRMETTE_98a0d1c2-c5bb-48f9-8c74-af87d198e665.pdf.
MWD (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2021. Accessed July 15, 2022. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/ uwmp_attachments/5202375113/MWDSC%202020%20Urban%20Water%20Management %20Plan%20-%20June%202021%20WUE%20Portal.pdf.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-18
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2022. San Diego Basin Plan Map GIS webpage.
Accessed June 1, 2022. https://gispublic.waterboards.ca.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=1f58bd97fdcd45329a5e16e373ede24d.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2002. SDRWQCB Watershed Management Approach. Appendix A, Overview of San Diego Region Watershed Management Areas.
Approved January 25, 2002. Accessed June 1, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sandiego/water_issues/programs/wmc/docs/wmchapxa102.pdf.
SWRCB. 2015. San Diego Region – Phase I Municipal Storm Water Permit. Amended November 18, 2015. Accessed July 15, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sandiego/water_issues/programs/stormwater/sd_stormwater.html.
Section 3.10: Land Use and Planning
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 5970/san_marcos.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/8480/636570701878000000.
City of San Marcos. 2012b. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed April 8, 2021. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument?id=8476.
City of San Marcos. 2022. City of San Marcos Municipal Code. Updated April 20, 2022. Accessed May 17, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. 2011. McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Amended December 1, 2011. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://www.lee-associates.com/elee/sandiego/LeeLandTeam/Ponto/ McClellan-Palomar_ALUCP_20111.pdf.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2001. Draft Natural Community Conservation Plan for the City of San Marcos. Adopted May 2001. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_153_8102.pdf.
SANDAG. 2003. Multiple Habitat Conservation Program. Approved March 2003. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-19
SANDAG. 2019. San Diego Forward – 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan. Approved November 15, 2019. Accessed April 2, 2021. https://sdforward.com/2019-federal-rtp.
SDCSD (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department). n.d. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department – San Marcos Station webpage. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/ Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/40/61.
Section 3.11: Noise
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/ environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf.
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Division of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. Sacramento, California. April. tps://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan, Noise Element. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/8475/636573113849130000.
City of San Marcos. 2017. City of San Marcos Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.24 and 20.300.070(F)). https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PU SAMOWE_CH10.24NO.
City of San Marcos. 2022. Zoning Map. http://maps2.san-marcos.net/mapgallery/ map.html?webmap=0d07611e9fc64aefab39468b1f459409.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2004. FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5.
FHWA. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Final Report January 2006. https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/2006_01_Roadway_Construction _Noise_Model_User_Guide_FHWA.pdf.
FHWA. 2008. Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Environmental Measurement and Modeling Division.
Washington, D.C. December 8, 2008.
FTA (Federal Transit Administration). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
FTA Report No. 0123. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pd.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-20
Loren Cook. 1999. Engineering Cookbook. Second Edition.
SDCRAA (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority). 2011. McClellan-Palomar Compatibility Factor Maps. https://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/ Download?Command=Core_Download&EntryId=2979&language=en- US&PortalId=0&TabId=225.
Section 3.12: Population and Housing
City of San Marcos. 2021. 2021 – 2029 Housing Element. Adopted July 13, 2021. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/ 25740/637689416879030000.
DOF (California Department of Finance). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – May 2022. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/ Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2004. Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region. Adopted July 2004. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.sandag.org/ index.asp?projectid=1&fuseaction=projects.detail.
SANDAG. 2011. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan. Adopted October 2011. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.sandag.org/uploads/2050RTP/F2050rtp_all.pdf.
SANDAG. 2020. Regional Housing Needs Assessment 6th Housing Element Cycle 2021–2029.
Approved July 10, 2020. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.sandag.org/ index.asp?projectid=189&fuseaction=projects.detail.
SANDAG. 2021. Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast. Adopted 2021. Accessed May 31, 2022.
Section 3.13: Public Services
City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element. Approved February 14, 2012. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/8480/636570701878000000.
City of San Marcos. 2012b. City of San Marcos General Plan – Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element. Approved February 14, 2012. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8477/636573113841930000. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-21
City of San Marcos. 2012c. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Approved February 14, 2012. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument/8476/637732781280670000.
City of San Marcos. 2022a. “City of San Marcos Fire Department – Department Overview.” Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/departments/public-safety/fire-department/ department-overview.
City of San Marcos. 2022b. “City of San Marcos Fire Department – Fire Department Facilities, Fire Station #2.” Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/Home/Components/ FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/597/1141.
City of San Marcos. 2022c. City of San Marcos – Library webpage. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/live/library.
City of San Marcos. 2022d. City of San Marcos Municipal Code. Updated April 20, 2022. Accessed May 17, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances.
San Diego County Library. 2022. “San Diego County Library – San Marcos Branch Library.” Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.sdcl.org/locations/32/.
SDCSD (San Diego County Sheriff’s Department). n.d. San Diego County Sheriff’s Department – San Marcos Station webpage. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.sdsheriff.gov/ Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/40/61.
SMUSD (San Marcos Unified School District). 2021. Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) – San Marcos Unified School District. September 2021. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.smusd.org/about_us/district_overview/lcap.
Section 3.14: Recreation
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element. Approved February 14, 2012. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8477.
City of San Marcos 2018. Parks Master Plan Update. Updated June 2018. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=22713.
City of San Marcos. 2022a. Parks and Recreation Facilities Directory. Accessed May 25, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/departments/parks-recreation/parks-recreation-facilities.
City of San Marcos. 2022b. City of San Marcos Municipal Code. Updated April 20, 2022. Accessed May 17, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-22
Section 3.15: Transportation
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2023. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) 2014, Revision 7. Effective March 10, 2023. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2021. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. December 2021. https://www.airquality.org/ClimateChange/Documents/ |Final%20Handbook_AB434.pdf.
City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan – Mobility Element. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/8479/636570701699270000.
City of San Marcos. 2012b. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument?id=8480.
City of San Marcos. 2012c. City of San Marcos General Plan – Safety Element. Approved February 14, 2012. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8476.
City of San Marcos. 2015. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. May 2015. https://issuu.com/ktua/ docs/sm_bpmp_final_lores.
City of San Marcos. 2019. “Traffic Counts (ADT) Table.” https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument/22603/637017967291870000.
City of San Marcos. 2020. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. November 16, 2020. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/
showpublisheddocument/25036/637412185038870000.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2002. (Not So) Brief Guide to Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. April 2002.
SANDAG. 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan. October 2015. http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/RP_final/The%20Plan%20-%20combined.pdf.
SANDAG. 2021. SANDAG 2021 Regional Plan. Adopted December 10, 2021. Accessed April 2022. https://sdforward.com/mobility-planning/2021-regional-plan.
SANDAG. 2022. “Transportation Forecast Information Center.” https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/81b2daca1827470ca8beeb4708139f79/. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-23
TRB (Transportation Research Board). 2016. Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. November 1, 2016.
Section 3.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Basgall, Mark E., and Matthew C. Hall. 1990. Adaptive variation in the north-central Mojave Desert.
Paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Las Vegas, NV.
Basgall, Mark E., and Matthew C. Hall. 1993. Archaeology of the Awl Site, CA-SBR-4562, Fort Irwin, San Bernardino County, California. Submitted to Far Western Anthropological Research Group. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Basgall, Mark E., L. Johnson, and Micah J. Hale. 2002. An evaluation of four archaeological sites in the Lead Mountain Training Area, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. Submitted to Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas.
Bean, Lowell J., and Florence C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians:
Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Hiezer, pp. 550-563. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Boscana, G. 1846. “Chinigchinich; A Historical Account of the Origin, Customs, and Traditions of the Indians at the Missionary Establishment of St. Juan Capistrano, Alta California.” In Life in California, by Alfred Robinson, 227-341. New York: Wiley & Putnam.
Byrd, Brian F., and Seetha N. Reddy. 2002. Late Holocene adaptations along the northern San Diego coastline: new perspectives on old paradigms. In Catalysts to complexity: late Holocene societies of the California coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson, and Terry L. Jones, pp. 41-62.
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Fages, P. 1937. A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California (1775). Translated by H.I.
Priestly. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Gallegos, Dennis R. (editor). 1987. San Dieguito-La Jolla: chronology and controversy. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper No. 1, San Diego.
Geiger, M., and C. W. Meighan. 1976. As the Padres Saw Them: California Indian Life and Customs as Reported by the Franciscan Missionaries, 1813-1815. Santa Barbara, California:
Santa Barbara Mission Archive Library.
Griset, S. 1996. Southern California Brown Ware. PhD dissertation; Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-24
Hale, Micah J. 2001. Technological organization of the Millingstone Pattern in southern California.
MA, Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento.
Hale, Micah J. 2009. Santa Barbara and San Diego: contrasting adaptive strategies on the southern California coast. PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Harrington, J.P. 1934. “A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California.” Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4).
Washington, D.C.
Hector, S. 2007. Archaeological Investigations at University House Meeting Center and Chancellor Residence, CA-SDI-4669 (SDM-W-12), University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Prepared by ASM Affiliates.
Heizer, R. 1978. “Introduction.” In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 1–6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, edited by W.C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Heizer, R. and K.M. Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.
Laylander, D. 2000. Early Ethnography of the Californias, 1533–1825. Salinas, California: Coyote Press Archives of California Prehistory No. 47.
NETR (Nationwide Environmental Title Research). 2018. Historical Aerials. Accessed April 22, 2022. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer.
Pigniolo, A.R. 2004. “Points, Patterns, and People: Distribution of the Desert Side-Notched Point in San Diego.” Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 14:27–39.
Powers, S. 1877. Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. III.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley, 1976.
Rivers, B. 1993. “The Pendleton Coast District: An Ethnographic and Historical Background.” In The Cultural Resources of the Pendleton Coast District. Manuscript on file at SAIC, Santa Barbara, California.
Rogers, M.J. 1929. “The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau.” American Anthropologist 31:454–467. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-25
Rogers, M.J. 1945. “An Outline of Yuman Prehistory.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 1(1):167–198.
Sparkman, P.S. 1908. “The Culture of the Luiseño Indians.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8:187–234.
True, D.L. 1966. “Archaeological Differentiation of Shoshonean and Yuman Speaking Groups in Southern California.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
True, D.L. 1978. “The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978.” Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39.
True, D.L. 1980. “The Pauma Complex in Northern San Diego County: 1978.” Journal of New World Archaeology 3(4):1–39.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2022. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed January 3, 2023. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Wallace, William J. 1955. A suggested chronology for Southern California coastal archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3): 214–230.
Warren, Claude N. 1964. Cultural change and continuity on the San Diego Coast. PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural tradition and ecological adaptation on the southern California coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1–15.
Warren, Claude N., Gretchen Siegler, and Frank Dittmer. 2004. Paleoindian and early Archaic periods. Submitted to Prehistoric and historic archaeology of metropolitan San Diego: an historic properties background study, prepared for Metropolitan Wastewater Department, San Diego, California, by ASM Affiliates, Inc., Carlsbad, California.
White, R. 1963. “Luiseño Social Organization.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48: 91–194.
Section 3.17: Utilities and Service Systems
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). N.d.a. SWIS Facility Detail:
Sycamore Landfill (37-AA-0023). Accessed July 25, 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/ SWFacilities/Directory/37-AA-0023/Detail/.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-26
CalRecyle. N.d.b. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (2007 – Current): San Marcos.
Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/ JurisdictionDiversionPost2006.
CalRecycle. N.d.c. SWID Facility Detail: Borrego Landfill (37-AA-0006). Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2859.
CalRecycle. N.d.d. SWIS Facility Detail: Otay Landfill (37 -AA-0010). Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2863.
CalRecycle. N.d.e. SWIS Facility Detail: Ramona Landfill (37 -AA-0005). Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/2858.
CalRecycle. 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed May 13, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates.
CalRecycle. 2021. State of Disposal and Recycling Report. December 2022. Accessed December 11, 2023. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/reports/stateof/.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2022a. “Electricity Consumption by Entity.” Accessed September 2022. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx.
CEC. 2022b. “Gas Consumption by Entity.” Accessed September 2022. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx.
City of San Marcos. 2012a. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8480.
City of San Marcos. 2012b. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed June 13, 2022. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=8478.
County of San Diego. 2005. Integrated Waste Management Plan – Countywide Siting Element.
Accessed April 12, 2021. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ reusable_components/images/images/dpw/recyclingpdfs/NDFE2-23-05.pdf.
MWD (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2021. Accessed July 25, 2022. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/ uwmp_attachments/5202375113/MWDSC%202020%20Urban%20Water%20Management %20Plan%20-%20June%202021%20WUE%20Portal.pdf.
7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-27
SDCWA (San Diego County Water Authority). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 2021. Accessed July 25, 2022. https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/ uwmp_attachments/7444959342/SDCWA_DWR%20Submittal%20UWMP_Final%20wApp_ 24Jun21.pdf.
VWD (Vallecitos Water District). 2018. 2018 Waster, Wastewater, and Recycled Water Master Plan.
Adopted October 4, 2018. Accessed July 25, 2022. http://www.vwd.org/ home/showdocument?id=10656.
VWD. 2021. Document Library. Accessed May 13, 2021.
https://www.vwd.org/departments/engineering/document-library.
VWD. 2022. GIS Mapping. Accessed June 13, 2022.
https://www.vwd.org/departments/engineering/gis-mapping.
Section 3.18: Wildfire
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/ 5970/san_marcos.pdf.
CAL FIRE. 2021. Fire Perimeters through 2021. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/ mapping/gis-data/#panel-6ebba334-7394-403e-8d3b-cfd53fc81dcf.
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation and Open Space Element. Adopted February 14, 2021. Accessed June 1, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument?id=8478.
WeatherSpark. 2022. Average Weather in San Marcos, California. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://weatherspark.com/y/1898/Average-Weather-in-San-Marcos-California-United-States- Year-Round.
CHAPTER 4: ALTERNATIVES
City of San Marcos. 2020. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. City of San Marcos, California.
November 16, 2020. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/
showpublisheddocument/25036/637412185038870000.
CHAPTER 5: EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.
Accessed May 15, 2022. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. 7 References
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 7-28
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Conservation Open Space Element.
Accessed May 15, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/home/ showpublisheddocument/8478/636597348039500000.
CHAPTER 6: OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
City of San Marcos. 2012. City of San Marcos General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element. Adopted February 14, 2012. Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.san-marcos.net/ home/showpublisheddocument/8480/636570701878000000.
City of San Marcos. 2022. City of San Marcos Municipal Code. Updated April 20, 2022. Accessed May 17, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/san_marcos/codes/code_of_ordinances.
SANDAG (San Diego Association of Governments). 2021. Series 14 Regional Growth Forecast.
Adopted 2021. Accessed May 31, 2022.
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 8-1
8 LIST OF PREPARERS
8.1 CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Chris Garcia, Senior Planner
Joe Farace, Planning Manager
8.2 DUDEK
Brian Grover, AICP, Principal
Vanessa Scheidel, Environmental Planner
Hayley Ward, Environmental Analyst
8.3 TECHNICAL PREPARERS
Kenneth Haase; Shawn Wedon; John Hoobs, GEOCON Inc. – Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Shawn Weedon, GEOCON Inc. – Geotechnical Report
Robert Dentino, Excel Engineering – Hydrology Study, Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) Jonathan Quezada, CR Associates – Local Transportation Analysis/Vehicle Miles Traveled Matthew Morales, Dudek – Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report Patricia Schuyler, Dudek – Biological Technical Report
Mark Storm, Dudek – Noise Technical Report
Michael Huff, Dudek – Preliminary Fire Emergency Response Analysis Keshia Montifolca, Dudek – Cultural Resources Inventory Report Makayla Murillo, Dudek – Cultural Resources Inventory Report
8 List of Preparers
Hughes Circuits Project Environmental Impact Report March 2024 City of San Marcos 8-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK