3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-5
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition to setting increased fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, the EISA includes the following other provisions related to energy efficiency:
▪ Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Section 202)
▪ Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301–325) ▪ Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441)
This federal legislation requires ever -increasing levels of renewable fuels (the RFS) to replace petroleum (EPA 2013). The EPA is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders.
The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the act, the original RFS program , “RFS1,” required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that lay the foundation for achieving significant reductions in GHG emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the renewable fuels sector in the United States. The updated program is referred to as “RFS2” and includes the following:
▪ EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline. ▪ EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
▪ EISA established new categories of renewable fuel and set separate volume requirements for each one. ▪ EISA required the EPA to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green” jobs.
State
The discussion below focuses primarily on those policies, regulations, and laws that directly pertain to energy - related resources. Refer to Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, which addresses various policies, regulations, and laws targeted to the reduction of GHG emissions that are expected to achieve co -benefits in the form of reduced demand for energy -related resources and enhanced efficiencies in the consumption of energy - related resources.
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-6
Warren -Alquist Act
The California Legislature passed the Warren -Alquist Act in 1974. The Warren -Alquist Act created the CEC. The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address the demand side of the energy equation:
▪ It directed the CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for both buildings constructed and appliances sold in California. ▪ The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial interest in high demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC. ▪ The CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular focus on fostering what were characterized as non-conventional energy sources.
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC and CPUC approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are provided, and identified policies, strategies, and actions that are cost -effective and environmentally sound for California's consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, a second Energy Action Plan was adopted by the CEC and CPUC to reflect various policy changes and actions of the prior 2 years.
At the beginning of 2008, the CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new energy action plan. This determination was based in part on a finding that the state’s energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, the CEC and CPUC prepared an “update” that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Senate Bill 1078 (2002)
This bill established the California Renewable Portfolio Standard Program and required that a retail seller of electricity purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources as defined in any given year, culminating in a 20% standard by December 31, 2017. These retail sellers include electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers. The bill relatedly required the CEC to certify eligible renewable energy resources, des ign and implement an accounting system to verify compliance with the Renewable Portfolio Standard by retail sellers, and allocate and award supplemental energy payments to cover above -market costs of renewable energy.
Senate Bill ( SB) 350 (2015) requires retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.
SB 100 (2018) accelerated and expanded the standards set forth in SB 350 by establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030 , be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 100 also states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-7
does not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be achieved through resource shuffling.
Assembly Bill 1007 (2005)
AB 1007 (2005) required the CEC to prepare a statewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California (State Alternative Fuels Plan). The CEC prepared the plan in partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and in consultation with the other state, federal, and local agencies. The plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in -state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016)
In 2006, the Legislature enacted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 32, which extended the horizon year of the state’ s codified GHG reduction planning targets from 2020 to 2030, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, CARB prepares scoping plans to guide the development of statewide policies a nd regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Many of the policy and regulatory concepts identified in the scoping plans focused on increasing energy efficiencies and the use of renewable resources and reducing the consumption of petroleum -based fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framework creates co-benefits for energy-related resources. Additional information on AB 32 and SB 32 is provided in Section 3.7 of this EIR.
California Building Standards
Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non -residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Notably, Title 24 categorizes residential buildings that are 4 or more habitable levels as high-rise residential rather than mid-rise. High-rise residential are included in the nonresidential section of Title 24 and subject to the nonresidential (not residential) code. Part 6 is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies.
The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. In general, single -family residences built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 7% les s energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, single -family residences built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). Nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). The 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards become effective on January 1, 2023. The 2022 standards encourage electric heat pump technology and use , establish electric -ready requirements when natural gas is installed, expand solar PV system and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation requirements to improve indoor air quality (CEC 2018).
Title 24 also includes Part 11, the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). CALGreen establishes minimum mandatory standards, as well as voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-8
conservation, and interior air quality. The 2019 CALGreen standards are the current applicable standards. For nonresidential projects (which the project is subject to), some of the key mandatory CALGreen 2019 standards involve requirements related to bicyc le parking, designated parking for clean air vehicles, EV charging stations, shade trees, water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings, outdoor potable water use in landscaped areas, recycled water supply systems, construction waste management, excavate d soil and land clearing debris, and commissioning (24 CCR Part 11).
Integrated Energy Policy Report
The CEC is responsible for preparing integrated energy policy reports that identify emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, and conservation; public health and safety; and maintenance of a healthy economy. The CEC’s 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report discusses the state’s policy goals of decarbonizing buildings, doubling energy efficiency savings, and increasing flexibility in the electricity grid system to integrate more renewable energy.
Specifically for the decarbonizing of building energy, t he goal would be achieved by designing future commercial and residential buildings to have their energy sourced almost entirely from electricity in place of natural gas.
Regarding the increase in renewable energy flexibility, the goal would be achieved thr ough increases in energy storage capacity within the state, increases in energy efficiency, and adjusting energy use to the time of day when the most amount of renewable energy is being generated. Over time these policies and trends would serve to beneficially reduce the project’s GHG emissions profile and energy consumption as they are implemented.
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program, a new emissions -control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog - and soot -causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. Th e package includes elements to reduce smog -forming pollution, reduce GHG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars (CARB 20 00). To improve air quality, CARB established emission standards to reduce smog-forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year vehicles. It is estimated that in 2025 cars will emit 75% less smog-forming pollution than the average new car sold today. To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The zero-emissions vehicles program will act as the focused technology of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of zero- emissions vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years. The Clean Fuels Outlet regulation will ensure that fuels such as electricity and hydrogen are available to meet the fueling needs of the new advanced technology vehicles as they come to the market.
Executive Order N-79-20
EO N-79-20 (2020) sets the goal for the State that 100% of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. EO-N-79-20 also sets goals for transition to 100% zero emission all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045, zero emission drayage trucks by 2035, and zero emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. Among other directives to further this executive order, for passenger cars and trucks, the Governor directed CARB to develop and propose regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles sold in the State towards the target of 100% of in-state sales by 2035. The Governor also directed the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to develop a Zero-Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which was completed in February 2021. The executive order also directs updates and assessments to ensure zero-emission vehicle infrastructure is in place to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required by the order.
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-9
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction mandates.
As codified in California Government Code, Section 65080, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (San Diego Association of Governments) to include a sustainable communities strategy in its regional transportation plan. The main focus of the sustainable communities strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also a part of a bigger effort to address other development issues within the general vicinity, including transit and vehicle miles traveled ( VMT), which influence the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
Local
SDG&E Long -Term Procurement Plan
In 2009, CPUC approved SDG&E’s Long-Term Procurement Plan (LTPP), which identifies how SDG&E will meet the future energy needs of customers in SDG&E’s service area. The LTPP identifies several energy demand reduction targets (i.e., conservation) and goals for increasing renewable energy supplies, new, local power generation, and increased transmission capacity.
The LTPP sets a standard for acquiring 20% of SDG&E’s energy mix from renewables by 2010 and 33% by 2020.
The LTPP also calls for greater use of in-region energy supplies, including renewable energy installations. The LTPP states that, by 2020, SDG&E inten ds to achieve and maintain the capacity to generate 75% of summer peak demand energy with in -County generation. The LTPP also identifies 44% of its renewables to be generated and distributed in-region by 2020.
San Diego Association of Governments Regional Plan
The 2021 Regional Plan provides a long -term blueprint for the San Diego region that seeks to meet regulatory requirements, address traffic congestion, and create equal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other community resources (SANDAG 2021). The plan is the result of years of planning, data analysis, and community engagement to reimagine the San Diego region with a transformative transportation system, a sustainable pattern of growth and development, and innovative demand and management strategies.
The 2021 Regional Plan includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy, as required by California SB 375, for the San Diego region. This Sustainable Communities Strategy describes coordinated transportation and land use planning that exceeds the state’s target for reducing per capita GHG emissions set by CARB. The state-mandated target is a 19% reduction —compared with 2005—in per capita GHG emissions from cars and light -duty trucks by 2035. The 2021 Regional Plan achieves a 20% reduction by then.
The 2021 Regional Plan also puts forth a forecasted development pattern that is driven by regional goals for sustainability, mobility, housing affordability, and economic prosperity.
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-10
City of San Marcos General Plan
The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) includes various policies related to reducing GHG emissions and the co-benefit of reducing energy consumption. The project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan is provided in Section 3.10.4, Project Impact Analysis. Applicable policies include the following:
Land Use and Community Design Element
Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Policy LU -2.3: Require the incorporation of green building practices, technologies, and strategies into development projects per code standards.
Policy LU-2.5: Promote landscaping (e.g., native, drought tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.
Policy LU -2.7: Promote the instillation of trees to reduce the urban heat -island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.
Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy COS -4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment.
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) on December 8, 2020 (City of San Marcos 2020). The CAP acts as a roadmap to address challenges of climate change within the City. The CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP, and establishes GHG emission reduction targets and identifies achievable, locally based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. The City has included energy - reducing measures in the Climate Action Plan Consistency Review C hecklist, such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle infrastructure, transportation demand management, reduced parking, electric or solar water heaters, photovoltaic systems, landscaping water use, and urban tree canopy.
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-11
3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the proposed project’s impact on energy are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). According to Appendix G, a significant impact would occur if development of the proposed project would do any of the following:
Threshold No. 1: Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Threshold No. 2: Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
3.5.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Electricity
Construction Use
Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment (such as computers inside temporary construction trailers and HVAC) would be provided by SDG&E. The amount of electricity used during project construction would be minimal because typical demand stems from the use of electronic equipment, in addition to electrically powered hand tools.
As the electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and minimal , impacts related to electricity consumption during project construction are determined to be less than significant.
Operational Use
The operation of the proposed project would require electricity for multiple purposes , including cooling, lighting, appliances, and various equipment. Additionally, the supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water would indirectly result in electricity usage.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0, default values for electricity consumption for the residential land uses proposed with the project were applied, which account for the 2019 Title 24 building code (CAPCOA 2021). The electricity use for residential buildings is calculated in CalEEMod using energy intensity value (electricity use per square foot per year) assumptions, which were based on the Residential Appliance Saturation Survey. Per the CEC Impact Analysis for the 2019 Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non -Residential Buildings, the first -year savings for newly constructed , high-rise multifamily buildings are 197 gigawatt -hours of electricity, 76.6 megawatts of demand, and 0.27 million therms of gas, representing reductions from the 2016 Title 24 standard of 10.7%, 9%, and 1%, respectively (CEC 2018).
The proposed project ’s residential uses are estimated to have a total electrical demand of approximately 2.49 million kWh of electricity per year (see Appendix B).
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-12
The project would also implement applicable City’s CAP Consistency Checklist measure s that would reduce operational electricity consumption, including installing electric or solar water heater , outlined in Section 3.2 , Air Quality, of this EIR . While this would increase electricity use, it would result in less natural gas use and is more efficient than heating water with natural gas as 15% of the energy is lost in the exhaust.
In summary, although electricity consumption would increase at the project site due to project implementation, the project would be required to comply with the Title 24 and the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist by implementing energy-efficiency measures. Furthermore, the project will be subject to the Title 24 building code that is adopted at the time building permits are obtained and thus may be subject to a more stringent energy standard than what was assumed herein. For these reasons, electricity consumpt ion of the proposed project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Construction Use
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the proposed project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed under the subsection Petroleum. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of construction would be temporary and negligible and would not have an adverse effect on the environment; therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
Operational Use
The operation of residential units would require natural gas for space heating and to power appliances. Default natural gas usage rates in CalEEMod for the proposed land use and climate zone were used based on compliance with 2019 Title 24 standards, which is assumed within CalEEMod 2020.4.0.
The operation of the proposed project is estimated to use approximately 3.27 million thousand British thermal units of natural gas per year, which is equivalent to 32,669 therms of natural gas per year.
As previously discussed, t he proposed project would be subject to statewide mandatory energy requirements as outlined in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations. Prior to building permit application, the applicant would ensure that project plans would meet Title 24 requirements applicable at that time, as required by state regulations through their plan review process. Additionally, the proposed project would implement the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist measure that reduces operational natural gas consumption via REG-GHG-5, which requires the installation of electric or solar water heaters.
In summary, although natural gas usage would increase due to project implementation, project design features would be implemented, and usage would be decreased through green building standards. For these reasons, the natural gas consumption of the proposed project would not be considered inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
Petroleum
Construction Use
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the proposed project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, and VMT associated
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-13
with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities would rely on diesel fuel.
Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction. It is assumed that construction workers would travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered vehicles.
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during each phase of construction. CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage, and results are included in Appendix B. Based on that analysis, over all phases of construction, diesel-fueled construction equipment would operate for an estimated 23,960 hours, as summarized in Table 3.5-2.
Table 3.5-2. Project Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment Phase Hours of Equipment Use
Site Preparation 560
Grading 1,920
Paving 20,400
Building Construction 960
Architectural Coating 120
Total 23,960
Source: Appendix B.
Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total carbon dioxide ( CO2) emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel.
Construction is estimated to occur over a n 18-month period ( 2022 through 2023) based on the construction phasing schedule. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton C O2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO 2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2021). The estimated diesel fuel use from project-related construction equipment is shown in Table 3.5-3.
Table 3.5-3. Project Construction Equipment Diesel Demand Phase Equipment CO 2 (MT) kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 16.73 10.21 1,638.14
Grading 81.80 10.21 8,012.03
Building Construction 347.75 10.21 34,059.64
Paving 20.03 10.21 1,961.46
Architectural Coating 2.55 10.21 250.08
Total 45,921.34
Sources: Appendix B (pieces of equipment and equipment CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram; MT = metric ton.
Fuel consumption from worker and vendor trips is estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO 2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline fueled and vendor vehicles are assumed to be diesel fueled. Calculations for total worker and vendor fuel consumption are provided in Tables 3.5-4 and 3.5-5.
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-14
Table 3.5-4. Project Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand Phase Vehicle CO 2 (MT) kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 0.57 8.78 65.05
Grading 1.90 8.78 216.82
Building Construction 447.51 8.78 50,968.84
Paving 0.98 8.78 111.86
Architectural Coating 5.89 8.78 671.10
Total 52,033.67
Sources: Appendix B (construction worker CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram; MT = metric ton.
Table 3.5-5. Project Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand Phase Vehicle CO 2 (MT) kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Site Preparation 0.40 10.21 39.30
Grading 1.20 10.21 117.91
Building Construction 327.46 10.21 32,072.42
Paving 0.79 10.21 77.24
Architectural Coating 0.79 10.21 77.24
Total 32,384.11
Sources: Appendix B (vendor truck CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram; MT = metric ton.
As shown in Tables 3.5-3 through 3.5-5, implementation of the proposed project is estimated to consume a total of 130,339 gallons of petroleum from off-road equipment and worker vehicle and vendor truck trips during the construction phase.
The proposed project would be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes. While construction activities would consume petroleum -based fuels, consumption of such resources would be temporary and would cease upon the completion of construction.
Further, the petroleum consumed related to construction would be typical of construction projects of similar types and sizes and would not necessitate new petroleum resources beyond what are typically consumed in California.
Therefore, because petroleum use during project construction would be temporary and minimal and would not be wasteful or inefficient, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
Operational Use
The majority of fuel consumption resulting from the operational phase of the proposed project would be attributable to the use of resident motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site, as well as fuels used for alternative modes of transportation that may be used by residents.
Petroleum fuel consumption associated with motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site is a function of VMT as a result of operation. As shown in Appendix B, the annual VMT attributable to the proposed project is expected to be approximately 7,692,187 VMT per year.
Similar to construction worker and vendor trips, fuel consumption was estimated by converting the total CO 2 emissions from each land use type to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel.
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-15
Based on the annual fleet mix provided in CalEEMod, 80% of the fleet range from light-duty to medium-duty vehicles and motorcycles were assumed to run on gasoline. The remaining 20% of vehicles represent medium-heavy duty to heavy-duty vehicles and buses/recreational vehicles, which were assumed to run on diesel.
Calculations for annual mobile-source fuel consumption are provided in Table 3.5-6.
Table 3.5-6. Mobile Source Fuel Consumption – Operation Fuel Vehicle MT CO 2 kg CO 2/Gallon Gallons
Gasoline 2,002.10 8.78 228,029.35
Diesel 489.04 10.21 47,897.70
Total 275,927.05
Sources: Appendix B (mobile source CO2); The Climate Registry 2021 (kg CO2/gallon).
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; kg = kilogram; MT = metric ton.
As shown in Table 3.5-6, mobile sources associated with the project would result in approximately 228,029 gallons of gasoline per year and 47,898 gallons of diesel consumed per year beginning in 2024. This is a conservative estimate since it does not account for usage of electric vehicles.
By comparison, California as a whole consumes approximately 28.7 billion gallons of petroleum per year (EIA 2018b).
Within San Diego County, the estimated petroleum use in 2023 would be 1.7 billion gallons per year (CARB 2021).
Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by residents is expected to increase.
As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. As discussed under Section 3 .5.2, there are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, CARB has adopted a new approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of standards. The new approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the numbers of plug-in hybrids and zero-emissions vehicles in California (CARB 2017). Additionally, in response to SB 375, CARB has adopted the goal of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 15% by the year 2020 and 19% by the year 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles in the San Diego Association of Governments planning area. This reduction would occur by reducing VMT through the integration of land use planning and transportation ( CARB 2019). As such, petroleum use is anticipated to decrease over time due to advances in fuel economy.
The project site is located approximately 1 mile from the Sprinter station, which provides light rail access into the nearby cities of Escondido, Vista, and Oceanside, and bus service is located in front of the project site. Additionally, the Sprinter connects to the Surfliner and Coaster routes, which provide north–south access to Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the City of San Diego. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement applicable measures in Title 24 and the City’s 2020 CAP Consistenc y Checklist (see Appendix B), including installing electric vehicle charging stations, installing bicycle infrastructure, implementing a Transportation Demand Management plan, and reducing parking near transit. These measures would further reduce VMT and petroleum consumption from operation, increase access to transit, and encourage alternative modes of transportation.
In summary, although the proposed project would increase petroleum use during operation, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use and, due to efficiency increases, diminish over time. Additionally, a minimum of 5% of parking spaces required would be equipped with EV charging stations or as otherwise required by CALGreen, whichever is more significant. Furthermore, the inclusion of installing bicycle infrastructure, and increased access to
3.5 - ENERGY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.5-16
transit would help reduce petroleum-based fuels consumption. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The proposed project would be subject to and would comply with, at a minimum, the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (24 CCR, Part 6). Part 6 of Title 24 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in Californi a in order to reduce energy demand and consumption . The proposed project would also be subject to Part 11 of Title 24, also known as the CALGreen building standards.
These were adopted into the City’s building design criteria. Furthermore, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist measures through its installing electric vehicle charging stations, installing bicycle infrastructure, implementing a Transportation Demand Management plan, installing electric or solar water heaters, reducing landscaping water use, and planting trees that would further reduce operational energy use. The proposed project would be built and operated in accordance with all existing, applicable regulations at the time of construction. For these reasons stated , the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact associated with the potential to conflict with energy standards and regulations.
3.5.5 Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
3.5.6 Conclusion
The proposed project would comply with regulatory requirements and would implement project design features in the City’s CAP Consistency Checklist that would reduce operational energy consumption. For example, the project would be required to install electric vehicle charging stations, install electric or solar water heaters, implement a Transportation Demand Management plan, reduce landscaping water use, and plant trees . Furthermore, the project’s location as an infill development and its close proximity to resident services and transit will inherently result in less VMT and petroleum use compared to a sprawling project. As such, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of electricity, and impacts would be less than significant.
Additionally, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing energy consumption, including the City’s General Plan policies and City’s CAP Consistency Checklist. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-1
3.6 Geology and Soils
This section describes the existing geological setting of the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, including seismic activity, liquefaction, landslides, loss of topsoil, soil erosion, soil stability and soil expansion, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project.
Preparation of this Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) Section relied on information provided in the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the proposed project by GeoTek Inc., dated November 2022, and the Paleontological Resources Inventory Report prepared for the proposed project by Dudek in December 2022 .
The Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation is included as Appendix F to this EIR , and the Paleontological Resources Inventory Report is included as Appendix O to this EIR.
A summary of the project- and cumulative-level geology and soils analysis, by threshold, is provided in Table 3.6-1.
Table 3.6-1. Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -
Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 - Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2 – Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3 – Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4 – Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 5 – Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 6 – Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 7 – Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-2
Table 3.6-1. Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -
Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 8 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 9 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature?
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. This province varies in width from about 30 to 100 miles. It is approximately bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf of California, on the north by the Transverse Ranges, and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province.
The Peninsular Ranges are essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. Several major fault zones are found in this province. The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zones trend northwest-southeast and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province.
The Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault zone meanders the southwest margin of the province but can be more appropriately defined by the Pacific Ocean. No faults are shown in the immediate project site vicinity (Appendix F).
Soils
A brief description of the earth materials encountered during subsurface exploration is presented in the following sections. Based on field observations and review of published geologic maps, the project site is locally underlain by recent alluvium and Santiago Formation bedrock.
A field study was conducted on September 29, 2020 , and consisted of a site reconnaissance, excavation of geotechnical hollow stem auger borings B-3 through B-6 to depths of about 19.5 feet below grade and 2 percolation test borings P-1 and P-2 to depths of about 3 feet below grade. The borings were drilled with a truck mounted rubber tire CME-75 drilling rig and included collection of bulk and relatively undisturbed driven soil samples for subsequent laboratory testing.
Undocumented Fill (Not Mapped )
Undocumented fill soils were observed on-site as sporadic end-dump piles from illegal dumping (Appendix F). These soils are not considered suitable for support of structural site improvements but may be re-used as engineered fill if properly processed and placed.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-3
Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal)
The most recent regional geologic map reviewed showed the geology (Appendix F) for the eastern portion of the area along South Los Posas Road to be alluvial deposits; however, based on the site evaluation, alluvium appears to be limited to a smaller extent along a natural drainage swale along South Los Posas Road. As encountered in boring B-6, the alluvium generally consisted of silty fine sands.
Tertiary Santiago Formation (Map Symbol Tsa)
The most recently dated regional geologic map showing the overall site geology (Appendix F) indicates Santiago Formation sedimentary bedrock at the surface on the western majority of the project site; however, based on the project site evaluation the Santiago Formation appears to be near the surface across most of the project site. As encountered in the borings, Santiago Formation was observed as a dark brown to black clay over sandstone.
Surface Water and Groundwater
Surface Water
Surface water was not observed during the project site visit. If encountered during earthwork construction, surface water on this site is likely the result of precipitation. Overall site area drainage is in a southeast direction.
Groundwater
A static groundwater table was not encountered during drilling operations at the project site. Excavations B -5 and B-6 appear to have encountered perched water at a depth of approximately 19 and 15 feet (respectively) and cuttings in B-4 at a depth of 17 f eet suggest a perch groundwater. Based on the anticipated depth of removals, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor in site development. Localized perched groundwater may be present but is also not anticipated to be a factor in site development with the exception that seasonal water levels are likely to impact stormwater management (Appendix F).
Earthquake Hazards
Surface Fault Rupture
The geologic structure of the entire southern California area is dominated mainly by northwest trending faults associated with the San Andreas system. The project site is in a seismically active region. No active or potentially active fault is known to exist at the project site nor is the project site situated within an “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone or a Special Studies Zone ( Appendix F). No faults transecting the project site were identified on the readily available geologic maps. The nearest known active fault is the Newport Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault located about 11 miles southwest of the project site.
Liquefaction/ Seismic Settlement
The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and grain size, relative density, groundwater level, confining pressures, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. In general, materials that are susceptible to liquefaction are loose, saturated granular soils having low fines content under low confining pressures.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-4
Due to the general dense to very dense nature of underlying shallow bedrock, as well as planned fill placement, liquefaction potential and seismic settlement potential is considered negligible provided remedial grading recommendations presented in the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation are completed (Appendix F).
Other Seismic Hazards
Due to the relatively flat nature of the project site, the potential for landslides and rockfall is considered negligible.
The project site is located in a zone with “zero susceptibility” to landslides (Appendix F).
In addition, the potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water.
Paleontological Resources
Due to the existing conditions of the site, and the project location surrounded by urban uses, paleontological resources are not anticipated to be unearthed within the project’s area of potential effect. However, the project site is underlain by the Santia go Formation, which has high paleontological sensitivity. The preliminary geotechnical evaluation prepared for the proposed project did not identify any unique geologic features on the project site. To determine the paleontological sensitivity of the project site, Dudek performed a paleontological resources inventory and preconstruction survey for the project to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and County of San Diego’s Guidelines. The inventory consisted of a Natural History Muse um of San Diego (SDNHM) paleontological records search and a review of geological mapping and geological and paleontological literature.
The results of the paleontological records search were negative for paleontological resources within the project site; however, the SDNHM reported four fossil localities within a 1-mile radius of the project site, from geological units that do not underly the project site (Appendix O).
3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the federal, state, and local regulations related to geology and soils.
Federal
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provides a set of mitigation plan requirements that encourage state and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. The Act also encourages s tates to complete a Natural Mitigation Plan. California’s relevant and updated State Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX in 2007. In accordance with this Act, the County of San Diego prepared its Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is discussed in more detail below.
Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan of 1999 is a signed agreement among 27 federal departments and agencies, including the American Red Cross, that (1) provides the mechanism for coordinating delivery of federal assistance and resources to augment efforts of state and local governments overwhelmed by a major disaster or emergency; (2) supports implementation of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Act, as well as individual agency statutory authorities; and (3) supplements other federal emergency operations plans developed to address specific
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-5
hazards. The Federal Response Plan is implemented in anticipation of a significant event likely to result in a need for federal assistance or in response to an actual event requiring federal assistance under a presidential declaration of a major disaster or emergency.
United States Geological Survey Landslide Hazard Identification Program The United States Geological Survey, in fulfillment of the requirements of Public Law 106-113, created the National Landslide Hazards Program to reduce long-term losses from landslide hazards by improving understanding of the causes of ground failure and suggesting mitigation strategies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is the responsible agency for the long-term management of natural hazards.
International Building Code
The International Building Code (IBC) is a model building code developed by the International Code Council that provides the basis for the California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the IBC is to provide minimum standards for building construction to ensure public safety, health, and welfare. Prior to the creation of the IBC, several different building codes were used; however, by the year 2000, the IBC had replaced these previous codes. The IBC is updated every 3 years.
State
Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act mitigates the hazard of surface fault rupture by regulating structures designated for human occupancy near active faults. As required by the Act, the California Geological Survey has delineated Earthquake Fault Zones along known active faults in California.
California Geologic Survey
The California Geologic Survey provides guidance with regard to seismic hazards. The California Geologic Survey’s Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (2008), provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake -related hazards for projects located within certain designated zones.
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
Enacted to promote conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits, the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act requires cities address the significant aggregate resources classified by the State Geologist and designated by the State Mining and Geology Board in their General Plans. The Act ensures that significant aggregate resources are recognized and considered before land use decisions are made that may compromise the availability of these resources.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was enacted in 1997 to protect the public from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This Act requires the State Geologist to map areas subject to seismic hazard . Before a development permit may be granted for projects located in designated areas, a geotechnical evaluation of the site must be prepared, and appropriate
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-6
mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. Additionally, the Act requires a Standardized Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement form be completed by real estate sellers if a property is within one of the designated natural hazards areas.
Natural Hazards Disclosure Act
The Natural Hazards Disclosure Act (effective June 1, 1998), requires “sellers of real property and their agents provide prospective buyers with a ‘Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement’ when the property being sold lies within one or more state -mapped hazard areas, including a Seismic Hazard Zone.” The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act , discussed above, specifies the following two ways this disclosure can be made:
▪ The Local Option Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1102.6a of the Civil Code ▪ The Natural Hazard Disclosure Statement as provided in Section 1103.2 of the Civil Code The Local Option Real Estate Disclosure Statement can be substituted for the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement if it contains substantially the same information and substantially the same warning as the Natural Hazards Disclosure Statement. Both the Alquist-Priolo Act and the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act require that real estate agents, or sellers of real estate acting without an agent, disclose to prospective buyers that the property is located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or Seismic Hazard Mapping Zone.
California Uniform Building Code
The California Building Standards Code is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Part 2 of the California Uniform Building Code specifies standards for geologic and seismic hazards, other than surface faulting. Chapter 23 of the California U niform Building Code addresses seismic safety and includes regulations for earthquake -resistant design and construction. The 20 22 Triennial Edition of the California Building Standards Code went into effect January 1, 2023 (California Building Standards Commission 2020).
Local
County of San Diego Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the County of San Diego prepared the Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (Plan) in 2004, revised in 2017 . The Plan serves as both a county -wide plan and a plan for local jurisdictions that identifies risks posed by natural and human -made disasters before a hazard event occurs. The Plan includes overall goals and objectives shared by many jurisdictions, as well as specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items for each of the participating jurisdictions, including the City of San Marcos, developed to help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that potentially affect their jurisdiction (County of San Diego 2017).
San Marcos Grading Ordinance
The City’s Grading Ordinance (found in Chapter 17.32 of the City’s Municipal Code) contains regulations for the purpose of protecting public health and safety with respect to the design and construction of building sites and the development of property by grading. The ordinance sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading and earthwork construction, engineering analysis of soil conditions, and the administrative procedure for issuance of grading permits, approval of grading plans, and site inspections.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-7
City of San Marcos General Plan
Safety Element
The Safety Element of the San Marcos General Plan contains several policies pertaining to natural geologic hazards. The following goal and policies apply to the proposed project (City of San Marcos 2012):
Goal S-1: Reduce risks to the community from earthquakes by regulating new development and redevelopment to prevent the creation of new geologic and seismic hazards.
Policy S-1.1: Reduce the risk of impacts from geologic and seismic hazards by applying current and proper land use planning, development engineering, building construction, and retrofitting requirements.
Policy S-1.2: Investigate specific groundwater levels and geologic conditions underlying all new development or redevelopment proposals in areas where potential fault rupture, liquefaction, or other geologic hazards are suspected.
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies pertaining to geology and soils.
3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
As defined in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, project impacts to geological resources are considered significant if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of as known fault. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Threshold No. 2: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking.
Threshold No. 3: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Threshold No. 4: Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides.
Threshold No. 5: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Threshold No. 6: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
Threshold No. 7: Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-8
Threshold No. 8: Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Threshold No. 9: Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
3.6.4 Project Impact Analysis
The proposed project area of potential effect includes the entire 33.2-acre project site. Impacts to geology and soils that may result from ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project are analyzed below.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of as known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? As identified in Section 3.6.1, the project site is located in tectonically active southern California. However, no Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazard Zones or other known active faults run through the project site. The closest known active fault is the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault, located 11 miles southwest of the project site . Based on the lack of active or potentially active faults underlying the project area, the potential for surface rupture is low and the project site would not be subject to a greate r seismic risk than other locations within the region. Additionally, per the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, because the project site is not located in an Alquist Priolo Fault Zone, the proposed project would not place any prohibited uses (e.g. , uses containing structures with a capacity of 300 people or more; uses with the potential to severely damage the environment or cause major loss of life; or specific civic uses including police and fire stations, schools, hospitals, rest homes, nursing h omes, and emergency communication facilities) within an Alquist–Priolo Fault Zone. Thus, the potential for loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault is considered low.
The proposed project would be required to comply with applicable CBC requirements and proposed plans would be subject to City review. For these reasons, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? There are no known active faults that run through the project site. The proposed project would be designed in accordance with applicable CBC criteria, including those specific to resistance to seismic shaking. Furthermore, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with other applicable regulations, current seismic design specifications of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable requirements of the State of California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. These required seismic design considerations are used to minimize structural damage in the event of ground shaking.
Additionally, the proposed project would implement all recommendations from the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation ( Appendix F), as well as any project -specific recommendations with any potential supplemental geotechnical evaluations The Geotechnical Evaluation includes design recommendations, retaining wall design and construction recommendations, and post-construction considerations. The detailed recommendations are included in Chapter 5 of the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F). The project would be constructed in compliance with the 2019 CBC and ASCE 7-16 for seismic design. The City’s Development Services Department shall review and approve project design and construction to verify that the recommendations of the geotechnical evaluation
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-9
have been incorporated. With adherence to all regulations and geotechnical recommendations from the Geotechnical Evaluation conducted for the proposed project as required by the Municipal Code and CBC, impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be considered less than significant.
Threshold No. 3: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction typically occurs when a site is subjected to strong seismic shaking, on -site soils are cohesionless, groundwater is encountered within 50 feet of the surface, and soil relative densities are less than approximately 70%. Based on the geotechnical evaluation mapping, subsurface exploration, and laboratory testing, the project site is not identified as being susceptible to liquefaction (Appendix F). No shallow groundwater was identified on- site, and soils consist of relatively dense granitic bedro ck (tonalite) material . The potential for liquefaction or dynamic settlement to occur on-site is considered very low. Additionally, the project site is identified in the City's Safety Element as having "Zero Susceptibility" to liquefaction (Figure 6 -1 of the City’s General Plan) (City of San Marcos 2012). As such, the project site is not considered susceptible to liquefaction or significant amounts of seismic settlement.
Furthermore, the project would implement all remedial grading and drainage recommendati ons contained within the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F), in addition to recommendations outlined in any development project-specific supplemental geotechnical report(s) in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code and CBC requirements. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 4: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site is relatively flat, ranging in elevation from approximately 527 feet above mean sea level in the southeast portion of the project area to 551 feet above mean sea level in the northwest corner of the project site.
The project site is identified in the City's Safety Element as having “Zero Susceptibility” to landslides (Figure 6-1 of the General Plan) (City of San Marcos 2012). Therefore, the project site is not considered susceptible to landslides and proposed project impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 5: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Grading Ordinance, which contains design standards and performance requirements that must be met to avoid or reduce, to an acceptable level, excessive erosion. Furthermore, in accordance with Municipal Code requirements, the proposed project would implement all recommendations pertaining to soil erosion or loss of topsoil as contained within the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F), in additional to any additional recommendations from any supplemental geotechnical reports prepared for the project . For these reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-10
Threshold No. 6: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
As previously described under Threshold s 3 and 4, the potential for landslides and/or liquefaction on -site is considered low. The proposed project would be required to comply with the recommendations of the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F), which require that where not already removed by the proposed site grading, any topsoil or any undocumented fill encountered should be completely removed and recompacted within the limits of grading, receive additional fill as needed , and implement any other settlement -sensitive improvements as needed. Site preparation, removals, and excavation associated with the proposed project would be performed consistent with Chapter 5 of the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F) and any supplemental geotechnical evaluation . In addition, grading associated with the proposed project would be accomplished under the observation and testing of the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist, in accordance with the requirements of the CBC, the City of San Marcos, and the County of San Diego. Areas to receive fill would be required to be properly cut and/or benched in accordance with current industry standards of practice, CBC guidelines, and the City of San Marcos requirements.
Therefore, compliance with applicable regulations and the recommendations in the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation would ensure that the potential for unstable conditions that could result in on- or off-site, lateral spread, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 7: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? As described in the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation (Appendix F), the project site contains soils with a medium expansion index, and it is recommended that these soils be further evaluated prior to project construction.
The proposed project would be required to implement CBC guidelines, regulations, and further recommendations to ensure that such soils are fully remediated and/or the project is designed appropriately to minimize impacts of expansive soils. The geotechnical evaluation also includes recommendations that expansive or clayey soils are not used for backfill materials. With adherence to the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Report recommendations as required for grading permit issuance (Municipal Code Section 17.32.040 [Ord. No. 2001 -1123, 11 -27-01]), impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 8: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of se ptic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project does not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. As described in Chapter 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would construct private on-site sewer lines that would connect to existing Sewer District infrastructure. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 9: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Although ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project have the potential to unearth previously unidentified paleontological resources, the preliminary geotechnical evaluation prepared for the proposed project did not identify any unique geologic features on the project site.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-11
As outlined in the Paleontological Resources Inventory Report (Appendix O), n o paleontological resources were identified within the project site as a result of the institutional records search and desktop geological and paleontological review. The paleontological records search conducted by the SDNHM revealed four nearby localities, all of which are from the same geological unit that underlies the project site on the surface or at depth (the Santiago Formation). Eocene deposits mapped within and throughout most of the project site have high paleontological sensitivity; Holocene alluvial deposits have low paleontological sensitivity on the surface, increasing with depth; and artificial fill, if present, has no paleontological sensitivity. Based on the records search results and map and literature review, the project site has high potential to produce paleontological resources during planned construction activities in areas underlain by Eocene deposits and Holocene deposits at depth. In the event that intact pa leontological resources are discovered on the project site, ground -disturbing activities associated with construction of the project, such as grading and augering during site preparation and trenching for utilities, have the potential to destroy a unique p aleontological resource o n site. Without mitigation, the potential damage to paleontological resources during construction would be a potentially significant impact (Impact GEO -1). With implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1, impacts would be reduce d to below a level of significance.
Impacts of the project are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated during construction.
3.6.5 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the a nalysis presented in Section s 3.6.4, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant , with the exception to impacts to paleontological resources (Impact GEO -1). With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
MM-GEO-1 Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program and Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to commencement of any grading activity on site, the applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources . The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project that shall be consistent with the SVP 2010 Standard Procedures and outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental awareness training, where paleontological monitoring is required within the project site based on construction plans and/or geotechnical reports, procedures for adequate paleontological mon itoring and discoveries treatment, and paleontological methods (including sediment sampling for microinvertebrate and microvertebrate fossils), reporting, and collections management. The PRIMP shall also include a statement that any fossil lab or curation costs (if necessary due to fossil recovery) are the responsibility of the project proponent. A qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during initial rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities (including augering) in areas underlain by the Santiago Formation and below a depth of 5 feet below the ground surface in areas underlain by Holocene alluvium to determine if they are old enough to preserve scientifically significant paleontological resources. In the event that paleont ological resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery of paleontological resources. The area of discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will allow grading to recommence in the area of the find.
3.6 - GEOLOGY AND SOILS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.6-12
3.6.6 Conclusion
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3.6. 4, impacts associated with seismicity, liquefaction, landslides, erosion/loss of topsoil, compressible soils, and expansive soils were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to paleontological resources during project construction would be reduced to a level of less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure MM -GEO-1. The proposed project w ould be required to adhere to all recommendations in the Revised Preliminary and Final Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project and would be required to comply with all applicable regulations outlined in Section 3.6.2.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-1
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section describes the existing setting of the project site related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project). Information for this section relies on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared for the proposed project by Dudek in February 2023.
The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report is included as Appendix B to this environmental impact report (EIR).
A summary of the GHG analysis, by threshold, is provided in Table 3.7-1. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes to regulating the Earth’s temperature, and it creates a livable environment on Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHG emissions to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise. While significance determinations are provided below at the project - and cumulative-levels, it is generally recognized that global climate change and a project’s GHG emissions are inherently cumulative issues, based on the science of global climate change.
Table 3.7-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance
Project
Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 - Generate GHG emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2 - Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHGs.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
The project would consist of a GPA/Rezone to convert the existing Industrial (I) land use designation to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The project would be required to adhere to the regulatory measures in Section 3.2.1 to ensure compliance with the applicable City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan (CAP) Checklist measures (City of San Marcos 2020a).
3.7.1 Existing Conditions
This section introduces the environmental setting as it relates to GHG emissions, providing a climate change overview; information on GHG and climate forcing substances, global warming potential, and sources of GHG emissions; and describing potential effects of climate change in the region of the proposed project.
Climate Change Overview
Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, lasting for an extended period of time (decades or longer). The Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system. Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance, including variations in the sun’s energy reaching Earth, changes in the reflectivity of Earth’s atmosphere and surface, and changes in the greenhouse effect, which affects the amount of heat retained by Earth’s atmosphere (EPA 2017a).
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-2
The greenhouse effect is the trapping and build -up of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s surface. The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process: short -wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long -wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long -wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth. The greenhouse effect is a natural process that contributes t o regulating the Earth’s temperature and creates a pleasant, livable environment on the Earth. Human activities that emit additional GHGs to the atmosphere increase the amount of infrared radiation that gets absorbed before escaping into space, thus enhanc ing the greenhouse effect and causing the Earth’s surface temperature to rise.
The scientific record of the Earth’s climate shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales and that , in general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in GHG concentrations.
Recent climate changes, in particular the warmi ng observed over the past century, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Rather, it is extremely likely th at human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming since the mid-twentieth century and is the most significant driver of observed climate change (EPA 2017a; IPCC 2013). Human influence on the climate system is evident from the increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and improved understanding of the climate system (IPCC 2013). The atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from emissions associated with land use changes (IPCC 2013).
Continued emissions of GHGs will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
Greenhouse Gases and Other Climate -Forcing Substances
A GHG is any gas that absorbs infrared radiation in the atmosphere; in other words, GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), ozone ( O3), water vapor, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochloro fluorocarbons (HCFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).1 Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO 2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Manufactured GHGs, which have a much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, HCFCs, PFCs, and SF 6, which are associated with certain industrial products and processes.
A summary of the most common GHGs and their sources is included in the following text. 2 Also included is a discussion of other climate-forcing substances.
Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas and a by -product of human activities and is the principal anthropogenic GHG that affects the Earth’s radiative balance. Natural sources of CO2 include respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; volcanic out -gassing; and decomposition of dead organic matter. Human activities that generate CO 2 are the combustion of fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and wood , and changes in land use.
1 California Health and Safety Code Section 38505 identifies seven GHGs that CARB is responsible for monitoring and regulating to reduce emissions: CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6, HFCs, PFCs, and nitrogen trifluoride. 2 The descriptions of GHGs are summarized from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (IPCC 1995), IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007), CARB’s Glossary of Terms Used in GHG Inventories (CARB 2015), and EPA’s Glossary of Climate Change Terms (EPA 2016d).
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-3
Methane. CH4 is produced through both natural and human activities. CH 4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. CH4 is produced through anaerobic (without oxygen) decomposition of waste in landfills, flooded rice fields, animal digestion, decomposition of animal waste, production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion.
Nitrous Oxide. N2O is produced through natural and human activities, mainly through agricultural activities and natural biological processes, although fuel burning and other processes also create N 2O. Sources of N 2O include soil cultivation practices (microbial processes in soil and water), especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, manure management, industrial processes (such as in nitric acid production, nylon production, and fossil-fuel-fired power plants), vehicle emissions, and using N2O as a propellant (such as in rockets, racecars, and aerosol sprays).
Fluorinated Gases. Fluorinated gases (also referred to as F-gases) are powerful synthetic GHGs emitted from many industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are commonly used as substitutes for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], HCFCs, and halons). The most prevalent fluorinated gases are the following:
▪ Hydrofluorocarbons: HFCs are compounds containing only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. HFCs are synthetic chemicals used as alternatives to ozone -depleting substances in serving many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by -products of industri al processes and are used in manufacturing.
▪ Perfluorocarbons: PFCs are a group of human -made chemicals composed of carbon and fluorine only.
These chemicals were introduced as alternatives, with HFCs, to the ozone -depleting substances. The two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Since PFCs have stable molecular structures and do not break down through the chemical processes in the lower atmosphere, these chemicals have long lifetimes, ranging between 10,000 and 50,000 years. ▪ Sulfur Hexafluoride: SF6 is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether and slightly soluble in water. SF6 is used for insulation in electric power transmission and distribution equipment, semiconductor manufacturing, the magnesium industry, and as a tracer gas for leak detection. ▪ Nitrogen Trifluoride: Nitrogen trifluoride is used in the manufacture of a variety of electronics, including semiconductors and flat panel displays.
Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are synthetic chemicals that have been used as cleaning solvents, refrigerants, and aerosol propellants. CFCs are chemically unreactive in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) , and the production of CFCs was prohibited beginning in 1987 due to the chemical destruction of stratospheric O3.
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons. HCFCs are a large group of compounds whose structure is very close to that of CFCs — containing hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms—but including one or more hydrogen atoms. Like HFCs, HCFCs are used in refrigerants and propellants. HCFCs were als o used in place of CFCs for some applications; however, their use is being phased out.
Black Carbon. Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and wildfires. Black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Black carbon is a short -lived species that varies spatially, which makes it difficult to quantify its global warming potential. Diesel particulate matter emissions are a major source of black carbon and are toxic air contaminants that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades to protect
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-4
public health. In relation to declining diesel particulate matter from CARB’s regulations pertaining to diesel engines, diesel fuels, and burning activities, CARB estimates that annual black carbon emissions in California have been reduced by 70% between 1990 and 2010, with 95% control expected by 2020 (CARB 2014).
Water Vapor. The primary source of water vapor is evaporation from the ocean, with additional vapor generated by sublimation (change from solid to gas) from ice and snow, evaporation from other water bodies, and transpiration from plant leaves. Water vapor is the most important, abundant, and variable GHG in the atmosphere and maintains a climate necessary for life.
Ozone. Tropospheric O 3, which is created by photochemical reactions involving gases from natural sources and human activities, acts as a GHG. Stratospheric O 3, which is created by the interaction between solar ultraviolet radiation and molecular oxygen, plays a decisive role in the stratospheric radiative balance. Depletion of stratospheric O 3, due to chemical reactions that may be enhanced by climate change, results in an increased ground-level flux of ultraviolet-B radiation.
Aerosols. Aerosols are suspensions of PM in a gas emitted into the air through burning biomass (plant material) and fossil fuels. Aerosols can warm the atmosphere by absorbing and emitting heat and can cool the atmosphere by reflecting light.
Global Warming Potential
Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to climate change both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself absorbs radiation. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the substance produce other GHGs, when a g as influences the atmospheric lifetimes of other gases, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that alter the radiative balance of the Earth (e.g., affect cloud formation or albedo) (EPA 2017b). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) developed the global warming potential (GWP) concept to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The GWP of a GHG is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kilogram of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kilogram of a reference gas (IPCC 2014). The reference gas used is CO 2; therefore, GWP-weighted emissions are measured in metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
The current version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (Version 2020.4.0) assumes that the GWP for CH4 is 25 (so emissions of 1 MT of CH4 are equivalent to emissions of 25 MT of CO2), and the GWP for N2O is 298, based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007).
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Anthropogenic GHG emissions worldwide in 2019 (the most recent year for which data is available) totaled approximately 52.4 million metric tons (MMT) of CO 2e, excluding land use change and forestry(PBL 20 18). Six countries—China, the United States, the Russian Federation, India, Japan, and Brazil—and the European community accounted for approximately 62% of the total global emissions, or approximately 32.5 MMT CO2e (PBL 2018).
Per the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 –2019, total United States GHG emissions were approximately 6,558.3 MMT CO2e in 2019 (EPA 2021). Overall, from 1990 to 2019, total emissions of CO2 increased by 142.4 MMT CO2e (2.8%), while total emissions of CH4 decreased by 117.2 MMT CO2e (15.1%) and emissions of N2O increased by 4.5 MMT CO2e (1.0%). During the same period, aggregate weighted emissions of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6), and nitrogen trifluoride rose by
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-5
86.0 MMT CO2e (86.3%). From 1990 to 2019, HFCs increased by 128.1 MMT CO 2e (275.4%), PFCs decreased by
19.8 MMT CO2e (81.5%), SF6 decreased by 22.9 MMT CO2e (79.5%), and nitrogen trifluoride increased by 0.6 MMT CO2e (1,162.7%).
According to California’s 2000–2019 GHG emissions inventory (2021 edition), California emitted 418.2 MMT CO2e in 2019, including emissions resulting from out -of-state electrical generation (CARB 2021). The sources of GHG emissions in California include transportation, industrial uses, electric power production from both in-state and out- of-state sources, commercial and residential uses, agriculture, high-GWP substances, and recycling and waste. The California GHG emission source categories and their relative contributions in 2019 are shown in Table 3.7-2.
Table 3.7-2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources in California Source Category
Annual GHG Emissions
(MMT CO 2e) Percent of Total a
Transportation 166.1 40
Industrial uses 88.2 21
Electricity generationb 58.8 14
Residential and commercial uses 43.8 10
Agriculture 31.8 8
High global warming potential
substances
20.6 5
Recycling and waste 8.9 2
Totals 418.2 100%
Source: CARB 2021.
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MMT CO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Emissions reflect 2019 California GHG inventory.
a Percentage of total has been rounded and total may not sum due to rounding. b Includes emissions associated with imported electricity, which account for 21.7 MMT CO2e.
The City’s community-wide GHG emissions baseline inventory in 2012 was estimated to be 599,000 MT CO2e (City of San Marcos 2020b). On -road transportation is the largest contributor to the emissions, accounting for 54% (or 322,000 MT CO2e) of the City’s 2012 total, followed by electricity at 27% (or 162,000 MT CO 2e) of the emissions.
Accounting for future population and economic growth, the City projects GHG emissions of 526,000 MT CO2e in 2020 and 429,000 MT CO2e in 2030. The projections assume population, housing, employment, and transportation activity will continue to grow over time, and accounts for GHG emission reductions associated with implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan and legislative reductions (City of San Marcos 2020b).
Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The 2014 IPCC Synthesis Report indicated that warming of the climate system is un equivocal, and many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented. Signs that global climate change has occurred include warming of the atmosphere and ocean, diminished amounts of snow and ice pack, and rising sea levels (IPCC 2014).
In California, climate change impacts have the potential to affect sea -level rise, agriculture, snowpack and water supply, forestry, wildfire risk, public health, frequency of severe weather events, and electricity demand and supply.
Potential effects of climate change are outlined in detail in Appendix B to this EIR.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-6
3.7.2 Regulatory Setting
The following section provides a summary of the applicable regulatory requirements pertaining to GHGs, including federal, state, and local guidelines; additional detail can be found in Appendix B.
Federal
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
On November 6, 2021, Congress passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), a once-in-a-generation investment in our nation’s infrastructure and competitiveness. This Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal will rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and rails, expand access to clean drinking water, ensure every American has access to high -speed internet, tackle the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and invest in communities that have too often been left behind. The legislation will help ease inflationary pressures and strengthen supply chains by making long overdue improvements for our nation’s ports, airports, rail, and roads. It will drive the creation of good-paying union jobs and grow the economy sustainably and equitably so that everyone gets ahead for decades to come. Combined with the President’s Build Back Framework, it will add on average 1.5 million jobs per year for the next 10 years. It will improve transportation options for millions of Americans to reduce energy use and GHG emissions. It will increase investment in electric vehicle chargers and renewable energy production.
Executive Order on Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. President Biden will sign an executive order that demonstrates how the United States will leverage its scale and procurement power to lead by example in tackling the climate crisis. The executive order will reduce emissions across federal operations, invest in American clean energy industries and manufacturing, and create clean, healthy, and resilient communities. The President’s executive order directs the federa l government to use its scale and procurement power to achieve the following five ambitious goals:
▪ 100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2030, at least half of which will be locally supplied clean energy to meet 24/7 demand
▪ 100% zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) acquisitions by 2035, including 100 % zero-emission light- duty vehicle acquisitions by 2027
▪ Net-zero emissions from federal procurement no later than 2050, including a Buy Clean policy to promote use of construction materials with lower embodied emissions ▪ A net-zero emissions building portfolio by 2045, including a 50% emissions reduction by 2032 ▪ Net-zero emissions from overall federal operations by 2050, including a 65 % emissions reduction by 2030
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-7
Massachusetts v. EPA. In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (April 2007), the U.S. Supreme Court directed the EPA administrator to determine whether GHG emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In December 2009, the administrator signed a final rule with the following two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the federal Clean Air Act:
▪ The Administrator found that elevated concentrations of GHGs —CO2, CH 4, N 2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is the “endangerment finding.”
▪ The Administrator further found the combined emissions of GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs—from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG air pollution that endangers public health and welfare. This is the “cause or contribute finding.” These two findings were necessary to establish the foundation for regulation of GHGs from new motor vehicles as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
Energy Independence and Security Act. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (December 2007), among other key measures, would do the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
1. Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022.
2. Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium - and heavy -duty trucks and create a sepa rate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
3. Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, elect ric motor efficiency, and home appliances.
Federal Vehicle Standards
In August 2016, EPA and NHTSA announced the adoption of the phase two program related to the fuel economy and GHG standards for medium - and heavy-duty trucks. The phase two program will apply to vehicles with model year 2018–2027 for certain trailers, and model years 2021–2027 for semi-trucks, large pickup trucks, vans, and all types and sizes of buses and work trucks. The final standards are expected to lower CO 2 emissions by approximately 1.1 billion MT and reduce oil consumption by up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (EPA and NHTSA 2016).
On September 27, 2019, the EPA and NHTSA also published their Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (84 FR 51,310), which became effective November 26, 2019. The Part One Rule revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. On March 31, 2020, the EPA and NHTSA also issued Part Two of the SAFE Rule, which went into effect June 29, 2020 (85 FR 24174). The Part Two Rule set CO2 emissions standards and corporate average fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks for model years 2021 through 2026. On January 20, 2021, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-8
Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, which includes review of the Part One Rule by April 2021 and review of the Part Two Rule by July 2021 (The White House 2021). On April 22, 2021, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would repeal those portions of SAFE 1 (including the regulatory text and interpretive statements in the preamble) that found California’s GHG and ZEV mandates pre-empted by EPCA. One day after NHTSA issued its notice, EPA announced its parallel action on SAFE 1. On December 21, 2 021, after reviewing all the public comments submitted on NHTSA’s April 2021 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NHTSA finalizes the CAFE Pre-emption rulemaking to withdraw its portions of the so-called SAFE I Rule.
State
The statewide GHG emissions regulatory framework is summarized below by category: state climate change targets, building energy, renewable energy and energy procurement, mobile sources, solid waste, water, and other state regulations and goals. The following text describes executive orders, legislation, regulations, and other plans and policies that would directly or indirectly reduce GHG emissions and/or address climate change issues.
State Climate Change Targets
Executive Order S-3-05. Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 (June 2005) established the following statewide goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
Assembly Bill 32. In furtherance of the goals established in EO S -3-05, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Núñez and Pavley). The bill is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (September 27, 2006). AB 32 provided initial direction on creating a comprehensive multiyear program to limit California’s GHG emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 and initiate the transformations required to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives.
Executive Order B -55-18. EO B-55-18 (September 2018) establishes a statewide policy for the state to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter. The goal is an addition to the existing statewide targets of reducing the state’s GHG emissions. CARB will work with relevant state agencies to ensure that future scoping plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.
California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan. One specific requirement of AB 32 was for CARB to prepare a scoping plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost -effective GHG emission reductions by 2020 (Health and Safety Code Section 38561[a]), and to update the plan at least once every 5 years.
In 2008, CARB approved the first scoping plan. The Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan) included a mix of recommended strategies that combined direct regulations, market -based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs calculated to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emissions limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the state’s long -range climate objectives. The key elements of the Scoping Plan include the following (CARB 2008):
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs, as well as building and appliance standards.
Achieving a statewide renewable energy mix of 33%.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-9
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85% of California’s GHG emissions.
Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets.
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (17 CCR 95480 et seq.).
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high GWP gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
The Scoping Plan also identified local governments as essential partners in achieving California’s goals to reduce GHG emissions because they have broad influence and, in some cases, exclusive authority over activities that contribute to significant direct and indirect GHG emissions through their planning and permitting processes, local ordinances, outreach and education efforts, and municipal operations. Specifically, the Scoping Plan encouraged local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations, and for community emissions to reduce GHGs by approximately 15% from then levels (2008) by 2020. Many local governments developed community-scale local GHG reduction plans based on this Scoping Plan recommendation.
In 2014, CARB approved the first update to the Scoping Plan. The First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan:
Building on the Framework (First Update) defined the state’s GHG emission reduction priorities for the next 5 years and laid the groundwork to start the transition to the post -2020 goals set forth in EO S -3-05 and EO B -16-2012.
The First Update concluded that California is on track to meet the 2020 target but recommended a 2030 mid-term GHG reduction target be established to ensure a continuum o f action to reduce emissions. The First Update recommended a mix of technologies in key economic sectors to reduce emissions through 2050, including energy demand reduction through efficiency and activity changes; large-scale electrification of on-road vehicles, buildings, and industrial machinery; decarbonizing electricity and fuel supplies; and the rapid market penetration of efficient and clean energy technologies. As part of the First Update, CARB recalculated the state’s 1990 emissions level, using more recent GWPs identified by the IPCC, from 427 MMT CO2e to 431 MMT CO2e (CARB 2014).
In 2015, as directed by EO B -30-15 (discussed below), CARB began working on an update to the Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 as set forth in EO S-3-05. The governor called on California to pursue a new and ambitious set of strategies, in line with the five climate change pillars from his inaugural address, to reduce GHG em issions and prepare for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. In the summer of 2016, the legislature affirmed the importance of addressing climate change through passage of SB 32.
In December 2017, CARB adopted California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) for public review and comment (CARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan builds on the successful framework established in the initial Scoping Plan and First Update while identifying new, technologically feasible and cost-effective strategies that will serve as the framework to achieve the 2030 GHG target as established by SB 32 and define the state’s climate change priorities to 2030 and beyond. The strategies’ commitm ents include implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies (including the mandates of SB 350), increasing stringency of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, implementing measures identified in the Mobile Source and Freight Strategies, implementing measures
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-10
identified in the proposed Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, and increasing stringency of SB 375 targets. To fill the gap in additional reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target, it recommends continuing the Cap-and-Trade Program.
For local governments, the 2017 Scoping Plan replaced the initial Scoping Plan’s 15% reduction goal with a recommendation to aim for a community -wide goal of no more than 6 MT CO 2e per capita by 2030 , and no more than 2 MT CO 2e per capita by 2050, which are consistent with the state’s long -term goals. These goals are also consistent with the Under 2 Memorandum of Understanding (Under 2 Coalition 2016) and the Paris Agreement, which are developed around the scientifically based levels necessary to limit glob al warming to below 2°C. The 2017 Scoping Plan recognized the benefits of local government GHG planning (e.g., through CAPs) and provide d more information regarding tools CARB is working on to support those efforts. It also recognize d the CEQA streamlining provisions for project-level review where there is a legally adequate CAP.
The Scoping Plan recommends strategies for implementation at the statewide level to meet the goals of AB 32, SB 32, and the executive orders, and establishes an overall framework for the measures that will be adopted to reduce California’s GHG emissions. A project is considered consistent with the statutes and executive orders if it meets the general policies in reducing GHG emissions to facilitate the achievement of the state’s goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. A project would be consist ent if it will further the objectives and not obstruct their attainment.
CARB presently is preparing the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, which will assess progress towards achievement of the state’s 2030 reduction target and lay out a path for the state’s achievement of carbon neutrality by 2045. CARB has held a number of public workshops to provide information on the plan update and soli cit feedback from stakeholders. A draft plan has not yet been released for public review and comment.
Executive Order B-30-15. EO B-30-15 (April 2015) identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under EO S -3-05 and AB 32. EO B -30-15 specifically set an interim target goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as set forth in EO S -3-05. To facilitate achievement of this goal, EO B -30-15 called for an update to CARB’s Scoping Plan to express the 2030 target in terms of MMT CO 2e. The executive order also called for state agencies to continue to develop and implement GHG emission s reduction programs in support of the reduction targets. Sector -specific agencies in transportation, energy, water, and forestry were required to prepare GHG reduction plans by September 2015, followed by a report on action taken in relation to these plans in June 2016. EO B-30-15 did not require local agencies to take any action to meet the new interim GHG reduction target.
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197. SB 32 and AB 197 (enacted in 2016) are companion bills that set a new statewide GHG -reduction targets , made changes to CARB’s membership and increase d legislative oversight of CARB’s climate change -based activities , and expand ed dissemination of GHG and other air -quality-related emissions data to enhance transparency and accountability. More specifically, SB 32 codified the 2030 emissions reduction goal of EO B-30-15 by requiring CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. AB 197 established the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, consisting of at least three members of the Senate and three members of the Assembly to provide ongoing oversight over implementation of the state’s climate policies. AB 197 also added two members of the Legislature to CARB as nonvoting members; requires CARB to make available and update (at least annually via its website) emissions data for GHGs, criteria air pollutants, and toxic air contaminants from reporting facilities; and requires CARB to identify specific information for GHG emissions reduction measures when updating the Scoping Plan.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-11
Senate Bill 605 and Senate Bill 1383. SB 605 (2014) required CARB to complete a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants in the state, and SB 1383 (2016) required CARB to approve and implement that strategy by January 1, 2018. SB 1383 also established specific targets for the reduction of short - lived climate pollutants (40% below 2013 levels by 2030 for CH 4 and HFCs, and 50% below 2013 levels by 2030 for anthropogenic black carbon) and provide d direction for reductions fr om dairy and livestock operations and landfills. The Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Reduction Strategy was approved by CARB in March 2017 and lays out a range of options to reduce short-lived climate pollutant emissions in California, including regulations, incentives, and other market-supporting activities.
Building Energy
Title 24, Part 6. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Although not initially promulgated to reduce GHG emissions, Part 6 of Title 24 specifically established Building Energy Efficiency Standards that are designed to ensure new and existing buildings in California achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. These energy efficiency standards are reviewed every few years b y the Building Standards Commission and California Energy Commission (CEC) and revised if necessary (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 25402[b][1]). The regulations receive input from members of industry and the public, with the goal of “reducing of wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy” (PRC Section 25402). These regulations are carefully scrutinized and analyzed for technological and economic feasibility (PRC Section 25402[d]) and cost effectiveness (PRC Sections 25402[b][2] and [b][3]). As a result, these standards save energy, increase electricity supply reliability, increase indoor comfort, avoid the need to construct new power plants, and help preserve the environment.
The 2019 Title 24 standards are the currently applicable building energy efficiency standards and became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards will further reduce energy used and associated GHG emissions compa red to prior standards. In general, single -family residences built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, single-family residences built under the 2019 standards will use approximately 53% less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018).
Nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% les s energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018). The project is subject to the nonresidential standards due to the number of stories. The project’s apartments and affordable flats are subject to the nonresidential standards while the rowhomes and villas are subject to the residential standards.
On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December 2021, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat p umps, establishes electric -ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.
Title 24, Part 11. In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as California’s Green Bu ilding Standards (CALGreen) and establishes minimum mandatory standards and voluntary standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirement s), water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. The CALGreen standards took effect in January 2011 and instituted mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground -up, new construction of commercial, low -rise residential and
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-12
state-owned buildings, schools, and hospitals. The CALGreen 2019 standards, which are the current standards, became effective January 1, 2020.
Title 20. Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations requires manufacturers of appliances to meet state and federal standards for energy and water efficiency. Performance of appliances must be certified through the CEC to demonstrate compliance with standards. N ew appliances regulated under Title 20 include refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners and room air -conditioning heat pumps; central air conditioners; spot air conditioners; vented gas space heaters; gas pool hea ters; plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures; fluorescent lamp ballasts; lamps; emergency lighting; traffic signal modules; dishwaters; clothes washers and dryers; cooking products; electric motors; low voltage dry -type distribution transformers; power su pplies; televisions and consumer audio and video equipment; and battery charger systems. Title 20 presents protocols for testing for each type of appliance covered under the regulations , and appliances must meet the standards for energy performance, energy design, water performance, and water design. Title 20 contains three types of standards for appliances: federal and state standards for federally regulated appliances, state standards for federally regulated appliances, and state standards for non-federally regulated appliances.
Assembly Bill 1109. Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required the CEC to adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for general-purpose lighting to reduce electricity consumption by 50% for indoor residential lighting and by 25% for indoor commercial lighting.
SB 1. SB 1 (Murray) (August 2006) established a $3 billion rebate program to support the goal of the state to install rooftop solar energy systems with a generation capacity of 3,000 megawatts through 2016. SB 1 added sections to the PRC, including Chapter 8.8 (California Solar Initiative), that require building projects applying for ratepayer - funded incentives for photovoltaic systems to meet minimum energy efficiency levels and performance requirements. Section 25780 established that it is a goal of the s tate to establish a self -sufficient solar industry.
The goals included establishing solar energy systems as a viable mainstream option for homes and businesses within 10 years of adoption and placing solar energy systems on 50% of new homes within 13 years of adoption.
SB 1, also termed “Go Solar California,” was previously titled “Million Solar Roofs.” California AB 1470 (Solar Water Heating). This bill established the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007.
AB 1470 makes findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to the promotion of solar water heating systems and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand. AB 1470 def ines several terms for purposes of the act. The bill required a commission to evaluate the data available from a specified pilot program, and to design and implement a program of incentives for the installation of 200,000 solar water heating systems in homes and businesses throughout the state by 2017.
Renewable Energy and Energy Procurement. SB 1078 (2002) established the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which requires an annual increase in renewable generation by the utilities. Initially, the RPS required utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010. SB X1-2 (2011) subsequently expanded the RPS by establishing that 33% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. SB 350 (2015) further expanded the RPS by establishing that 50% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. And SB 100 (2018) further accelerated the RPS, requiring achievement of a 50% RPS by December 31, 2026, and a 60% RPS by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also established a new state policy goal that calls for eligible renewable energy resources and zero -carbon resources to supply 100% of electricity retail sales and 100% of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-13
Under the program, a renewable electrical generation facility is one that uses biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydroelectric generation of 30 megawatts or less, digester gas, municipal solid w aste conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current, and that meets other specified requirements with respect to its location.
Mobile Sources
CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy. On May 16, 2016, CARB released the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy that demonstrates how the state can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum c onsumption over the next 15 years. The actions contained in the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy will deliver broad environmental and public health benefits, as well as support much needed efforts to modernize and upgrade transportation infrastructure, enhance system-wide efficiency and mobility options, and promote clean economic growth in the mobile sector. The 2016 Mobile Source Strategy would also result in a 45 % reduction in GHG emissions, and a 50 % reduction in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
On October 28, 2021, CARB received and heard the 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, which continues and builds upon the foundation established by the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. The 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, if implemented, would achieve a 76 % reduction in GHG emissions from 2020 levels from mobile sources by 2045, as largely attributable to transitioning towards a zero -emissions fleet. Moving forward, CARB anticipates that the programs and concepts in the 2020 Mobile Source Strategy will be incorporated into other aspects of CARB’s regulatory and planning frameworks.
State Vehicle Standards. AB 1493 (July 2002) was enacted in response to the transportation sector accounting for more than one -half of California’s CO 2 emissions. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light -duty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles that are primarily used for noncommercial personal transportation in the state. AB 14 93 required that CARB set GHG emission standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004.
As explained under the “Federal Vehicle Standards” description above, the EPA and NHTSA approved the SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One and Two, which revoked California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and set zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. Because the EPA rule is the subject of pending legal challenges, and because President Biden issued an executive order to review Part One and Part Two, this analysis used the best available information at this time, as set forth in EMFAC and assumed in CalEEMod.
The Advanced Clean Cars program (January 2012) is an emissions-control program for model years 2015 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog - and soot-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package. The package includes elements to reduce smog -forming pollution, reduce G HG emissions, promote clean cars, and provide the fuels for clean cars. To improve air quality, CARB implemented new emission standards to reduce smog -forming emissions beginning with 2015 model year veh icles. It is estimated that by 2025, cars will emit 75% less smog -forming pollution than the average new car sold in 2012 . To reduce GHG emissions, CARB, in conjunction with the EPA and NHTSA, adopted new GHG standards for model year 2017 to 2025 vehicles; the new standards are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 34% in 2025. The ZEV program will act as the focused technolo gy of the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018 to 2025 model years.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-14
Executive Order S-1-07. Issued on January 18, 2007, EO S-1-07 sets a declining Low Carbon Fuel Standard for GHG emissions measured in CO 2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The initial target of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard was to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10% by 2020.
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard was subsequently amended in 2018 to require a 20% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030. This new requirement aligns with the Calif ornia’s overall 2030 target of reducing climate changing emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, set by SB 32. CARB has adopted implementing regulations for both the 10% and 20% carbon intensity reduction targets.
Senate Bill 375. SB 375 (2008) addresses GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector through regional transportation and sustainability plans. SB 375 required CARB to adopt regional GHG reduction targets for the automobile and light -truck sector for 2020 and 2 035. Regional metropolitan planning organizations are then responsible for preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) within their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The goal of the SCS is to establish a forecasted development patt ern for the region that, after considering transportation measures and policies, will achieve, if feasible, the GHG reduction targets. If an SCS is unable to achieve the GHG reduction target, a metropolitan planning organization must prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy demonstrating how the GHG reduction target would be achieved through alternative development patterns, infrastructure, or additional transportation measures or policies.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65080(b)(2)(K), a n SCS does not regulate the use of land; supersede the land use authority of cities and counties; or require that a city’s or county’s land use policies and regulations, including those in a general plan, be consistent with it. Nonetheless, SB 375 makes regional and local planning agencies responsible for developing those strategies as part of the federally required metropolitan transportation planning process and the state-mandated housing element process.
In 2010, CARB adopted the SB 375 targets for the regional metropolitan planning organizations. The targets adopted for the San Diego Association of Governments ( SANDAG) in 2010 are a 7% reduction in per -capita passenger-vehicle GHG emissions by 2020 and a 13% reduction by 2035, measured relative to 2005 GHG emissions. In 2018, CARB adopted the second round of SB 375 reduction targets, and increased SANDAG’s 2020 target to a 15% reduction in per-capita passenger-vehicle GHG emissions, and the 2035 target to a 19% reduction using the same 2005 baseline.
Senate Bill 350. In 2015, SB 350 – the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act – was enacted into law. As one of its elements, SB 350 establishes a statewide policy for widespread electrification of the transportation sector, recognizing that such electrification is requi red for achievement of the state’s 2030 and 2050 reduction targets (see California Public Utilities Code, Section 740.12).
AB 1236. AB 1236 (October 2015) (Chiu) required a city, county, or city and county to approve an application for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations, as defined, through the issuance of specified permits unless the city or county makes specified written findings based on substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. AB 1236 provided for appeal of that decision to the planning commission, as specified. The bill provided that the implementation of consistent statewide standards to achieve the timely and cost -effective installation of electric vehicle char ging stations is a matter of statewide concern. The bill required electric vehicle charging stations to meet specified standards. AB 1236 required a city, county, or city and county with a population of 200,000 or more residents to adopt an ordinance, by September 30, 2016, that created an expedited and streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations. The bill
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-15
also required a city, county, or city and county with a population of fewer than 200,000 residents to adopt this ordinance by September 30, 2017.
Executive Order B-16-12. EO B-16-12 (2012) directs state entities under the Governor’s direction and control to support and facilitate development and distribution ZEVs. On a statewide basis, EO B-16-12 also establishes a GHG emissions reduction target from the transportation sector equaling 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of this executive order, the Governor convened an Interagency Working Group on ZEVs that has published multiple reports regarding the progress. It ordered CARB, CEC, the California Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies to work with the Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to help achieve goals by 2015, 2020, and 2025. This directive did not apply to vehicles that have special performance requirements necessary for the protection of the public safety and welfare.
Executive Order N-79-20. EO N -79-20 (2020) sets the goal for the State that 100 % of in -state sales of new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission by 2035. EO-N-79-20 also sets goals for transition to 100 % zero emission all medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by 2045, zero emission drayage trucks by 2035, and zero emission off-road vehicles and equipment by 2035, where feasible. Among other directives to further this executive order, for passenger cars and trucks, the Governor directed CARB to develop and propose regulations requiring increasing volumes of new zero-emission vehicles sold in the State towards the target of 100% of in-state sales by 2035. The Governor also directed the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to develop a Zero-Emissions Vehicle Market Development Strategy, which was completed in February 2021. The executive order also directs updates and assessments to ensure zero-emission vehicle infrastructure is in place to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption required by the order.
Small Offroad Engines
The CARB approved a measure on December 9, 2021 , that will require most newly manufactured small off -road engines such as those found in leaf blowers, lawn mowers and other equipment be zero emission starting in 2024.
Portable generators, including those in recreational vehicles, would be required to me et more stringent standards in 2024 and meet zero-emission standards starting in 2028.
Solid Waste
AB 939 and AB 341. In 1989, AB 939, known as the Integrated Waste Management Act ( PRC Sections 40000 et seq.), was passed because of the increase in waste stream and decrease in landfill capacity. The statute established the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which oversees a disposal reporting system.
AB 939 mandated a reduction of waste being disposed of where jurisdictions were required to meet diversion goals of all solid waste through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000.
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 [Chesbro]) amended the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to include a provision declaring that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source -reduced, recy cled, or composted by 2020, and annually thereafter. In addition, AB 341 required the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop strategies to achieve the state’s policy goal. CalRecycle conducted several general stakeholder workshops and several focused workshops, and in August 2015 published a discussion document titled AB 341 Report to the Legislature, which identified five priority strategies that CalRecycle believed would assist the state in reaching the 75% goal by 2020, legislative and regulatory recommendations, and an evaluation of program effectiveness.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-16
SB 1383. Beginning in 2022, SB 1383 requires every jurisdiction to provide organic waste collection services to all residents and businesses. Jurisdictions can select from a variety of organic waste collection services to match their unique communities and local in frastructure, while producing clean streams of organic feedstock that can be recycled into high-quality, marketable recycled products, including compost, renewable natural gas, electricity, and paper. Jurisdictions will educate all residents and b usinesses about collection requirements, including what materials to put in curbside bins. Education to residents and businesses may vary by jurisdiction and educational content may be provided electronically, through hard copy materials, or through direct outreach.
Water
Executive Order B-29-15. In response to the ongoing drought in California, EO B -29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urban water usage of 25% relative to water use in 2013. The term of the executive order extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have since become permanent water-efficiency standards and requirements. The executive order includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state. In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increased the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadened its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.
EO B-37-16. Issued May 2016, EO B-37-16 directed the State Water Resources Control Board to adjust emergency water conservation regulations through the end of January 2017 to reflect differing water supply conditions across the state. The State Water Resources Control Board also developed a proposal to achieve a mandatory reduction of potable urban water usage that builds off the mandatory 25% reduction called for in EO B-29-15. The State Water Resources Control Board and Department of Water Resources will develop new, permanent water use targets that build on the existing state law requirements that the state achieve 20% reduction in urban water usage by 2020.
EO B-37-16 also specifies that the State Water Resources Control Board permanently prohibit water -wasting practices such as hosing off sidewalks, driveways, and other hardscapes; washing automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut -off nozzle; using non -recirculated water in fountains and other decorative water features; watering lawns in a manner t hat causes runoff, or within 48 hours after measurable precipitation; and irrigating ornamental turf on public street medians.
Other State Regulations and Goals
SB 97. SB 97 (Dutton) (August 2007) directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of GHG emissions. The California Natural Resources Agency ( CNRA) then adopted the CEQA Guidelines amendments in December 2009, which became effective in March 2010. The CEQA Guidelines were subsequently amended in 2018, which changes became effective on December 28, 2018.
Under the amended CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has the discretion to determine whether to use a quantitative or qualitative analysis or apply performance standards to determine the significance of GHG emissions resulting from a particular project (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). The CEQA Guidelines provide that a lead agency should also consider the extent to which a project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4[b]). The CEQA Guidelines also allow a lead agency to consider feasible means of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions, including reductions in emissions through the implementation of project features; off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required; measures in an existing plan or mitigation program; measures that sequester GHGs; etc. (14 CRR 15126.4[c]). The adopted amendments do not establish a GHG emissions threshold, instead allowing a lead agency
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-17
to develop, adopt, and apply its own thresholds of significance or those developed by other agencies or experts (14 CCR 15064.7). The CEQA Guidelines also permit using environmental standards – i.e., an applicable and relevant quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in an ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, plan, or other environmental requirement that has been adopted for the purpose of environmental protection – as a threshold of significance to promote consistency in significance determinations (14 CCR 15064.7 [d]).
With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Guideline s note that an agency may identify emissions by either quantify ing the emissions resulting from a project or by relying on “qualitative analysis or other performance -based standards” (14 CCR 15064.4[a]). Section 15064.4(b) states that the lead agency shoul d focus on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. The analysis should consider a timeframe appropriate for the project and must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and sta te regulatory schemes (14 CCR 15064.4[b]).
Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines allows agencies to tier from qualified GHG reduction plans developed in accordance with subsection (b). Specifically, the GHG reduction plan must quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a s pecified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively consi derable; identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project -by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
Executive Order S-13-08. EO Order S -13-08 (November 2008) is intended to hasten California’s response to the impacts of global climate change, particularly sea -level rise. Therefore, the executive order directs state agencies to take specified actions to assess and plan for such impacts. The final 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy report was issued in December 2009 (CNRA 2009), an update, Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, followed in July 2014 (CNRA 2014) as well as in 2018, Safeguar ding California Plan: 2018 Update California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA 2018). The draft 2021 California Climate Adaptation Strategy was released for public comment on October 18, 2021, and closed on November 17, 2021. To assess the state’s vulnerability, the report summarizes key climate change impacts to the state for the following areas: agriculture, biodiversity and habitat, emergency management, energy, forestry, ocean and coastal ecosystems and resources, public health, transportation, and water.
Local
SANDAG RTP/ SCS
SANDAG completed and adopted its 2050 RTP/SCS in October 2011. In November 2011, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.
In October 2015, SANDAG adopted San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (SANDAG 2015). Like the 2050 RTP/SCS, San Diego Forward: Regional Plan meets CARB’s 2020 and 2035 reduction targets for the region (SANDAG 2015).
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-18
In December 2015, CARB, by resolution, accepted SANDAG’s GHG emissions quantification analysis and determination that, if implemented, the SCS would achieve CARB’s 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions reduction targets for the region.
The 2021 Regional Plan , adopted by SANDAG on December 10, 2021 , provides a long -term blueprint for the San Diego region that seeks to meet regulatory requirements, address traffic congestion, and create equal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other community resources (SANDAG 2021). The plan is the result of years of planning, data analysis, and commun ity engagement to reimagine the San Diego region with a transformative transportation system, a sustainable pattern of growth and development, and in novative demand and management strategies.
The 2021 Regional Plan includes an SCS, as required by California Senate Bill 375 (Steinberg 2008) (SB 375), for the San Diego region. This SCS describes coordinated transportation and land use planning that exceeds the state’s target for reducing per capita GHG emissions set by CARB. The state -mandated target is a 19% reduction — compared with 2005 —in per capita GHG emissions from cars and light -duty trucks by 2035. The 2021 Regional Plan achieves a 20% reduction by then.
The 2021 Regional Plan also puts forth a forecasted development pattern that is driven by regional goals for sustainability, mobility, housing affordability, and economic prosperity.
City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan. The City adopted its currently applicable CAP on December 8, 2020 (City of San Marcos 2020b). The CAP acts as a roadmap to address challenges of climate change within the City. The CAP builds on the efforts and strategies identified in the City’s 2013 CAP and establishes GHG emission reduction targets and identifies achievable, locally based actions to reduce GHG emissions from municipal and community activities. The CAP includes a baseline GHG emissions inventory for 2012, GHG emissions forecasts for 2020 and 2030, local GHG emissions reduction strategies and measures to help the City achieve the 2030 target, climate adaptation measures for the City, and implementation and monitoring mechanisms to ensure the City’s me asures and targets are achieved. The CAP establishe s GHG emissions reduction goals of 4% below 2012 levels by 2020 and 42% below 2012 levels by 2030 (City of San Marcos 2020b).
The CAP was prepared in accordance with the requirements within CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, and the CAP Consistency Checklist is used in this analysis to evaluate the proposed project’s significance with respect to GHG emissions. As provided in the Checklist, projects that are consistent with the CAP “may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions” and “may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable” (City of San Marcos 2020b)
City of San Marcos General Plan. The City’s General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012) includes various policies related to reducing GHG emissions. Applicable policies include the following:
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal LU-1: Achieve a balanced distribution and compatible mix of land uses to meet the present and future needs of all residents and the business community.
Policy LU-1.1: Ensure that adjacent land uses complement one another by considering compatibility of activities, development patterns and architectural character elements and access to various mobility choices.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-19
Goal LU-2: Promote development standards and land use patterns that encourage long-term environmental sustainability.
Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Policy LU -2.3: Require the incorporation of green building practices, technologies, and strategies into development projects per code standards
Policy LU-2.5: Promote landscaping (e.g., native, drought tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.
Policy LU -2.7: Promote the instillation of trees to reduce the urban heat -island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.
Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.
Mobility Element
Policy M-1.3: Require new developments to prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to minimize vehicle trip generation and promote alternative modes of travel within the City.
Goal M -3: Promote and encourage use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, bicycles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and walking, within the City.
Policy M-3.1: Develop an integrated, multimodal circulation system that accommodates transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; provides opportunities to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions; and reinforces the role of the street as a public space that unites the City.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-4: Improve regional air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.
Policy COS-4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community.
Policy COS -4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment.
3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance
California has developed guidelines to address the significance of GHG emissions impacts that are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Appendix G provides that a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would:
Threshold No. 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-20
Threshold No. 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
The CEQA Guidelines provide that in determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions, an agency may consider the extent to which the project complies with a local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4[b][3], 15183.5.) Relatedly, project-specific GHG analyses can tier from plans adopted for the reductions of GHGs (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5). As indicated above, the City has adopted such a plan when it adopted its CAP on December 8, 2020. Accordingly, for purposes of GHG Threshold No. 1, the project’s GHG emissions are assessed by evaluating the project’s consistency with the City’s CAP, which is discussed below in detail. For purposes of GHG Threshold No. 2, the project is assessed based on its potential to conflict with the City’s CAP, as well as with statewide and regional plans for emissions reductions.
Analysis Approach and Methodology
City of San Marcos CAP Consistency Checklist
The CAP Consistency Checklist relies on a quantitative screening threshold , an assessment of a project’s consistency with the growth projections used in the development of the CAP, and a n evaluation of project implementation of specific emission reduction measures to determine whether a project’s emissions would be consistent with the City’s CAP. Where a project is not consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation (as is the case with this proposed project) , the CAP Checklist asks whether the project would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated GHG emi ssions generated under the existing land use designation Because of this, this EIR quantifies the projected GHG emissions of the proposed project and the existing land use designation using the following methodology.
Construction
CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate potential project-generated GHG emissions during construction.
Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, on -road hauling and vendor (material delivery) trucks, and worker vehicles. All construction-related details discussed in Chapter 3.2, Air Quality, of this EIR are also applicable for the estimation of construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed project.
Existing Land Use Designation
To compare the GHG emissions intensity of the proposed project and a land use built under the existing land use designation, the following section summarizes the methodology used for quantifying potential impacts of construction under the existing land use designation . Construction assumptions, including timing, phasing, equipment type and quantity, and worker and vendor truck trips, were based on the maximum allowed buildout of the existing land use alternative. The existing land use alternative assumed de velopment of 480,000 square feet of research and development area with a 220,000 square foot (1,440 spaces) four-story parking structure. Similar to the project, over 17 acres would be set aside for biological preservation.
The construction equipment mix used for estimating the construction emissions of the existing land use designation is based on CalEEMod defaults and presented in Appendix B, as well as Table 3.7-3 below.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-21
Table 3.7-3. Construction Scenario Assumptions – Existing Land Use Designation Construction
Phase
One -Way Trips
Equipment Quantity
Hours
Per Day
Daily
Workers
Daily
Vendor
Trucks
Total
Haul
Trucks
Site Preparation 18 0 0 Rubber-Tired Dozers 3 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
4 8
Grading 20 0 0 Excavators 2 8
Graders 1 8
Rubber-Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
2 8
Building Construction 246 116 0 Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/
Backhoes
3 7
Welders 1 8
Paving 16 0 0 Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coating 50 0 0 Air Compressors 1 6
Source: See Appendix B.
Operation
Similar to construction, emissions from the operational phase of the existing land use designation and proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod.
Existing Land Use Designation
Area Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with natural gas usage in space heating and water heating were calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text.
Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated with landscape equipment use were estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days. Based on CalEEMod defaults for the County, the average annual number of summer days is es timated at 180 days (CAPCOA 2021).
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-22
Energy Sources
CalEEMod default values for electricity use and natural gas consumption for each land use type were applied for the existing land use designation. The energy use from industrial land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the Commercial End-Use Survey (CAPCOA 2021). Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided by CalEEMod into end use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associated with the building envelope, such as the HVAC system, water heating system, and integ rated lighting) and those not subject to Title 24 requirements (such as appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses).
Operational GHG emissions from energy sources include natural gas combustion for appliances and space and water heating. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020, and is incorporated into CalEEMod 2020.4.0. (CAPCOA 2021). In accordance with Checklist Item 6 of the City's CAP Checklist, the existing land use would install solar PV with a minimum of 2 watts per gross floor area, or 960,000 watts. The output of the solar system was estimated using NREL's PVWatts and included in Appendix C of Appendix B to this EIR.
CalEEMod default energy intensity factors (CO 2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per kilowatt hour) for SDG&E were based on the value for SDG&E’s energy mix in 2021. SB X1-2 established a target of 33% from renewable energy sources for all electricity providers in California by 2020, and SB 350 calls for further development of renewable energy, with a target of 50% by 2030. SB 100 updated this goal with a 60% renewable energy target by 2030.
Mobile Sources
The land use built under the existing land use designation would generate GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) as a result of trucks and employee vehicles. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from proposed vehicular sources (refer to Appendix A of Appendix B to this EIR). CalEEMod defaul t data, including trip rates, trip modes, trip lengths, fleet mix, and emissions factors, were used for the model inputs. CalEEMod default vehicle emission factors and vehicle fleet mix for 2024, as based on the CARB ’s EMFAC2017 model, were used to estimate emissions associated with vehicular sources.
Solid Waste
The land use built under the existing land use designation would generate solid waste and therefore would result in CO 2e emissions associated with landfill off -gassing. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the land use built under the existing land use designation require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the land use built under the existing land use designation requires the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use relied upon CalEEMod default assumptions.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-23
Proposed Project
Area Sources
CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources, including emissions from landscape maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with natural gas usage in space heating and water heating were calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod, as described in the following text.
Landscape maintenance includes fuel combustion emissions from equipment such as lawn mowers, rototillers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, and hedge trimmers. The emissions associated with landscape equipment use were estimated based on CalEEMod default values for emission factors (grams per square foot of building space per day) and number of summer days (when landscape maintenance would generally be performed) and winter days. Based on CalEEMod defaults for the County, the average annual number of summer days is estimated at 180 days (CAPCOA 2021). It should be noted that CalEEMod 2020.4.0 does not account for the recent SORE regulations and thus is considered conservative.
Energy Sources
Operational GHG emissions from energy sources would include natural gas combustion for appliances and space heating. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2020. The CalEEMod 2020.4.0 assumes compliance with the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CAPCOA 2021).
CalEEMod default energy intensity factors (CO 2, CH4, and N 2O mass emissions per kilowatt hour) for SDG&E are based on the value for SDG&E’s energy mix in 2021. As explained above, SB X1-2 established a target of 33% from renewable energy sources for all electricity providers in California by 2020 , and SB 350 calls for further development of renewable energy, with a target of 50% by 2030. SB 100 updated this goal with a 60% renewable energy target by 2030.
Mobile Sources
The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from mobile sources (vehicular traffic) as a result of residents of the proposed project. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from such mobile sources (refer to Appendix C of Appendix B to this EIR), with the default trip generation rates in CalEEMod adjusted to reflect the overall weekday daily trips based on the VMT Analysis (Appendix J). The project-specific trip length from the VMT Analysis based on the SANDAG regional travel demand model was incorporated into the modeling as well. CalEEMod default data, trip modes, trip lengths, fleet mix, and emissions factors, were used for the model inputs. CalEEMod default vehicle emission factors and vehicle fleet mix for 2024, as based on the CARB EMFAC2017 model, were used to estimate emissions associated with vehicular sources. It should be noted that the most recent version of EMFAC is EMFAC2021 v1.0.1, which incorporates additional regulatory measures and ZEV uptake that reduce GHG emissions over time. Therefore, the use of EMFAC2017 would be considered conservative.
Solid Waste
The proposed project would generate solid waste and therefore would result in CO 2e emissions associated with landfill off-gassing. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate GHG emissions associated with solid waste.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-24
Water and Wastewater
Supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water for the proposed project would require the use of electricity, which would result in associated indirect GHG emissions. Similarly, wastewater generated by the project would require the use of electricity for conveyance and treatment, along with GHG emissions generated during wastewater treatment. Water consumption estimates for both indoor and outdoor water use relied on CalEEMod default assumptions.
3.7.4 Project Impact Analysis
This section evaluates the GHG emissions impacts associated with the proposed project. The significance criteria described in Section 3. 7.3, Thresholds of Significance, were used to evaluate impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold No. 2: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
City of San Marcos’ Climate Action Plan Consistency
This section evaluates the proposed project’s impacts to GHG in accordance with the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist. A completed CAP Checklist is included as Appendix C of Appendix B to this EIR.
The first step in this section evaluates the proposed project’s GHG emissions consistent with the City’s Guidance to Demonstrating Consistency with the City of San Marcos Climate Action Plan: For Discretionary Projects Subject to CEQA (City’s Guidance Document; City of San Marcos 2020 c). New discretionary development projects subject to CEQA review that emit less than 500 MT CO2e annually would not contribute considerably to cumulative climate change impacts as stated in the City’s Guidance Document and, therefore, would be considered consistent with the CAP and associated emissions projections. For projects that are subject to CAP consistency review, the next step in determining consistency is to assess the project’s consistency with the growth projections used in development of the CAP. This section allows the City to determine a project’s consi stency with the land use assumptions used in the CAP.
Step 1
Question 1
Step 1 of the CAP Checklist determines land use consistency. Question 1 of Step 1 asks if a project is less than a certain size. If so, i t is deemed consistent with the City’s CAP by emitting fewer than 500 MT CO 2e per year and would be less than significant. Here, t he proposed project is larger than the screening size (55 multifamily residential units) and therefore would answer “Yes” to this question and proceed to Question 2 of Step 1.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-25
Question 2
Question 2 of Step 1 asks if the project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation. The project proposes residential use, but the General Plan currently designates the site as Industrial (I). Therefore, the proposed project would answer “No” to this question and proceed to Question 3 of Step 1.
Question 3
Question 3 of Step 1 asks if the project would generate GHG emissions equal to or less than estimated GHG emissions generated under the land use built under the existing land use designation . The following section discusses the results of the construction and emissions analysis based on the methodologies described in Appendix B to this EIR, for the existing land use designation and proposed project.
Existing Land Use Designation
Construction Emissions
Construction of a land use built under the existing land use designation (Industrial) would result in GHG emissions that are primarily associated with use of off -road construction equipment, on -road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. Table 3 .7-4 presents construction emissions for the existing land use designation from construction- related sources.
Table 3.7-4. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions – Existing Land Use Designation
Year
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
2023 448.57 0.06 0.02 456.68
2024 601.48 0.07 0.04 613.66
Total 1,070.34
Emissions amortized over 30 years 35.68
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix B for complete results.
As shown in Table 3.7-4, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction under the existing land use designation would be approximately 1,070 MT CO2e. Construction GHG emissions under the existing land use designation amortized over 30 years would be 36 MT CO2e per year. Amortized construction emissions are added to operational emissions to be compared to the proposed project for this assessment.
Operational Emissions
Operation of a land use built under the existing land use designation (Industrial) would generate GHG emissions through area sources; motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the existing land use designation ); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. The estimated operational emissions under the existing land use designation are presented in Table 3.7-5.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-26
Table 3.7-5. Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions – Existing Industrial Land Use Designation
Emission Source
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
Area 0.01 <0.01 0.00 0.01
Energy 1,154.15 0.06 0.01 1,159.11
Mobile 3,312.42 0.25 0.16 3,364.79
Waste 7.41 0.44 0.00 18.35
Water 827.58 7.74 0.19 1,076.77
Total 5,619.03
Amortized construction emissions 35.68
Total with amortized construction emissions 5,654.71
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.01.
See Appendix B for complete results.
As shown in Table 3.7-5, estimated annual GHG emissions from the existing land use designation would be approximately 5,619 MT CO2e per year. With amortized construction emissions, the annual operational emissions would be 5,655 MT CO2e per year.
Proposed Project
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions that are primarily associated with use of off - road construction equipment, on -road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles. Table 3.7-6 presents construction emissions for the proposed project from construction-related sources.
Table 3.7-6. Estimated Annual Construction GHG Emissions – Proposed Project Year
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
2023 526.59 0.07 0.02 535.23
2024 729.76 0.07 0.04 742.73
Total 1,277.96
Emissions amortized over 30 years 42.60
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
See Appendix B for complete results.
As shown in Table 3.7-6, the estimated total GHG emissions during construction of the proposed project would be approximately 1,278 MT CO2e. Construction GHG emissions amortized over 30 years would be 43 MT CO2e per year. Amortized construction emissions are added to operational emissions to be compared development allowed under the existing land use designation.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-27
Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions through area sources; motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water s upply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment. The estimated operational emissions of the proposed project are presented in Table 3.7-7.
Table 3.7-7. Estimated Annual Operational GHG Emissions – Proposed Project Emission Source
CO 2 CH 4 N2O CO 2e
Metric Tons
Area 359.12 0.01 0.01 361.35
Energy 641.73 0.03 0.01 644.51
Mobile 2,491.13 0.18 0.11 2,529.40
Waste 41.93 2.48 0.00 103.87
Water 152.77 0.96 0.02 183.84
Total 3,822.97
Amortized construction emissions 42.60
Total with amortized construction emissions 3,865.57
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; <0.01 = reported value less than 0.01.
See Appendix B for complete results.
As shown in Table 3.7-7, estimated annual GHG emissions from the proposed project would be approximately 3,823 MT CO2e per year. With amortized construction emissions, the annual operational emissions would be 3,866 MT CO2e per year. As shown in Table 3.7-5, estimated annual GHG emissions from development of the site under the existing land use designation would be 5,655 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that would be less than the existing land use designation. The proposed project, therefore, would answer “Yes” to Question 3 of Step 1 and proceed to Step 2 of the Checklist.
Step 2
The second step of CAP consistency review is to evaluate a project’s consistency with the applicable strategies and measures of the CAP. Each Checklist item is associated with a specific GHG reduction measure in the City’s CAP. All projects for which the measure is applicable must demonstrate that the project would implement measures consistent with the Checklist item, or fully substantiate how the item would be infeasible for project implementation. “Not Applicable” (“N/A”) should only be checked based on the direction provided in each Checklist item/question, and “N/A” responses are subject to Planning Division review and approval. If “No” is provided as a response to a question, the project would be determined to be inconsistent with the CAP and would result in a significant GHG impact.
Checklist Item 1. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (Measure T -2) This Checklist item applies to multifamily residential and non -residential projects. It asks if the project will install electric vehicle charging stations (Level 2 or better) in at least 5% of the total parking spaces provided on-site.
The proposed project would comply with this checklist item. The proposed project consist s of development of 449 residential units, and a GPA/Rezone to convert the existing Industrial (I) land use and zoning designations
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-28
to a Specific Plan Area designation to allow for residential development . The project would include 927 total parking spaces . A minimum of 5% of parking spaces required would be equipped with EV charging stations or as otherwise required by CALGreen, whichever is more significant. Accordingly, t he proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.
Checklist Item 2. Bicycle Infrastructure (Measure T -8) This Checklist item applies to residential and non-residential projects. It asks whether the project would pay its fair- share contribution to bicycle infrastructure improvements if the following conditions are met:
▪ Intersection or roadway segment improvements are proposed as part of the project. ▪ The City’s General Plan Mobility Element identifies bicycle infrastructure improvements at any intersection(s) or roadway segment(s) that would be improved as part of the project.
The project would comply with this checklist item. As shown in Section 3.15.6, the project will include the following roadway and bicycle improvements:
Active Transportation Improvements
Construct sidewalks to close sidewalk gaps on the site frontage on La Mirada Drive, Pacific Street, and Linda Vista Drive.
Construct or preserve space for the portions of proposed bicycle facilities on Linda Vista Drive from Pacific Street to South Las Posas Road immediately adjacent to the site.
Provide transit stop amenities including, at a minimum, bench, shelter, and trash can at the southbound stop at the intersection of South Las Posas Road/Linda Vista Drive located on the southwest corner of the intersection.
Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.
Checklist Item 3. Transportation Demand Management (Measure T -9) This Checklist item applies to residential and non -residential projects. It asks whether the project would develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that includes, at a minimum, all of the following TDM strategies:
▪ Provide discounted monthly transit pass or provide at least 25 % transit fare subsidy to residents/employees.
▪ Provide designated car-share, carpool, vanpool, and/or park-and-ride parking spaces. ▪ Provide pedestrian connections between all internal uses and to all existing or planned external streets around the project site(s).
▪ Provide secure bicycle parking spaces or bicycle racks, showers, and clothes lockers. ▪ Encourage telecommuting for employees (allow one telecommute day per week or compressed work weeks) or provide a telecommute work center with common office space and equipment available to residents.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-29
-or
▪ Implement and monitor for 4 years a TDM program that demonstrates an alternative transportation (i.e., carpool, public transit, bicycle, walk, telecommute) mode share of at least 29% for all residents.
The project would comply with this checklist item. The project would develop and implement a TDM plan that incorporates the required TDM strategies listed in this measure. Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.
Checklist Item 4. Reduce Parking Near Transit (Measure T -12) This Checklist item applies to multi-family residential projects and asks whether the project would provide at least 27% fewer parking spaces than required for the same use based on the City’s municipal code parking requirements, if located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop.
The project is not located within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop defined as a bus or light -rail station with fixed service and 10-minute minimum headways during peak hours. Therefore, the proposed project would answer “N/A” to this question.
Checklist Item 5. Water Heaters (Measure E -1)
This Checklist item applies to residential projects and asks if the project would install one of, or a combination of, the following water heater types in place of natural gas water heaters:
▪ Electric heat pump water heater
▪ Instantaneous electric water heater
▪ Electric tank
▪ Solar water heater with heat pump water heater backup ▪ Solar water heater with electric tank backup
The project would comply with this checklist item. The project would install non-natural gas water heaters that would meet the requirements of this checklist item. Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.
Checklist Item 6. Photovoltaic Installation (Measure E -2) This Checklist item applies to non-residential projects. Therefore, the proposed project would answer “N/A” to this checklist item.
Checklist Item 7. Landscaping Water Use (Measure W -1)
This Checklist item applies to residential and non-residential projects and inquires whether the project would comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
The proposed project would comply with this checklist item. The project's landscaping would meet the requirements within the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. As prescribed in Section 4.3.1 of the specific plan, The selected plants are well suited to the local soils and have proven to flourish within the project area’s climate and are consistent with AB 1881 requirements and the City of San Marcos Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-30
Municipal Code, Title 20. The project will include composting, climate adapted plants, mulch, minimal use of turf, and smart water-efficient irrigation systems to minimize water use. Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.
Checklist Item 8. Urban Tree Canopy (Measure C -2)
This Checklist item applies to residential and non-residential projects and asks whether the project will plant at least one tree per five parking spaces provided, if more than 10 parking spaces are otherwise included in the project.
The project would comply with this checklist item. The project is providing 927 parking spaces and will plant approximately 517 trees to satisfy this checklist requirement. Accordingly, the proposed project would answer “Yes” to this question.
Summary
The proposed project consists of 449 residential units, including a mix of apartments, rowhomes, villas, and affordable flats on approximately 15.09 acres within the approximately 33.2-acre project site. The project would include a total of 927 parking spaces, and 134,985 square feet of private common open space area. The proposed project also includes landscaping, bio -retention areas, and circulation improvements. The remaining 17.94 acres of the approximately 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored open space and habitat area.
As outlined above, the proposed project would result in fewer GHG emissions than the industrial development type permitted by the project site’s existing land use designation (which is accounted for in the City’s CAP) , and the project would be required to implement all applicable checklist items within the City’s 2020 CAP, as a condition of project approval. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP and impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Consistency with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies The proposed project’s consistency with statewide GHG reduction strategies is summarized in detail in Table 3.7-8 through consideration of the project’s various construction and operational components and their relationship to specified laws and regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions from such components .
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Building Components/Facility Operations
Roofs/Ceilings/Insulation CALGreen Code
(Title 24, Part 11)
California Energy
Code (Title 24,
Part 6)
The proposed project must comply with efficiency
standards regarding roofing, ceilings, and insulation.
For example:
Roofs/Ceilings: New construction must reduce roof
heat island effects per CALGreen Code
Section 106.11.2, which requires use of roofing
materials having a minimum aged solar reflectance,
thermal emittance complying with Section
A5.106.11.2.2 and A5.106.11.2.3 or a minimum
aged Solar Reflectance Index as specified in Tables
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-31
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project A5.106.11.2.2, or A5.106.11.2.3. Roofing materials
must also meet solar reflectance and thermal
emittance standards contained in Title 20 Standards.
Roof/Ceiling Insulation: There are also requirements for the installation of roofing and ceiling insulation. (See Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual at Section 3.2.2.)
Flooring CALGreen Code The proposed project must comply with efficiency standards regarding flooring materials. For example, for 80% of floor area receiving “resilient flooring,” the
flooring must meet applicable installation and material requirements contained in CALGreen Code
Section 5.504.4.6.
Window and Doors
(Fenestration)
California Energy
Code
The proposed project must comply with fenestration
efficiency requirements. For example, the choice of
windows, glazed doors, and any skylights for the project must conform to energy consumption requirements
affecting size, orientation, and types of fenestration
products used. (See Title 24, Part 6 Compliance
Manual, Section 3.3.)
Building Walls/Insulation CALGreen Code
California Energy
Code
The proposed project must comply with efficiency
requirements for building walls and insulation.
Exterior Walls: Must meet requirements in current
edition of California Energy Code and comply with
Sections A5.106.7.1 or A5.106.7.2 of CALGreen Code
for wall surfaces, as well as Section 5.407.1, which
required weather-resistant exterior wall and
foundation envelope as required by California
Building Code Section 1403.2. Construction must
also meet requirements contained in Title 24, Part 6,
which vary by material of the exterior walls. (See Title 24, Part 6 Compliance Manual, Part 3.2.3.)
Demising (Interior) Walls: Mandatory insulation
requirements for demising walls (which separate
conditioned from non-conditions space) differ by the
type of wall material used. (Id. at 3.2.4.)
Door Insulation: There are mandatory requirements
for air infiltration rates to improve insulation
efficiency; they differ according to the type of door.
(Id. at 3.2.5.)
Flooring Insulation: There are mandatory
requirements for insulation that depend on the
material and location of the flooring. (Id. at 3.2.6.)
Finish Materials CALGreen Code The proposed project must comply with pollutant control requirements for finish materials. For example,
materials including adhesives, sealants, caulks, paints and coatings, carpet systems, and composite wood
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-32
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project products must meet requirements in CALGreen Code to
ensure pollutant control. (CALGreen Code
Section 5.504.4.)
Wet Appliances
(Toilets/Faucets/Urinals,
Dishwasher/Clothes Washer,
Spa and Pool/Water Heater)
CALGreen Code
California Energy
Code Appliance
Efficiency
Regulations (Title
20 Standards)
Wet appliances associated with the proposed project
must meet various efficiency requirements. For
example:
Spa and Pool: Use associated with the project is
subject to appliance efficiency requirements for
service water heating systems and equipment, spa
and pool heating systems and equipment. (Title 24,
Part 6, Sections 110.3, 110.4, 110.5; Title 20
Standards, Sections 1605.1(g), 1605.3(g); see also
California Energy Code.)
Toilets/Faucets/Urinals: Use associated with the
project is subject to new maximum rates for toilets,
urinals, and faucets effective January 1, 2016:
▪ Showerheads maximum flow rate 2.5 gpm at
80 psi
▪ Wash fountains 2.2 x (rim space in inches/20)
gpm at 60 psi
▪ Metering faucets 0.25 gallons/cycle
▪ Lavatory faucets and aerators 1.2 gpm at 60 psi
▪ Kitchen faucets and aerators 1.8 gpm with
optional temporary flow of 2.2 gpm at 60 psi
▪ Public lavatory faucets 0.5 gpm at 60 psi
▪ Trough-type urinals 16 inches length
▪ Wall mounted urinals 0.125 gallons per flush
▪ Other urinals 0.5 gallons per flush
(Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(h),(i)
1065.3(h),(i).)
Water Heaters: Use associated with the project is
subject to appliance efficiency requirements for water
heaters. (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(f),
1605.3(f).)
Dishwasher/Clothes Washer: Use associated with the
project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for dishwashers and clothes washers. (Title 20
Standards, Sections 1605.1(o),(p),(q), 1605.3(o),(p),(q).) Dry Appliances
(Refrigerator/Freezer, Heater/
Air Conditioner, Clothes Dryer)
Title 20 Standards
CALGreen Code
Dry appliances associated with the proposed project
must meet various efficiency requirements. For
example:
Refrigerator/Freezer: Use associated with the
proposed project is subject to appliance efficiency
requirements for refrigerators and freezers. (Title 20
Standards, Sections 1605.1(a), 1605.3(a).)
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-33
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Heater/Air Conditioner: Use associated with the
proposed project is subject to appliance efficiency
requirements for heaters and air conditioners. (Title
20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(b),(c),(d),(e),
1605.3(b),(c),(d),(e) as applicable.)
Clothes Dryer: Use associated with the proposed project is subject to appliance efficiency requirements for
clothes dryers. (Title 20 Standards, Section 1605.1(q).) CALGreen Code Installations of HVAC, refrigeration and fire suppression equipment must comply with CALGreen Code
Sections 5.508.1.1 and 508.1.2, which prohibits CFCs,
halons, and certain HCFCs and HFCs.
Lighting Title 20 Standards Lighting associated with the proposed project will be subject to energy efficiency requirements contained
in Title 20 Standards.
General Lighting: Indoor and outdoor lighting
associated with the proposed project must comply
with applicable appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(j),(k),(n),
1605.3(j),(k),(n).)
Emergency lighting and self-contained lighting: the
proposes project must also comply with applicable
appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20 Standards,
Sections 1605.1(l), 1605.3(l).)
Traffic Signal Lighting: For any necessary proposed
project improvements involving traffic lighting, traffic signal modules and traffic signal lamps will need to
comply with applicable appliance efficiency
regulations (Title 20 Standards, Sections 1605.1(m),
1605.3(m).)
California Energy
Code
Lighting associated with a use implementing the
proposed project will also be subject to energy
efficiency requirements contained in Title 24, Part 6,
which contains energy standards for non-residential
indoor lighting and outdoor lighting. (See Title 24 Part 6 Compliance Manual, at Sections 5, 6.)
Mandatory lighting controls for indoor lighting include, for example, regulations for automatic shut-off,
automatic daytime controls, demand responsive
controls, and certificates of installation. (Id. at
Section 5.) Regulations for outdoor lighting include,
for example, creation of lighting zones, lighting power requirements, a hardscape lighting power allowance,
requirements for outdoor incandescent and luminaire
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-34
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project lighting, and lighting control functionality. (Id. at
Section 6.)
AB 1109 Lighting associated with implementing the proposed project will be subject to energy efficiency
requirements adopted pursuant to
AB 1109.
Enacted in 2007, AB 1109 required the CEC to adopt
minimum energy efficiency standards for general
purpose lighting, to reduce electricity consumption
50% for indoor residential lighting and 25% for indoor
commercial lighting.
Bicycle and Vehicle Parking CALGreen Code A use implementing the proposed project will be required to provide compliant bicycle parking, fuel-
efficient vehicle parking, and electric vehicle charging spaces (CALGreen Code Sections 5.106.4, 5.106.5.1,
5.106.5.3)
California Energy
Code
The proposed project is also subject to parking
requirements contained in Title 24, Party 6. For
example, parking capacity is to meet but not exceed
minimum local zoning requirements, and the project
should employ approved strategies to reduce parking
capacity (Title 24, Part 6, section 106.6)
Landscaping CALGreen Code The CALGreen Code requires and has further voluntary provisions for:
▪ -A water budget for landscape irrigation use;
▪ For new water service, separate meters or
submeters must be installed for indoor and
outdoor potable water use for landscaped areas
of 1,000-5,000 square feet;
▪ -Provide water-efficient landscape design that
reduces use of potable water beyond initial
requirements for plant installation and
establishment
Model Water
Efficient
Landscaping
Ordinance
The model ordinance promotes efficient landscaping
in new developments and establishes an outdoor
water budget for new and renovated landscaped
areas that are 500 square feet or larger. (CCR, Title
23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7.)
Cap-and-Trade
Program
Transportation fuels used in landscape maintenance
equipment (e.g., gasoline) would be subject to the
Cap-and-Trade Program. Fuel refineries and suppliers
are subject to the Cap-and-Trade requirements. (See
“Energy Use,” below.)
Refrigerants CARB Management
of High GWP
Refrigerants for
Stationary Sources
Any refrigerants associated with the project will be
subject to CARB standards. CARB’s Regulation for the
Management of High GWP Refrigerants for Stationary
Sources 1) reduces emissions of high-GWP refrigerants
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-35
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project from leaky stationary, non-residential refrigeration
equipment; 2) reduces emissions resulting from the
installation and servicing of stationary refrigeration and air conditioning appliances using high-GWP refrigerants; and 3) requires verification GHG emission reductions.
(CCR, Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10,
Article 4, Subarticle 5.1, Section 95380 et seq.)
Consumer Products CARB High GWP
GHGs in Consumer
Products
All consumer products associated with the project will
be subject to CARB standards. CARB’s consumer
products regulations set VOC limits for numerous
categories of consumer products and limits the
reactivity of the ingredients used in numerous
categories of aerosol coating products (CCR, Title 17,
Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5.)
Construction
Use of Off-Road Diesel Engines,
Vehicles, and Equipment
CARB In-Use Off-
Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation
Any relevant vehicle or machine use associated with
the project will be subject to CARB standards.
The CARB In-Use-Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation
applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The
regulation: 1) imposes limits on idling, requires a
written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when
selling vehicles; 2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting
System) and labeled; 3) restricts the adding of older
vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and
4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by
retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or
installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies
(i.e., exhaust retrofits).
The requirements and compliance dates of the Off-
Road regulation vary by fleet size, as defined by the
regulation.
Cap-and-Trade
Program
Transportation fuels (e.g., gasoline) used in
equipment operation would be subject to the Cap-
and-Trade Program. Fuel refineries and suppliers are
subject to the Cap-and-Trade requirements. (See
“Energy Use,” below.)
Greening New Construction CALGreen Code All new construction must comply with CALGreen Code, as discussed in more detail throughout this
table.
Adoption of the mandatory CALGreen Code standards
for construction has been essential for improving the
overall environmental performance of new buildings;
it also sets voluntary targets for builders to exceed
the mandatory requirements.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-36
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Construction Waste CALGreen Code The proposed project will be subject to CALGreen Code requirements for construction waste reduction,
disposal, and recycling, such as a requirement to
recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50%
of the non-hazardous construction waste in
accordance with Section 5.408.1.1, 5.408.1.2, or
5.408.1.3; or meet a local construction and
demolition waste management ordinance, whichever
is more stringent.
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Management Landfill Methane
Control Measure
Waste associated with a use implementing the
proposed project will be disposed per state
requirements for landfills, material recovery facilities, and transfer stations. Per the statewide GHG
emissions inventory, the largest emissions from
waste management sectors come from landfills and
are in the form of CH4.
In 2010, CARB adopted a regulation that reduces
emissions from methane in landfills, primarily by
requiring owners and operators of certain uncontrolled
municipal solid waste landfills to install gas collection and control systems, and requires existing and newly
installed gas and control systems to operate in an
optimal manner. The regulation allows local air districts to voluntarily enter into a memorandum of
understanding with CARB to implement and enforce the
regulation and to assess fees to cover costs of
implementation.
Mandatory
Commercial
Recycling
(AB 341)
AB 341 will require a use implementing the proposed
project, if it generates four cubic yards or more of
commercial solid waste per week, to arrange for
recycling services, using one of the following: self-haul; subscribe to a hauler(s); arranging for pickup of
recyclable materials; subscribing to a recycling service that may include mixed waste processing that yields
diversion results comparable to source separation.
The project will also be subject to local commercial
solid waste recycling program required to be
implemented by each jurisdiction under AB 341.
CALGreen Code The proposed project will be subject to CALGreen Code requirement to provide areas that serve the
entire building and are identified for the depositing,
storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for
recycling (CALGreen Code Section 5.410.1)
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-37
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Energy Use
Electricity/Natural Gas
Generation
Cap-and-Trade
Program
Electricity and natural gas generated and/or imported
into the state that may be used for the proposed
project will be subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program.
The rules came into effect on January 1, 2013,
applying to large electric power plants and large
industrial plants. In 2015, importers and distributors
of fossil fuels were added to the Cap-and-Trade
Program in the second phase.
Specifically, on January 1, 2015, cap-and-trade
compliance obligations were phased in for suppliers of
natural gas, reformulated gasoline blendstock for
oxygenate blending (RBOB), distillate fuel oils, and
liquefied petroleum gas that meet or exceed specified
emissions thresholds. The threshold that triggers a cap- and-trade compliance obligation for a fuel supplier is
25,000 metric tons or more of CO2e annually from the
GHG emissions that would result from full combustion
or oxidation of quantities of fuels (including natural gas, RBOB, distillate fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas, and blended fuels that contain these fuels) imported and/or delivered to California.
Renewable Energy California RPS (SB
X1-2, SB 350, and
SB 100)
Energy providers to the proposed project will be required to comply with RPS set by SB X1 2, SB 350, and SB 100.
SB X1 2 requires investor-owned utilities, publicly
owned utilities, and electric service providers to
increase purchases of renewable energy such that at
least 33% of retail sales are procured from renewable
energy resources by December 31, 2020. In the
interim, each entity was required to procure an
average of 20% of renewable energy for the period of
January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2013; and
will be required to procure an average of 25% by
December 31, 2016, and 33% by 2020.
SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned
utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030.
SB 100 increased the standards set forth in SB 350
establishing that 44% of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2024,
52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December
31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy
sources. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-
carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of
electricity to California by 2045.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-38
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Million Solar Roofs
Program (SB 1)
The project will participate in California’s energy
market by pre-wiring roofs for future installation of
solar, which is affected by implementation of the
Million Solar Roofs Program.
As part of Governor Schwarzenegger's Million Solar
Roofs Program, California has set a goal to install 3,000 megawatts of new, solar capacity through 2016. The
Million Solar Roofs Program is a ratepayer-financed
incentive program aimed at transforming the market for
rooftop solar systems by driving down costs over time.
California Solar
Initiative- Thermal
Program
The proposed project will derive energy from
California’s energy market, which is affected by
implementation of the California Solar Initiative -
Thermal Program. The program offers cash rebates of
up to $4,366 on solar water heating systems for
single-family residential customers. Multifamily and
Commercial properties qualify for rebates of up to
$800,000 on solar water heating systems and
eligible solar pool heating systems qualify for rebates of up to $500,000. Funding for the California Solar
Initiative-Thermal program comes from ratepayers of
Pacific Gas & Electric, SCE, Southern California Gas
Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric. The rebate
program is overseen by the CPUC as part of the
California Solar Initiative.
Waste Heat and
Carbon Emissions
Reduction Act (AB
1613, AB 2791)
The proposed project will indirectly derive energy from California’s energy market, which is affected by
implementation of the Waste Heat and Carbon
Emissions Reduction Act.
Originally enacted in 2007 and amended in 2008, this
act directed the CEC, CPUC, and CARB to implement a
program that would encourage the development of new
combined heat and power systems in California with a
generating capacity of not more than 20 megawatts, to
increase combined heat and power use by 30,000
gigawatt-hour. The CPUC publicly owned electric utilities, and CEC duly established policies and procedures for
the purchase of electricity from eligible combined heat and power systems.
CEC guidelines require combined heat and power
systems to be designed to reduce waste energy; have
a minimum efficiency of 60%; have NOx emissions of
no more than 0.07 pounds per megawatt-hour; be
sized to meet eligible customer generation thermal
load; operate continuously in a manner that meets
expected thermal load and optimizes efficient use of
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-39
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project waste heat; and be cost effective, technologically
feasible, and environmentally beneficial.
Vehicular/Mobile Sources
General SB 375 and
SANDAG RTP/SCS
The proposed project complies with, and is subject to,
the SANDAG adopted RTP/SCS, which CARB
approved as meeting its regional GHG targets in
2016. The most recent plan was adopted in
December 2021, but CARB has not accepted it as of
this writing. See discussion below.
Fuel Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS)/
EO S-01-07
Auto trips associated with the proposed project will be subject to LCFS (EO S-01-07), which requires a 20%
or greater reduction in the average fuel carbon
intensity by 2030 with a 2010 baseline for
transportation fuels in California regulated by CARB.
The program establishes a strong framework to
promote the low carbon fuel adoption necessary to
achieve statewide GHG reduction goals.
Cap-and-Trade
Program
Gasoline used for proposed project implementation
will be subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program.
The rules came into effect on January 1, 2013,
applying to large electric power plants and large
industrial plants. In 2015, importers and distributors
of fossil fuels were added to the Cap-and-Trade
Program in the second phase.
Specifically, on January 1, 2015, cap-and-trade
compliance obligations were phased in for suppliers
of natural gas, RBOB, distillate fuel oils, and liquefied petroleum gas that meet or exceed specified
emissions thresholds. The threshold that triggers a
cap-and-trade compliance obligation for a fuel
supplier is 25,000 MT or more of CO2e annually from
the GHG emissions that would result from full
combustion or oxidation of quantities of fuels
(including natural gas, RBOB, distillate fuel oil,
liquefied petroleum gas, and blended fuels that
contain these fuels) imported and/or delivered to
California.
Light-Duty Vehicles AB 1493 (or the
Pavley Standard)
Cars that drive to and from the proposed project will
be subject to AB 1493, which directed CARB to adopt
a regulation requiring the maximum feasible and
cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from new
passenger vehicles.
Pursuant to AB 1493, CARB adopted regulations that
establish a declining fleet average standard for CO2,
CH4, N2O, and HFCs (air conditioner refrigerants) in new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks beginning with
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-40
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project the 2009 model year and phased-in through the 2016
model year. These standards are divided into those
applicable to lighter and those applicable to heavier
portions of the passenger vehicle fleet.
The regulations will reduce “upstream” smog-forming
emissions from refining, marketing, and distribution
of fuel.
Advanced Clean Car
and ZEV Programs
Cars that drive to and from the proposed project will
be subject to the Advanced Clean Car and ZEV
Programs.
In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-
control program for model years 2017 through 2025.
The program combines the control of smog, soot and
global warming gases and requirements for greater
numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single
package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars. By
2025, new automobiles will emit 34% fewer global
warming gases and 75% fewer smog-forming
emissions.
The ZEV program will act as the focused technology of
the Advanced Clean Cars program by requiring
manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of
ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the 2018-
2025 model years.
Tire Inflation
Regulation
Cars that drive to and from the proposed project will
be subject to the CARB Tire Inflation Regulation,
which took effect on September 1, 2010, and applies
to vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
10,000 pounds or less.
Under this regulation, automotive service providers
must, inter alia, check and inflate each vehicle’s tires to the recommended tire pressure rating, with air or
nitrogen, as appropriate, at the time of performing any automotive maintenance or repair service, and to keep
a copy of the service invoice for a minimum of 3 years, and make the vehicle service invoice available to the
CARB, or its authorized representative upon request.
EPA and NHTSA
GHG and CAFE
Standards
Mobile sources that travel to and from the proposed
project would be subject to EPA and NHTSA GHG and
CAFE standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles. (75 FR
25324–25728 and 77 FR 62624–63200.)
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-41
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project Water Use
Water Use Efficiency Emergency State
Water Board
Regulations
Water use associated with the proposed project will
be subject to emergency regulations.
On May 18, 2016, partially in response to EO B-27-16,
the State Water Board adopted emergency water use
regulations (CCR, title 23, Section 864.5 and amended
and re-adopted Sections 863, 864, 865, and 866). The
regulation directs the State Water Board, Department of Water Resources, and CPUC to implement rates and
pricing structures to incentivize water conservation, and calls upon water suppliers, homeowners’ associations,
California businesses, landlords and tenants, and
wholesale water agencies to take stronger conservation
measures.
EO B-37-16 Water use associated with the proposed project will be subject to Emergency EO B-37-16, issued May 9,
2016, which directs the State Water Resources
Control Board to adjust emergency water
conservation regulations through the end of January
2017 to reflect differing water supply conditions
across the state.
The Water Board must also develop a proposal to
achieve a mandatory reduction of potable urban
water usage that builds off the mandatory 25%
reduction called for in EO B-29-15. The Water Board
and Department of Water Resources will develop
new, permanent water use targets to which the
project will be subject.
The Water Board will permanently prohibit water-
wasting practices such as hosing off sidewalks,
driveways, and other hardscapes; washing
automobiles with hoses not equipped with a shut-off
nozzle; using non-recirculated water in a fountain or
other decorative water feature; watering lawns in a
manner that causes runoff, or within 48 hours after
measurable precipitation; and irrigating ornamental
turf on public street medians.
EO B-40-17 EO B-40-17 lifted the drought emergency in all California counties except Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Tuolumne. It also rescinds EO B-29-15, but expressly states that EO
B-37-16 remains in effect and directs the State Water
Resources Control Board to continue development of
permanent prohibitions on wasteful water use to which
the proposed project will be subject.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-42
Table 3.7-8. Relevant Greenhouse Gas-Related Laws and Regulations Project Component
Applicable Laws/
Regulations GHG Reduction Measures Required for Project SB X7-7 Water provided to the proposed project will be
affected by SB X7-7’s requirements for water
suppliers.
SB X7-7, or the Water Conservation Act of 2009,
requires all water suppliers to increase water use
efficiency. It also requires, among other things, that
the Department of Water Resources, in consultation
with other state agencies, develop a single
standardized water use reporting form, which would
be used by both urban and agricultural water
agencies.
CALGreen Code The proposed project is subject to CALGreen Code’s water efficiency standards, including a required 20%
mandatory reduction in indoor water use. (CALGreen
Code, Division 4.3.)
California Water
Code, Division 6,
Part 2.10, Sections
10910–10915.
Development and approval of the proposed project
would require the development of a project-specific
Water Supply Assessment assessing the projects
water demand and its inclusion within the City’s
urban water management plan.
Cap-and-Trade
Program
Electricity usage associated with water and
wastewater supply, treatment and distribution would
be subject to the Cap-and-Trade Program.
California RPS (SB
X1-2, SB 350, SB
100)
Electricity usage associated with water and
wastewater supply, treatment and distribution
associated with the project will be required to comply
with RPS set by SB X1-2, SB 350, and SB 100.
Source: Appendix B.
Notes: AB = Assembly Bill; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CEC = California Energy Commission; CFC = chlorofluorocarbon; CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; CPUC = California Public Utilities Commission; EO = Executive Order; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; GHG = greenhouse gas; GWP = global warming potential; HCFC = hydrochlorofluorocarbon; HFC = hydrofluorocarbon; gpm = gallons per minute; MT = metric tons; N2O = nitrous oxide; NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; PM = particulate matter; RPS = Renewable Portfolio Standard; RTP/SCS = Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; SB = Se nate Bill; SANDAG = San Diego Association of Governments; VOC = volatile organic compound; ZEV = zero emission vehicle
As shown, the proposed project would be consistent with and would not conflict with the applicable GHG -reducing strategies of the state that apply to the construction and operational components.
In addition, the proposed project would help support achievement of the statewide 2030 goal (as codified in SB 32) and the long-term, carbon neutrality 2045 goal (as set forth in EO B-55-18) by being infill development with access to multi-modal transportation options and incorporating features such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle infrastructure, transportation demand management, electric water heaters, smart landscaping irrigation, and an urban tree canopy.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-43
Consistency with SANDAG’s RTP/SCS
At the regional level, SANDAG’s RTP/SCS has been adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions attributable to passenger vehicles in the San Diego region. In December 2021, SANDAG adopted its RTP/SCS (The 2021 Regional Plan), which shows the San Diego region reduced per capita CO 2 emissions by 17.9% in 2020 compared to 2005 baseline, which exceeds the 2020 target set for SANDAG of 15% reduction. Implementation of the RTP/SCS is estimated to result in a 20% CO2 emissions reduction for cars and light-duty trucks by 2035, exceeding the 19% target from 2005 levels set by CARB. The RTP/SCS does not regulate land use or supersede the exercise of land use authority by SANDAG’s member jurisdictions, but it is a relevant regional reference document for purposes of evaluating the intersection of land use and transportation patterns and the corresponding GHG emissions.
For purposes of the RTP/SCS consistency evaluation, the proposed project would increase access to transit because it is located approximately 0.6 miles from the Palomar College Sprinter station, and two bus stops are located in front of the project site off South Las Posas Road.3 The proposed project would provide connectivity by extending the sidewalk to neighboring communities, the shopping center across South Las Posas Road, the bus station, and the Sprinter station.
The project site’s proximity to State Route 78 further allows for easy regional connectivity to employment centers, shopping areas, and recreation opportunities. Furthermore, the project would be required to implement applicable measures in the City’s 2020 CAP Consistency Checklist (see Appendix B), installing electric vehicle charging stations, installing bicycle infrastructure, implementing a Transportation Demand Management plan, and reducing parking near transit. These measures would further reduce the project’s GHG emissions from vehicle trips, increase access to transit, and encourage alternative modes of transportation. The proposed density, land use type, and location are consistent with the SANDAG’s RTP/SCS, which increases access to transit and promotes regional connectivity to employment centers, shopping areas, and recreation opportunities. The features mentioned above would help facilitate alternative transit usage and reduce the overall vehicle trips, thereby reducing the project’s regional GHG emissions.
Based on the considerations outlined above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measure is required.
3.7.5 Mitigation Measures
The project would not result in significant impacts; therefore, no mitigation is required.
3.7.6 Conclusion
As presented in Section 3.7.4 above, the proposed project would generate approximately 3,864 MT CO2e per year.
The proposed project would result in fewer GHG emissions than allowed development under the existing land use designation and would implement all applicable Checklist items within the City’s 2020 CAP. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with
3 The City uses the North County Transit District for Coaster rail service, Sprinter light -rail service, and Breeze bus service for connections throughout the County of San Diego. Sprinter service operates between Escondido and Oceanside with connections to Interstate 5 and the Coaster rail service operating out of the City of Oceanside. The North County Transit District operates the Palomar College Sprinter, which is within a short walk from the project area. In addition, a bus stop is located in front of the proj ect site.
Connections to Orange County can be made via the Metrolink in the City of Oceanside. Similarly, connections to Riverside Transit Authority buses can be made via the transit station in Oceanside and Escondido. Both the Metrolink connection in Oceanside and the Riverside Transit Authority Bus connection in Oceanside and Escondido are accessible through Sprinter light-rail service. These public transit options will offer residents of the project area quick access to a variety of alternative modes of transportation.
3.7 - GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.7-44
and would not conflict with the applicable GHG -reducing strategies of the stat e, would be consistent with CARB’s Scoping Plan, and would be consistent with SANDAG’s RTP/SCS. In summary, impacts with regard to GHG emissions would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-1
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials within the vicinity of the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. Information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared for the proposed project by GEOTEK, on August 20, 2020, was used in preparation of this section and is included as Appendix H to this environmental impact report (EIR).
Table 3.8-1 summarizes the hazards and hazardous materials and cumulative-level impact analysis, by threshold, for the proposed project.
Table 3.8-1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance
Project -
Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 7: Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.8.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing conditions on the project site related to hazards and hazardous materials. The Phase I ESA assesses the likelihood of any recognized hazardous substances or petroleum products that might be present on site as a result of current or historical land uses or adjacent uses. The Phase I ESA included a review of the
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-2
historical records of the project site, a site reconnaissance of the project site, reconnaissance of adjoining properties, a Vapor Encroachment Screen for the project site, and a limited soil investigation, including soil matrix sampling.
Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could pose a threat to human health or the environment. Hazards with all existing develo pment or construction of development include the risks associated with potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious ill ness or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment.
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The approximately 33.2-acre project site is an undeveloped lot located in the western portion of the City of San Marcos (City) in an urbanized area . The project s ite is located in an area largely characterized by retail/commercial and industrial facilities, with Bradley Park located across from the site’s southwestern corner .
The project site is bounded by La Mirada Drive, and numerous commercial/industrial facilities to the north; South Las Posas Road and the Grand Plaza shopping center to the east; Linda Vista Drive and several commercial/industrial facilities to the south; and South Pacific Street and several industrial facilities to the west.
Visual evidence of hazardous substances and wastes were not observed during the project site reconnaissance , and no visual indication of spills or leaks were observed. No other pungent or acrid odors were observed emanating from the project site. Additionally, there was no evidence of underground or above -ground fuel storage tanks or equipment that may contain poly-chlorinated biphenyls (Appendix H).
Site and Surrounding Area History
In order to construct the history of the project site and the surrounding area, the Phase I ESA reviewed reasonably ascertainable public documents, including aerial photographs, topographic maps, building records, city directories, fire insurance maps, and county assessor history records.
Project Site History
GEOTEK reviewed aerial photographs dated 1939, 1946, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1979, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2016 and 2018 (see Appendix H). In each photograph, t he project site appears to be vacant and undeveloped land.
GEOTEK reviewed the Escondido Quadrangle (15 -minute series), dated 1893; the Escondido Quadrangle (15-minute series), dated 1901; the Escondido Quadrangle (15 -minute series), dated 1947; the San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles (7.5-minute series), dated 1948; the San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles (7.5-minute series), dated 1949; the Rancho Santa Fe and San Marcos Quadrangles (7.5 -minute series), dated 1968; the San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles (7.5 -minute series), dated 1983; the R ancho Santa Fe and San Marcos Quadrangles (7.5 -minute series), dated 1993; and the Rancho Santa Fe and San Marcos Quadrangles (7.5-minute series), dated 2012 (see Appendix H). The project s ite appears to be vacant land on all of the topographic map sheets reviewed for this assessment. The 2012 topographic map sheet shows little detail other than streets in the vicinity (see Appendix H).
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-3
Surrounding Area History
GEOTEK reviewed aerial photographs dated 1939, 1946, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1979, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2018 (see Appendix H).
The surrounding properties appear to be vacant and undeveloped land in the 1939, 1946, and 1964 aerial photographs.
Residential structures can be observed to the west and north in the aerial photographs dated 1964, 1967 , and 1970. The remaining surrounding properties appear to be vacant land. Commercial structures can be observed to the west, north and south in the aerial photographs dated 1979, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, and 2005. The property to the east appears to be vacant land.
The surrounding properties appear similar to current conditions in the 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2018 aerial photographs.
GEOTEK reviewed the Escondido Quadrangle (15 -minute series), dated 1893; the Escondido Quadrangle (15-minute series), dated 1901; the Escondido Quadrangle (15 -minute series), dated 1947; the San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles (7.5-minute series), dated 1948; the San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles (7.5-minute series), dated 1949; the Rancho Santa Fe and San Marcos Quadrangles (7.5 -minute series), dated 1968; the San Marcos and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles (7.5 -minute series), dated 1983; the R ancho Santa Fe and San Marcos Quadrangles (7.5 -minute series), dated 1993; and the Rancho Santa Fe and San Marcos Quadrangles (7.5-minute series), dated 2012 (see Appendix H).
The surrounding properties appear to be vacant land on the 1893 topographic map sheet. A structure can be observed to the north of the site on the 1901 topographic map sheet. The surrounding properties appear to be vacant land on the 1947, 1948, and 1949 topographic map sheets. Structures can be observed to the north and west on the 1968 topographic map sheet. Structures can be observed to the north, west and south on the 1983 topographic map sheet. The surrounding properties appear to be developed on the 1 996 topographic map sheet.
The 2012 maps show little detail other than streets in the vicinity (see Appendix H).
Historical Use Summary
Based on readily available historic information, the project site appears to have been vacant and undeveloped land since at least 1939. The surrounding properties appear to historically have been vacant land from at least 1939 to at least 1953. Numerous structures can be observed to the north, west and south in an aerial photograph dated 1979.
Data gaps exist from 1901 to 1939, 1939 to 1946, 1953 to 1964, 1970 to 1979 , and 1996 to 2005 due to the limited records that are reasonably obtainable in the local area. However, according to Appendix H, additional historic information, if it were to become available, is likely insignificant and not likely to change the impact determination herein.
Regulatory Database Review
As explained in Appendix H, GEOTEK obtained and reviewed an environmental database report of the federal and state environmental records specified by international standard practice guidance (ASTM E 1527-13). The database report was provided by Environmental Data Resources Inc. of Shelton, Connecticut , and tracks the presence of underground storage tanks (USTs), hazardous waste generation, and hazardous waste generators, or other environmental concerns, such as spills, leaks, or aboveground tanks. Table 3.8-2 shows that neither the project site nor adjacent sites were listed on any of these regulatory databases.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-4
Table 3.8-2. Environmental Database
Environmental Database
Minimum
Search
Distance
(miles) Site Adjacent
Total
Listed
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – National
Priorities List (NPL), including delisted NPL
1.0 No 0 0
EPA – Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS),
including archived sites (formerly CERCLIS)
0.5 No 0 2
EPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Corrective Action Facilities (CORRACTS)
1.0 No 0 2
EPA – RCRA, Transportation, Storage, and Disposal facilities (TSD)
0.5 No 0 1
EPA – RCRA Generators Site and Adjacent No 0 18
EPA – Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Site No N/A 0 Federal Institutional control/engineering control registries 0.5 No 0 0 California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) – State Response Sites (Response, formerly Annual Work Plan and Bond Expenditure Plan)
1.0 No 0 0
CEPA – EnviroStor Database (formerly CALSITES) 0.5 No 0 5 CEPA – CHMIRS – California Hazardous Materials
Information Reporting System
Site No No 0
CEPA – Solid Waste Fill/Landfill (SWF/LF), Solid Waste
Assessment Test (SWAT)/Waste Management Unit Database
System (WMUDS) and Recycling Facilities (SWRCY)
0.5 No 0 6
CEPA – Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) 0.5 No 0 44 CEPA – Underground Storage Tanks (UST), including historic USTs
Site and Adjacent No 0 23
CEPA – Spills, Leaks, Investigations & Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing (SLIC)
0.5 No 0 15
State Institutional control/engineering control registries Site No N/A 0 Local and/or Tribal databases Up to 1.0 No 0 0
Drycleaners 0.25 No 0 0
Other databases Up to 1.0 No 0 0
Unmappable facilities Up to 1.0 No 0 0
Source: Appendix H.
Note: N/A = not applicable.
National Priority List
The National Priority List (NPL) is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) list of confirmed or proposed Superfund sites. The Phase I ESA review ed the NPL list for confirmed or proposed Superfund sites, and for sites that have been delisted from the NPL , which occur within 1 mile of the project site. The project site does not appear on the NPL. There are no other facilities on the NPL within 1 mile of the project site.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-5
Superfund Enterprise Management System
The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS, formerly CERCLIS) is a compilation of sites that the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened release of hazardous substances. The Phase I ESA reviews current and archived SEMS sites within a 0.5-mile distance of the project site.
The project site does not appear on the SEMS or SEMS-ARCHIVE list. There are two facilities on the SEMS-ARCHIVE list within 0.5 miles of the project site. The first facility is listed as Moyer Chemical, located at 1227 Los Vallecitos.
The facility is listed as being located 0.25 to 0.5 (0.352) mile s northeast of the project site and at an elevation of 560 feet above mean sea level (msl) (20 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site). The second facility is listed as GEC Marconi Electronic Systems, located at 1370 San Marcos Boulevard. The fac ility is listed as being located 0.25 to 0.5 (0.460) mile s south–southwest of the project site and at an elevation of 515 feet above msl (25 feet lower in elevation relative to the project site).
Due to the listings, distance, locations downgradient from the project site, and/or facility status as an archive facility (SEMS-ARCHIVE), these facilities are considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) compile s selective information on facilities that generate, transport, store, treat and or dispose of hazardous waste. RCRA facilities can be listed on one of the following databases:
▪ Corrective Action Facilities are facilities undergoing corrective action. A corrective action order is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008(h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility.
▪ Transportation, Storage, and Disposal Facilities includes facilities that transport, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and are not listed on the RCRA Generators list. The Transportation, Storage, and Disposal facilities are searched within a 0.5-mile distance.
▪ Generators List identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point is disposal.
The RCRA Generators database is a compilation by the EPA of reporting facilities that generate hazardous waste. The RCRA generators list is searched for the project site and adjacent properties.
The project site does not appear on the Corrective Action Facilities list. There are two facilities on the list within 1 mile of the project site. The first facility is Signet Armorlite Inc. located at 1001 Armorlite Drive , which is 0.5 to 1.0 (0.611) miles east–northeast of the project site and 560 feet above msl (20 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site). Because violations have been corrected at the facility, this facility is considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to th e project site. The second facility is GEC Marconi Electronic Systems, located at 1370 San Marcos Boulevard. The facility is 0.25 to 0.5 (0.460) mile s south–southwest of the project site and at 515 feet above msl (25 feet lower in elevation relative to the project site). Due to the listing’s location downgradient from the project site and status of corrective action, this facility is considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
The project site does not appear on the RCRA Transportation, Storage, and Disposal Facilities list. There is one facility on the list within 0.5 miles of the project site. The facility is GEC Marconi Electronic Systems, located at 1370 San Marcos Boulevard. The facility is 0.25 to 0.5 (0.460) miles south–southwest of the project site and at 515 feet
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-6
above msl (25 feet lower in elevation relative to the project site). Due to the listing and location, as discussed above, this facility is considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
The project site does not appear on the RCRA Generators list. There are 18 facilities listed as a RCRA Generator within 0.25 miles of the project site. However, none of these facilities are located immediately adjacent the project site, and there is no history of violations at these facilities, with the exception of those listings discussed above.
These facilities are therefore considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Emergency Response Notification System
The Emergency Response Notification System is a national database used to collect information on reported releases of oil or hazardous substances. The project site does not appear on this list.
State Response Sites
The State Response Sites records are the state equivalent to the NPL database , described above. The project site does not appear on the State Response Sites list RESPONSE list, and there are no listed facilities within 1.0 mile of the project site.
EnviroStor Database
The EnviroStor Database (formerly CALSITES) records are the state equivalent to the federal SEMS database, described above. The project site does not appear on the EnviroStor database. There are five EnviroStor facilities within 0.5 miles of the project site. Table 3.8-3 provides the facility name, address, location in relation to the project site, and the facility status.
Table 3.8-3. EnviroStor Database Site
No. Facility Name Address Location in Relation to Site Facility
Status
1 Macdermid Printing
Solutions
260 South Pacific Street Less than 0.125 (0.011)
miles WNW
Inactive-Needs
Evaluation
2 Hues Metal Finishing 977 Linda Vista Drive 0.25 to 0.5 (0.441) miles E (Down-Gradient)
Inactive-Needs
Evaluation
3 Hughes Circuits Inc. 540 South Pacific Street 0.125 to 0.25 (0.237) miles SW (Cross-Gradient)
Inactive-Needs
Evaluation
4 Bae Systems (Former
GEC Marconi, Singer
Company)
1370 San Marcos Boulevard 0.25 to 0.5 (0.460) miles SSW (Cross-Gradient)
Refer: RWQCB
5 No. Co. Health Svcs. Boardwalk and Park Place 0.25 to 0.5 (0.460) miles ESE (Down-Gradient)
No Further
Action
Source: Appendix H.
The Macdermid Printing facility appears to be listed in relation to a leaking underground storage tank case, which has been issued “Case Closed” regulatory status. Therefore, the facility is unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site. Due to their status listing and/or location, the remaining facilities do not represent an environmental concern to the project site.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-7
California Hazardous Material Incident Report System
The California Hazardous Material Incident Report Systems is a state database used to collect information on reported hazardous materials incidents (accidental leaks and spills). The project site does not appear on th is list and there are no listed facilities located within 0.25 miles of the project site.
Solid Waste Facilities List
The Solid Waste Fill/Landfill (SWF/LF), Waste Management Unit Database System (WMUDS)/Solid Waste Assessment Test (SWAT), and Solid Waste Recycling Facilities (SWRCY) databases include information pertaining to closed and open solid waste facilities operating in the state of California. The SWF/LF, WMUDS/SWAT and SWRCY databases are searched for a 0.5 -mile distance. The project site does not appear on the WMUDS/SWAT, SWF/LF or SWRCY lists. There are no facilities on the SWRCY list within 0.5 miles of the project site.
There is one facility on the WMUDS/SWAT list within 0.5 miles of the project site. The facility is listed as San Marco (Old) Lind Vista LF, located at Rancho Santa Fe and Linda Vista. The facility is listed as being located 0.25 to 0.5 (0.276) miles west of the project site and at an elevation of 548 feet above msl (8 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site).
There are four facilities on the SWF/LF list within 0.5 miles of the project site. The first facility is listed as Mashburn Sanitation, located at 224 Las Posas Road. The facility is listed as being located less than 0.125 (0.075) mile s east–northeast of the project site and at an elevation of 544 feet above msl (4 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site). The facility status is listed as “active.” The second facility is listed as Mashburn Sanitation, located at 224 South Las Posas Road. The facility is listed as being located less than 0.125 (0.075) mile s east–northeast of the project site and at an elevation of 544 feet above msl (4 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site). The facility status is listed as “active.” This facility appears to be the same as the first facility listed above.
The third facility is listed as EDCO Waste & Recycling, located at 224 South Las Posas Road. The facility is listed as being located less than 0.125 (0.075) mile s east–northeast and at an elevation of 544 feet above msl (4 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site). The facility status is listed as “active.” This facility appears to be the same as the first and second facilities listed above.
The fourth facility is listed as Old San Marco LF (Bradley Park), located at Linda Vista Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The facility is listed as being located 0.25 to 0.5 (0.277) miles west of the project site and at an elevation of 544 feet above msl (4 feet higher in elevation relative to the project site). The facility status is listed as “closed.” Due to their status listing and location, these facilities are unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks List
The California Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) list is a compilation of petroleum storage tank sites that have reported a release. The LUST list is searched for a 0.5-mile distance. The project site does not appear on the LUST list.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-8
There are 44 facilities listed as being on the LUST list within 0.5 miles of the project site. Appendix H provides a detailed table with the facility name, address, location in relation to the project site and the facility status.
Due to their status listings and location, these facilities do not represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Underground Storage Tanks List
The California UST list is a compilation of petroleum storage tank sites that are registered with the state of California.
The UST list is searched for the project site and adjacent properties. The project site did not appear on the UST list or historic UST list.
There are six facilities listed on the UST list and the 17 facilities on the historic UST list in proximity to the project site. However, none of these facilities are immediately adjacent to the project site or upgradient. Therefore, they are not considered unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Spills, Leaks, Investigation , and Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing The Spills, Leaks, Investigation and Cleanup Cost Recovery Listing database is compiled by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Ana Region. It is designed to protect and restore water quality from spills, leaks, and similar discharges. The project site does not appear on this list.
There are 15 facilities listed within a 0.5-mile distance of the project site. Appendix H provides a detailed table that lists the facility name, address, location in relation to the project site and the facility status. Due to their status listings, these facilities are unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
State Institutional Control/Engineering Control Registries The State of California maintains institutional and engineering control databases or registries , which list sites with engineering or institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, lin ers, and treatment methods. The subject project site does not appear on the State Institutional Control/Engineering Control Registries.
Tribal Databases
Tribal governments are under the jurisdiction of the EPA for environmental concerns. Currently, the EPA Region 9 publishes LUST and UST information for tribes in Arizona, California, Hawai ’i, Nevada, and the Pacific Territories.
The LUST database is searched for 0.5 miles, and the UST database is searched for 0.25 miles.
The project site does not appear on the Tribal LUST or UST databases. No facilities were identified on the Tribal LUST or UST databases within 0.5 miles of the project site.
Other Databases
Environmental Data Resources Inc. compiles information from multiple federal, state, local, and proprietary databases. Most are secondary or tertiary or redundant. Facilities compiled on these other databases are evaluated based on the severity of the listing, distance, and location.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-9
The project site does not appear on the environmental database report obtained for this assessment. There are no facilities on the other databases within the appropriate search distances stipulated by ASTM E 1527-13.
Dry Cleaners
The DRYCLEANERS list is compiled and provided by Environmental Data Resources Inc. The DRYCLEANER database is searched for a 0.25-mile distance.
The project site does not appear on the DRYCLEANER list. There are no DRYCLEANER facilities listed within 0.25 miles of the project site.
Unmappable Facilities
GEOTEK reviewed the listing of “orphan” or unmappable facilities in the database report. There are two unmapped facilities in the report. Based on the listings provided for the orphan facilities and the locations, these facilities are unlikely to represent an environmental concern to the project site.
Local Regulatory Agency Records
GEOTEK contacted the San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) and the County of San Diego Sherriff Department regarding underground or aboveground storage tanks, hazardous material permits or business plans, emergency responses, spills, inspections, or other information of an environmental or hazardous nature. Neithe r of these agencies had any information for the project site.
Vapor Encroachment Screening
The purpose of a Vapor Encroachment Screen is to identify, to the extent feasible, if a Vapor Encroachment Condition exists at the project site.
A Vapor Encroachment Screen Report was generated for the project site and project site area utilizing EDR’s Vapor Encroachment Worksheet (see Appendix H). It was determined that there are no historical dry cleaners or auto stations within 600 feet and/or up gradient from the project site.
According to Appendix H, a Vapor Encroachment Condition is not likely to exist at the subject project site. The Vapor Encroachment Screen report is included in Appendix H.
Site Reconnaissance
A representative of GEOTEK conducted a project site reconnaissance on August 14, 2020. The rectangular shaped project s ite is currently comprised of four parcels of land (San Diego County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 219- 222-01-00, 219-222-02-00, 219-222-03-00, and 219-222-04-00) and encompasses a total of 33.2 acres. The project site can generally be accessed from either La Mirada Drive, South Las Posas Road, Linda Vista Drive or South Pacific Street.
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped land. No visual evidence of hazardous substances and wastes were observed during the project site reconnaissance. No visual indication of spills or leaks were observed. No other pungent or acrid odors were observed emanating from the project site.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-10
Wildland Fire
The project site lies within an area considered a High Hazard Severity Zone, as designated by the City of San Marcos General Plan Safety Element, and a Non-Very High Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire haza rd designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors. The project site is within a developed City landscape, surrounded by urban land uses on all sides. The project site is not considered to meet the definitions of wildland given its urban location. Further, the site currently, and post -project, would not represent a significant wildfire hazard based on the flat terrain, fuel types, including low growing vegetation and vernal pools, which by definition, preclude the growth of heavier fuel types that could, over time, present a wildfire threat. The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the project (Appendix N) follows the fire hazard determination made by the City.
An additional discussion of fire protection services and wildfire risk for the project site is discussed in Section 3.13, Public Services, and Chapter 5, Environmental Effects Found Not To Be Significant, of this EIR.
3.8.2 Regulatory Setting
This section details the federal, state, and local regulations governing hazards and hazardous materials.
Federal
Chemical Accident Prevention Provision
Title 40 Part 68 of the Code of Federal Regulations set s forth a list of regulated substances and thresholds, the petition process for adding or deleting substances to the list of regulated substances, the requirements for owners or operators of stationary sources concerning the prevention of accident releases, and the state accidental release prevention programs approved under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act.
Federal Aviation Regulations, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has primary responsibility for the safety of civil aviation, imposes height restrictions in order to prevent obstructions to navigable airspace to protect flights and surrounding structures. In certain cases , the FAA should be notified of proposed development pursuant to Section 77.11 of Federal Aviation Regulations. The notification of proposed development enables the FAA to do the following:
▪ Evaluate the effect of the construction or alteration on operational procedures and proposed operational procedures
▪ Determine the possible hazardous effect of the proposed construction or alteration of air navigation ▪ Provide r ecommendations for identifying the construction or alteration in accordance with current FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K dated August 1, 2000, Obstruction Marking and Lighting ▪ Determine other appropriate measures to be applied for continued safety of air navigation ▪ Provide charting and other notification to airmen of the construction or alteration Certain jurisdictions can request an FAA evaluation of proposed development when certain features appear to be potentially hazardous.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-11
Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provided a new set of mitigation plan requirements for state and local jurisdictions to coordinate disaster mitigation planning and implementation. States are encouraged to complete a “Standard” or an “Enhanced” Natural Mitigation Plan. “Enhanced” plans demonstrate increased coordination of mitigation activities at the state level, and, if completed and approved, increase the amount of funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. California’s updated State Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted in October 2010 and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX. The City of San Marcos is one of the communities covered by the County of San Diego Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, described below, which is a countywide plan that identifies risks posed by natural and human-made disasters.
Hazardous Materials Transport
The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates transportation of hazardous materials between states. State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies ar e California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation. Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers for transportation of hazardous waste on public roads, including explosives that may be used for blasting.
International Fire Code
The International Fire Code (IFC), created by the International Code Council, is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The IFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. The IFC and the International Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required for fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equipment. To ensure that these safety measures are met, the IFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The IFC is updated every 3 years.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRA gives the EPA authority to control hazardous waste during the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of the waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non -hazardous solid wastes.
The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled the EPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act (as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) to authorize appropriations for FY 1985 through 1988 for: (1) general administration by the Administrator of the EPA to carry out such Act (including funds for Resource Recovery and Conservation Panels, hazardous waste management, and support for State, regional, local, and interstate agency solid waste plans); (2) grants to State hazardous waste programs; ( 3) the hazardous waste site inventory; (4) development and implementation of plans by State, local, regional, and interstate authorities; (5) implementation of State, local, and intermunicipal programs for solid waste management, resource recovery, resource conservation, and hazardous waste management; (6) special communities assistance; (7) assistance to States for recycled oil programs; (8) the Secretary of Commerce to carry out resource and recovery duties; (9)
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-12
additional EPA officers or employees to conduct criminal investigations under such Act and for support costs for such additional criminal investigators; (10) underground storage tank regulation; (11) grants to States for State underground storage tank rele ase detection, prevention, and correction programs; (12) small quantity generator waste education programs; (13) State and other programs requiring compliance with open dumping/sanitary landfill criteria by solid waste management facilities within 36 month s after enactment of this Act; and (14) the National Ground Water Commission. In general, both the scope and requirements of the Amendments, as amended by RCRA, were significantly expanded and reinforced.
State
The state regulations that govern hazardous materials are equal to or more stringent than federal regulations.
California has been granted primary oversight responsibility by the EPA to administer and enforce hazardous waste management programs. State regulations have detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human health and the environment. Several key state laws pertaining to hazardous wastes are discusse d below. In addition, the Department of Toxic Substance Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Integrated Waste Management Act also regulate the generation of hazardous materials, also described below.
California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act provides the basic authority for conducting emergency operations following a proclamation of emergency by the governor and/or appropriate local authorities. Local government and district emergency plans are considered to be extensions of the California Emergency Plan, established in accordance with the Emergency Services Act.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code (CFC) is Chapter 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The Code is the primary means for authorizing and enforcing procedures and mechanisms to ensure the safe handling and storage of any substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety. The CFC regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for haza rdous materials at fixed facilities. The CFC and the C alifornia Building Code use a hazard classification system to determine what protective measures are required to protect fire and life safety. These measures may include construction standards, separations from property lines, and specialized equipment. To ensure these safety measures are met, the CFC employs a permit system based on hazard classification. The CFC is updated every 3 years. SMFD has adopted the CFC by reference in its own Fire Code.
California Health and Safety Code, Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, the California Department of Environmental Health implements the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program and the California Accidental Release Program in San Diego County. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan and California Accidental Release Program programs provide threshold quantities for regulated hazardous substances. When the indicated quantities are exceeded, a Hazardous Materials Business Plan or Risk Management Plan is required pursuan t to the regulation. Congress requires EPA Region 9 to make risk management plan information available to the public through the EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-13
California Integrated Waste Management Act
This act requires the development and implementation of household hazardous waste disposal plans. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery , formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board, oversees compliance with this act and enforces operational plans for solid waste facilities.
Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the Calif ornia Emergency Management Agency, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including California EPA, California Highway Patrol , the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act (California Government Code Section 8850 et seq.), the state developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local agencies. Quick response to incidents involving hazard ous materials or hazardous waste is a key element of this plan. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services administers the plan, coordinating the responses of other agencies, including EPA, California Highway Patrol, Regional Water Quality Control Board s, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices.
Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List)
The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is a planning document used by the state and local agencies to provide information about hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Sec tion 65962.5 requires C alifornia EPA to develop an updated Cortese List annually, at minimum. The Department of Toxic Substance Control is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other California state and local governme nt agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act is implemented by regulations contained in California Code of Regulations Title 26 that describe requirements for the proper management of hazardous wastes. The act created the state hazardous waste management program, which is similar to but more stringent than the federal RCRA program. The Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26 regulations list more than 800 potentially hazardous materials and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, transporting, and disposing of s uch wastes. Under these regulations, the generator of hazardous waste material must complete a manifest that accompanies the material from the point of generation to transportation to the ultimate disposal location, with copies of the manifest filed with t he Department of Toxic Substance Control.
Unified Program
The California EPA delegates to qualifying local agencies oversight and permitting responsibility for certain state programs pertaining to hazardous waste and hazardous materials. This is achieved through the Unified Program,
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-14
created by state legislation in 1993 to consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for the following emergency and management programs:
▪ Hazardous materials release response plans and inventories (business plans) ▪ California Accidental Release Prevention Program
▪ Underground Storage Tank Program
▪ Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Requirements for Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plans ▪ Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs ▪ California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous material management plans and hazardous material inventory statements
The County of San Diego is the designated certified unified program agency for all local jurisdictions within the San Diego region, including San Marcos.
State Responsibility Area Fire Safe Regulations ( California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Natural Resources, Department of Forestry Fire Protection) These regulations constitute the basic wildland fire protection standards of the California Board of Forestry. They have been prepared and adopted for the purpose of establishing minimum wildfire protection standards in conjunction with building, construction, and development in State Responsibility Areas. Title 14 regulates that the future design and construction of structures, subdivisions, and developments in State Responsibility Areas shall provide for basic emergency access and perimeter wildfire protection measures.
Local
Airport Land Use Commission and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans Airport Land Use Commissions assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing or proposed airport s; coordinate planning at state, regional , and local levels; prepare and adopt airport land use policies; review plans or regulations submitted by local agencies; and review and make recommendations regarding the land use, building heights, and other issues related to air navigation safety. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority is the Airport Land Use Commission for the San Diego region.
The closest airport to the project site is the McClellan -Palomar Airport, which operates under its own Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The project site is not located within any of the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Areas (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011).
County of San Diego Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan To comply with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the County of San Diego prepared the Multi - Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The plan serves as both a county-wide plan and a plan for local jurisdictions that identifies risks posed by natural and human -made disasters before a hazard event occurs. The plan includes overall goals and objectives shared by many jurisdictions, as well as specific goals, objectives, and mitigation action items for each of the participating jurisdictions to help minimize the effects of the specified hazards that could potentially affect their jurisdiction. Goals, objectives, and action items for the City of San Marcos are included in this plan (County of San Diego 2017).
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-15
San Marcos Fire Department Hazard Risk Analysis and Wildland Urban Interface Community Wildfire Protection Plan
The Community Wildfire Protection Plan, adopted in December 2007 (San Marcos Fire Department 2007 ), was developed by the SMFD with guidance from the County of San Diego, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the United States Forest Service. The Community Wildfire Protection Plan supplements San Diego County, Department of Planning and Land use documents. SMFD also published the Hazard Risk Analysis for internal City use, incorporating new and existing information relating to wildfire risk within the City to better quantify true risk and management needs. The Hazard Risk Analysis quantifies, clarifies, and manages the wildland urban interface responsibility and meets the requirements of the federal Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 for community fire planning.
City of San Marcos, Ordinance 2003 -1216
The City Ordinance 2003-1216 amends Chapter 17.64 of the Municipal Code to adopt the most recent version of the California Fire Code. This ordinance also requires all buildings or structures to provide and maintain an effective fuel modification zone of 150 feet.
City of San Marcos General Plan
Safety Element
The Safety Element of the San Marcos General Plan contains the following goals and policies pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials that apply to the proposed project:
Goals S-3: Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from structure or wildland fire hazards.
Policy S -3.1: Require development to be located, designed and constructed to provide adequate defensibility and reduce the risk of structural loss and life resulting from wildland fires.
Development will consider hazards relative to terrain, topography, accessibility and proximity to vegetation. One such provision for development to minimize the risk of structural loss and life shall be the inclusion of overhead fire sprinklers.
Policy S-3.2: Provide sufficient level of fire protection service to reduce risk from urban and wildland fire.
Advocate and support regional coordination among fire protection and emergency service providers.
Policy S -3.3: Require development to provide additional access roads when necessary to provide for safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently.
Policy S-3.4: Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers to assess fire hazards before and after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, commensurate with both short- and long-term fire prevention needs.
Goal S-4: Protect life, structures, and the environment from the harmful effects of hazardous materials and waste.
Policy S-4.1: Promote and support the proper disposal, handling, transport, delivery, treatment, recovery, recycling, and storage of hazardous materials in accordance with applicable federal, State, and local regulations.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-16
Policy S -4.2: Require areas of known or suspected contamination to be assessed prior to reuse or redevelopment. Plan for reuse of contaminated areas in a manner that is compatible with the nature of the contamination and subsequent remediation efforts.
Policy S -4.3: Require areas of known or suspected contamination to be assessed prior to reuse or redevelopment. Plan for reuse of contaminated areas in a manner that is compatible with the nature of the contamination and subsequent remediation efforts.
Policy S-4.4: Avoid locating sensitive uses near established hazardous materials users or industrial areas where incompatibilities would result, except in cases where appropriate safeguards have been developed and implemented.
Goal S-5: Establish and maintain an effective emergency response program to respond to disasters and maintain continuity-of-life support functions during an emergency.
Policy S-5.3: Develop, implement, and maintain an effective evacuation program for areas of risk in the event of a disaster.
Goal S-7: Comply with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Policy S -7.1: Record an overflight notification document in association with the approval of any new residential land use within the AIA overflight notification area consistent with the ALUCP.
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10 , the proposed project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the General Plan pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials.
3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous material would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Threshold No. 2: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Threshold No. 3: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school .
Threshold No. 4: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result, would i t create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-17
Threshold No. 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
Threshold No. 6: Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Threshold No. 7: Expose people or structures , either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
3.8.4 Project Impact Analysis
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as a result of development of the proposed project are analyzed below.
Threshold No. 1. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Construction of the proposed project would entail transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to , diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. Direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment could occur with the transport, use, or disposal of these materials. However, existing federal and state standards related to the handling, storage, and transport of these materials would be implemented during construction of the proposed project. These regulations include the Federal Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (Part 68 of th e Code of Federal Regulations), California Highway Patrol and California Department of Transportation container and licensing requirements for transportation of hazardous waste on public roads , the International Fire Code , the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 , California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law , California Fire Code , California Health and Safety Code Hazardous Materials Rele ase Response Plans and Inventory , California I ntegrated Waste Management Act , regulations developed by California Occupations Safety and Health Administration, and the state Hazardous Waste Control Act.
During operation of the proposed project, the only hazardous materials anticipated for transport, use, or disposal associated would be routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products, typical of residential uses. The use, handling, and disposal of these products is addressed by household hazardous waste programs that are part of the Integrated Waste Management Plan of the County of San Diego. The Household Hazardous Waste Element of the Integrated Waste Management Plan specifies the means by which hazardous wastes generated by households shal l be collected, recycled, treated, and disposed of safely (County of San Diego 2005).
The proposed project’s compliance with all standards required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations, in addition to project-specific plans reviewed by the City, would ensure potential impacts to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would not be substantial .
Furthermore, hazards associated with development and operation of the proposed project would likely be less than that associated with industrial development, which is the cur rent designated land use/zoning for the project site.
Therefore, impacts of the proposed project are determined to be less than significant.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-18
Threshold No. 2. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? As discussed under Threshold 1, construction of the proposed project would entail transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. As described above, the proposed project would be required to comply with all standards required through federal, state, county, and municipal regulations, in addition to project-specific plans review by the City, which would ensure potential impacts related to hazardous materials would not be significant. Furthermore, hazards associated with development and operation of the proposed project would likely be less than that associated with industrial development, which is the current designated land use/zoning for the project site.
The proposed project would be limited to multifamily residences, residential amenities, and open space uses, which are not typically characteristic of generating, releasing, or using large amounts of hazardous materials. During operations of the proposed project, the only hazardous materials anticipated for transport, use, or disposal are routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries , and garden maintenance products. The use, handling, and disposal of these products are addressed by household hazardous waste programs that are part of the Integrated Waste Management Plan of the County of San Diego, and therefore the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through hazardous upsets or accidents.
For these reasons, the proposed project is not expected to result in potential upset and accident conditions involving release of hazardous materials in the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 3: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The closest school to the project site is TERI Country School, located approximately 0.2 miles southeast of the project site. However, the proposed project is not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste beyond routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products. Residential use of the project site is also expected to handle fewer hazardous materials and emit reduced hazardous emissions compared to industrial uses planned under the current Industrial use zoning designation for the project site. Therefore, proposed project impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 4. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As part of the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project (Appendix H) a database search report was completed, which documents various federal, state, and local regulatory database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials, chemical handlers, and/or polluters. The proposed project site is not located on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-19
Threshold No. 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The closest airport to the project site is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles west of the project site. The project site is not located within any of the McClellan -Palomar Airport Influence Areas (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 6: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan governs the operations of the City during a disaster. This plan addresses response to moderate evacuation scenarios, including the identification of evacuation points and general routes (City of San Marcos 2012).
The proposed project would be required to abide by the standards set forth in the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to impact any roadway or staging areas that are identified in any emergency planning documents and would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As required under the California Fire Code, t he proposed project would be required to present development pla ns that afford fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Section 503.1 through Section 503.4 of the California Fire Code), an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D, Section D106 of the California Fire Code), and entryway gate access for first responders (Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code, Section 503.6). The proposed points of entry and private driveways will be reviewed by SMFD and would be required to meet the qualifications for emergency access to and from the project site. Furthermore, as described in FPP prepared for the proposed project (Appendix N to this EIR) , it is determined that SMFD could provide emergency response to the project site within its internal 7 -minute response time from fire stations 1 and 2, and Vista Fire Department Station 4 could provide an approximate 7-minute response to the project site and would respond per mutual aid agreements, if needed. Therefore, it is determined that i mpacts related to emergency response or emergency evacuation as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 7: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
As described in the FPP prepared for the project (Appendix N to this EIR), the project site lies within an area considered a High Hazard Severity Zone, as designated by the City of San Marcos General Plan Safety Element, and a Non-Very High Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire hazard designations are based on topography, vegetation, and weather, amongst other factors. The project site is within a developed City landscape, surrounded by urban land uses on all sides. The project site is not considered to meet the definitions of wildland given its urban location. Further, the site currently, and post -project, would not represent a significant wildfire hazard based on the flat terrain, fuel types, including low growing vegetation and vernal pools, which by definition, preclude the growth of heavier fuel types that could, over time, present a wildfire threat.
The project site is an undeveloped lot that is relatively flat and shows signs of previous disturbance. The proposed project redesignation of the project site from Industrial to Residential use would likely reduce the potential for wildfire hazards on-site. The proposed project would not include associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire codes,
3.8 - HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.8-20
including compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted by the City of San Marcos and SMFD, which require a design that affords fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, Section 503.1 through 503.4 of the California Fire Code), an adequate number of emergency rated entrances to the community (Appendix D, Section D106 of the California Fire Code), and entryway gate access for first responders (Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code, Section 503.6). Furthermore, as determined in the FPP prepared for the proposed project (Appendix N to this EIR), SMFD’s existing Stations 1 and 2 would adequately serve the project site while maintaining SMFD’s response goals.
Additionally, project construction w ould also include enhanced ignition resistant features such as a 1 -hour fire- resistive walls, Class -A fire -rated roofs and associated assembly, automatic interior fire sprinkler systems, appropriate fire flows, adequate water capacity and supporting infrastructure, and fuel modification areas to further reduce the potential for the risk of wildfire hazards.
For the reasons stated above and considering the project site is located in an urbanized area surrounded on all sides by existing development, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfires, and impacts would be less than significant.
Please refer to Section 3.18, Wildfire, for a detailed analysis of project impacts related to wildfire risk.
3.8.5 Mitigation Measures
No impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were identified; thus, no mitigation measures are required.
3.8.6 Conclusion
As discussed in Section 3.8.4, Project Impact Analysis, the project site is currently undeveloped and is not listed on any hazardous materials sites or databases. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not expected to result in the transport, release, or disposal of any significant hazardous materials. Development of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Lastly, the proposed residential development on site would be const ructed in accordance with all applicable fire codes and regulations. As such, project- level and cumulative-level impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-1
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section describes the existing hydrology and water quality of the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project.
The analysis in this section relies on the following reports prepared for the proposed project:
▪ Preliminary Drainage Study, prepared by Lundstorm Engineering and Surveying, Inc ., January 24, 2023 (included as Appendix E to this environmental impact report [EIR]) ▪ Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, prepared by GEOTEK Inc., November 30, 2022 (included as Appendix F to this EIR)
▪ Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), prepared by Lundstrom Engineering and Surveying, Inc., August 15, 2022 (revised February 16, 2023) (included as Appendix G to this EIR) Table 3.9-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level hydrology and water quality impact analysis by threshold.
Table 3.9-1. Hydrology and Water Quality Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on or off site.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4: Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on or off site.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 5: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-2
Table 3.9-1. Hydrology and Water Quality Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 6: Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would impede or redirect flood flows
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 8: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.9.1 Existing Conditions
This section details the existing hydrology, water quality and groundwater conditions on the project site.
Hydrologic Setting
The project site is located at the northern corner of Linda Vista Drive and South Las Posas Road in the City of San Marcos, San Diego County, California. The site is bounded to the southwest by Linda Vista Drive, to the southeast by South Las Posas Road, to the northeast by La Mirada Drive and to the northwest by South Pacific Street. The project site is primarily flat, with s ite surface conditions generally consist ing of rolling unimproved earthen terrain, with low-growing vegetation. Total change in elevation across the site is approximately 28 feet, with surface drainage directed toward the southeastern corner of the property toward South Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive. Elevations on site range from approximately 527 feet above mean sea level in the southeast portion of the project area to 551 feet in the northwest corner of the project site.
Stormwater arrives on site via natural rainfall only. Rainfall run-off from the site typically only occurs during a significant wet weather event. Stormwater that does accumulate on site generally drains in a south -easterly direction to an existing storm drain inlet and is then conveyed easterly across South Las Posas Road through a culvert and eventually downstream to the San Marcos Creek. More specifically, this drainage is collected in a corrugated metal pipe riser that drains to an 11-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box in South Las Posas Road. The remainder of the project site surface drains to the surrounding streets. All surrounding streets drain via gutter flow to the same corner ( South Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive) where runoff is collected by a pair of curb inlets , which drain into the same 11-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box in South Las Posas R oad. There is no off -site run-on to the property (Appendix E). The project site is located in Zone X of the Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 06073C0789H. Zone X is designated to be areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain (Appendix E).
Water Quality
The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The San Diego Region is divided into eleven hydrologic units. The project site is located in the Richland Hydrologic Subarea (HSA) 904.52, within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area (HA 904.52) that is part of the Carlsbad Watershed (Hydrologic Unit 904.00) (RWQCB 2021). The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit (904.00) is a triangular area
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-3
covering approximately 210 square miles (SW RCB 2002). This hydrologic unit is bordered by San Luis Rey Hydrologic Unit to the north and San Dieguito Hydrologic Unit to the east and south. The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit includes one small coastal lagoon (Loma Alta Slough) and four major coastal lagoons, including Buena Vista, Agua Hedionda, Batiquitos, and San Elijo (SW RCB 2002). The Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit is separated into four primary subwatersheds based on topographical drainage areas to creek systems, including 904.1 San Luis Rey River, 904.3 Agua Hedionda Creek, 904.5 San Marcos Creek, and 904.6 Escondido Creek. Each of these subwatershed areas is further refined by eight creek system branches by hydrographic subareas (City of San Marcos 2012a).
The protection of watersheds and water quality is a prominent concern for the City since all of the major creeks and their tributaries (San Marcos, Agua Hedionda, and Escondido) are listed by the State Water Resources Control Board as impaired for a variety of pollutants that ultimately affect the water quality of surface and groundwater supplies and biological resources. The City has partnered with other jurisdictions in the Carlsbad Watershed to implement Water Quality Improvement Plans in coordination with the San Diego RWQCB Region 9 for nutrients and bacteria to protect the watersheds and address the water body impairments. The City is the lead agency for the nutrient management plan in the Upper San Marcos Creek Watershed (City of San Marcos 2012a).
The San Diego RWQCB has adopted a Basin Plan that outlines beneficial uses and water quality objectives that are protective of the beneficial uses for each of the HSA areas in the General Plan Area. In addition, the San Diego RWQCB has adopted Order R9 -2013-0001 amended by R9-2015-0001, the San Diego Region Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit, the Bacteria I Order total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and is providing oversight with a stakeholder-driven nutrient TMDL for the Upper San Marcos Creek (HSA 904.52 and 904.53) to address the impairments in San Marcos Creek and Lake San Marcos. The City is the lead agency for the Upper San Marcos Creek nutrient TMDL. The City of San Marcos regionally and locally implements the requirements of the MS4 Permit. This includes best management practice (BMP) inspection programs for businesses, municipal facilities, and treatment control facilities; preventative programs such as street sweeping and storm drain facility cleaning; monitoring water quality within th e City of San Marcos; and integrating site design, source control, low impact development (LID), treatment controls, and hydromodification design for City projects and private development and redevelopment to reduce polluted stormwater from entering the City’s MS4 (City of San Marcos 2012a).
Due to the existing terrain and undeveloped condition of the project site and relatively flat terrain, the project site in current conditions does not contribute to water quality issues in the City.
Groundwater
As described in the Revised Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project (Appendix F), static groundwater was not encountered during drilling operations. Excavations B -5 and B -6 appear ed to have encountered perched water at a depth of approximately 19 and 15 feet (respectively) and cuttings in B-4 at a depth of 17 feet suggest perch ed groundwater. Based on the anticipated depth of removals, groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor during development of the project site. Localized perched groundwater may be present but is also not anticipated to be a factor in site development, with the exception that seasonal water levels are likely to impact stormwater management.
The San Diego RWQCB Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for groundwater in the four primary subwatersheds as municipal, agricultural, and industrial uses (RWQCB 2021). The City of San Marcos is located in the Department of Water Resources (DWR) South Coast Hydrologic Region. DWR Bulletin 118 identifies the San Marcos Area as Basin 9-32. The DWR San Marcos Area is 2,129 acres. This groundwater basin is located entirely within San Marcos Creek HSA 904.52, which is designated as impaired and has a hydrologic connection to Lake San Marcos. Other minor groundwater basins
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-4
and wells are located throughout the San Marcos General Plan area outside of Basin 9-32; however, the DWR Basin 9-32 is the only groundwater basin formally designated in the General Plan Area.
Protection of the groundwater beneficial uses identified in the Basin Plan through the implementation of watershed protection programs in the City is critical to protecting the City’s ability to use these resources.
Due to the undeveloped condition of the project site, the project site in current conditions does not contribute to groundwater contamination, nor is groundwater used in current conditions.
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting
This section details the applicable federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to hydrology and water quality.
Federal
Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance Program to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations limiting development in floodplains.
FEMA also issues Flood Insurance Rate Maps that identify which land areas are subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones in the community. The standard for flood protection is established by FEMA, with the minimum level of flood protection for new development determined to be the 1% annual exceedance probability (i.e., the 100-year flood event). The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone.
Federal Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the U.S. and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pol lution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. “Clean Water Act” became the Act’s common name with amendments in 1977.
Under the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater discharge standards for industry. EPA has also set water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters unless a permit was obtained.
Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that would not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point-source dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires that the state develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. The TMDL is the amount of loading that the water body can receive and still be in compliance with water quality objectives. The TMDL can also act as a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. The TMDL prepared by the state must include an allocation of allowable loadings to point and nonpoint sources, with consideration of background loadings and a margin of safety.
The TMDL must also include an analysis that shows the linkage between loading reductions and the attainment of water quality objectives. EPA must either approve a TMDL prepared by the state or, if it disapproves the state’s TMDL, issue its own. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits for listed pollutants must be
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-5
consistent with the waste load allocation prescribed in the TMDL. After implementation of the TMDL, it is anticipated that the problems that led to placement of a given pollutant on the Section 303(d) list would be remediated.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The NPDES permit system was established in the federal CWA to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the U.S. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the federal EPA must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.
Nonpoint sources are diffuse and originate from a wide area rather than from a definable point. Nonpoint pollution often enters receiving waters in the form of surface runoff but is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. As defined in th e federal regulations, such nonpoint sources are generally exempt from federal NPDES permit program requirements. However, three types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program: nonpoint source discharge caused by general constructi on activities, the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems, and discharges associated with industrial operations. The 1987 amendments to the CWA directed the federal EPA to implement the stormwater program in two phases. Phase I addressed discharges from large (population 250,000 or above) and medium (population 100,000 to 250,000) municipalities and certain industrial activities. Phase II addresses all other discharges defined by EPA that are not included in Phase I.
In accordance with NPDES regulations, in order to minimize the potential effects of construction runoff on receiving water quality, the State requires that any construction activity that disturbs 1 acre or more must obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit. Permit applicants are required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and implement BMPs, such as erosion and sediment control and non -stormwater management measures, to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality.
Examples of typical BMPs implemented in SWPPPs include using temporary mulching, seeding, or other suitable stabilization measures to protect uncovered soils; storing materials and equipment to ensure that spills or leaks cannot enter the storm drain system or surface water; developing and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan; installing traps, filters, or other devices at drop inlets to prevent contaminants from entering storm drains; and using barriers, such as straw bales or plastic, to minim ize the amount of uncontrolled runoff that could enter drains or surface water.
The proposed project would be subject to permit requirements and would develop and implement a project-specific SWPPP to minimize construction activity impacts.
State
California Water Code Division 7 (Porter -Cologne Act)
The California Water Code contains provisions regulating water and its use. Division 7 establishes a program to protect water quality and beneficial uses of the state water resources including groundwater and surface water.
The State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) and RWQCB administer the program and are responsible for control and water quality. They establish waste discharge requirements, oversee water quality control planning and monitoring, enforce discharge permits, and establish ground and surface water quality objectives.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-6
State Water Resources Control Board
In California, the SWRCB has broad authority over water-quality control issues for the State. The SWRCB is responsible for developing statewide water quality policy and exercises the powers delegated to the State by the Federal government under the CWA. Ot her State agencies with jurisdiction over water quality regulation in California include California Department of Public Health (for drinking water regulations), the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment.
Construction General Permit
Owners and operators of construction activities who disturb 1 or more acres of soil, or less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the SWRCB’s Order 2009 -0009-DWQ (as amended by 2010 -0014-DWQ and 2012 -0006-DWQ), the Construction General Permit. Construction and demolition activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, grubbing, and excavation or any other activity that results in a land dist urbance equal to or greater than 1 acre. Applicants are required to submit a Notice of Intent to the SWRCB and prepare a SWPPP. The SWPPP must identify BMPs that are to be implemented to reduce construction impacts on receiving water quality based on potential pollutants. The SWPPP also must include descriptions of the BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges after construction phases are completed at a site (post-construction BMPs).
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The project site is situated within the jurisdiction of the San Diego RWQCB (Region 9). The San Diego RWQCB has the authority to implement water quality protection standards through the issuance of permits for discharges to waters at locations within its jurisdiction.
The project site is located in the Richland Hydrologic Subarea within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area, which is part of the Carlsbad Watershed. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan) was prepared by the RWQCB in compliance with the federal CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act and establishes water quality objectives and implementation programs to meet stated objectives and to protect the beneficial uses of water bodies in the area. Because the City of San Marcos is located within the San Diego RWQCB’s jurisdiction, all discharges to surface water or groundwater are subject to the Basin Plan requirements.
In May 2013, the San Diego RWQCB adopted Order R9 -2013-0001, the new municipal NPDES permit for 39 municipal, county government, and special district entities located in southern Orange County, southwestern Riverside County, and San Diego County who own an d operate large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) that discharge stormwater runoff and non-stormwater runoff to surface waters throughout the San Diego Region. This permit has requirements for development projects to minimize or eliminate the i mpacts of such development on water quality. The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the municipal permit as it is implemented via the Carlsbad Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program. The specific requirements include the selection of appropriate BMPs to avoid, prevent, or reduce the pollutant loads entering the storm drain system and receiving waters. The permit was amended in February 2015 by Order R9-2015-0001 and in November 2015 by Order R9-2015-0100.
Provision D.1.a of Order R9 -2013-0001 requires the San Diego Stormwater Co -permittees to continue water monitoring programs established within previous Orders and pursuant to the approved Hydromodification Management Plan (January 2011). The City of San Marcos is one of the co-permittees.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-7
To comply with Order R9 -2013-0001, as amended, the February 2016 Model BMP Design Manual – San Diego Region (BMP Design Manual) was developed to provide County -specific project design and post -construction stormwater requirements for development projects and replace the prior San Diego Regional Model Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (County of San Diego 2020) . The BMP Design Manual is used to ensure compliance with the MS4 permit for structural BMPs subject to pollutant control and hydromodificatio n requirements.
Additionally, it recommends LID features such as site design and source control BMPs for the proposed development project. Structural BMPs such as infiltration, bioretention, or biofiltration BMPs is a subset of BMPs that detains, retains, filters, removes , or prevents the release of pollutants to surface waters from development projects in perpetuity, after construction of a project is completed. Hydromodification requirements utilize structural BMPs to prevent the change in the natural watershed hydrologic processes and runoff characteristics caused by urbanization or other land use changes that result in increased stream flows and sediment transport. LID is a stormwater management and land development strategy that emphasizes conservation and the use of on -site natural features integrated with engineered, small-scale hydrology controls to more closely reflect pre-development hydrologic functions.
Local
Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan On May 8, 2013, the San Diego RWQCB adopted Order R9-2013- 0001, a NPDES MS4 Permit, regulating discharges from Phase I MS4s in the San Diego Region ( SWRCB 2015). Provision B of the Permit requires Responsible Agencies, in each of the region’s Watershed Management Areas to develop Water Quality Improvement Plans (WQIPs) that identify water quality conditions and strategies to improve water quality within the watershed. Through the WQIP approach, Highest Priority Water Quality Conditions within the Watershed Management Area are identified, and strategies are implemented through the Responsible Agencies Jurisdictional Runoff Management Programs to progressively improve water quality. The plans contain an adaptive planning and management process and a public participation component. The Carlsbad Management Area Water WQIP was prepared in June 2016 for the Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies, which include the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista, and the County of San Diego (Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies 2016).
San Marcos Stormwater Standards
The City has adopted the use of the 2016 Model BMP Design Manual for the San Diego Region as the City’s Stormwater Standards Manual, and the proposed project must comply with the standards and regulations contained therein.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-8
City of San Marcos General Plan
Conservation and O pen Space Element
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, related to hydrology and water quality (City of San Marcos 2012a):
Goal COS-6: Protect and restore appropriate surface water and groundwater beneficial uses through prioritizing the improvement of locally impaired water bodies within the City of San Marcos sub watersheds.
Policy COS-6.2: Promote watershed stewardship as the community norm.
Goal COS-7: Achieve sustainable watershed protection for surface and ground water quality that balances social, economical, and environmental needs.
Policy COS-8.4: Require new development and redevelopment to protect the quality of water bodies and natural drainage systems through site design, source controls, storm water treatment, runoff reduction measures, BMPs, LID, hydromodification strategies consistent with the Current San Diego RWQCB Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit, and all future municipal stormwater permits.
Safety Element
The following goal and policy in the City of San Marcos General Plan, Safety Element, are applicable to flooding and flood control (City of San Marcos 2012b):
Goal S-2: Minimize the risk to people, property, and the environment due to flooding hazards.
Policy S-2.2: Require existing private development to take responsibility for maintenance and repair of structures to resist flood damage.
Land Use and Community Design Element
The following goal and policies in the City of San Marcos General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element, are applicable to stormwater drainage facilities (City of San Marcos 2012c):
Goal LU-15: Flood control and storm water drainage facilities: ensure adequate flood control and storm water drainage is provided by the community.
Policy LU -15.1: Implement activities, practices, procedures, or facilities that avoid, prevent, or reduce pollution of the San Marcos Storm Water Conveyance System and receiving waters.
Policy LU -15.2: Improve inadequate or undersized drainage/flood control facilities to solve both small neighborhood and large regional drainage and flood control problems.
Policy LU-15.3: Avoid, to the extent possible, development in floodplain and flood prone areas.
Policy LU-15.4: Retain drainage courses in their natural condition, to the extent possible. Consider smaller- scale drainage improvements to protect the environment and avoid disturbing natural drainage courses; consider detention areas and raised building pads.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-9
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to hydrology and water quality.
City of San Marcos Ordinances
The Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 14.15) requires that all new development and redevelopment activities comply with stormwater pollution prevention requirements. These stormwater pollution prevention requirement s, which are described in detail in Section 14.15.050 of the Municipal Code “Reduction of Pollutants in Storm Water,” include construction, development and redevelopment, and residential BMPs.
3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to hydrology and water quality are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
Threshold No. 2: Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Threshold No. 3: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.
Threshold No. 4: Substantially alter the existing drainage patter n of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site.
Threshold No. 5: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
Threshold No. 6: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows.
Threshold No. 7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Threshold No. 8: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plan.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-10
3.9.4 Project Impact Analysis
This section considers the impacts to hydrology and water quality that would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in potential impacts to water quality. In addition to sediment erosion from ground-disturbing activities on the project site, fuels, oils, lubricants, and other hazardous substances used during construction could be released and potentially impact water quality.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES SWRCB Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ for stormwater discharges and general construction activities, and would incorporate standard temporary construction BMPs, such as regular cleaning or sweeping of construction areas and impervious areas, and various stormwater BMPs , such as fiber rolls and filtration media screens. In compliance with the Construction General Permit, a SWPPP will be prepared for the project that would specify BMPs that would be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to water quality.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the NPDES MS4 permit for stormwater discharges as a post -construction requirement. The p roject implementation of permanent biofiltration, source control, and site design BMPs would effectively treat post-construction stormwater runoff prior to discharge from the site in compliance with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual and BMPs outlined in the SWQMP.
The proposed biofiltration features on site would be subject to regular inspection and maintenance. The property owner is required, pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Section 14.15 and the BMP Design Manual, to enter into a Stormwater Quality Facilities Maintenance agreement for the installation and maintenance of permanent BMPs prior to issuance of a grading permit.
As described in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, proposed residential uses are not typically characteristic of generating, releasing, or using large amounts of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials anticipated would be for transport, use, or disposal of routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products, typical of residential land uses. Operation of the project is not expected to include such uses that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Furthermore, uses associated with construction and operation of the project would likely be less of a detriment to water quality than those uses associated with industrial uses, which is the current designated land use for the project site.
The implementation of permanent biofiltration, source control, and site design BMPs would effectively treat runoff prior to discharge from the site in compliance with the requirements of the BMP Design Manual and BMPs outlined in the SWQMP. Additionally, implementation of a SWPPP for temporary construction BMPs during grading and construction operations would effectively treat runoff during construction prior to discharge from the site in compliance with the State Construction General Permit . Therefore, with implementation of all required BMPs as conditions of project approval , the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. I mpacts would be less than significant.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-11
Threshold No. 2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? As discussed above, l ocalized perched groundwater may be present on the project site; however, no static groundwater was encountered that would be indicative of an aquifer occurring below the site. All stormwater flows on site would be conveyed to biofiltration basins and underground storage systems throughout the project site, where stormwater would be treated prior to being discharged. Stormwater would be adequately treated by the biofiltration BMPs prior to being discharged to the City’s MS4. Preservation of natural/undisturbed areas in the project will allow some of the runoff to infiltrate into the native soils and eventually reach groundwater. As the project would use biofiltration and BMPs that would effectively treat stormwater runoff, it is not expected that project implementation would have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses.
Further, as discussed in Section 3.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the project would receive water from the Vallecitos Water District, who in turn, receives its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
The Metropolitan Water District obtains water from local sources , as well as the Colorado River, via the Colorado River Aqueduct, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, via the State Water Project (MWD 2016). The project does not propose the use of groundwater for construction or operation and would not interfere with infiltration and groundwater recharge . The implementation of the proposed project would not decrease groundwater basins through increasing water demand on site or impede sustainable groundwater management of any groundwater basin. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 3. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? There are no existing streams or rivers on site that would be substantially altered as a result of project implementation. However, project implementation would introduce new impervious areas and include on -site drainage systems that could alter the existing drainage pattern on the project site. The project site is currently a vacant lot and has no existing impervious areas.
As discussed above, storm water arrives on site via natural rainfall only. Rainfall runoff from the site typically only occurs during a significant storm event. Storm water that does accumulate on site generally drains in a south - easterly direction toward the northwest corner of Linda Vista Drive and South Las Posas Road. This drainage is collected in a corrugated metal pipe riser that drains to an 11 -foot by 7 -foot reinforced concrete box in South Las Posas Road, and eventually flows downstream and discharges to San Marcos Creek. The remainder of the site surface drains to the surrounding streets. All surrounding streets drain via gutter flow to the same corner ( South Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive) where runoff is collected by a pair of curb inlets that drain into the same 11-foot by 7-foot reinforced concrete box in South Las Posas Road. There is no off -site run-on to the project site.
Per the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit requirements, MS4 water requirements, stormwater flows on site would be conveyed to biofiltration basins and underground storage systems throughout the project site, where storm water would be treated prior to being discharged. The project has considered stormwater flows and designed the grading plan to direct all surface runoff to catch basins in private drives and drive aisles. Once captured, stormwater would be conveyed through a series of pipes, storm water quality facilities, and conveyed to the existing box culvert in South Las Posas Road. Treated runoff would follow the same drainage pattern as currently exists. Storm drainage components would properly handle runoff to meet regulatory requirements.
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-12
As described in response to Threshold No. 1, the proposed project would be required to implement BMPs during construction and for post -construction and incorporate on-site storm drain systems, biofiltration BMPs, and detention vaults into development design. With implementation of the proposed biofiltration basins and detention vaults, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns on the site or area, including through the alteration of the existing drainage course, and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; and would not exceed the capacity of downstream storm drain facilities (Appendix E). Additionally, project-related runoff would be adequately treated prior to discharge into planned drainage systems via biofiltration BMPs and detention vaults such that the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The proposed project would be required to demonstrate adequate drainage on site, and connections to off-site existing facilities, in project-specific plans to be reviewed and approved by the City. Further, implementation of construction BMPs and a SWPPP would ensure construction of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. The Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix E) in accordance with the SWQMP recommends storm drain system and water quality facilities, such as biofiltration BMPs and detention vaults, for the project site. Recommendations outlined in the Preliminary Drainage Study would be conditions of approval for the proposed project. These components would properly handle runoff to meet regulatory requirements and would not increase the flow rates or velocity of surface flows to the detriment of downstream landowners and/or facilities (Appendix E) . Therefore, it is determined that impacts to existing drainage as it relates to erosion or siltation, would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 4. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage patter n of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
Please refer to response to Threshold No. 3. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the area of impervious surface on the project site, which could increase runoff flow rates and volumes. However, the proposed project would include implementation of temporary construction BMPs during construction and permanent BMPs proposed as an on-site storm drain system, including biofiltration BMPs and detention vault for a post-development condition as recommended by the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix E) in accordance with the SWQMP. These BMPs would be sized to treat, store, and release stormwater runoff such that it does not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns and will not exceed the capacity of the receiving storm drain system. Implementation of BMPs would be a condition of approval for the proposed project to ensure facilities would be designed to collect and convey runoff from 100-year storm events, as well as handle runoff and comply with applicable regulatory requirements outlined in Section 3.9.2 . This would ensure that the runoff quantities generated by the project do not significantly alter the existin g drainage pattern of the site resulting in flooding.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 5. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Please refer to response to Threshold No. 3. Implementation of the proposed project would increase impervious areas on site. However, adequate on-site drainage and off-site storm drain connection would be incorporated into the project site design to manage stormwater on and off site as a result of project development . The Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix E) recommends a storm drain system, such as biofiltration BMPs and detention vaults, for the project. These components would convey runoff to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure that post -
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-13
development runoff would occur at rates that are equal to, or less than , pre-development conditions. Further, preparation and implementation of the SWQMP and implementation of project specific permanent BMPs would ensure the project would not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. For these reasons, it is determined that i mplementation of the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river, and development of the project is not expected to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, nor result in substantial sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, i mpacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 6: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Please refer to responses to Thresholds No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5, above. The project would increase the impervious surface area on site in comparison to existing conditions , which could increase runoff flow rates or volumes.
However, the project site and the immediate area are relatively flat and do not currently result in flooding during storms. A storm drain system recommended by the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix E) would properly convey runoff to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure that post-development run-off quantifies flow rates are equal to or less than pre -development conditions. On-site drainage facilities and off -site drainage connections would be designed to collect and convey runoff from 100-year storm events. Additionally, the project site is located in Zone X, which is designated as being outside of the 500 -year floodplain, and thereby, not subject to substantial flooding.
Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to impede or redirect flood flows and impacts to stormwater drainage would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 7: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The project site is approximately 8 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to inundation by tsunami. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood hazard area , and is not located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Given that the project site is not located near a large standing body of water, inundation by seiche (or standing wave) is considered negligible. The project site is generally flat with no steep slopes and does not contain slopes subject to mudflows ; therefore, potential impacts related to release of pollutants due to inundation are determined to be less than significant.
Threshold No. 8: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The Carlsbad Management Area Water WQIP was prepared in June 2016 for the Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies, which include the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista, and the County of San Diego. The purpose of the Carlsbad WQIP is to guide the Responsible Agencies’ Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plans towards achieving improved water quality in MS4 discharges (or stormwater discharges) and receiving water bodies. Responsible Agencies’ Jurisdictional Runoff Management Programs contain the strategies, standards , and protocols by which each Responsible Agency will implement their individual program in response to the priorities and goals established in the WQIP (Carlsbad Watershed Management Area Responsible Agencies 2016).
The proposed project is located within the San Marcos Hydrologic Area, which is the second larges t within the Carlsbad Watershed Management Area. The Carlsbad Management Area Water WQIP outlines areas of priority water quality conditions and highest priority water quality conditions. As discussed in Section 3.3 , Biological
3.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.9-14
Resources, no potential wetland or non-wetland water features are present within the biological study area. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Carlsbad Management Area Water WQIP or any other water quality plan. Further, the site is not located within a sustainable groundwater management plan area. Therefore, impacts are determined to be less than significant.
3.9.5 Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3.9.4, impacts are determined to be less than significant , and no mitigation measures are required.
3.9.6 Conclusion
The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface area in comparison to existing conditions.
However, as described above, a storm drain system incorporating biofiltration BMPs and detention vaults recommended by the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix E) in accordance with the project SWQMP would properly handle runoff to meet regulatory requirements and to ensure that post-development runoff would occur at rates that are equal to, or less than, pre-development conditions. Appropriate design of on - and off-site drainage facilities, implementation of a SWPPP, SWQMP and BMPs, and implementation of all recommendations from the Preliminary Drainage Study and development -specific drainage plans would ensure the project would not substantially alter the drainage patterns on or off site or result in substantial polluted runoff. Therefore, impacts to hydrology and water quality as a result of the proposed project are determined to be less than significant.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-1
3.10 Land Use and Planning
This section analyzes the potential for the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project) to have impacts related to land use and planning. This section considers consistency with applicable land use plans and habitat conservation plans.
Table 3.10-1 summarizes the proposed project- and cumulative-level land use impact analysis for the proposed project.
Table 3.10-1. Land Use Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Physically divide an established community. Less than Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2: Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.10.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing planning context for the project site, including the City of San Marcos General Plan and Zoning designations that currently apply to the site.
Project Site
As shown in Figure s 2-1 and 2 -2 in Chapter 2 (Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting) of this environmental impact report ( EIR), the proposed project is located in north San Diego County within the western portion of the City of San Marcos (City). The undeveloped project site is an approximately 33.2-acre infill site, located at the northwest corner of South Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive. The project site is located in an urban area of the City and considered an infill site, located in the City’s Business/Industrial District (City of San Marcos 2012a).
The project site is dominated by invasive shrubs and grasses, and although undeveloped, reflects a history of disturbance. Vegetation is disturbed by an abundance of invasive and weedy plant species, and unpaved roads that cross the project site.
Existing General Plan Designation
The City of San Marcos General Plan designates the approximately 33.2-acre project site as Industrial (I) (City of San Marcos 2012a). The Industrial (I) designation generally allows for manufacturing, assembly, processing, and distribution of goods; warehousing and wholesale activities associated with industrial operations; small -scale support retail, service commercial, and office uses; and outdoor storage as part of industrial operations.
Development allowed under this land use designation must be consist ent with those uses outlined in the City’s municipal code and zoning ordinance, as well as the Industrial land use designation of the General Plan. Please refer to Figure 2-3a, General Plan Land Use, in Chapter 2 of this EIR.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-2
Existing Zoning Designation
Existing zoning of the project site is Industrial (I). The purpose of the Industrial land use designation is to “provide a setting for the full range of indoor manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, processing, and general service uses that are adequate ly served by vehicular arterials and utilities. Industries that use hazardous materials, require heavy equipment, and/or that generate sustained noise levels are deemed appropriate for this Zone.” The I Zone is intended to implement and be consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2022). Please refer to Figure 2-4a, Existing Zoning, in Chapter 2 of this EIR.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is immediately bordered by South Las Posas Road to the east, Linda Vista Drive to the south, La Mirada Road to the north and Pacific Street to the west. Beyond these adjacent roads, t he project site is surrounded by industrial uses to the north, south, and west, and commercial uses to the east . The Grand Plaza shopping center is located directly across South Las Posas Road. The 24-acre Bradley Park is located across from the site’s southwestern corner. Residential uses are located to the south and west of Bradley Park. Surrounding land uses outside of the immediately adjacent industrial and commercial uses include desi gnated parks, single - and multifamily - residential, and schools/educational facilities. The closest freeway is State Route 78 located approximately 0.44 miles north of the project site.
3.10.2 Regulatory Setting
This section provides an overview of the regulatory setting related to planning and land use that applies to the project, including state, regional, and local regulation and planning documents.
State
California Planning and Zoning Law
The legal framework in which California cities and counties exercise local planning and land use functions is provided in the California Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Sections 65000 et seq. Under state planning law, each city and county is requi red to adopt a General Plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” (Section 65300). The General Plan expresses the community’s development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private. A General Plan consists of several elements, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety; other elements may be included at the discret ion of the jurisdiction that relate to the physical development of the county or city.
Regional/ Local
San Diego Association of Governments San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan The Regional Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2004 by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), lays out key principles for managing the region’s growth while preserving natural resources and limiting urban sprawl.
The plan covers eight policy areas, including urban form, transportation, housing, healthy environment, economic prosperity, public facilities, our borders, and social equity.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-3
In 2011, SANDAG approved the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). This RTP/SCS provides a blueprint to improve mobility, preserve open space, and create communities, all with transportation choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet specific targets set by the California Air Resources Board as required by the 2008 Sustainable Communities Act.
The SANDAG target, as set by California Air Resources Board , is to reduce the region’s per capita emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light -duty trucks by 7% by 2020, compared with a 2005 baseline. By 2035, the target is a 13% per capita reduction. To achieve the 2020 and 2035 targets, SANDAG and o ther metropolitan planning organizations are required to develop a n SCS as an element of its RTP. The SANDAG SCS integrates land use and transportation plans to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and meet the California Air Resources Board-required targets.
On October 9, 2015, the SANDAG Board of Directors adopted San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan).
The Regional Plan combines the two previously described existing regional planning documents : the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the RTP/SCS. The Regional Plan updates growth forecasts and is based on the most recent planning assumptions considering currently adopted land use plans, including the City’s General Plan. SANDAG’s Regional Plan will be updated every 4 years to account for changes from ongoing land use planning decisions by local agencies. The most recent regional plan is the 2019 San Diego Forward Federal Transportation Plan, which builds off the 2015 plan (SANDAG 2019). SANDAG is in the process of finalizing its 2021 Regional Plan, which will provide the long-term blueprint for the San Diego region that seeks to meet regulatory requirements, address traffic congestion, and create equal access to jobs, education, healthcare, and other community resources.
SANDAG Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
The Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) is a comprehensive conservation planning process that addresses the needs of multiple plant and animal species in northwestern San Diego County (SANDAG 2003). The MHCP encompasses the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista.
Its goal is to conserve approximately 19,000 acres of habitat, of which roughly 8,800 acres (46%) are already in public ownership and contr ibute toward the habitat preserve system for the protection of more than 80 rare, threatened, or endangered species.
The City of San Marcos began preparing a draft of the City Subarea Plan of the MHCP in May 2001, and although the Subarea Plan has not yet been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the plan is a component of the adopted MHCP and is currently being used as a guide for open space design and preservation within the City (SANDAG 2001). The intent of the City’s Draft Subarea Plan is to identify a citywide preserve system that meets local and regional biol ogical goals while minimizing fiscal and economic impacts to the City and adverse impacts on private property owners. To help achieve this goal, certain areas, known as Focused Planning Areas , have been designated with parcel -level preserve goals that would contribute to achieving local and regional conservation goals while minimizing adverse effects on property rights and property values. The project site is located within the northern Focused Planning Area within the MHCP planning area.
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority Land Use Compatibility Plan The nearest public airport is the McClellan -Palomar Airport, which is located approximately 5 miles west of the project site. The McClellan -Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan contains policies to promote land use compatibility between the McClellan -Palomar Airport and adjacent and proximate land uses, to the extent these areas are not alre ady developed with existing uses, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Using
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-4
airport-related forecasts and background data approved by the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, the plan reflects anticipated growth of the airport over a 20 -year horizon. The plan includes land use compatibility criteria an d identifies policies applicable to the airport and surrounding land uses. The project site is located within the McClellan -Palomar Airport Influence Review Area 2 (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). The influence area is regulated by the A LUC, which regulates land uses in the area to be compatible with airport -related noise, safety, airspace protection, and over -flight factors through review of development proposals within the airport influence area. Review Area 2 consists of limits on heig hts of structures in areas of high terrain. Residential development in Review Area 2 may be subject to annoyances commonly associated with proximity to airports, such as noise, vibration, and overflights. The project site is not located within any of the r unway protection zones.
City of San Marcos General Plan
The San Marcos General Plan consists of the following elements:
▪ Land Use and Community Design Element – Describes the desired future physical composition of the planning area in terms of location, type, and intensity of new development and open space to ensure balanced development that maximizes the long -term livability of the San Marcos community (City of San Marcos 2012a).
▪ Mobility Element – Describes the mobility strategy for the City, which identifies a network of options including streets, sidewalks, trails, and transit, that connects people with the City (City of San Marcos 2012b). ▪ Conservation and Open Space Element – Recognizes the habitat and scenic value of natural and cultural open spaces within the City and lists goals and policies that ensure long -term stewardship of these resources. This element also addresses climate change, water conservation, energy conserva tion, air quality, watersheds, and water quality (City of San Marcos 2012c). ▪ Parks, Recreation and Community Health Element – Identifies the recreational amenities and community service programs offered within the City and outlines goals for increased access to parks, trails, recreational facilities, and community service programs for all community members (City of San Marcos 2012d). ▪ Safety Element – Establishes policies and programs to protect public health, safety, and welfare of all residents and property. This element identifies and describes plans for response to natural and human - caused safety issues, including geologic, seismic, flood, and fire hazards (City of San Marcos 2012e). ▪ Noise Element – Identifies problematic noise sources within the City and outlines strategies to reduce overall ambient noise levels. This element also includes measures to strategically distribute land uses throughout the City (City of San Marcos 2012f).
▪ Housing Element – Describes the strategy for developing a variety of housing opportunities to accommodate all residents and preserve the quality of existing housing in order to promote safe, decent, and affordable housing within the 2013–2021 planning period (City of San Marcos 2013).
The following goals and policies from the City ’s Land Use Element pertain to planning and are applicable to the proposed project:
Goal LU-1: Achieve a balanced distribution and compatible mix of land uses to meet the present and future needs of all residents and the business community.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-5
Policy LU-1.1: Ensure that adjacent land uses complement one another by considering compatibility of activities, development patterns and architectural character elements, and access to various mobility choices.
Policy LU-1.3: Diversify land uses by providing mixed use land uses in strategic locations within the City that place housing adjacent to employment.
Goal LU-2: Promote development standards and land use patterns that encourage long-term environmental sustainability.
Policy LU -2.1: Promote compact development patterns that reduce air pollution and automobile dependence and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
Policy LU-2.2: Encourage new development to be sited to respond to climatic conditions, such as solar orientation, wind, and shading patterns.
Policy LU -2.3: Require the incorporation of green building practices, technologies, and strategies into development projects per code standards.
Policy LU -2.5: Promote landscaping (e.g., native, drought -tolerant plants) that minimizes demands on water supply.
Policy LU -2.7: Promote the installation of trees to reduce the urban heat island effect and green infrastructure to reduce storm water runoff.
Goal LU-3: Develop land use patterns that are compatible with and support a variety of mobility opportunities and choices.
Policy LU-3.1: Require that new development and redevelopment incorporate connections and reduce barriers between neighborhoods, transit corridors, and activity centers within the City.
Policy LU -3.3: Where feasible, consolidate inadequately sized land into parcels suitable for integrated development with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
Policy LU-3.5: Provide an interconnected open space system that is accessible to the public, including pedestrian and equestrian links, bicycle paths, multi-use trails, recreation areas, and drainage-ways.
Policy LU-3.7: Require new development to prepare traffic demand management programs.
Policy LU -3.8: Require new development and discretionary actions to annex into a Congestion Management Community Facilities District.
Goal LU-5: Promote community design that produces a distinctive, high -quality built environment with forms and character that create memorable places and enrich community life.
Policy LU-5.3: Use public landscaping, banners, and signage along streets, sidewalks, property frontages, and in public spaces to strengthen the City’s identity and create a unique sense of place.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-6
Policy LU-5.4: Require building and site design that respects the natural topography and iconic ridgelines that serve as the visual backdrop for San Marcos.
Policy LU-5.5: Encourage development of public spaces and plazas within commercial, mixed -use, and residential projects that include fire and water features that can accommodate civic events and function as community gathering areas.
Policy LU-5.6: Require a specific plan for strategic areas/properties that require high-quality design, orientation and development due to their location or visibility within the community.
Policy LU -5.7: Architecture shall be enhanced with high -end building materials, varied roof lines, and decorative details.
Goal LU-7: Direct and sustain growth and expansion in areas of San Marcos that can support a concentration of a variety of uses and are particularly suitable for multimodal transportation and infrastructure expansion and improvements.
Policy LU -7.2: Coordinate pedestrian, transit and infrastructure upgrades with infill and redevelopment opportunities.
Goal LU-8: Ensure that existing and future development is adequately serviced by infrastructure and public services.
Policy LU -8.1: New development shall pay its fair share of required improvements to public facilities and services.
Policy LU-8.2: Promote development timing that is guided by the adequacy of existing and/or expandable infrastructure, services, and facilities.
Goal LU-14: Wastewater: Ensure an adequate wastewater system for existing and future development.
Policy LU -14.2: Ensure development approval is directly tied to commitments for the construction or improvement of primary water, wastewater, and circulation systems.
Goal LU-17: Utilities and Communications: Encourage provision of power and communication systems that provide reliable, effective and efficient service for San Marcos.
Policy LU-17.2: Require all new development and redevelopment to provide the technology to support multiple telecommunications facilities and providers such as multi -media products, wireless technologies, and satellite communications.
The General Plan includes goals and policies applicable to other areas, such as mobility, safety, noise, and conservation. The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is presented in Section 3.10.4, Project Impact Analysis.
San Marcos Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance , Title 20 The provisions of Title 20 of the San Marcos Municipal Code are referred to as the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance is based on the official Zoning Map of the City of San Marcos. The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance is to protect and promote the publ ic health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the San Marcos
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-7
community; to implement the policies of the General Plan; and to provide the physical, environmental, economic, and social advantages that result from the orderly planned use of land resources.
3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to land use and planning are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to land use and planning would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Physically divide an established community.
Threshold No. 2: Cause a significant environmental impact due to a c onflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
3.10.4 Project Impact Analysis
This section considers the impacts to land use and planning that would result from the proposed project.
Threshold No. 1: Would the project physically divide an established community? The project site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by commercial uses to the east, and industrial uses to the north, west, and south . As described in Chapter 2 of this EIR, t he proposed project proposes development of 449 residential units, including a mix of apartments, rowhomes, villas, and affordable flats on approximately 15.09 acres within the approximately 33.2-acre project site. Of the 449 total units, 68 (15%) would be designated as deed-restricted affordable units (alternatively, the project reserves the option to contribute to the affordable housing fund by paying the in -lieu fee) . The proposed project would also include a total of 927 parking spaces, 134,985 square feet of common open space area, landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements.
The remaining 17.94 acres of the approximately 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored open space and habitat area. The proposed project would have a density of approximately 29.8 dwelling units per acre not including the proposed open space and habitat area. With the open space and habitat area included, the density of the proposed project would be approximately 13.5 dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area, to allow for the proposed multifamily dwelling unit development, associated amenities, and private open space.
Although development of the proposed residential land uses would be inconsistent with the existing land use and zoning designations, and the neighboring industrial uses, the project site is located in an urban part of the City within close proximity to a range of existing infrastructure and development including commercial uses, parks, single and multifamily residential, and schools/educational facilities. The proposed project would not incorporate new roads or require removal of roads that currently provide access to the area. Furthe rmore, due to the location of the project site, which is surrounded by existing roadways, no separation or disruption of surrounding uses would occur as a result of project implementation. Because the project site is surrounded on all sides by existing development, and is considered an infill site, it is determined that the proposed project would not divide an established community, and therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-8
Threshold No. 2: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed project would conflict with the current General Plan and zoning Industrial (I) designation for the site.
However, as described above and in Chapter 2 of this EIR, the project proposes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to change the General Plan and Zoning from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area to allow for the proposed multifamily dwelling unit development, associated amenities, and private open space. The following is an outline of these requested project entitlements/discretionary actions by the City:
▪ General Plan Amendment (GPA) – A GPA would be required to re-designate the project site from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area.
▪ Rezone—A rezone would be required to re -designate parcels 219 -22-01, 219 -22-02, 219 -22-03, and 219-22-04 from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area.
▪ Tentative Map–A Tentative Map will present specific lot configurations for the site. ▪ Multifamily Site Development Plan – A Multifamily Site Development Plan will configure the site for multifamily dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space. ▪ Specific Plan—A Specific Plan would be required to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new residential community. The Specific Plan serves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan.
Upon City approval of the GPA/Rezone from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area , the proposed project would be required to comply with the allowable multifamily residential uses and development standards outlined in the Specific Plan prepared for the project site.
Although the proposed project would amend the land use designation, the concurrent process of amending the General Plan designation does not necessarily equate to consistency with the document. As such, a consistency analysis with the City’s General Plan goals is included in Table 3.10-2.
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal COS-1: Identify, protect, and enhance significant
ecological and biological resources within San Marcos
and its adaptive Sphere of Influence.
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed project
would result in potentially significant impacts to
biological resources. However, compliance with
existing regulations and implementation of mitigation
measures MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-9b outlined in
Section 3.3, Biological Resources, would ensure that
the proposed project would not conflict with the MHCP
or draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, or other applicable
regulations related to biological resources.
Additionally, 17.94 acres of the approximately 33.2-
acre project site would be preserved and restored
open space and habitat area.
Goal COS-2: The City is committed to conserving,
protecting, and maintaining open space, agricultural,
and limited resources for future generations. By
working with property owners, local organizations, and
Consistent. The project site is currently vacant and
zoned for Industrial uses. The project site is
considered an infill site as it is surrounded by existing development and infrastructure. Implementation of
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-9
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy state and federal agencies, the City can limit the
conversion of resource lands to urban uses.
the proposed project would not convert any
designated open space or agricultural uses.
Additionally, 17.94 acres of the approximately
33.2-acre project site would be preserved and
restored open space and habitat area.
Goal COS-3: Protect natural topography to preserve
and enhance the natural beauty of San Marcos.
Consistent. The project site is currently vacant and
zoned for Industrial uses. The project site is
considered an infill site as it is surrounded by existing development and infrastructure. Development of the
project site would not destroy the existing
characteristics of the surrounding area as described in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of this EIR. Additionally, 17.94 acres of the approximately 33.2-acre project site
would be preserved and restored open space and
habitat area.
Goal COS-4: Improve regional air quality and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate
change.
Consistent. The proposed project would result in fewer
greenhouse gas emissions than would occur if the
project site were to be developed consistent with the
current Industrial zoning, and the proposed project
would be required to implement all applicable checklist items within the City’s 2020 Climate Action Plan.
Goal COS-6: Protect and restore appropriate surface
water and groundwater beneficial uses through
prioritizing the improvement of locally impaired water
bodies within the City of San Marcos subwatersheds.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
comply with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System State Water Resources Control
Board Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-
0009-DWQ for stormwater discharges and general
construction activities, and incorporate standard best
management practices (BMPs), such as regular
cleaning or sweeping of construction areas and
impervious areas, and various stormwater BMPs, such
as filtration media screens. In compliance with the
Construction General Permit, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for the
project site that specifies BMPs that would be
implemented during construction to minimize impacts
to water quality. Lastly, project implementation of
biofiltration, source control, and site design BMPs
would effectively treat post-construction stormwater
runoff prior to discharge from the site in compliance
with the requirements of the City’s BMP Design
Manual and BMPs outlined in the Stormwater Quality
Management Plan.
Goal COS-7: Achieve sustainable watershed protection
for surface and ground water quality that balances
social, economical, and environmental needs.
Consistent. Please refer to the consistency response
to Goal COS-6. Implementation of the proposed
project would not conflict with the goal to achieve
sustainable watershed protection for surface and
ground water quality.
Goal COS-8: Focus watershed protection, surface and
groundwater quality management on sources and
practices that the City has the ability to affect.
Consistent. Storm drainage components recommended
by the Preliminary Drainage Study (Appendix E) would
properly handle runoff from the project site to meet
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-10
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy regulatory requirements and to ensure that post-
development runoff would occur at rates that are
similar to, or less than, pre-development conditions.
Appropriate design of on- and off-site drainage facilities, implementation of a SWPPP, Stormwater Quality
Management Plan (SWQMP) and BMPs, and
implementation of all recommendations from the
Preliminary Drainage Study and development-specific
drainage plans would ensure the project would not
substantially alter the drainage patterns on or off site or result in substantial polluted runoff.
Goal COS-11: Continue to identify and evaluate
cultural, historic, archeological, paleontological, and architectural resources for protection from demolition
and inappropriate actions.
Consistent. A Cultural Resources Inventory Report was
prepared for the project site to ensure existing
resources are protected (Appendix D). Implementation
of the proposed project would not impact any
identified archaeological resources, historical
resources, or any known human remains interred
outside a formal cemetery. However, based upon the
analysis presented in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources,
the potential exists for impacts to unknown cultural
resources resulting from project construction.
These potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources and human remains would be mitigated to
below a level of significance through implementation of mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4.
Specifically, implementation of mitigation measures
MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 provide for the presence
of archaeological and Native American monitors during
ground disturbing activities that would be able to
identify any previously unidentified cultural resources and to prevent inadvertent disturbance of any intact
cultural deposits that may be present. Should any
resources be identified, implementation of mitigation
measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 would ensure
proper handling and treatment of such resources by
providing for a proper evaluation to determine whether
additional archaeological work is necessary.
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal LU-1: Achieve a balanced distribution and
compatible mix of land uses to meet the present and
future needs of all residents and the business
community.
Consistent. While the proposed project land use
designation would not mirror immediately adjacent
industrial and commercial land uses, it would be
consistent with the single- and multifamily residential uses located to the west and south of the adjacent
Bradley Park and be consistent with the goal to achieve a balanced distribution and compatible mix of land
uses to meet the present and future needs of the City.
Goal LU-2: Promote development standards and land
use patterns that encourage long-term environmental
sustainability.
Consistent. The proposed project would implement the
overarching goals of the City’s General Plan, through
various proposed features and components such as
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-11
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy providing housing near transit and existing
commercial and industrial uses; providing diverse and
higher-density housing; designating opportunities for
recreational and open space areas; and supporting
vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of travel.
Goal LU-3: Develop land use patterns that are
compatible with and support a variety of mobility
opportunities and choices.
Consistent. The North County Transit District operates
the Palomar College Station Sprinter and Breeze
transit station located approximately 0.6 miles from
the proposed project’s La Mirada Drive entrance. The
proposed project would also be located walking and
biking distance from retail, school, park, and other
facilities. The proposed project would therefore
support a variety of mobility opportunities, and would
promote multimodal transportation, consistent with
General Plan Land Use Element Goals LU-2, LU-3, and
LU-7. The proposed project would be designed to
ensure aesthetic consistency with the surrounding
area and compliance with General Plan Land Use
Element Goal LU-5. Consistent with Goal LU-8, the
proposed project would be required to pay its fair
share public facility fees and other development
impact fees consistent with the City’s Municipal Code
(refer to Sections 3.13 (Public Services), 3.14
(Recreation), 3.15 (Transportation), and 3.17 (Utilities and Service Systems) for a discussion of potential
impacts to public infrastructure and facilities and
required development fees).
Goal LU-5: Promote community design that produces
a distinctive, high-quality built environment with forms and character that create memorable places and
enrich community life.
Consistent. All final project plans, including project
renderings as shown in Figures 2-6a through 2-6d in
Chapter 2 of this EIR, would be reviewed by the City
and would be expected to create a cohesive character
with the surrounding environment.
Goal LU-7: Direct and sustain growth and expansion in
areas of San Marcos that can support a concentration
of a variety of uses and are particularly suitable for
multimodal transportation and infrastructure
expansion and improvements.
Consistent. The proposed project would promote
sustainability through locating residential uses on an
underutilized infill site proximate to existing schools, markets, parks, transit, and shopping centers. Vehicle
miles traveled would be reduced by sustainably locating residential uses in this infill area.
Goal LU-8: Ensure that existing and future
development is adequately serviced by infrastructure
and public services.
Consistent. As outlined in Section 3.13 of this EIR, the project would be adequately served by San Marcos
Fire Department, San Marcos Sheriff’s Department,
and San Marcos Unified School District, as well as
existing infrastructure in the area.
Goal LU-14: Wastewater: Ensure an adequate
wastewater system for existing and future
development.
Consistent. Wastewater service for proposed
residential uses will be provided by Vallecitos Water
District (VWD). An 8-inch gravity sewer main is located in La Mirada Drive. An existing 8-inch sewer line is
located in Linda Vista Drive. South Las Posas Road
includes existing 10-inch and 18-inch gravity sewer
lines. An 8-inch sewer main is located in South Pacific
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-12
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy Street. Sewer service will connect to three separate
sewer systems within the project site. The proposed
condominiums would provide two 8-inch connections
to the existing 8-inch sewer main in La Mirada Drive
and existing 8-inch sewer main in South Pacific Street.
The proposed apartments would connect one 8-inch
sewer line to the either existing 10- or 15-inch sewer
main in South Las Posas Road. The proposed
affordable units would connect one 8-inch sewer line
in Linda Vista Drive.
A Sewer and Water Study was completed for the
proposed project by Dexter Wilson Engineering in
March 2021 (Appendix L to this EIR). This study
confirmed that a formal sewer study will be required by VWD. Additionally, the City requires that VWD provide a letter of Sewer Availability for proposed developments
within VWD. Prior to issuing such a letter, VWD’s study will determine whether the current infrastructure is
sufficient to accommodate the development project,
and/or to provide recommendations for capital
improvements to provide service.
Goal LU-17: Utilities and Communications: Encourage
provision of power and communication systems that
provide reliable, effective and efficient service for San Marcos.
Consistent. Communications systems for telephones,
computers, and cable television are serviced by utility providers such as AT&T, Cox, Spectrum, and other
independent cable companies. No specific systems
upgrades are proposed.
Mobility Element
Goal M-1: Provide a comprehensive multimodal
circulation system that serves the City land uses and
provides for the safe and effective movement of
people and goods.
Consistent. The proposed project would promote
sustainability through locating residential uses on an
underutilized infill site proximate to existing schools, markets, parks, transit, and shopping centers. Vehicle
miles traveled would be reduced by sustainably
locating residential uses in this infill area. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Title 24
requirements and would include amenities such as
electric vehicle charging stations, installation of
electric or solar water heaters, implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management plan, reduced
landscaping water use, and planting of trees.
Goal M-2: Protect neighborhoods by improving safety
for all modes of travel and calming traffic where
appropriate.
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to
provide a proposed circulation plan outlining safe
movement within the project site, including emergency
access, subject to review by the City and the San
Marcos Fire Department. The conceptual site plan and
parking plan for the proposed project is provided as
Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2 of this EIR. All final project
plans would be subject to review and approval by the
City. Under existing conditions, on-street parking on
adjacent streets is limited to Pacific Street and La
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-13
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy Mirada Drive. On-street parking is prohibited on South
Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive.
The internal circulation network for the proposed
project would not include any hazardous design
features or incompatible uses. The proposed project
would include circulation amenities and improvements
such as an interconnected mobility system for bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles in order to provide residents with safe movement within the project site; as well as
secondary emergency access, connections to existing
roadways within the within the vicinity of the project
site, and access to regional arterial and highway
networks and Sprinter/Breeze transit services.
Goal M-3: Promote and encourage use of alternative
transportation modes, including transit, bicycles,
neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and walking,
within the City.
Consistent. The North County Transit District provides
public transportation within the City and the County of San Diego for Coaster rail service, Sprinter light rail service, and Breeze bus service. The North County
Transit District operates the Palomar College Station
Sprinter and Breeze transit station located
approximately 0.6 miles from the proposed project’s
La Mirada Drive entrance. The proposed project would
be required to comply with Title 24 requirements and
would include amenities such as electric vehicle
charging stations and implementation of a
Transportation Demand Management Plan.
Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element
Goal PR-1: Plan for, acquire, develop, and maintain a
system of local parks connected through an
integrated network of trails and high quality
recreational facilities.
Consistent. Approval of the proposed GPA/Rezone to
Specific Plan Area would allow for immediate
residential access to Bradley Park, located adjacent to the project site. As shown on Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2
of this EIR, the proposed project proposes 134,985
square feet of common open space area, which would
provide for private open space/passive recreational
use for residents on site. Additionally, the proposed
project applicant/developer would be required to pay
the City’s Public Facilities Fees. Developer payment
towards the City’s Public Facilities Fees would go
towards the acquisition and development of local and
community park facilities throughout the City to offset the demand on public park space.
Safety Element
Goal S-1: Reduce risks to the community from
earthquakes by regulating new development and
redevelopment to prevent the creation of new
geologic and seismic hazards.
Consistent. There are no known active faults that run
through the project site. The proposed project would
be designed in accordance with applicable California
Building Code requirements, including for resistance
to seismic shaking. Furthermore, the proposed project
would be constructed in accordance with other
applicable regulations, the current seismic design
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-14
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy specifications of the Structural Engineers Association
of California, and all applicable requirements of the
California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. These required seismic design
considerations are used to minimize structural
damage in the event of ground shaking.
Additionally, the proposed project would implement all
recommendations per the Preliminary Geotechnical
Evaluation (Appendix F), as well as any project-specific recommendations with any potential supplemental
geotechnical evaluations, in compliance with Section
17.32.040(f) of the City’s Municipal Code.
Goal S-2: Minimize the risk to people, property, and
the environment due to flooding hazards.
Consistent. The proposed project would include
implementation of BMPs during construction and
proposed storm drain and biofiltration basins during
operation as recommended by the Preliminary
Drainage Study (Appendix E). These BMPs would be
sized to treat, store, and release stormwater runoff
such that it does not substantially alter the existing
drainage patterns and will not exceed the capacity of
the downstream storm drain system. Implementation
of BMPs would be a condition of approval for the
proposed project to ensure facilities would be
designed to collect and convey runoff from 100-year
storm events, as well as to handle runoff and comply
with applicable regulatory requirements.
Goal S-3: Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to
property results from structure or wildland fire
hazards.
Consistent. The proposed project site lies within an
area considered a Non-High Hazard Severity Zone, as
designated by the City of San Marcos and the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE). The existing project site is an undeveloped lot that is relatively flat and shows signs of previous disturbance. The proposed redesignation of the
project site from industrial uses to residential uses
under the proposed Specific Plan Area would likely
reduce the potential for wildfire hazards on site. The
proposed project would not include associated
infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable state and local fire codes,
including compliance with the California Fire Code and
the San Marcos Fire Department, which require a
design that affords fire and emergency responders
suitable fire access roads dimensions and surfaces
(Chapter 5, Section 503.1 through 503.4 of the
California Fire Code); an adequate number of
emergency rated entrances to the community
(Appendix D, Section D106 of the California Fire
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-15
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy Code); and entryway gate access for first responders
(Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code, Section 503.6).
Goal S-4: Protect life, structures, and the environment from the harmful effects of hazardous materials and
waste.
Consistent. Construction of the proposed project
would entail transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including, but not limited to
diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete,
cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils,
adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. The
proposed project would be required to comply with all
standards required through federal, state, county, and
municipal regulations, in addition to project-specific
plan review by the City, which would ensure potential
impacts related to hazardous materials would not be
significant. Furthermore, hazards associated with
development and operation of residential
developments would likely be less than that
associated with industrial development, which is the
current designated land use for the project site.
Proposed uses would be limited to multifamily
residences, residential amenities, and open space
uses, which are not typically characteristic of
generating, releasing, or using large amounts of
hazardous materials. During operations of the
proposed project, the only hazardous materials
anticipated for transport, use, or disposal are routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint,
solvents, motor oil/automotive products, batteries,
and garden maintenance products. The use, handling,
and disposal of these products are addressed by
household hazardous waste programs that are part of
the Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program the
County of San Diego, and therefore the proposed
project is not expected to create a significant hazard
to the public or environment through hazardous
upsets or accidents.
Goal S-5: Establish and maintain an effective
emergency response program to respond to disasters
and maintain continuity-of-life support functions
during an emergency.
Consistent. According to the General Plan Safety
Element, the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan
(EOP) governs the operations of the City during a
disaster. This plan addresses response to moderate
evacuation scenarios, including the identification of
evacuation points and general routes (City of
San Marcos 2012e). The proposed project would be
required to abide by standards as set forth in the
San Marcos EOP. The proposed project would not
impact any roadway or staging areas that are
identified in any emergency planning documents and
would not impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-16
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy Goal S-6: Provide neighborhood safety through
effective law enforcement.
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed project
would be expected to increase the frequency of
emergency and non-emergency calls to the Sherriff’s
Department. However, over 100 deputies, volunteers,
and professional staff serve the residents of the City.
Law enforcement services include general patrol,
criminal investigation, crime prevention, juvenile
services, narcotics and gang investigations,
communications and dispatch, and various
management support services. Police units are
continuously mobile, and service calls are responded
to by the nearest available mobile unit. At the
San Marcos Station, patrol deputies are assigned to a
geographical “beat” area, allowing deputies to
become familiar with citizens and problems within
their “beats” (SDCSD 2021). Accordingly, service
ratios and response times are anticipated to remain
adequate with development of the proposed project.
As such, the proposed project is not expected to affect police protection such that new or physically altered
governmental facilities are needed.
Goal S-7: Comply with the McClellan-Palomar Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Consistent. The project site is located within the
McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Review Area 2
(San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011).
The influence area is regulated by the ALUC, which
regulates land uses in the area to be compatible with
airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection, and over-flight factors through review of development
proposals within the airport influence area. Review
Area 2 consists of limits on heights of structures in
areas of high terrain. Residential development in
Review Area 2 may be subject to annoyances
commonly associated with proximity to airports, such
as noise, vibration, and overflights. With overflight
notification and compliance with AIA 2 requirements,
the project would not conflict with the McClellan-
Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Noise Element
Goal N-1: Promote a pattern of land uses compatible
with current and future noise levels.
Consistent. The project site is surrounded by industrial uses to the north, south, and west, and commercial
uses to the east, specifically the Grand Plaza shopping center is located directly across South Las Posas
Road. The 24-acre Bradley Park is located across from
the site’s southwestern corner. Residential uses are
located to the south and west of Bradley Park. The
project site is located in an urban setting and is
considered an infill site. Surrounding land uses
outside of the immediately adjacent industrial and
commercial land uses include designated parks,
single and multifamily residential, and
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-17
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy schools/educational facilities. Noise generated by the
proposed project would be similar to that of existing
land uses in the vicinity.
Goal N-2: Control transportation-related noise from
traffic, rail, and aviation sources near noise sensitive land uses.
Consistent. As described in Section 3.11, Noise, of
this EIR, the addition of traffic to the roadway network as a result of the proposed project would result in a
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) increase of
less than 3 decibels (dB), which is below the
discernible level of change for the average healthy
human ear. Therefore, a less than significant impact
would occur related to operational traffic noise.
Additionally, the proposed project would meet the
City’s and California Building Code’s requirement to
reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dB CNEL
within habitable rooms of new residential
development. The proposed project would not conflict
with this City regulation or General Plan policy for
purposes of evaluating the project’s land
use/planning impacts. The project site is located
within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Review
Area 2 (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
2011). The influence area is regulated by the ALUC,
which regulates land uses in the area to be
compatible with airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection, and over-flight factors through review of
development proposals within the airport influence
area. Review Area 2 consists of limits on heights of
structures in areas of high terrain. Residential
development in Review Area 2 may be subject to
annoyances commonly associated with proximity to
airports, such as noise, vibration, and overflights.
Compliance with AIA 2 requirements would ensure the
project would not conflict with the McClellan-Palomar
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Goal N-3: Control non-transportation-related noise
from commercial, industrial, construction, and other
sources on noise sensitive land uses.
Consistent. Potential noise impacts during
construction would be less than significant with
implementation of recommended design features.
Noise impacts due to operation of the proposed
project would be less than significant and no further
mitigation is required. Further, the proposed project
would comply with the General Plan’s 45 dBA interior
noise standard.
Housing Element
Goal H-1: Provide a broad range of housing
opportunities with emphasis on providing housing
which meets the special needs of the community.
Consistent. Implementation of the proposed project
would change the site’s land use designation and
zoning from Industrial to Specific Plan Area, allowing
for development of the proposed 449 residential units
and associated amenities on an infill site with existing roads, alternative transportation, and utilities in the immediate area.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-18
Table 3.10-2. General Plan Consistency
Applicable General Plan Goals Project Consistency with Policy Goal H-2: Protect, encourage, and provide housing
opportunities for persons of lower and moderate
incomes.
Consistent. The proposed project would change the
land use and zoning designations at the project site to allow for multifamily residential development under
the proposed Specific Plan Area. Approval of the
proposed GPA/Rezone could help the City address the
substantial population growth within the City, and the
need for housing, including contribution to housing for extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income
households.
Goal H-4: Reduce or remove governmental constraints
to the development, improvement, and maintenance
of housing where feasible and legally permissible.
Consistent. The proposed project proposes
development of 449 residential units, which requires
City approval of a GPA/Rezone from Industrial (I) to
Specific Plan Area to allow for residential development of the currently vacant site.
As shown in Table 3.10 -2, the proposed project would not result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element goals. Land Use Element goals not referenced above, including LU-4, LU-5, LU-6, LU-9 through LU-13, LU-15, and LU-16 are not relevant to this discussion as they do not apply to individual projects or mitigating environmental effects. Instead, these goals pertain to overall goals of the City related to education, business, and provision of community facilities and infrastructure. Project implementation would not impede the City’s ability to achieve these goals. 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SANDAG’s 2050 RTP/SCS outlines projects for rail and bus services, highways, local streets, bicycling, walking, and movement of goods, as well as systems and demand management. The 2050 RTP/SCS presents a transportation system designed to maximize transit enhancements, integrate biking and walking elements, and promote programs to reduce demand and increase efficiency. As described in Section 3.15, Transportation, of this EIR, the proposed project would provide for residential land uses in an infill area, taking advantage of the site’s location near transit, retail, employment, schools, parks, and other uses. The proposed project would be consistent with programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. For the CEQA transportation vehicle miles traveled analysis, the SANDAG Series 13 Base Year 2012 regional travel demand model was customized for the proposed project land uses and used to calculate the project’s vehicle miles traveled per Resident. Based on the results, the proposed project’s vehicle miles traveled per resident is less than 85% of the regional average, at just 62% of the regional average.
Although the proposed project would not be consistent with the existing zoning and land use designations, the proposed project would generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions at buildout than potential development permitted under the existing land use designations. Thus, the proposed project would not increase land use intensities as provided in the RTP/SCS and would therefore not result in environmental impacts due to inconsistency with this plan.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-19
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
As described under Section 3.10.2, Regulatory Setting, the MHCP is a comprehensive conservation planning process that addresses the needs of multiple plant and animal species in northwestern San Diego County (SANDAG 2003). As identified above, the project site is located within the northern Focused Planning Area within the MHCP planning area.
As described throughout Section 3.3, Biological Resources, of this EIR, proposed project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts to biological r esources. However, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO-1a through MM BIO-9b outlined in Section 3.3 would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the MHCP or draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, or other applicable regulations related to biological resources. Implementation of proposed mitigation, and City review of development plans for the project site would ensure impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element goals of the City’s General Plan.
San Marcos Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance Title 20
As described above, a rezone would be required to re-designate the project site from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area. Approval of the proposed GPA/Rezone would allow for development of the project site with the proposed residential land use s and associated amenities and improvements . Although the proposed project would amend the land use designation to Specific Plan Area, the concurrent process of amending the Zoning designation does not necessarily equate to consistency with the Zoning Ordinance. However, as shown in Table 3.10-2, the proposed project would be consistent with the majority of the City’s General Plan goals, that guide development within the City. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of the site would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
Based on the considerations outlined above, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, project impacts related to land use and planning are determined to be less than significant.
3.10.5 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation specific to land use and planning would be required as a result of the proposed project. However, the project would be required to incorporate mitigation measures proposed throughout Chapter 3 , Environmental Analysis, of this EIR to ensure project implementation would not result in significant land use impacts.
3.10.6 Conclusion
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 3.10.4, development of the proposed 449 residential units, upon approval of the proposed GPA/Rezone of the project site from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area, would not result in significant impacts to land use and planning . The proposed project would be required to incorporate technical report recommendations, design standards outlined in the Specific Plan for the project site , and mitigation measures identified throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR to ensure project implementation would not result in significant impacts or inconsistency with applicable land use plans and policies. As outlined in Table 3.10 -2, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. As analyzed throughout Chapter 3 of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable impacts, and all potentially significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cult ural resources would be reduced to a level of less -than-significant with mitigation incorporated. Furthermore, final project plans would be subject to City review and approval . For these reasons, impacts related to land use and planning are determined to be less than significant.
3.10 - LAND USE AND PLANNING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.10-20
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-1
3.11 Noise
This section discusses the existing noise and vibration setting of the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project . This section is based on the Noise Technical Report prepared for the proposed project by Dudek in November 2022, which is included as Appendix I to this EIR.
Table 3.11-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level noise impact analysis for the proposed project.
Table 3.11-1. Noise Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 - Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies.
Less Than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No. 2- Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
Less Than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No. 3 - Exposure of people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels, for a project located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use
airport.
No Impact No Impact No Impact
3.11.1 Existing Conditions
This section provides background on noise characteristics and vibration fundamentals, and a description of the existing noise environment associated with the project site and the surrounding area.
Noise Characteristics
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium, such as air. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. The sound pressure level (SPL) has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of measurement of sound pressure is a decibel (dB). It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dB, a change of 5 dB is readily perceptible, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as twice or half as loud (Caltrans 2013). A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the number of daily trips along a given road) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-2
Sound may be described in terms of level or amplitude (measured in dB), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity.
The A -weighted decibel (dBA) scale performs this compensation by discriminating against low and very high frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Several descriptors of noise (a.k.a., noise metrics) exist to help predict average community reactions to the adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic -generated noise. These descriptors include the equivalent noise level over a given period (L eq), the day–night average noise level (L dn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL). Each of these descriptors uses units of dBA.
Leq is a decibel quantity that represents the constant or energy-averaged value equivalent to the amount of variable sound energy received by a receptor during a time interval. For example, a 1 -hour L eq measurement of 60 dBA would represent the average amount of energy contained in all the noise that occurred in that hour. L eq is an effective noise descriptor because of its ability to assess the total time -varying effects of noise on sensitive receptors, which can then be compared to an established Leq standard or threshold of the same duration. Another descriptor is maximum sound level ( Lmax), which is the greatest sound level measured during a des ignated time interval or event. The minimum sound level is often called the “floor” of a measurement period.
Ldn and CNEL descriptors represent 24-hour periods and differ from a 24-hour Leq value because they apply a time- weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the non-daytime hours (when speech and sleep disturbance is of more concern). “Time weighted” refers to the fact that L dn and CNEL penalize noise that occurs during certain sensitive periods. In the case of CNEL, noise occurring during the daytime (7 :00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) receives no penalty, but noise during the evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is penalized by adding 5 dB to the actual levels, and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise is penalized by adding 10 dB to the actual levels.
Ldn differs from CNEL in that the daytime period is longer ( defined instead as 7 :00 a.m. to 10 :00 p.m.), thus eliminating the dB adjustment for the evening period. Ldn and CNEL are the predominant criteria used to measure roadway noise affecting residential receptors. These two metrics generally differ from one another by no more than
0.5–1 dB and are often considered or actually defined as being essentially equivalent by many jurisdictions (Appendix I).
Vibration Fundamentals
Vibration is oscillatory movement of mass (typically a solid) over time. It is described in terms of frequency and amplitude and, unlike sound, can be expressed as displacement, velocity, or acceleration . Vibration is typically discussed in terms of inches per second (ips) peak particle velocity (PPV) , which will be used herein to discuss vibration levels for comparison with relevant standards.
Common sources of vibration within communities include construction activities and railroads. Vibration can impact buildings if of sufficient magnitude; however, vibration associated with heavy equipment operation (i.e., construction equipment) is seldom of sufficient magnitude to cause even minor cosmetic damage to buildings.
Vibration can also be annoying and thereby impact occupants of structures, and vibration of sufficient amplitude can disrupt sensitive equipment and processes (Caltrans 2020), such as those involving the use of electron microscopes and lithography equipment. Caltrans estimates that the level at which continuous vibration begins to annoy people is approximately 0.010 ips PPV (Caltrans 2013).
Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition -related activities where sudden releases of subterranean energy or
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-3
powerful impacts of tools on hard materials occur. Depending on their distances to a sensitive receptor, operation of l arge bulldozers, graders, loaded dump trucks, o r other heavy construction equipment and vehicles on a construction site also have the potential to cause high vibration amplitudes (Appendix I).
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to rapidly decrease with distance away from the source. Soil properties also affect the propagation of vibration. Human-made vibration issues are, therefore, usually confined to short distances from the source (i.e., 50 feet or less).
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is currently vacant and does not contain any sources of noise or vibration generation. However, the project site is located in an urbanized infill area, bordered by existing roadways and industrial and commercial uses. Sources of noise in the surrounding area primarily include traffic from the local roadways, including South Las Posas Road.
SPL measurements were conducted near the proposed project site on March 10, 2021, to quantify and characterize the existing outdoor ambient noise levels. Table 3.11-1 provides the location, date, and time period during which these baseline noise level measurements were performed . Noise measurements were performed by an attending Dudek field investigator using a Rion -branded Model NL -52 sound level meter equipped with a 0.5 -inch, pre - polarized condenser microphone with pre -amplifier. The sound level meter meets the current American National Standards Institute standard for a Type 1 (Precision Grade) sound level meter. The accuracy of the sound level meter was verified using a field calibrator before and after the measurements, and the measurements were conducted with the microphone positioned approximately 5 feet above the ground.
Four short-term (ST) noise level measurement locations (ST1 –ST4) intended to be representative of the outdoor ambient sound environment for existing noise -sensitive receivers in the vicinity of the proposed project were selected near the proposed project site. These locations are depicted as receivers ST1 –ST4 on Figure 3, Noise Measurement and Modeled Receptor Locations, in Appendix I . The measured L eq and Lmax noise levels at these surveyed locations are provided in Table 3.11-2. The primary noise sources at the sites identified in Table 3.11-2 consisted of traffic along adjacent roadways, the sounds of leaves rustling, and birdsong. As shown in Table 3.11-2, the measured Leq ranged from 60.5 dBA Leq at ST3 to 66.9 dBA Leq at ST1, while Lmax ranged from 71.1 dBA Lmax at ST3 to 75.9 Lmax at ST1. Detailed noise measurement data is included as part of Appendix I to this EIR.
Table 3.11-2. Measured Baseline Outdoor Ambient Noise Levels Site Location/Address Date/Time Leq Lmax
ST1 Perpendicular to project site, East of
S. Las Posas Rd.
2021-03-10, 11:50 a.m.
to 12:00 p.m.
66.9 75.9
ST2 Perpendicular to project site, North of
La Mirada Dr.
2021-03-10, 12:10 p.m.
to 12:20 p.m.
61.0 71.8
ST3 Perpendicular to project site, West of
S. Pacific St.
2021-03-10, 12:30 p.m.
to 12:40 p.m.
60.5 71.1
ST4 Perpendicular to project site, South of
Linda Vista Dr.
2021-03-10, 12:45 p.m.
to 12:55 p.m.
64.7 74.9
Source: Appendix I.
Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time -averaged sound level); L max = maximum sound level during the measurement interval; dBA = A-weighted decibels; ST = short-term noise measurement locations.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-4
Because existing outdoor ambient noise exceeds 60 dBA Leq during the daytime, as shown in Table 3.11-2, Federal Transit Administration guidance suggests that average nighttime ambient noise levels would be at least 50 dBA Leq.
Generally, the measured samples of daytime Leq agree with expectations: ST1 is near 67 dBA L eq due largely to its proximity to South Las Posas Road, a major roadway and thus fairly continuous acoustical contributor to the measured outdoor ambient sound environment. Although the nearest single-family home is located approximately 1,420 feet away, due to the City of San Marcos adopting the County of San Diego’s Noise Ordinance, a distance of 150 feet to nearest occupied building was used for noise analysis and modeling.
Sensitive Receptors
Uses that are typically considered noise sensitive include residences, schools, hospitals, parks, and wildlife habitats. The nearest sensitive receptor s to the project site would be Bradley park located across from the site’s southwestern corner, and single- and multifamily residential uses located to the west and south of Bradley park.
3.11.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
With regard to noise exposure and workers, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration establishes regulations to safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise (29 FR 1910.95).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration specifies that sustained noise that is louder than 85 dBA (8-hour time -weighted average) can be a threat to workers’ hearing and if worker exposure exceeds this amount, the employer must develop and implement a monitoring program (29 FR 1910.95 [d][1]).
Federal Transit Administration
In its Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual, the Federal Transit Administration recommends a daytime construction noise level threshold of 80 dBA L eq over an 8-hour period (FTA 2018) when detailed construction noise assessments are performed to evaluate potential impacts to community residences surrounding a project. Although this Federal Transit Administration guidance is not a regulation, it can serve as a quantified standard in the absence of such limits at the state and local jurisdictional levels.
State
California Noise Control Act of 1973
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, declares that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also identifies a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare. The California Noise Control Act seeks to provide assistance to local agencies in preparation of ordinances to control and abate noise.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-5
California Code of Regulations, Title 24
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets standards that new development in California must meet.
According to Title 24, interior noise levels are not to exceed 45 dB A CNEL in any habitable room (International Construction Code 2019), as demonstrated by a project-specific acoustical analysis.
California Department of Health Services Guidelines
The California Department of Health Services has developed guidelines of community noise acceptability for use by local agencies (OPR 2003). Selected relevant levels are listed here:
▪ Below 60 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for low-density residential use ▪ 50 to 70 dBA: conditionally acceptable for low-density residential use ▪ Below 65 dBA CNEL: normally acceptable for high-density residential use and transient lodging ▪ 60 to 70 dBA CNEL: conditionally acceptable for high -density residential, transient lodging, churches, educational, and medical facilities
California Department of Transportation
In its Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2020), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends 0.5 ips PPV as a threshold for the avoidance of structural damage risk to typical newer residential buildings exposed to continuous or frequent intermittent sources of groundborne vibration.
For transient vibration events, such as blasting, the damage risk threshold would be 1.0 ips PPV (Caltrans 2020) at the same type of newer residential structures. For older structures, these guidance thresholds would be more stringent: 0.3 ips PPV for continuous/intermittent vibration sources and 0.5 ips PPV for transient vibration events.
With respect to human annoyance, Caltrans guidance indicates that building occupants ex posed to groundborne vibration of 0.10 ips PPV from continuous or frequently intermittent sources may find it “strongly perceptible” (Caltrans 2020) and on such basis would thus be considered a significant groundborne vibration impact for purposes of this assessment. Although these Caltrans guidance thresholds are not regulations, they can serve as quantified standards in the absence of such limits at the local jurisdictional level.
Local
The following are summarized or reproduced portions of relevant City regulations and General Plan policies.
City of San Marcos Municipal Code
The City of San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 10.24: Noise ( City of San Marcos 2017) addresses construction noise. Erection and demolition of buildings is exempt between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday , and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The City’s Municipal Code Section 17.32.180 establishes time limits for grading and other earthwork. Section 17.32.180 provides grading noise is restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and is not allowed in the City o n the weekends or holidays. The Municipal Code does not set noise limits on construction activities. Commonly, the City has utilized the County of San Diego’s Noise Ordinance noise limit of 75 dBA (8-hour average) for construction activities.
Chapter 20.300 (Site Planning and General Development Standards) of the City’s Municipal Code includes noise regulations in the form of noise standards by zone (Section 20.300.070, Performance Standards).
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-6
Municipal Code noise standards typically pertain to stationary (i.e., non -transportation-related) noise sources. The relevant portions of these noise standards are provided below:
Noise shall be measured with a sound -level meter that meets the standards of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) (Section S1.4-1979, Type 1 or Type 2). Noise levels shall be measured in decibels at the property line of the receptor property, a nd at least five (5) feet above the ground and ten (10) feet from the nearest structure or wall. The unit of measure shall be designated as an A-weighted decibel (dBA) Leq standard. A calibration check shall be made of the instrument at the time any noise measurement is made (Ord. No. 2017-1446, 7-25-2017)
No person shall create or allow the creation of exterior noise that causes the noise level to exceed the noise standards established by Table 20.300-4 [shown in Table 3.11-3]. Increases in allowable noise levels listed in Table 20.300-4 may be permitted in accordance with the standards outlined in Table 20.300-5 6 [shown in Table 3.11-4].
No person shall create nor allow the creation of noise that causes the interior noise level when measured within a dwelling unit to exceed forty -five (45) dBA at any time, except as permitted by Table 20.300 -6 [shown in Table 3.11-5].
Use of compressors or other equipment, including vents, ducts, and conduits, but excluding window or wall- mounted air conditioners, that are located outside of the exterior walls of any building, shall be enclosed within a permanent, non -combustible, view-obscuring enclosure to ensure that the equipment does not emit noise in excess of the ANSI standards.
Table 3.11-3. Exterior Noise Standards by Zone
Zone
Allowable Noise Level (dBA L eq) Measured from
the Property Line
Single -Family Residential (A, R -1, R -2) 1, 2
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (daytime) 60
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (overnight) 50
Multifamily Residential (R -3) 1, 2
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (daytime) 65
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (overnight) 55
Commercial (C, O -P, SR) 3
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (daytime) 65
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (overnight) 55
Industrial
7 a.m. to 10 p.m. (daytime) 65
10 p.m. to 7 a.m. (overnight) 60
Source: City of San Marcos 2017 (Table 20.300-4).
Notes:
1 For single-family detached dwelling units, the "exterior noise level" is defined as the noise level measured at an outdoor living area which adjoins and is on the same lot as the dwelling, and which contains at least the following minimum net lot area: (i) for lots less than 4,000 square feet in area, the exterior area shall include 400 square feet, (ii) for lots between 4,000 square feet to 10 acres in area, the exterior area shall include 10 percent of the lot area; (iii) for lots over 10 acres in area, the e xterior area shall include 1 acre.
2 For all other residential land uses, "exterior noise level" is defined as noise measured at exterior areas which are provided for private or group usable open space purposes. "Private Usable Open Space" is defined as usable open space intended for use of occupants of one dwelling unit, normally including yards, decks, and balconies. When the noise limit for Private Usable Open
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-7
Space cannot be met, then a Group Usable Open Space that meets the exterior noise level standard shall be provided. "Group Usable Open Space" is defined as usable open space intended for common use by occupants of a development, either privately owned and maintained or dedicated to a public agency, normally including swimming pools, recreation courts, patios, open landscaped areas, and greenbelts with pedestrian walkways and equestrian and bicycle trails, but not including off-street parking and loading areas or driveways.
3 For non-residential noise sensitive land uses, exterior noise level is defined as noise measured at the exterior area provided for public use.
Table 3.11-4. Permitted Increase in Noise Levels
Permitted Increase (dBA) Duration (cumulative minutes per hour) 5 15
10 5
15 1
20 Less than 1 minute
Source: City of San Marcos 2017 (Table 20.300-5).
Table 3.11-5. Permitted Increase in Interior Noise Levels Permitted Increase (dBA) Duration (cumulative minutes per hour) 5 1
10 Less than 1 minute
Source: City of San Marcos 2017 (Table 20.300-6).
City of San Marcos General Plan
To control transportation related noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports, and railroads, the City of San Marcos has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels in the Noise Element of the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2012). For noise sensitive rural and single -family residential uses, schools, libraries, parks, and recreational areas the City Noise Element requires an exterior noise level of less than 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor usable area. For multi -family developments t he standard is 65 dBA CNEL and a standard of 70 dBA CNEL is typically applied to commercial uses. The City has also established an interior noise limit of 45 dBA CNEL for all residential uses.
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Noise Element (City of San Marcos 2012):
Goal N-1: Promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
Policy N-1.1: Address the potential for excessive noise levels when making land use planning decisions in accordance with Table 7-3 Land Use Compatibility Noise Standards.
Policy N-1.2: Ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained near noise-sensitive uses.
Policy N-1.3: Incorporate design features into residential land use projects that can be used to shield residents from excessive noise. Design features may include, but are not limited to: berms, walls, and sound attenuating architectural design and construction methods.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-8
Policy N -1.4: Require new development projects to provide barriers to reduce noise levels, or provide sufficient spatial buffers to separate excessive noise generating land uses and noise -sensitive land uses.
Policy N-1.5: Require an acoustical study for proposed developments in areas where the existing and projected noise level exceeds or would exceed the Normally Acceptable levels identified in Table 7-3.
Goal N-2: Control transportation-related noise from traffic, rail, and aviation sources near noise sensitive land uses.
Policy N-2.1: Encourage only noise -compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways, and freeways.
Policy N-2.2: Promote coordinated site planning and traffic control measures that reduce traffic noise on noise-sensitive land uses.
Policy N-2.3: Advocate the use of alternative transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, mass transit, and non-combustible engine vehicles to reduce traffic noise.
Goal N-3: Control non-transportation-related noise from commercial, industrial, construction, and other sources on noise sensitive land uses.
Policy N-3.1: When adjacent to noise sensitive receptors, require developers and contractors to employ noise reduction techniques during construction and maintenance operations.
Policy N -3.2: Limit the hours of construction and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise - sensitive land uses.
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Safety Element:
Goal S-7: Comply with the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Policy S -7.1: Record an overflight notification document in association with the approval of any new residential land use within the AIA overflight notification area consistent with the ALUCP.
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10.4, Project Impact Analysis, the project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies.
3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts related to noise are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to noise would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-9
Threshold No. 2: Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
Threshold No. 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, e xpose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
In light of the above significance criteria, this analysis uses the following standards to evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts.
▪ Construction noise – The City of San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 10.24: Noise (San Marcos 2017) addresses construction noise. Noise created as part of the erection and demolition of buildings is exempt if it occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Because the Municipal Code does not set noise limits on construction activities , but instead limits the hours of operation, adherence to the allowed construction times provided in the City of San Marcos Municipal Code would ensure the construction-related noise levels would not exceed local standards.
However, were the City to consider a waiver to allow certain construction activities to occur outside of the aforementioned construction noise exemption period (e.g., from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), as allowed by the City’s noise ordinances in cases of urgent necessity or in the interest of public health and safety, then for information purposes this assessment will compare predicted construction noise against the County’s 75 dBA 8-hour Leq threshold. ▪ Off-site project -attributed transportation noise – For purposes for this analysis, a direct roadway noise impact would be considered significant if increases in roadway traffic noise levels attributed to project development as a result of the proposed project were greater than 3 dBA CNEL at an existing noise-sensitive land use.
▪ Off-site project -attributed stationary noise – For purposes for this analysis, a noise impact would be considered significant if noise from typical operation of HVAC and other electro -mechanical systems associated with development of the proposed project were to cause the noise level at the property line of single-family residential or other existing noise-sensitive land uses to exceed 60 dBA hourly Leq from 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m., and 50 dBA hourly Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. ▪ Construction vibration – For purposes of this analysis and based on Caltrans’ guidance, a vibration impact would be considered significant if vibration generated by development of the proposed project reached a level of 0.2 ips PPV , as received at a structur e, which is the level that would be considered annoying to occupants within (Caltrans 2013). In addition, a vibration level of 0.3 ips PPV represents the threshold for building damage risk.
Further, while the CEQA noise criteria listed above do not consider project consistency with exterior and interior noise standards, such an analysis is relevant to the assessment of the land use and planning impacts of the proposed project. This analysis therefore also evaluates compatibility of on -site traffic noise exposure levels with the City of San Marcos exterior and interior noise standards of 60 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively, in this EIR section. For further discussion, refer to Section 3.10 of this EIR.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-10
3.11.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Short -Term Construction Noise
Construction noise and vibration are temporary phenomena. Construction noise and vibration levels vary from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the equipment in use, the operations performed, and the distance between the source and receptor.
Construction assumptions, including timing, phasing, and equipment type and quantity, as well as worker and vendor truck trips, were based on information provided by the applicant. Default values provided by the California Emissions Estimator Model were used since detailed project site-specific information is not currently available.
Equipment that could be used during construction would likely include graders, backhoes, concrete saws, excavators, dump trucks, loaders, cranes, manlifts, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, welders, and air compressors.
The typical maximum noise levels for various pieces of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are presented in Table 3.11-6. Usually, construction equipment operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the listed maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time.
Table 3.11-6. Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Type Typical Equipment ( Lmax , dBA at 50 Feet) Air compressor 78
Backhoe 78
Concrete pump truck 81
Grader 85
Crane 81
Roller 80
Manlift 75
Generator 72
Front End Loader 79
Paver 77
Scraper 84
Welder 74
Source: DOT 2006.
Note: Lmax = maximum sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.
Aggregate noise emission from assumed construction activities, broken down by sequential phase, was predicted at two distances to the nearest existing noise -sensitive receptor: (1) from the nearest position of the project site boundary and (2) from the geographic center of the project site, which serves as the time-averaged location or geographic acoustical centroid of active construction equipment for the phase under study. The intent of the former distance is to help evaluate anticipated construction noise from a limited quantity of equipment or vehicle activity expected to be at the boundary for some period of time, which would be most appropriate for phases such as site preparation, grading, and paving. The latter distance is used in a manner similar to the general assessment technique as described in Federal
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-11
Transit Administration guidance for construction noise assessment (FTA 20 18), when the location of individual equipment for a given construction phase is uncertain over some extent of (or the entirety of) the construction site area.
Because of this uncertainty, all the equipment for a construction phase is assumed to operate—on average—from the geographic center of the project site. Table 3.11-7 summarizes these two distances to the apparent closest noise- sensitive receptor for each of the five sequential construction phases. At the site boundary, this analysis assumes that the equipment may be operating up to all of 8 hours per day (i.e., comparable to a typical on-site work shift).
Table 3.11-7. Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and the Nearest Noise-Sensitive Receptors
Construction Phase (and
Equipment Types Involved)
Distance from Nearest Noise -
Sensitive Receptor to
Construction Site Boundary
(Feet)
Distance from Nearest Noise -
Sensitive Receptor to
Geographic Center of Site
(Feet)
Site Preparation (Backhoe, Dozer) 150 520
Grading (Excavator, Grader, Dozer,
Scraper, Backhoe)
150 520
Building Construction (Crane,
Forklift, Backhoe, Welder,
Generator)
150 520
Architectural Finishes (Air
Compressor)
150 520
Paving (Roller, Paver, Mixer Truck) 150 520
Source: Appendix I.
A noise prediction model emulating and using reference data from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA 2008) was used to estimate construction noise levels at the nearest occupied noise- sensitive land use. The model considered the equipment type and number of each piece of equipment (e.g., two graders, a loader, a tractor), its duty cycle based on default values (i.e., percentage of time when the equipment is expected to operate at full power or capacity , and thus make noise at a level comparable to what is presented in Table 3.11-6), and the distance to the noise-sensitive receiver. The model also considers hours that equipment may be on site and operating (or idling). No topographical or structural shielding was assumed. The results of the construction noise modeling are presented in Table 3.11-8.
Table 3.11-8. Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase Construction Phase
(and Equipment Types Involved)
8-Hour L eq at Nearest Noise -
Sensitive Receptor to
Construction Site Boundary
(dBA)
8-Hour L eq at Nearest Noise -
Sensitive Receptor to
Geographic Center of Site
(dBA)
Site Preparation (Backhoe, Dozer) 70.5 59.7
Grading (Excavator, Grader, Dozer,
Scraper, Backhoe)
70.5 59.7
Building Construction (Crane, Forklift,
Backhoe, Welder, Generator)
71.2 60.4
Architectural Finishes (Air Compressor) 63.2 52.1
Paving (Roller, Paver, Mixer Truck) 72.3 61.5
Source: Appendix I.
Notes: Leq = equivalent noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-12
Compared to measurements of the daytime outdoor ambient sound level at representative sample locations, the increase in noise levels could be substantial and clearly perceptible to an average listener having healthy human hearing. I ncreased noise levels would typically be relatively short term and temporary —lasting only as long as construction occurs during allowable hours.
As discussed above, t he City of San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 10.24: Noise (San Marcos 2017) addresses provides that n oise created as part of the erection and demolition of buildings is exempt from standards if it occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Adherence to the allowed construction times would mean construction -related noise levels would not exceed local standards. Because it is anticipated that construction activities would take place within the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant.
However, if the project proposes to seek a waiver to allow certain construction activities to occur outside of the aforementioned construction noise exemption period (e.g., from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.), as allowed by the City’s noise ordinances in cases of urgent necessity or in the interest of public health and safety, then impacts would nevertheless be less than significant because, as presented in Table 3.11-8, the estimated construction noise levels are predicted to be less than 75 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period. Note that the estimated noise levels at a distance of 150 feet from the project site assume a worst -case scenario that various pieces of heavy equipment would each operate for a cumulative period of 8 hours a day at the location nearest the identified sensitive receptors . Hence, even if construction activity were to be permitted outside the City’s allowable construction noise exemption period (as allowed by the noise ordinance), construction noise impacts would be less than significant.
Long -Term Operation al Noise
Roadway Traffic Noise
Implementation of the proposed project would generate additional vehicle trips on local arterial roadways (i.e., South Las Posas Road, La Mirada Drive, Linda Vista Drive, and South Pacific Street), which could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent off -site existing noise -sensitive land uses. Appendix I to this EIR contains a spreadsheet with traffic volume data (average daily traffic) for surrounding arterial roadways . Implementation of the proposed project is estimated to add 2,694 average daily trips to the segments along South Las Posas road, La Mirada Drive, and Pacific Street.
Potential noise effects from vehicular traffic were assessed using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model version 2.5 (FHWA 2004). Information used in the model included the roadway geometry, posted traffic speeds, and traffic volumes. Noise levels were modeled at representative noise -sensitive receivers ST1–ST4, as shown in Figure 3 of Appendix I, and modeled to be 5 feet above the local ground elevation. The traffic noise prediction model results for the existing (year 2021), existing plus project, near-term (2025), near-term plus project, horizon year (2050) and horizon year plus project scenarios at these four locations are summarized in Table 3.11-9.
As discussed above, a significant impact from transportation noise would occur if the proposed project would cause an increase of 3 dB or more above existing noise levels. An increase or decrease in noise level of at least 3 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected (Caltrans 2013).
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-13
Table 3.11-9. Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Modeled
Receiver #
Description
Existing
(2021)
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL)
Existing
(2021)
Plus
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL)
Near -term
(2025)
Noise
leve l (dBA
CNEL)
Near -term
(2025)
Plus
Project
Noise
level (dBA
CNEL)
Horizon
year
(2050)
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL)
Horizon
year
(2050)
plus
Project
Noise
Level
(dBA
CNEL
Maximum
Project -
Related
Noise
Level
Increase
(dB)
ST1 67.7 68.1 67.8 68.2 68.6 69 0.4
ST2 61.2 63.6 61.2 63.6 61.6 63.9 2.4
ST3 61.7 62.1 62.4 62.6 63.9 64.1 0.4
ST4 66.2 66.3 66.3 66.5 67 67 0.2
Source: Appendix I.
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = decibel; ST = short-term.
Table 3.11-9 shows that at all four listed representative receivers, the addition of traffic to the roadway network as a result of the proposed project would result in a CNEL increase of less than 3 dB, which is below the discernible level of change for the average healthy human ear. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur related to operational traffic noise.
Traffic Noise Exposure to Project Occupants
While not relevant to the CEQA noise thresholds of significance, the City’s General Plan and the California Building Code require that interior noise levels within habitable rooms of new residential development not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA CNEL. Accordingly, for purposes of evaluating the proposed project’s consistency with the General Plan policies and applicable regulations (refer to EIR Section 3.10), the following analysis is provided of traffic noise and interior and exterior noise levels anticipated at project residences.
The ambient noise levels depicted on Table 3.11-9 were used to predict the existing -plus-project scenario traffic noise levels at multiple on-site exterior areas. Exterior sound levels presented in Table 3.11-9 that are higher than 65 dBA CNEL indicate potential locations where an exterior-to-interior noise analysis should be performed for the approximate occupied residential unit on the project site.
The results from Table 3.11-9 indicate that ambient traffic noise levels could reach as high as 67.7 dBA CNEL in acoustically equivalent locations to ST1 along South Las Posas Road. With the 45 dBA CNEL interior background sound level limit, this means the minimum composite sound transmission class (STC) rating for the exterior shell separating the habitable interior space from the outdoor sound level must be at least 22. The composite STC rating for the portion of a building shell that separates an interio r space from the outdoors is calculated from the area - dependent contributions of its elements: windows, wall assemblies, and doors.
Proposed residential units would include balconies as part of the design, for which access would likely be provided by single-panel, out-swing fiberglass French doors (comparable to a Milgard Essence series model or similar from another manufacturer) or alternately sliding-type doors. For purposes of this analysis, either of these patio/balcony door design styles are assumed to feature a dual -pane glazing system similar to a standard residential window assembly (i.e., two 1/8 -inch-thick glass panes separate d by a 3/8 -inch-wide airgap) in narrow -perimeter frames
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-14
compatible with modern thermal insulation (and thus energy conserving) design. The analysis also assumes that these door products feature good seals and related hardware, so that when closed, the effective sound insulating performance is represented by the glass. Viracon data indicates that such glazing should demonstrate an STC rating of 31 (Appendix I).
This study further assumes an exterior wall assembly that includes and is typical of modern residential building construction: one layer of 5/8-inch gypsum wallboard on the interior-facing side, 2-inch × 4-inch wood studs, glass fiber batt insulation in the stud cavities, and a dual-layer of 5/8-inch gypsum wallboard on the exterior-facing side.
Acoustical transmission loss data is available on this representative assembly (Halliwell et. al. 1998) and is used as part of estimating the composite STC ratings reported herein. For purposes of this analysis, the dual-layer gypsum wallboard on the exterior surface approximates the mass and solidity of what may be other approved material options as determined by the Project architect, such as cement fiber siding panels, brick masonry veneer, or cement plaster attached to layers of fiberglass mat sheathing and plywood sheathing.
Table 3.11 -10 summarizes the calculated net STC ratings for a set of hypothetical occupied room Details of these calculations that account for the façade surface area and its composite areas of exterior wall assembly and windows are provided in Appendix I. As show n, all facades are anticipated to exhibit a predicted STC rating of at least 36, and thus would provide sufficient exterior -to-interior sound insulation from outdoor traffic noise to yield interior background sound levels that are less than 45 dBA CNEL, compliant with the City and state standards.
The highest predicted traffic noise level was 67 dBA CNEL such that interior noise would be reduced to around 31 dBA CNEL (less than 45 dBA) using common and required facades and surfaces (e.g., 67 – 36 = 31 dBA CNEL, which is less than 45). Project development will require that habitable rooms feature mechanical ventilation or an air-conditioning system to provide interior comfort of the occupants when all windows and doors are closed. Refer to Appendix I. Therefore, new development on site would meet the City’s and California Building Code’s requirement to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 dB CNEL within habitable rooms of new residential development. The proposed project would thus not conflict with this City regulation and General Plan policy for purposes of evaluating the project’s land use/planning i mpacts, which would be less than significant. Refer to Section 3.10 for further discussion of General Plan consistency.
Table 3.11-10. Predicted Net Sound Transmission Class of Occupied Room Façade Occupied Room Facade
Predicted Net Sound Transmission Class (STC) for
Scenario
Closed Window(s) and
Door*
Open Window(s) &
Closed French Door*
1st floor Bedroom, eastern facade 37 8
2nd floor Bedroom w/ balcony, eastern façade 36 11
3rd floor Bedroom, eastern façade 38 11
Source: Appendix I.
Note: n/a = not applicable.
* Doors are only modeled for scenarios that contain the balcony door.
Stationary Operation al Noise
The proposed project would add a variety of noise-producing mechanical equipment and other stationary sources, including facility unit heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-15
According to the site plan development would likely include cooling by rooftop-mounted air-cooled condensing [ACC] units. The nearest sensitive receptor located 150 feet west of the project’s northwestern corner could be exposed to noise from ACC units. It is predicted a residential project would require approximately 20 ACC units with a cooling load of up to 40 tons of refrigeration (assuming each residential unit would need approximately 2 tons of refrigeration based on industry data) (Loren Cook Company 2015). Each ACC unit would have an SPL of 68 dBA at 3 feet based on available data from a likely manufacturer (Carrier 2012) and could serve approximately 20 residential units based on industry data that provides each residence needs 2 tons of refrigeration, and each ACC unit provides 40 tons of refrigeration.
Assuming development would occur proximate to the closest existing off-site noise-sensitive residential receptor to the northwest of the project site, and assuming operation of 20 ACC units in this area, the sound would be lower than 41 dBA L eq at said sensitive receptor. Noise levels associated with ACC units would therefore be compliant with the City’s 60 dBA Leq daytime and 50 dBA hourly Leq nighttime threshold. Further, the addition of this noise to existing noise levels, which already exceed 60 dBA Leq during the daytime and 50 dBA Leq at night, would be minimal and well below the barely perceptible 3-decibel threshold (e.g., the logarithmic sum of 41 dBA and 50 dBA equals
50.5 dBA, an increase of 0.5 dBA , and the logarithmic sum 41 dBA and 60 dBA equals 60.1 dBA, an increase of
0.1 dBA). Impacts from project stationary noise would be less than significant impact.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction activities may expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. On-site construction that would cause the most groundborne vibration and noise is associated with equipment used for grading, and specifically large bulldozers for earthmoving. As discussed above, Caltrans has collected groundborne vibration information related to construction activities (Caltrans 2020) and concluded that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.1 ips could be considered annoying on the basis of it being “strongly perceptible” by building occupants. Heavier pieces of construction equipment, such as a bulldozer that may be expected to be used during construction on the project site , have peak particle velocities of approximately 0.089 ips PPV or less at a reference distance of 25 feet (FTA 2018).
Groundborne vibration also attenuates rapidly, even over short distances as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata . By way of example, for a bulldozer operating on site and as close to the northern project boundary as possible (i.e., 150 feet from the nearest occupied property / vibration sensitive receptor) the estimated vibration velocity level would be 0.006 ips per the equation as follows (FTA 2018):
PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.006 = 0.089 * (25/150)^1.5 In the above equation, PPV rcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receiver position, PPV ref is the reference value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the actual horizontal distance to the receiver. Therefore, at this predicted PPV, the impact of vibration -induced annoyance to occupants of nearby existing homes would b e less than 0.1 ips PPV and therefore less than significant. Equipment operating at a greater distance would be anticipated to have even less of an effect.
Construction vibration, at sufficiently high levels, can also present a building damage risk. However, anticipated construction vibration associated with the project would yield levels of 0.006 ips, which would not surpass the guidance limit of 0.2 to 0.3 ips PPV for preventing damage to residential structures (Caltrans 2020). Because the
3.11 - NOISE
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.11-16
predicted vibration level at 150 feet is less than this guidance limit, the risk of vibration damage to nearby structures is considered less than significant.
No operational components of the proposed project use would include significant groundborne noise or vibration . Thus, no significant groundborne noise or vibration impacts would occur with operation of the project, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold No. 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. The closest airport to the project site is the McClellan Palomar Airport located approximately 4.4 miles west of the site. The project site is not located within the boundaries of the land use plan adopted for this airport. No impact would occur.
3.11.5 Mitigation Measures
As analyzed in Section 3.11.4, Project Impact Analysis, potential noise impacts during construction and operation of the project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required with proper implementation of the recommended design features.
3.11.6 Conclusion
As discussed above, potential noise impacts during construction would be less than significant with implementation of recommended design features. Noise impacts due to operation of the proposed project (including traffic noise) would be less than significant and no further m itigation is required. Further, the proposed project would comply with the General Plan’s 45 dBA interior noise standard. Therefore, project impacts related to noise would be less than significant.
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-1
3.12 Population and Housing
This section describes the existing setting of the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project), identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to population and housing resulting from the proposed project. This section considers population and housing characteristics in the area and discusses project consistency with regional growth projections.
Table 3.12-1 provides a summary of the project- and cumulative-level population and housing impacts by threshold.
Table 3.12-1. Population and Housing Summary of Impacts Threshold of Significance
Project Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 - Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure).
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2 - Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere.
No Impact Less than
Significant
No Impact
3.12.1 Existing Conditions
This section provides background information regarding population and housing forecasts for the City of San Marcos based upon demographic information from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) , and the City ’s Housing Element (2013 –2021). The City released a Public Review Draft of the 2021 –2029 Housing Element Update in March 2021. Although still in draft form at the time this environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared, information from the Draft 2021–2029 Housing Element Update is referenced throughout this EIR Chapter.
Currently, the project site is undeveloped, and does not support residential uses as it is zoned for Industrial land use.
Population
According to the City of San Marcos General Plan Housing Element, San Marcos has been one of the fastest growing cities in the San Diego region since the 1980s (City of San Marcos 2013) . The City doubled its population both in the 1980s and again between 1990 and 2010. For perspective, the San Diego Region grew by 34% during the period from 1980 to 1990 and the City of San Marcos grew by 123% during this same timeframe. F urther, from 2000 to 2010, regional growth was 10% while City growth was 52% (City of San Marcos 2013). As of 2020, the City of San Marcos has an estimated population of 97,209 (DOF 2020). Based on growth projections provided by the Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast prepared by SANDAG, it is estimated that the City ’s population growth will reach 109,095 persons by 2035, and 113,015 persons by 2050 (SANDAG 2013a).
The City ’s growth has outpaced Countywide growth, and the City ’s population is anticipated to increase upon buildout of lands within the City limits, particularly in areas around transit facilities and near California State University San Marcos.
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-2
Housing
As of 2020, the City of San Marcos had 32,460 housing units. The housing stock is comprised of approximately
58.42% single-family detached and attached units, and approximately 31 .32% multifamily units (DOF 2020) .
Approximately 10.26% of the housing stock as of 2020 consisted of mobile homes (DOF 2020). Based on the Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast, the City is expected to have 35,795 housing units by 2035, and 37,337 housing units by 2050 (SANDAG 2013 a). According to the City ’s Housing Element (2013 –2021), between 2010 and 2035 the City of San Marcos is expected to see an increase of 16.7 % in housing stock. In comparison, the region is expected to grow by 22% between 2010 and 2035.
The City’s Housing Element identifies overcrowding and overpayment (cost burden) as two housing problems within the City (City of San Marcos 2013). Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of affordable housing available. Households that cannot afford housing units suitably sized for their families are often forced to live in housing that is too small for their needs, which may res ult in poor physical condition of the dwelling unit. In 2019, 1,959 housing units (6 .6% of the total occupied units) were overcrowded, which represents 2.6% of owner units and 13.2% of renter units (City of San Marcos 2021). The average household size in the City was 3.17 persons in 2019, which is a slight increase from the average household size of 3.05 persons in 2010. The average household size was higher for renters (3.37 persons) than it was for owner households (3.05 persons) (City of San Marcos 2021).
Home sales in the City have generally trended upward over the past 5 years. With median housing prices in the City rising from approximately $500,000 in 2015 to a high of $725,000 in March 2019 (City of San Marcos 2021) .
According to the 2015 –2019 U.S. Census American Community Survey data, the median rent in the City was $1,704 per month in 2019, and very few rentals were available in December 2019. Rents ranged from $1,449 for one-bedroom homes to $2,419 to $3,067 for four -bedroom-or-more homes (City of San Marcos 2021). As with most communities, the location of the home is one of the biggest factors regarding price. Compared to the rest of the state, housing in San Marcos is still relatively affordable. However, housing is not affordable for all income levels, particularly the very low – and low-income households, and many households in the City end up spending more than 30% of their income on housing, leading to overpayment (City of San Marcos 2021).
Actual or potential constraints to the provision of housing affect the development of new housing and the maintenance of existing units for all income levels. Governmental and non-governmental constraints in the City are similar to those in other jurisdict ions in the region. One of the most significant and difficult constraints to housing in the City and elsewhere in the San Diego region is the high cost of land (City of San Marcos 2013).
A Regional Housing Needs Plan is mandated by the State of California (Government Code, Section 65584) for regions to address housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the area. The Regional Housing Needs Plan for San Diego County is developed by SANDAG and allocates a “fair share” of regional housing needs to individual cities and unincorporated county. The intent of the Regional Housing Needs Plan is to ensure that local jurisdictions address not only the needs of their immediate areas but also that needs for the entire region are fairly distributed to all communities. A major goal of the Regional Housing Needs Plan is to assure that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of affordable housing to all economic segments of its population. The City’s Public Review Draft 2021 –2029 Housing Element addresses SANDAG ’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) schedule for the 6th Cycle, from 2021 through 2029. In July 2018, the California Department of Housing and Community Developmen t, in consultation with SANDAG, determined that the San Diego region must plan for 171,685 housing units between 2021 and 2029. The housing units are divided into four income categories. The City will need to plan to accommodate 3,116 new units, which includes 364 extremely low-, 364 very low-, 530 low- ,
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-3
542 moderate-, and 1,316 above moderate-income units. Since June 30, 2020, 7 extremely very low/low-, 5 low-, 489 moderate-, and 45 above moderate-income units have been constructed, are under construction, or have been issued permits. The City also has several projects that are approved/entitled; this category of units represents an additional 81 extremely low/very low -income units, 50 low -income units, 409 moderate -income units, and 499 above moderate-income units. Between units that have been constructed , under construction or issued permits since June 30, 2020 and those units that are approved, entitled, or in process, the City of San Marcos has exceeded its Cycle 6th RHNA for the moderate -income category, and as such, the remaining units that must be accommodated for the 6th Cycle are only those left to be affordable for extremely low/very low -, low-, and above moderate-income households (City of San Marcos 2021).
3.12.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the local regulatory setting as it relates to population and housing for the proposed project.
State
California Planning and Zoning Law
The legal framework within which California counties and cities exercise local planning and land use functions is provided in the California Planning and Zoning Law (Sections 65000 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code). Under that law, each county and city must adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan. The law gives counties and cities wide latitude in how a jurisdiction may create a general plan, but there are fundamental requirements that must be met. The requirements include seven mandatory elements described in the Government Code. Each element must contain text and descriptions setting forth objectives, principles, standards, policies, and plan proposals; diagrams and maps that incorporate data and analysis; and implementation measures.
Once the general plan of a county or city is adopted, it should be construed as a dynamic document, for which adaptability is a key component. Each jurisdiction frequently reviews its general plan for consistency and to ensure it addresses growth -related i ssues in a comprehensive manner. State law allows up to four general plan amendments per general plan element per year, so each jurisdiction can make changes as justified.
California Building Standards Code
In 2001, California consolidated the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical codes into the California Building Standards Code, which is contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The California Building Standards Code cont ains 11 parts: Electrical Code, Plumbing Code, Administrative Code, Mechanical Code, Energy Code, Residential Building Code, Historical Building Code, Fire Code, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, and the Reference Standards Code. These codes promote public health and safety and ensure that safe and decent housing is constructed in the County’s unincorporated areas.
Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (codified in the Government Code and Public Resources Code) took effect in 2008 and provides a new planning process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities in order to help California meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals established in Assembly Bill 32. Senate Bill 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in their Regional
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-4
Transportation Plans (RTPs) that will achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets by reducing vehicle miles traveled from light-duty vehicles through the development of more compact, complete, and efficient communities.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
As discussed above, an RHNA is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods.
Communities use the RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and household growth.
The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region and subregion can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity, and fair share housing needs.
Local
San Diego Association of Governments
SANDAG is a public agency, composed of 18 cities and the County of San Diego, that builds strategic plans guiding the San Diego region in land use, growth, economics, and the environment. SANDAG also provides population and housing estimates for the region, which are based, in part, on local jurisdictional planning data and inform region al planning.
The SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2004, provides a long-term planning framework for the San Diego region (SANDAG 2004) . The Regional Comprehensive Plan identified smart growth and sustainable development as important strategies to direct the region’s future growth toward compact, mixed-use development in urbanized communities that already have existing and planned infrastructure, and then connecting those communities with a variety of transportation choices.
In 2011, SANDAG approved the 2050 RTP/SCS (SANDAG 2011). This approval marked the first time SANDAG ’s RTP included a sustainable communities strategy, consistent with the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, also known as Senate Bill 375. This RTP/SCS provided a blueprint to improve mobility, preserve open space, and create communities, all with transportation choices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet specific targets set by the California Air Resources Board as required by the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. In 2010, California Air Resources Board established targets for each region in California governed by a metropolitan planning organization. SANDAG is the metropolitan planning organization for the San Diego region.
The SANDAG target, as set by California Air Resources Board , is to reduce the region ’s per capita emissions of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light -duty trucks by 7% by 2020, compared with a 2005 baseline. By 2035, the target is a 13% per capita reduction. There is no target set beyond 2035. To achieve the 2020 and 2035 targets, SANDAG and other metropolitan planning organizations are required to develop a n SCS as an element of its RTP. The SANDAG SCS integrates land use and transportation plans to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and meet the California Air Resources Board-required targets.
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-5
San Diego Forward : The Regional Plan
The San Diego Association of Governments ’ (SANDAG) San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) combines the region’s two most important existing planning documents—the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the RTP/SCS. The Regional Comprehensive Plan , adopted in 2004, laid out key principles for managing the region ’s growth while preserving natural resources and limiting urban sprawl. The plan covered eight policy areas, including urban form, transportation, housing, healthy environment, economic prosper ity, public facilities, our borders, and social equity. These policy areas were addressed in the 2050 RTP/SCS and are now fully integrated into the Regional Plan.
The SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the 2021 Regional Plan on December 10, 2021. The 2021 Regional Plan is a 30-year plan that considers growth, movement, and residential location around the region. The 2021 Regional Plan combines the RTP, SCS, and Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such, the 2021 Regional Plan must comply with specific state and feral mandates. These include an SCS, per California Senate Bill 375, that achieves greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board, compliance with federal civil rights requirements (Title VI); environmental justice considerations; air quality conformity; and public participation (SANDAG 2021).
Regional Growth Forecast
SANDAG estimates future population, housing, land use, and economic growth throughout San Diego County and its comprising cities, including the City of San Marcos. On October 13, 2013 (SANDAG 2013b), SANDAG accepted the Series 13: 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. This forecast serves as the foundation for San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan and other planning documents across the region. SANDAG growth projections for the region and for the City of San Marcos are outlined in Table 3.12-2. The City of San Marcos is expected to experience a higher growth rate for population, housing, and employment when compared to the entire region of San Diego. It should also be noted that the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast is not intended to be an exact formula utilized to determine growth in the region and comprising jurisdictions; rather, it should be utilized as a starting point for regional planning.
Table 3.12-2. Forecasted Growth for the San Diego Region and the City of San Marcos
Jurisdiction
Year Change 201 2–2050
201 2 2020 2035 2050 Numeric Percent
Population
San Diego Regional 3,143,429 3,435,713 3,853,698 4,068,759 925,330 29 City of San Marcos 85,560 98,915 109,095 113,015 27,455 32 Housing
San Diego Regional 1,165,818 1,249,684 1,394,783 1,491,935 326,117 28 City of San Marcos 28,539 32,625 35,795 37,337 8,798 31 Employment
San Diego Regional 1,450,913 1,624,124 1,769,938 1,911,405 460,492 32 City of San Marcos 37,608 45,783 54,902 64,328 26,720 71 Source: SANDAG 2013a, 2013b.
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-6
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment 6th Housing Element Cycle, 2021–2029, was approved on July 10, 2020 (SANDAG 2020). Based on a methodology that weighs a number of factors (i.e., projected population growth, employment, commute patterns, and available sites), SANDAG determined quantifiable needs for housing units in the region according to various income categories. In its final Regional Housing Needs Assessment figures, SANDAG allocated 3,116 housing units to the San Marcos area for the 2021–2029 Housing Element Cycle, including 1,258 housing units for very low- and low-income households (SANDAG 2020).
City of San Marcos General Plan
The City ’s Housing Element identifies goals and associated policies to provide a basis for housing and growth projections in the City for the 2013 –2021 planning period . The following goals and policies from the Housing Element of the City of San Marcos General Plan pertain to population and housing (City of San Marcos 2013):
Goal H-1: Provide a broad range of housing opportunities with emphasis on providing housing which meets the special needs of the community.
Policy 1.1: Designate land for a variety of residential densities sufficient to meet the housing needs for a variety of household sizes and income levels, with higher densities being focused in the vicinity of transit stops and in proximity to significant concentrations of employment opportunities.
Goal H-2: Protect, encourage, and provide housing opportunities for persons of lower and moderate incomes.
Goal H-4: Reduce or remove governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing where feasible and legally permissible.
Policy 4.4: Balance the need to protect and preserve the natural environment with the need to provide housing and employment opportunities.
At the time of adoption of the City’s Housing Element (April 2013), the City had achieved approximately one-third of its RHNA from the 5th cycle (or approximately 1,731 units) with housing units construct ed, under construction, or approved, fulfilling its allocation of moderate-income units. Based on a sites inventory assessment, the City has the ability to adequately accommodate the remaining RHNA requirements within land that currently permits residential development (composed of proposed applications, vacant residential sites, and vacant land in Specific Plan Areas).
The project site is not identified within the City ’s Housing Element as a site that could contribute to the RHNA allocation (City of San Marcos 2013). It should be noted that the City’s Housing Element covers the planning period of April 30, 2013, through April 30, 2021, which differs from the RHNA planning period identified above.
The City released a Public Review Draft of the 2021–2029 Housing Element update on March 12, 2021. The Public Review Draft Housing Element is concurrently being reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development who will be providing feedback to the City to ensure the Housing Element update is in full compliance with State law prior to its adoption. This Housing Element update recommends only minor modifications to the City’s current (2013–2021) Housing Element Goals and Policies, and no land use changes are proposed as part of the 2021 –2029 Housing Element update to accommodate the RHNA (City of San Marcos 2021). For the purpose of this EIR, project compliance with the current (2013 –2021) Housing Element goals and policies is analyzed, as the 2021–2029 Housing Element is not yet adopted.
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-7
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR. As detailed in Section 3.10.4, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to population and housing.
3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to population and housing are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Threshold No. 2: Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
3.12.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
As described in Chapter 2, the proposed project consists of development of 449 residential units, including a mix of apartments, rowhomes, villas, and affordable flats on approximately 15.09 acres within the approximately
33.2-acre project site. Proposed residential units would include a mix of apartments within a five-story podium building, three-story rowhomes, three-story villas, and affordable flats within a four-story building. Of the 449 total units, 68 (15% of the total) would be designated as deed-restricted affordable units. The project would also include a total of 927 parking spaces, and 134,985 square feet of common open space area. The remaining 17.94 acres of the approximately 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored open space and habitat area. The proposed project would have a density of approximately 29.8 dwelling units per acre not including the proposed open space and habitat area. With the open space and habitat area included, the density of the proposed project would be approximately 13.5 dwelling units per acre.
The project proposes a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan, Tentative Map, and Multi family Site Development Plan. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone would change the General Plan designation and Zoning from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA). The Specific Plan has been prepared with the intent to provide a comprehensive plan to ensure the efficient development of a new residential community. The Specific Plan serves as both a policy document and a regulatory document for the systematic implementation of the policies and goals of the General Plan (the Specific Plan is included as Appendix M to this EIR). The Tentative Map presents specific lot configurations for the site. The Multifamily Site Development Plan will configure the site for multifamily dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space.
As of 2020, the City of San Marcos has a person per household ratio of 3.09 (DOF 2020). Using this household ratio of 3.09, development of 449 residential dwelling units at the project site would generate approximately 1,388 people. Although not all residents of the development would be new to the City of San Marcos, residential
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-8
development on the project site would still result in unplanned growth for the City, as a residential land use for the project site was not accounted for in the City’s General Plan since the project site is zoned for Industrial use.
Development of the project is unlikely to directly induce further population growth in the area. This is because the area surrounding the project site is already developed. Further, because the proposed project site is in an infill area with existing roads and utilities, no indirect impacts associated with the extension or construction of roads or expansion of public utilities are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.
As discussed above, the City of San Marcos is forecasted to grow from 98,915 persons in 2020 to 109,095 persons in 2035, which is a population increase of 10,180 (SANDAG 2013a). Additionally, SANDAG allocated 3,116 housing units to the San Marcos area for the 2021–2029 Housing Element Cycle (SANDAG 2020). Approval of the proposed project could help the City accommodate the substantial population growth projected to occur within the City and the need for housing.
The proposed project would be subject to compliance with the City ’s General Plan Housing Element goals and policies, compliance with housing -related ordinances in the City ’s Municipal Code, and would be subject to applicable development fees, as outlined below.
The City’s Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.315 of the Municipal Code) was adopted to implement the General Plan and to manage the projected growth of residential, industrial, and commercial development. The ordinance requires that all new development bear the cost of providing the public facilities and services needed to effectively serve the new development. The Growth Management Ordinance does not limit density of development or cap the number of residential building permits that can be issued within the planning period. To the contrary, the ordinance will ensure that public facilities and services are, or will be, provided to serve future residential development anticipated by the RHNA.
The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, established in May 2000, requires housing developers of one or more units to contribute to housing for extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban D evelopment. Developers of for -sale single -family projects and rental projects of six or fewer units may pay an in-lieu fee in accordance with Section 20.310.050 of the Municipal Code.
In-lieu fees are deposited into an interest-accruing account to provide housing opportunities for target households.
The City has the discretion to accept an irrevocable dedication of land or other non -monetary contribution that is not less in value than the otherwise required in -lieu fee if the non -monetary alternati ve furthers the goals and policies of the Housing Element.
The City of San Marcos charges fees to process plans submitted for residential projects and to finance the provision of important services that are needed to accommodate housing and population growth. Fees and exactions are used to finance public facilities, roadways, water and sewer infrastructure, schools, and other community services.
Nearly all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project ’s impact or the extent of the benefit that will be derived. The City’s fees have not been found to act as a constraint to the development of housing in San Marcos. For new residential projects, developers in San Marcos may be required to pay one or more of the following fees depending on the location, type, and size of the project: Planning, Building and Environmental Fees; City Impact Fees; and Regional Impact Fees (City of San Marcos 2013).
In summary, implementation of the project would change the site’s land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Specific Plan Area in a manner that would accommodate development of 449 residential units and generation of approximately 1,388 people, not previously accounted for by the City . However, because the project area is
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-9
already developed, the proposed project would not serve to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the vicinity of the site. Further, because the proposed project site is in an infill area with existing roads and utilities, no indirect impacts associated with the extension or construction of roads or expansion of public utilities are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. City requirements for funding and pre-planning for implementation of housing projects would also ensure that pr oposed project growth is adequately planned for prior to development.
As the proposed project would be required to comply with City regulations and applicable fees outlined above, impacts associated with the proposed project are determined to be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Implementation of the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact.
3.12.5 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts are identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.
3.12.6 Conclusion
Although the proposed project would introduce a residential land use and an increase in population at the project site not previously accounted for by the City ; because the project area is already developed, the proposed project would not serve to induce substantial unplanned population growth in the vicinity of the site. Further, because the proposed project site is in an infill area with existing roads and util ities, no indirect impacts associated with the extension or construction of roads or expansion of public utilities are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. As analyzed in Section 3.12.4, approval of the proposed project could help the City accommodate the substantial population growth projected to occur within the City and the need for housing.
City requirements for funding and pre -planning for implementation of housing projects would also ensure that proposed project growth is adequately planned for prior to development. The project would be required to comply with goals and policies outlined in the City ’s Housing Element and applicable City regulations and applicable fees as outlined above. Approval of the proposed GPA/Rezone of the project site from Industrial to Specific Plan Area, and compliance with applicable City regulations would ensure project impacts related to the increase in population and housing would be less than significant.
Since the project site is located on undeveloped land, implementation of the proposed project would not displace any existing housing or people in a manner that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact.
3.12 - POPULATION AND HOUSING
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.12-10
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-1
3.13 Public Services
This section describes the existing setting of the project site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to public services, including fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, and libraries. This section incorporates information from the Fire Protection Plan prepared for the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project ( proposed project ) by Dudek in January 2023. The Fire Protection Plan is included as Appendix N to this environmental impact report (EIR).
Table 3.13-1 summarizes the proposed project- and cumulative-level public services analysis impact, by thresholds of significance.
Table 3.13-1. Public Services Summary of Impacts
Threshold of
Significance Project Direct Impact
Project Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental i mpacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for:
Fire protection services Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Police protection services Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Schools Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Parks Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant Other public facilities Less than Significant Less than Significant Less than Significant
3.13.1 Existing Conditions
This section details the existing service providers and resources related to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and libraries.
Fire Protection
The proposed project site is located within the San Marcos Fire Protection District boundary, which covers an area of 33 square miles and serves a population of approximately 95,000 residents (City of San Marcos 20 21a). The City of San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) would provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the proposed project site. While the San Marcos Fire Protection District provides primary service to the City of San Marcos, the District also has an existing automatic mutual aid fire agreement in place with the cities of Carlsbad, Vista, Escondido, Encinitas, and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District.
SMFD currently operates four fire stations, four paramedic assessment engine companies, one paramedic assessment truck company, five paramedic transport ambulances (24 -hour units), one shift Battalion Chief, and one on-call duty Chief. SMFD also cross -staffs three wildland fire engines and a State of California/Office of Emergency Services wildland fire engine. (City of San Marcos 2021a). The SMFD Station 2, located at 1250 South Rancho Santa Fe Road, San Marcos, California 92078, is the closest station to the project site and would likely serve the project site should fire response or emergency services be needed (City of San Marcos 2021b). SMFD
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-2
Station 2 is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the proposed project site. SMFD Station 2 houses one paramedic engine company and one paramedic ambulance in addition to fire response service equipment.
Police Protection
According to the City’s General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element, the City contracts their law enforcement services from the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (City of San Marcos 2012 a). The proposed project would be served by the Sheriff’s San Marcos Station, located at 182 Santar Place in the northeast quadrant of the City (City of San Marcos 2012 a). This sheriff station is located approximately 4 miles east of the proposed project site.
The sheriff’s San Marcos Station provides law enforcement services to the City and unincorporated communities of Harmony Grove, Elfin Forest, Lake San Marcos, Hidden Meadows, Ivy Del, Del Dios, Lake Hodges, and the San Pasqual Valley (SDCSD 2021). Law enforcement services include general patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention, juvenile services, narcotics and gang investigations, communications and dispatch, and various management support services (City of San Marcos 2012a). Services are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The San Marcos Station serves more than 111,000 residents and staffs over 100 deputies, volunteers, and professional staff members (SDCSD 2021). Additionally, Community-Oriented Police and Problem-Solving teams are assigned to investigate community quality of life issues (SDCSD 2021). Lastly, the Sheriff’s San Marcos Station has the only ASTREA (Sheriff’s Aviation) landing pad in the County, providing assistance to ground units and extending the range deputies can patrol (SDCSD 2021).
The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department does not set response time goals. The sheriff’s department does, however, prioritize different types of calls to better facilitate deputy dispatches. The sheriff department’s priority categories are as follows: priority level 1 (lifesaving response calls), priority level 2 (expeditious response calls within confines of vehicle codes), priority level 3 (calls responded to as soon as possible), and priority level 4 (calls responses to when clear, still being alerted t o violations that require immediate law enforcement action) (City of San Marcos 2012a).
Schools
According to the City’s General Plan – Land Use and Community Design Element, primary education throughout the City is served by the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) (City of San Marcos 2012a). SMUSD is approximately 44 square miles and serves the City of San Marcos, portions of the City of Carlsbad, the City of Escondido, the City of Vista, and unincorporated areas of San Diego County (SMUSD 2019). As of 2019, there were ten elementary schools, one K-8 school, one K-8 International Baccalaureate World School, three middle schools, two comprehensive high schools, and an alternative high school program that are a part of the SMUSD. There are approximately 20,900 students enrolled in the SMUSD (SMUSD 2019).
As outlined in the Pacific Specific Plan prepared for the project site (Appendix M to this EIR ) the project site would be served by the following schools:
▪ La Mirada Academy (serving grades K–8), located at 3697 La Mirada Drive, San Marcos, California 92069 ▪ San Marcos High School (serving grades 9–12), located at 1615 West San Marcos Boulevard, San Marcos, California 92069
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-3
The schools listed above are expected to serve the proposed project and are located approximately 0.25 miles west and 0.58 miles south of the project site, respectively.
Parks
The purpose of the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element of the General Plan is to provide recreational opportunities, which contribute to the health and well -being of the residents of San Marcos and to provide goals and policies that outline the role recreational amenities pla y in achieving the City’s vision for the future (City of San Marcos 2012c).
There are 16 major community parks and 18 mini parks located throughout the City. The City residents in the proposed project area are currently served by several nearby parks. Specifically, t he closest park to the project site is Bradley Park located at 1587 Linda Vista Dr ive, which is adjacent to the project site to the southwest .
Bradley P ark consists of lighted soccer fields, ball fields, picnic tables, picnic shelters, a turf play area, a tot - lot, an on -site caretaker, and horseshoe courts (City of San Marcos 2012c).
Other nearby parks include Mission Sports Park , located 1 mile northeast of the project site, Innovation Park, located approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site, and Sunset Park, located approximately 0.80 miles east of the project site.
Libraries
The City is served by the San Diego County Library, San Marcos Branch located at 2 Civic Center Drive, approximately 2 miles east of the proposed project site (City of San Marcos 2021c). The San Marcos B ranch is 15,394 square feet (City of San Marcos 201 2a), and contains a MakerBot 3 -D printer, a 28 -person capacity meeting room, is Americans with Disabilities Act accessible, and is open 7 days a week prior to closures resulting from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic (San Diego County Library 2021).
3.13.2 Regulatory Setting
This section provides an overview of the applicable state and local regulations governing public services.
State
Quimby Act
Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated by the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The goal of the Quimby Act was to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements. The act gives authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code and Office of the State Fire Marshal provides regulations and guidance for local agencies in the development and enforcement of fire safety standards. The California Fire Code also establishes minimum requirements that would provide a reasonable degree of safety from fire, panic, and explosion.
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-4
Senate Bill 50 – Leroy F . Greene Schools Facilities Act of 1998 Senate Bill (SB) 50, or the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, restricts the ability of local agencies to deny project approvals on the basis that public school facilities (classrooms, auditoriums, etc.) are inadequate.
Payment of school fees are also collected at the time when building permits are issued. Payment of school fees is required by SB 50 for all new residential development projects and is considered full and complete mitigation of any school impacts (Government Code section 65996). As required by SB 50, school impact fees are payments to offset capital cost impacts associated with new developments, which result primarily from costs of additional facilities, related furnishings and equipment, and projected capital maintenance requireme nts. As such, agencies cannot require additional mitigation for any school impacts. School impact fees and fees collected pursuant to SB 50 are collected at the time when building permits are issued.
Local
City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 – Park and Recreational Development Construction Unit Fee
The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.36, Park and Recreational Development Construction Unit Fee, describes the need for developers of dwelling units within the City to pay applicable fees towards the City for the planning, acquisition, improvement, expansion and operation of public parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities to help mitigate the potential impacts on recreational facilities due to population increases (City of San Marcos 2021 d).
The payment of fees shall be collected prior to the issuance of building permit by the City.
City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 – Development Services and Public Facilities Exactions, Fees , and/or Costs
The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.44, Development Services and Public Facilities Exactions, Fees, and/or Costs, describes the payment of fees towards public services, facilities, and infrastructure in the City to mitigate increased demand on these facilities due to development of dwelling units (City of San Marcos 2021e). The developer of new dwelling units in the City would pay development service fees to the City alongside submission of application for grading, construction, building and/or development permit or entitlement by any person, or at the time of permit issuance, as specified by the City (City of San Marcos 2021e).
City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.52 – School Fees and Land Dedication The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.52, School Fees and Land Dedication , describes the school facility fee dedications needed in the City to alleviate potential overcrowding in schools resulting from increased population from the development of dwelling units (City of San Marcos 2021f).
The City may require, as a condition to the approval of a residential development, the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu, or a combination of both, as determined by the decision -making body during the hearings and other proceedings, on specific residential development applications falling within their respective jurisdiction. Prior to imposition of the fees and/or dedications of land, it shall be necessary for the decision - making body acting on the application to make the following findings:
▪ The City’s General Plan provides for the location of public schools. ▪ The land or fees, of both, transferred to a school district shall be used only for the purpose of providing interim elementary, junior high or high school classroom and related facilities as defined by the governing body of the district.
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-5
▪ The location and amount of land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable relationship and will be limited to the needs of the community for interim elementary, junior high or high school facilities and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the development.
▪ The facilities to be constructed, purchased, leased, or rented from such fees or the land to be dedicated or both is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
City of San Marcos General Plan
Land Use and Community Design Element
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Land Use and Community Design Element related to public services (City of San Marcos 2012a):
Goal LU-8: Ensure that existing and future development is adequately serviced by infrastructure and public services.
Policy LU -8.1: New development shall pay its fair share of required improvements to public facilities and services.
Policy LU-8.2: Promote development timing that is guided by the adequacy of existing and/or expandable infrastructure, services, and facilities.
Goal LU -10: Fire protection, emergency services, and law enforcement: Provide effective, high -quality and responsive services.
Policy LU -10.1: Provide demand -based fire -fighting and emergency medical services infrastructure, equipment, and personnel to provide a high level of fire, emergency medical, and law enforcement service in San Marcos to meet existing and future demands.
Policy LU-10.2: Work closely with the County of San Diego Sherriff’s Department to determine and meet the community needs for adequate personnel, equipment and state -of-the-art technology to effectively combat crime, and meet existing and projected service demands.
Policy LU -10.3: Continue to conduct Public Outreach and education regarding fire safety and crime prevention within San Marcos.
Goal LU-11: Schools: Ensure all residents have access to high-quality education.
Policy LU-11.1: Collaborate with the local public school district (SMUSD), private schools, and institutions of higher learning to ensure a range of traditional and distance-learning educational opportunities are provided in superior, accessible facilities that complement the surrounding land uses.
Policy LU-11.2: Work with San Marcos Unified School District and developers to ensure adequate school facilities are funded as required by State law and through developer mitigation agreements between the school district and the developer. The City shall require a “will s erve” letter substantiating that the developer has paid fees to the satisfaction of the school district prior to issuance of building permits.
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-6
Goal LU-12: Libraries: Provide library resources and services that meet the needs of the community.
Policy LU-12.1: Provide adequate library facilities and technological access that enhance San Marcos’s quality of life and create a civic environment with vast opportunities for self-learning and academic enrichment.
Policy LU-12.2: Accommodate technology needs of the community and locate accessible technology in the library.
Safety Element
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Safety Element related to public services, including fire protection, police protection, parks, and libraries (City of San Marcos 2012b):
Goal S-3: Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from structural or wildland fire hazards.
Policy S -3.1: Require development to be located, designed and constructed to provide adequate defensibility and reduce the risk of structural loss and life resulting from wildland fires.
Development will consider hazards relative to terrain, topography, accessibility an d proximity to vegetation. One such provision for development to minimize the risk of structural loss and life shall be the inclusion of overhead fire sprinklers.
Policy S-3.2: Provide sufficient level of fire protection service to reduce risk from urban and wildland fire.
Advocate and support regional coordination among fire protection and emergency service providers.
Policy S-3.3: Require development to provide additional access roads when necessary to provide for safe access of emergency equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently.
Policy S-3.4: Coordinate with fire protection and emergency service providers to assess fire hazards before and after wildfire events to adjust fire prevention and suppression needs, as necessary, commensurate with both short- and long-term fire prevention needs.
Goal S-6: Provide neighborhood safety through effective law enforcement.
Policy S-6.1: Continue to maintain demand -based law enforcement service levels to reduce the risk of criminal activity.
Policy S-6.2: Continue public education efforts and community outreach programs to promote community involvement in crime and drug prevention.
Policy S -6.3: Use Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in the design or redevelopment of projects and buildings.
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-7
Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Parks, Recreation and Community Health Element related to parks (City of San Marcos 2012c):
Goal PR -1: Plan for, acquire, develop, and maintain a system of local parks connected through an integrated network of trails and high-quality recreational facilities.
Policy PR-1.1: Develop and maintain a complete system of public parks and recreational amenities that provide opportunities for passive and active recreation at a minimum standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Parks, trails, and recreational facilities will enhance com munity livability, public health, and safety; should be equitably distributed throughout the City; and be responsive to the needs and interests of residents, employees, and visitors.
Policy PR-1.3: Ensure that the development of parks, trails, and recreation facilities and services keeps pace with development and growth within the City.
Policy PR-1.4: Promote increased access to parks and open spaces, pedestrian- and bike-oriented routes to parks and open space, greening of public rights-of-way, and a variety of active and passive uses of parks and open space.
Policy PR-1.5: Require new development to be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Parks Master Plan to meet or exceed the City’s parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
Policy PR-1.6: Require new infill development to provide plazas, mini parks, or other civic spaces as part of their parkland requirement.
Policy PR-1.7: Promote park and facility design that discourages vandalism, deters crime, provides natural surveillance, and creates a safe and comfortable environment.
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10 .4, Project Impact Analysis, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable goals and policies pertaining to public services.
3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to public services are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, a significant impact related to public services would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
▪ Fire protection
▪ Police protection
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-8
▪ Schools
▪ Parks
▪ Other public facilities
3.13.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause si gnificant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Residential uses were not considered at the project site in the City’s General Plan, and the land use change from Industrial to Specific Plan Area to accommodate the proposed residential development could result in an increase in demand on SMFD. As analyzed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing, the proposed project would result in development of 449 residential dwelling units , housing approximately 1,388 residents. The estimated generation of 1,388 residents is calculated based on an average of 3 .09 occupants per household , as outlined in Section 3.12 of this EIR .
The proposed project would increase the demand on SMFD resources in comparison to development of an industrial use under the current allowed land use designation, due to the introduction of approximately 1,388 residents on the currently vacant site. Although not all residents of the project would be new to the City, the estimated additional numbers of residents at the project site would increase the need for fire protection services related to routine fire and emergency medical calls , and would increase the dem and on SMFD Station 2, which would provide primary response to the project site; with SMFD Station 1 and Vista Fire Department Station 4 responding as necessary.
As described in detail in the Fire Protection Plan (Appendix N to this EIR), based on the project site location in relation to existing SMFD stations, travel time to the project site for the first responding engine from SMFD Station 2 is 4 minutes, 26 seconds to the central portion of the project site, entering from the furthest ingress/egress point on La Mirada Drive. Travel time for secondary response is approximately 4 minutes and 37 second s. However, travel time does not account for dispatch and turnaround time. In order to estimate a total response ti me, an additional 2 minutes were added to the total travel time. This results in an estimated response of 6 minutes and 26 seconds for project from SMFD Station 2. The total secondary response for SMFD Station 1 would be approximately 6 minute and 37 seconds and approximately 7 minutes and 17 seconds from Vista Fire Department Station 3. SMFD’s internal response time standard is to have the first arriving fire apparatus on -site within 8 minutes (average maximum initial response of no more than 8 minutes for fire apparatus and 9 minutes for ambulance, 90% of calls).
The project would conform with SMFD’s internal response time standard and would not have an overall impact on SMFD’s ability to meet its average response goals (Appendix N).
In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Services Fees outlined in Section 17.44.030 of the City’s Municipal Code. Payment of the Development Services Fees go towards City services, which include the Fire Protection District , to ensure adequate fire protection facilities are provided .
Additionally, a s a condition of project approval, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant/ developer/property owner shall submit an executed version of petition to annex into and establish, with respect to
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-9
the property, the special taxes levied by the following Community Facility District: CFD 2001 -01 (Fire and Paramedic). This would offset the project’s increase in demand for fire protection services.
For the reasons stated above , it is determined that potential impacts to fire protection as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Police protection?
As discussed above under Fire Protection, the proposed residential development would develop 449 residential dwelling units, generating approximately 1,388 residents at the project site. Residential development at the project site would increase the demand on police protection services in comparison to the industrial uses allowed under the current land use designation due to the introduction of residents on the currently vacant site. Although not all residents would be new to the City, the proposed project could increase the need for police protection services through routine police and emergency calls and could increase the demand on the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department San Marcos Station , which would serve the project site. The San Marcos Station is located approximately 4 miles east of the project site.
Implementation of the proposed project would be expected to increase the frequency of emergency and non - emergency calls to the Sherriff’s Department. However, as discussed in Section 3.13.1, Existing Conditions, over 100 deputies, volunteers, and professional staff serve the residents of the City. Law enforcement services include general patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention, juvenile services, narcotics and gang investigations, communications and dispatch, and various management support services. Unlike fire services, which respond solely to emergencies, law enforcement services consist of patrolling large areas 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Police units are continuously mobile, and service calls are responded to by the nearest available mobile unit. At the San Marcos Station, patrol deputies are assigned to a geographical “beat” area, allowing deputies to become familiar with citizens and problems within their “beats” (SDCSD 2021). Accordingly, service ratios and response times are anticipated to remain adequate with implementation of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project is not expected to affect police protection such that new or physically altered governmental facilities are needed.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s Development Services Fees outlined in Section 17.44.030 of the City’s Municipal Code. Payment of the Development Services Fees funds needed City services, which include the Sheriff’s Department. Furthermore, as a condition of project approval, the project applicant shall annex the site into the preexisting Community Facilities District for Police Services (CFD 98 -01, Improvement Area No. 1). Participation in the CFD will offset t he cost of increases in necessary services resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
Therefore, while the proposed project would likely place a slight increase in demand on police protection services, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in the need for construction or expansion of existing police facilities and impacts to police protection resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant.
Schools?
As outlined above, the proposed project would develop 449 residential dwelling units , generating approximately 1,388 residents, some of which are expected to be students. As described under Section 3.13.1, primary education throughout the City is served by SMUSD . La Mirada Academy (serving grades K –8) and San Marcos High School (serving grades 9–12) are the schools within SMUSD that would be expected to serve grade-school residents at the project site. Using SMUSD student generation rate s as described in the City’s General Plan – Land Use and
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-10
Community Design Element (elementary students = 0.2271, middle school students = 0.0963, high school students = 0.1032) , the proposed project would generate approximately 315 elementary school students , 134 middle school students, and 143 high school students, respectively (City of San Marcos 2012a).
Prior to project approval, the project would be required to obtain will-serve letters from the SMUSD or servicing schools to confirm such schools have adequate capacity. Furthermore, the project would be required to contribute development fees to SMUSD pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620 et seq. and Government Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b) , as well as the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.52.050 . The project developer/applicant would be required to pay the school mitigation fees that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance, unless a direct agreement otherwise has been made with the SMUSD. The current school fee for residential development required by SMUSD is $4.44 per square foot ; however, this fee amount could change between the drafting of this EIR and the time of building permit issuance (SMUSD 2020). Further, consistent with General Plan Policy LU-11.2, the project would be required to provide a letter from the school district(s) to the City prior to the issuance of building permits confirming these fees have been paid (City of San Marcos 2012a). SB 50 states that the fees imposed by school districts shall constitute the exclusive method of considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities c aused by a development project. Such payment shall provide “full and complete mitigation of th e impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act...on the provision of adequate school facilities” (Government Code Section 65995[h]). As such, with contribution of required development fees, impacts to schools as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Parks?
As previously described, the proposed project would develop 449 residential dwelling units , generating approximately 1,388 residents. This increase in residents would increase demands for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Assuming 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents (the minimum standard goal of the City’s General Plan, discussed in Section 3.14.2, Regulatory Setting), the addition of 1,388 residents at the project site equates to a demand of approximately 6.94 acres of public park space generated by the proposed residential development. The City requires any project that increases the demand for parks and recreation facilities to pay into the City’s Public Facility Fee (PFF) . This fee is to be used for developing public neighborhood parks, regional parks, and recreational facilities , as outlined in the City’s Park Master Plan Update ( City of San Marcos 2018). The provision of useable common open space, private open space, and payment of the PFF would maintain the City’s service standard for parks within the City.
The proposed project would be required to pay the City’s PFF , which is required of all projects that increase the demand for park and recreation needs in the City. The PFF would be used for developing public neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. Furthermore, the project would provide approximately 134,985 square feet (2.42 acres) of common open space area on -site for private use by residents, which would further off -set demand on existing recreational facilities in the City, as required by the City’s Municipal Code (Section 20.215.050).
Therefore, impacts related to the use of park facilities are considered less than significant. Further details regarding parks and recreation can be found in Section 3.14, Recreation.
Other public facilities?
The proposed project would develop 449 units, generating approximately 1,388 residents at the project site .
Although not all of the se residents wou ld be new residents to the City, the generation of residents at the project site would increase the demands on library services and resources in comparison to the project site’s current Industrial land use designation . However, additional library services are available in the County through a
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-11
cooperation of County libraries, independent city libraries, and the Imperial County Library, which collectively form the Serra Library System. This system enables County library cardholders to check out library materials from the other Serra member librar ies (Serra Cooperative Library System 2016) . In addition, community members can purchase a community borrower card to obtain borrowing privileges at the California State University San Marcos campus (CSUSM 2021). Community members can also borrow materials at Palomar Community College with a valid picture ID and proof of current mailing address (Palomar College 2021). These additional library resources are located in the San Marcos community and provide over 200,000 square feet of additional library space. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities in the City as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant.
3.13.5 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to public services were identified; thus, no mitigation measures are required.
3.13.6 Conclusion
As analyzed above, t he proposed project would develop 449 residential units, generating approximately 1,388 residents at the project site . This would result in an increase in demand for fire protection, emergency medical services, police protection, school services, and library facilities. However, the project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable regulations and pay all applicable development fees discussed above, including payment of school mitigation fees pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620 et seq. and Government Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b), as well as the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.52.050; payment towards the City’s Development Services Fees outlined in Section 17.44.030 of the City’s Municipal Code , which goes towards City services, which include the Fire and Police services; and payment of the City’s PFF required to all projects that increase the demand for park and recreation needs in the City, in order to avoid direct and cumulative impacts to schools and parks. Project compliance with applicable regulations and payment of the applicable fees outlined above would ensure direct and cumulative impacts to public services would be less than significant.
3.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.13-12
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-1
3.14 Recreation
This section describes the existing recreation setting of the project site, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project).
Table 3.14-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-impact analysis by threshold for the proposed project.
Table 3.14-1. Recreation Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project Direct
Impact
Project
Cumulative
Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 - The project increases the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated.
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No. 2 - The project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
3.14.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes existing park, recreation facilities, and trails on the project site and in the project vicinity. The City of San Marcos (City) has over 290 acres of park land and 37 parks (City of San Marcos 2023.). The City of San Marcos’s Parks Master Plan classified parks into 8 different categories: regional parks; community parks; neighborhood parks; mini (urban) parks; special use facilities; historical, monuments, and memorials; recreation centers; and aquatic centers (City of San Marcos 2018). Details on each of these park categories are detailed below.
Regional Parks
Regional parks are defined as parks that are a minimum of 50 acres with 75 or more acres being optimal (City of San Marcos 2018). The drive time to a Regional Park is approximately 1 hour or less, and offers a variety of terrain, scenic views, cultural amenities and extensive natural areas with both passive and active opportunities. Double Peak Regional Park is the closest regional park to the project site and offers amenities such as an amphitheater, restrooms, trail connections, play equipment and picnic tables.
Community Parks
Community parks are defined as parks that are a minimum size of 10 to 100 acres (City of San Marcos 2018).
Community parks serve two or more neighborhoods with a service area of 0.5 to 3 miles. There are five community parks in the City of San Marcos: Bradley Park, Woodland Park, Walnut Grove Park, Discovery/Lakeview Park, and Double Peak Park. Bradley Park and Discovery/Lakeview Park would serve the project site, as the project site is located within the service area of these two parks. Bradley Park is located immediately adjacent to the project site to the west, and Discovery/Lakeview Park is located approximately 2 miles southeast of the project site.
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-2
Bradley Park
Bradley Park is the City’s oldest park comprising a total of 34 acres located at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Linda Vista Drive. It is a sports-oriented facility with 26 acres already developed, leaving a final 10 acres for future planning, design, and construction. The site contains two flat areas divided by a short, steep , slope. The “Upper Mesa” contains the area currently under construction for new active recreation facilities and yet to be planned acreages, while the already developed acreage is on the “Lower Mesa.” The existing emphasis of the park is active sports facilities. This park is the primary site for active sports in the City. This park includes, tot lots, picnic areas, artificial turf areas and an indoor soccer arena (by permit only) (City of San Marcos 2018).
Discovery/Lakeview Park
Lakeview Park is located at the corner of Foxhall and Poppy Road. Lake View Park (at Discovery Lake) is 23 acres of open space and a 5-acre lake. This park has a trail around the lake (City of San Marcos 2018).
Neighborhood Parks
Neighborhood parks are defined as parks that are generally 5 acres, although 7 to 10 acres are optimal (City of San Marcos 2018). Neighborhood parks have a service area of 0.25 to 0.5 miles and should be accessible by arterial roads. There are 14 neighborhood parks in the City: Buelow Park, Connors Park, Hollandia Park, Innovation Park, Knob Hill Park, Jacks Pond Park, Cerros de Las Posas Park, Mission Sports Park, Montiel Park, Mulberry Park, Richmar Park, San Elijo Park, Simmons Family Park, and Sunset Park.
Mini (Urban) Parks
Mini (urban) parks are defined as parks that are between 2,500 square feet and 1 acre in size, although a park area of less than 5 acres could be considered a mini park (City of San Marcos 2018). A mini park’s service area is
0.25 miles or less and in a residential setting. There are 18 mini (urban) parks in the City: Alder Glen Park, Amigo Park, Bougher Park, Children’s Park, Civic Center Park, Creek View Park, Discovery Meadows, Foothill Park, The Laurels Park, Optimist Park, Pebblestone Park, Quail Valley Park, Questhaven Park, Regency Hills Park, Ridgeline Trailhead, Santa Fe Hills Park, Summer Hill Park, and Valley View Park.
Special Use Facility
A special use facility includes three categories of facilities (City of San Marcos 2018):
▪ Historic/Cultural/Social Sites – A unique local resource offering historical, education, and cultural opportunities. Examples include historic downtown areas, performing arts parks, arboretums, display gardens, performing arts facilities, indoor theaters, churches, public buildings, and amphitheaters. ▪ Recreation Facilities – A specialized or single purpose facility. Examples include community centers, senior centers, community theaters, hockey arenas, marinas, golf courses and aquatic parks. ▪ Outdoor Recreation Facilities – Examples include tennis centers, softball complexes, sports stadiums, skateboard parks, and bark parks.
The size and service area of a special use facility varies greatly.
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-3
Historical, Monuments, and Memorials
Historical, monuments, and memorials parks preserve monuments and memorials, provide programmed historic interpretation, attract tourists and offer passive recreation opportunities (such as trails) (City of San Marcos 2018).
The size and service area varies.
Recreation Centers
Recreation centers are intended to provide indoor leisure facilities and programs at a reasonable cost. Recreation centers also serve as meeting facilities for local social gatherings, public events, and are designed to be a hub of recreation activity (City of San Marcos 2018). The size and service area varies.
Aquatic Centers
Aquatic centers are swimming facilities that provide active recreation for the residents of San Marcos. The size of these facilities varies. The service area is a minimum population of 25,000, and the recommended level of service is one aquatic center site per 40,000 persons in San Marcos (City of San Marcos 2018).
Trails
The City currently owns and manages 63 miles of completed trails with plans to expand the trail network to 72 miles (City of San Marcos 2018). The goal of the trail system is two-fold: to serve as a recreational amenity and to provide an alternative means of circulation for non -motorized travelers through an inter -linked citywide system of trails connecting residential neighborhoods to parks, schools, colleges, stores, restaurants, movie theaters, other important destinations within the City, and with the wider regional trails system in adjacent cities.
3.14.2 Regulatory Setting
This section describes the state and local laws and regulations that are applicable to recreation and the proposed project.
State
Quimby Act
Since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477), cities and counties have been authorized to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated by the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The goal of the Quimby Act was to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements. The act gives authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties.
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 enables cities, counties , and special districts to acquire land for parks, recreation and open space. A local government may also use the assessments to pay for improvements and maintenance in these areas.
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-4
The Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Government Code Section 53311 et seq.) is a tax-based financing method available to cities, counties, and special districts. It authorizes local governments to establish community facilities districts within which they may levy special taxes and issue bonds to finance open space acquisition, maintenance, and other programs. Approval of the special tax and any related bond issue requires approval by two -thirds of the district electorate.
Local
City’ s Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 – Park and Recreational Development Construction Fee As described in Chapter 17.36 in the City’s Municipal Code, the continued increase in the development of dwelling units and population within the City has created the need for planning, acquisition, improvement, expansion and operation of public parks, playgrounds, recreational facilities in the City, and thus the need for additional revenues with which to finance such facilities. This chapter of the Municipal Code requires that each builder of each dwelling unit to be constructed within the City of San Marcos shall, prior to the construction, pay a fee, as adopted by Resolution by the City Council (City of San Marcos 2021a).
City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17. 44 – Development Services and Public Facilities, Exaction, Fees and/or Costs
The City recognizes that the continued development of property within the City's jurisdictional boundaries has resulted in an increased demand on existing public services, facilities and infrastructure; the need for expansion of public services, facilities and infrastructure; and/or the need for the installation of new public services, facilities, and infrastructure. It is the intent of the City that each applicant for a grading, construction, building and/or development permit or entitlement shall, prior t o the issuance of such permit or entitlement, pay Public Facilities Fees. The funds generated by the payment of fees described the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.44 shall be deposited into separate accounts established for the purposes of maintaining, expanding, and installing public infrastructure. Such public infrastructure includes active or passive open space and parks (City of San Marcos 2021b).
City of San Marcos General Plan
Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element
The following are applicable goals and policies from the City of San Marcos General Plan, Parks, Recreation, and Community Health Element (City of San Marcos 2012):
Goal PR -1: Plan for, acquire, develop, and maintain a system of local parks connected through an integrated network of trails and high-quality recreational facilities.
Policy PR-1.1: Develop and maintain a complete system of public parks and recreational amenities that provide opportunities for passive and active recreation at a minimum standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Parks, trails, and recreational facilities will enhance co mmunity livability, public health, and safety; should be equitably distributed throughout the City; and be responsive to the needs and interests of residents, employees, and visitors.
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-5
Policy PR-1.3: Ensure that the development of parks, trails, and recreation facilities and services keeps pace with development and growth within the City.
Policy PR-1.4: Promote increased access to parks and open spaces, pedestrian- and bike-oriented routes to parks and open space, greening of public rights-of-way, and a variety of active and passive uses of parks and open space.
Policy PR-1.5: Require new development to be designed and constructed in accordance with the approved Parks Master Plan to meet or exceed the City’s parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
Policy PR-1.6: Require new infill development to provide plazas, mini parks, or other civic spaces as part of their parkland requirement.
Policy PR-1.7: Promote park and facility design that discourages vandalism, deters crime, provides natural surveillance, and creates a safe and comfortable environment.
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable General Plan goals and policies is discussed in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. As detailed in Section 3.10.4, the project is consistent with the applicable goals and policies pertaining to recreation.
Parks Master Plan
The City adopted its first Parks Master Plan in 1990, which presented a vision of parks and recreation facilities for the City. Since that time, the City has changed significantly, so a Master Plan Update was adopted in 2017. The goal of the Parks Master Plan Update is to identify potential improvements to the park system and, as funding becomes available, suggest additional amenities for new parks and improvements to existing park facilities (City of San Marcos 2018).
Master Trails Plan
The City’s Master Trails Plan, adopted in 1991, details a trails implementation strategy and description of each proposed trail segment. The plan envisions a system of connectivity through trail corridors networked across the City. To meet this goal, the Master Trails Plan recommends the creation of 72 miles of trails that will provide an alternative means of circulation and recreational opportunities to San Marcos residents and visitors. These trails will include 21 miles of urban trails, 36 miles of multi-use trails, and 15 miles of soft-surface trails that connect neighborhoods to parks, schools and workplaces as well as to the trails systems of neighboring cities and the County of San Diego (City of San Marcos 2018).
3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to recreation are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, a significant impact related to recreation would occur if the project would:
Threshold No. 1: Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-6
Threshold No. 2: Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
3.14.4 Project Impact Analysis
Threshold No. 1: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? According to the State of California Department of Finance, there are approximately 3.09 persons per housing unit in San Marcos (DOF 2020). The project proposes development of 449 residential dwelling units, which is estimated to generate approximately 1,388 residents using the Department of Finance's 3.09 persons per household unit estimate (see Section 3.12, Population and Housing). This increase in residents would increase demands for neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Assuming 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents (the minimum standard goal of the City’s General Plan discussed in Section 3.14.2), the addition of residents on site equates to a demand of approximately 6.94 acres of public park space generated by residents of the project site.
In addition to private balcony/patio space for each residential unit, the project proposes 134,985 square feet (3.09 acres) of private common open space area for residents. The project would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code requirements, which outline recreation and open space requirements of residential development. In addition, the project would be required to pay the City’s Public Facility Fees (PFF), required to all projects that increase the demand for park and recreation needs in the City. The PFF money would go towards the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the City to offset the demand on public park space, as described in Municipal Code Chapter 17.36 and 17.44 . Payment of the PFF shall be made prior to City issuance of the first building permit for the project . Therefore, payment , which would ultimately contribute to development of new parks and recreational facilities, would offset the increase in demand of parks and recreational facilities generated by residential development at the project site, such that existing facilities would not substantially deteriorate. Therefore, proposed project impacts to existing neighborhood and regional parks are determined to be less than significant.
Threshold No. 2: Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As stated under Threshold No. 1, in addition to private balcony/patio space for each residential unit, the project proposes 134,985 square feet of private common open space area for residents. Inclusion of the proposed open space area on-site has been analyzed as part of the project throughout this environmental impact report and is not expected to result in physical effects on the environment. Furthermore, the project developer would be required to pay the City’s PFF, which would go towards the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the City to offset the demand on public park space . Therefore, impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities are considered less than significant.
3.14.5 Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to recreation were identified; thus, no mitigation is required.
3.14.6 Conclusion
As analyzed in Section 3.14.4, the project is required to present site plans outlining proposed open space and recreational amenities on site, and the project applicant/developer would be required to pay the City’s PFF. Payment
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-7
would be determined by the City based on the presented plans for the site. As described above, developer payment towards the City’s PFF would go towards the acquisition and development of local and community park facilities throughout the City to offset the demand on public park space. With payment of the PFF and provision of the proposed on-site open space, impacts related to recreation would be less than significant.
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-8
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Conceptual Open Space
Pacific Project EIR
FIGURE 3.14-1SOURCE Lundstrom Engineering and Surveying, Inc., 2023
3.14 - RECREATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.14-10
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-1
3.15 Transportation
This section describes the transportation impact analysis for the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (proposed project). It includes a description of existing traffic conditions, trip generation for the proposed project, traffic modeling, and identification of mitigation measures. The section is based on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) dated January 26, 2023. The complete report is included as Appendix J to this Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) was also prepared by LLG dated February 16, 2023, for informational purposes only as described below, and is included as Appendix K to this EIR.
The transportation impact analysis prepared for the proposed project is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the City of San Marcos’s General Plan Mobility Element , the City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, and applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including disclosure of project impacts in both existing and cumulative horizon years.
Table 3.15-1 summarizes the project- and cumulative-level impact analyses, by threshold.
Table 3.15-1. Transportation Summary of Impacts
Threshold of Significance
Project -Level
Impact
Cumulative -
Level Impact
Significance
Determination
No. 1 - Conflict with a program plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities.
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 2 – Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 3 - Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment).
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
No. 4 - Result in inadequate emergency access. Less than Significant
Less than
Significant
Less than
Significant
3.15.1 Existing Conditions
This section describes the existing circulation and transportation system in the project area , as well as the methodology used to prepare the transportation analysis.
Project Location
The approximately 33.2-acre project site is an infill site located in the western portion of the City of San Marcos (City), at the northwest corner of South Las Posas Road and Linda Vista Drive . La Mirada Road abuts the site ’s northern boundary and South Pacific Street abuts the site’s western boundary. The Grand Plaza shopping center is located directly across South Las Posas Road. Light industrial uses are adjacent to the site ’s northern, southern, and western boundary, Bradley Park is located across from the site ’s southwestern corner, and residential uses are located to the south and west of Bradley Park. Surrounding land uses outside of the immediately adjacent
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-2
industrial and commercial land uses include designated parks, single and multifamily residential, and schools/ educational facilities. The closest freeway is State Route (SR) 78, located approximately 0.44 mile s north of the project site.
Existing Street Network
Figure 3.15-1, Existing Traffic Conditions, depicts existing conditions within the transportation study area, including signalized intersections and lane configurations. The transportation study area evaluated for the proposed project includes the following intersections and street segments, based on the anticipated distribution of traffic to/from the project site. Note, the numbering associated with each intersection and segment are referenced throughout this EIR section.
Intersections:
Las Posas Road/SR-78 WB Ramps
Las Posas Road/Grand Avenue
Via Vera Cruz/Grand Avenue/SR-78 EB Ramps
Pacific Street/La Mirada Drive
Las Posas Road/La Mirada Drive
Rancho Santa Fe Road/Linda Vista Drive
Pacific Street/Linda Vista Drive
Las Posas Road/Linda Vista Drive
Pacific Street/San Marcos Boulevard
Las Posas Road/San Marcos Boulevard
Segments:
Las Posas Road
Descanso Avenue to SR-78 WB Ramps
SR-78 WB Ramps to Grand Avenue
Grand Avenue to La Mirada Drive
La Mirada Drive to Linda Vista Drive
Linda Vista Drive to San Marcos Blvd
Pacific Street
La Mirada Drive to Linda Vista Drive
Linda Vista Drive to San Marcos Blvd
La Mirada Drive
Pacific Street to Las Posas Road
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-3
Linda Vista Drive
Rancho Santa Fe Road to Pacific Street
Pacific Street to Las Posas Road
Las Posas Road to Via Vera Cruz
San Marcos Boulevard
Pacific Street to Las Posas Road
Las Posas Road to Via Vera Cruz
The following project driveways are also included in the evaluation:
Project Driveways:
La Mirada Drive/Project Driveway (west)
La Mirada Drive/Project Driveway (central)
La Mirada Drive/Project Driveway (east)
Linda Vista Drive/Project Driveway (west)
Linda Vista Drive/Project Driveway (east)
The principal roadways in the project study area are described briefly below. Roadway classification was determined from a review of the City of San Marcos General Plan Mobility Element and information gathered from field observations.
Las Posas Road is currently constructed as a six-lane divided roadway between the SR-78 westbound ramps and Grand Avenue, a five-lane divided roadway between Grand Avenue and La Mirada Drive, a four-lane divided roadway between La Mirada Drive and Linda Vista Drive, and a four-lane undivided roadway with a two-way left-turn (TWLT) lane between Linda Vista Drive and San Marcos Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. On-street parking is prohibited. Class II bike lanes are provided. Las Posas Road is cla ssified as a Four-Lane+ Arterial between SR-78 westbound ramps and San Marcos Boulevard.
Grand Avenue is constructed as a four-lane undivided roadway with a TWLT lane between Via Vera Cruz and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On -street parking is prohibited. Only 350 feet of Class II bike lanes are provided on both sides of the roadway. Grand Avenue is classified as a four-lane Arterial between Via Vera Cruz and Rancho Santa Fe Road.
Via Vera Cruz is constructed as a four-lane roadway between Grand Avenue and Linda Vista Drive with a TWLT lane or turn pockets depending on the location. The posted speed limit is 40 mph between Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard. On-street parking is prohibited. Class II bike lanes are provided. Via Vera Cruz is classified as a four-lane Arterial between Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard.
Pacific Street is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway for its entire length from San Marcos Boulevard to north of Grand Avenue. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. On -street parking is generally allowed on both sides of the street. Sidewalks are generally not provided on Pacific Street w ithin the study area and there are no bicycle facilities. Pacific Street is classified as a Major Road between Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard.
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-4
La Mirada Drive is constructed as a two-lane undivided roadway between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Las Posas Road. On-street parking is generally allowed on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Sidewalks are generally not provided on La Mirada Drive within the study and ther e are no bicycle facilities. La Mirada Drive is classified as a Major Road between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Las Posas Road.
Rancho Santa Fe Road is currently constructed as a four to six-lane divided roadway with left turn pockets lanes between Grand Avenue and San Marcos Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On -street parking is prohibited. Class II bike lanes are provided. Rancho Santa Fe Road is classified as a six-lane Arterial between Grand Avenue and West San Marcos Boulevard.
Linda Vista Drive is currently constructed as a three-lane undivided roadway with a TWLT lane between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Las Posas Road and a four-lane undivided roadway between Las Posas Road and Via Vera Cruz.
The posted speed limit is 40 mph. On -street parking is generally provided between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Las Posas Road. Class II Bike lanes are only provided between Rancho Santa Fe Road and Pacific Street on the north side of Linda Vista Drive. Linda Vista Drive is classified as a four-lane Arterial between Rancho Santa Fe and Las Posas Road.
San Marcos Boulevard is constructed as a four-lane divided roadway between Pacific Street and Via Vera Cruz. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. On-street parking is prohibited. Class II bike lanes are provided between Pacific Street and Grand Avenue. San Marcos Boulevard is classified as a Multi -way B oulevard between Pacific Street and Via Vera Cruz.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Table 3.15-2 summarizes the average daily traffic volumes ( ADTs) for the study area segments based on counts conducted on March 24 and 25, 2021. Counts at the study intersections, including bicycle and pedestrian counts, were conducted on March 23, 2021, between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.. As described in the VMT Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix J), traffic volume counts may have been artificially depressed due to restrictions and limitations on business, school, and othe r activities associated with the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Therefore, current counts were compared to traffic data collected prior to 2020, prior to the onset of COVID-related restrictions. The results of that comparative analysis are described further below.
The following conditions are noted specifically with respect to school activity and re -opening at the time of count collection. San Marcos Unified School District secondary students returned to campuses beginning March 23, 2021. San Marcos High School is located approximately 0.5 miles from the southeastern edge of the project study area and contributes to traffic volumes to portions of the study area. This partial reopening is capture d in the March 23 and March 25, 2021, traffic counts.
Palomar College is located just beyond the northern edge of the project study area and contributes to traffic volumes to portions of the study area. Most courses during the Spring 2021 semester beginning February 1, 2021 , were conducted online, although a limited number of programs have face -to-face courses and there are limited on - campus student service available. This limited activity is captured in the above-referenced traffic counts.
Overall, March 2021 traffic volumes were consistently lower than the most recent pre-pandemic traffic counts by a range of 5% to 40%, depending on the location. The weighted average through out the project study area was calculated to be 28% below pre-pandemic conditions.
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-5
To account for this difference, March 2021 traffic counts were adjusted upward to take account of the reduced traffic levels on a location -specific basis similar to future traffic volume forecasting using ADT volumes and the existing (pre-COVID) relationship between ADT and peak hour vol umes. Where pre-COVID ADT volumes were not available, the average difference for the overall study area (28% above March 2021 counts) was used in the forecast. Pre-COVID traffic data were available for the major roadways in the study area including Las Posas Road, Linda Vista Drive, and San Marcos Boulevard. The study area average was applied only to lower-volume roadways such as Pacific Street and La Mirada Drive where comparable pre -COVID data were not available. The adjust ed existing baseline traffic volumes were checked for consistency between intersections where no driveways or roadways exist between intersections.
Table 3.15-2. Existing Traffic Volumes
Street Segment ADT a Date b
Las Posas Road
Descanso Avenue to SR-78 WB Ramps 38,300 March 25, 2021 SR-78 WB Ramps to Grand Avenue 43,600 March 25, 2021
Grand Avenue to La Mirada Drive 15,400 March 25, 2021
La Mirada Drive to Linda Vista Drive 14,500 March 25, 2021 Linda Vista Drive to San Marcos Boulevard 11,400 March 25, 2021 Pacific Street
La Mirada Drive to Linda Vista Drive 4,800 March 24, 2021 Linda Vista Drive to San Marcos Boulevard 4,500 March 24, 2021 La Mirada Drive
Pacific Street to Las Posas Road 3,600 March 24, 2021
Linda Vista Drive
Rancho Santa Fe Road to Pacific Street 12,600 March 24, 2021 Pacific Street to Las Posas Road 9,200 March 24, 2021
Las Posas Road to Via Vera Cruz 6,500 March 25, 2021
San Marcos Boulevard
Pacific Street to Las Posas Road 39,600 March 25, 2021
Las Posas Road to Via Vera Cruz 35,400 March 25, 2021
Source: Appendix J.
Notes: ADT = average daily traffic volume; SR = State Route. a Average Daily Traffic Volumes (rounded up to the nearest 100). b Counts collected in March 2021 were adjusted based on comparison with pre-COVID traffic data as described above and in the VMT Analysis (Appendix J).
Existing Transit Conditions
The North County Transit District (NCTD) provides public transportation within the City and the County of San Diego for Coaster rail service, SPRINTER light rail service, and Breeze bus service. SPRINTER service operates between Escondido and Oceanside, with connections to Interstate 5 and the Coaster rail service operating out of the City of Oceanside. The NCTD operates the Palomar College Station SPRINTER and Breeze transit station located approximately 0.8 miles from the proposed project’s La Mirada Driv e entrance. Transit service is provided to the project area via NCTD bus routes 347 and 445.
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-6
Route 347 provides bus service between Cal State San Marcos and Palomar College, with stops within the study area along San Marcos Boulevard, Via Vera Cruz, and Las Posas Road. This route provides a direct connection to Palomar College Station with transfers to SPRI NTER, Route 304, and Route 305 bus service. The route operates hourly between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 7:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. on Saturday.
Route 445 provides bus service between Palomar College and Carlsbad Poinsettia Station with stops within the study area along Las Posas Road and San Marcos Boulevard. This route provides a direct connection to Palomar College Station with transfers to SPRINTER, Route 304, and Route 305 bus service, and to Poinsettia Station with transfers to COASTER service. The route operates hourly between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This route is not in operation during the weekends.
The project site is located within 0.25 miles from two bus stops serving both Route 347 and Route 445 located along Las Posas Road. The closest bus stops to the project site are located near the intersection of Las Posas Road/ La Mirada Drive and the intersection of Las Posas Road/Linda Vista Drive on both sides of the street. The project site is also approximately 1 mile from Palomar College Station.
At the intersection of Las Posas Road/La Mirada Drive, the bus stop in the northbound direction provides route signage, route designations, seating with shade, and a trash receptacle, and in the southbound direction the stop provides route signage only. At the intersection of Las Posas Road/Linda Vista Drive, the bus stop in the northbound direction provides route signage, route designation, seating with shade, and a trash receptacle , and in the southbound direction it provides route signage only.
Existing Bicycle Network
As previously noted, Class II bike lanes are provided within the study area on the following study area street segments:
▪ Las Posas Road, from SR-78 to San Marcos Boulevard (both sides) ▪ Grand Avenue, from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Las Posas Road (both sides) ▪ Linda Vista Drive, from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Pacific Street (north side) ▪ San Marcos Boulevard, from Pacific Street to Via Vera Cruz (both sides) ▪ Via Vera Cruz, from Grand Avenue to San Marcos Boulevard (both sides) ▪ Rancho Santa Fe Road, from Grande Avenue to San Marcos Boulevard (both sides) No other bicycle facilities are currently constructed within the study area.
Existing Pedestrian Conditions
Pedestrian sidewalks are generally provided throughout the study area, except for the following:
▪ La Mirada Drive, from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Las Posas Road (both sides) ▪ Pacific Street, from Grand Avenue to San Marcos Boulevard (both sides) ▪ Linda Vista Drive, from Rancho Santa Fe Road to Las Posas Road (north side)
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-7
Pedestrian crossings are provided in all directions at the intersections of South Rancho Santa Fe Road/Linda Vista Drive, Las Posas Road/La Mirada Drive, Las Posas Road/Linda Vista Drive and Las Posas Road/San Marcos Boulevard. Pedestrian crossings are prohibited at the following locations:
▪ Las Posas Road/SR-78 WB Ramps (across the north and south legs) ▪ Las Posas Road/Grand Avenue (across the north leg)
▪ Grand Avenue/Via Vera Cruz/SR-78 EB Ramps (across the north, east, and west legs) ▪ San Marcos Boulevard/Pacific Street (across the east leg) Methodology
Local Transportation Analysis Approach and Methodology The City of San Marcos requires preparation of a local transportation analysis for projects generating more than 1,000 daily vehicle trips or more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips (if consistent with the latest version of the City’s General Plan), or, if inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, those projects, generating at least 500 daily vehicle trips or at least 50 peak hour vehicle trips. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,694 average daily trips.
Therefore, a local transportation analysis is required for the proposed project. The analysis is to include analyses based on level of service (LOS), and consistency with programs addressing the circulation system.
Under CEQA, LOS or other measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion (i.e., traffic delay) are no longer considered in evaluating whether a significant impact on the environment would occur; therefore, the LOS analysis referred to in this section and outlined in Appendix K to this EIR, is for information purposes only. Similarly, trip generation rates and distribution information related to the LOS analysis also is presented for information purposes only.
As of July 1, 2020, CEQA requires that the potential environmental impacts associated with vehicle travel be assessed using a VMT metric. VMT is calculated, generally, by multiplying the number of daily vehicle trips generated by a project by the number of miles traveled. As such the potential CEQA environmental impact of the proposed project in terms of vehicle trips is analyzed in terms of VMT below, based on the VMT Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix J).
Vehicles Miles Traveled Analysis
As provided in CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2), following certification of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which occurred in December 2018, “automobile delay, as described solely by [LOS] or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to” CEQA. Rather, and as provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT is now considered the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. As such, the analysis presented below utilizes VMT as the measure to determine project impacts related to transportation facility operations.
A VMT analysis was prepared based on the City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines , November 16, 2020 (City TIAG). The requirement to prepare a detailed transportation VMT analysis applies to all land development projects except for those that meet at least one of the provided screening criteria. A project that meets at least one of the screening criteria listed below would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact due to the project or location characteristics.
Small Projects (less than 110 daily vehicle trips)
Affordable Housing (100% deed restricted)
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-8
Local Serving Retail and Public Facilities (50,000 square feet gross floor area or less) Adjacency to High-Quality Transit
Map-Based Screening (projects located in VMT efficient areas; limited to projects generating fewer than 2,400 ADT)
Based on the project site location, land use characteristics, and trip generation of the proposed project, none of the above listed screening criteria are anticipated to be applicable and therefore a detailed VMT analysis is required.
This project analysis uses the VMT metric and impact thresholds developed by the City’s TIAG, which provides a significant impact will occur if the project generates VMT per resident exceeding a level of 15% below the existing countywide average. Project VMT modeled results are included as part of Section 3.15.4, Project Impact Analysis.
Analysis of Existing Conditions
Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service
Table 3.15-3 summarizes the peak hour intersection operations under existing conditions. As seen in Table 3.15-3, study intersection #3 (Via Vera Cruz/Grand Avenue/SR-78 EB Ramps) operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour, and intersection #7 (Pacific Street/Linda Vista Drive) operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour. As explained above, LOS information is provided as part of the LTA, not in support of the CEQA analysis. LOS or other measures of vehicle capacity or traffic congestion are no longer considered in evaluating whether a significant impact on the environment would occur . For informational purposes, trip generation rates and distribution information are provided from the LTA (Appendix K). The potential environmental impact of the proposed project in terms of vehicle trips is analyzed in terms VMT.
Table 3.15-3. Existing Intersection Operations
Intersection
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
Delay a LOS b
1. Las Posas Rd/SR-78 WB Ramps Signal AM 34.4 C
PM 15.6 B
2. Las Posas Rd/Grand Ave Signal AM 32.2 C
PM 42.8 D
3. Via Vera Cruz/Grand Ave/SR-78 EB Ramps Signal AM >80.0 F PM 66.8 E
4. Pacific St/La Mirada Dr AWSCc AM 9.0 A
PM 10.7 B
5. Las Posas Rd/La Mirada Dr Signal AM 17.9 B
PM 39.7 D
6. Rancho Santa Fe Rd/Linda Vista Dr Signal AM 36.1 D
PM 49.1 D
7. Pacific St/Linda Vista Dr AWSC AM 14.8 B
PM 66.9 F
8. Las Posas Rd/Linda Vista Dr Signal AM 29.9 C
PM 42.9 D
9. Pacific St/San Marcos Blvd Signal AM 7.9 A
PM 9.3 A
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-9
Table 3.15-3. Existing Intersection Operations
Intersection
Control
Type
Peak
Hour
Existing
Delay a LOSb
10.Las Posas Rd/San Marcos Blvd Signal AM 34.7 C
PM 33.5 C
Source: Appendix J.
Notes:
a Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle.
b Level of Service.
AWSC = All-Way Stop Controlled intersection.
Signalized Unsignalized
Delay/LOS Thresholds Delay/LOS Thresholds
Delay LOS Delay LOS
0.0 ≤10.0 A 0.0 ≤10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B 10.1 to 15.0 B
20.1 to 35.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 E
≥80.1 F ≥50.1 F
Intersection Queuing
Table 3.15-4 presents the existing 95th percentile peak hour queue lengths for intersection turn pockets where the Project adds traffic within the study area. As shown in Table 3.15 -4, all existing peak hour queues are contained within existing turn pockets except for:
▪ Intersection #1. La Posas Road/SR-78 Westbound Ramps
- Westbound left-turn (AM peak hour)
- Northbound left-turn (PM peak hour)
▪ Intersection #3. Via Vera Cruz/SR-78 Eastbound Ramps
- Southbound right-turn (AM/PM peak hour)
- Eastbound left-turn (AM/PM peak hour)
▪ Intersection #5. Las Posas Road/La Mirada Drive
- Eastbound left-turn (PM peak hour)
▪ Intersection #8. Las Posas Road/Linda Vista Drive
- Eastbound left-turn (PM peak hour)
▪ Intersection #10. Las Posas Road/San Marcos Boulevard - Southbound right-turn (AM/PM peak hour)
- Eastbound left-turn (AM/PM peak hour)
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-10
Table 3.15-4. Existing Intersection Queuing
Intersection Movement a Storage (ft)
Peak
Hour
Existing
Queue (ft) b
1. Las Posas Rd/SR-78 WB Ramps WBL 340 AM 464
PM 176
NBL 300 AM 190
PM 303
2. Las Posas Rd/Grand Ave WBL 200 AM 57
PM 37
3. Via Vera Cruz/SR-78 EB Ramps SBR 220 AM 964
PM 752
EBL 140 AM 150
PM 234
4. Las Posas Rd/La Mirada Dr NBL 250 AM 34
PM 57
EBL 110 AM 59
PM 199
EBR 110 AM 0
PM 0
5. Las Posas Rd/Linda Vista Dr SBL 130 AM 97
PM 95
NBL 240 AM 104
PM 109
EBL 170 AM 168
PM 392
6. Pacific St/San Marcos Blvd EBL 240 AM 49
PM 91
7. Las Posas Rd/San Marcos Blvd SBR 240 AM 299
PM 413
SBL 240 AM 85
PM 145
NBL 670 AM 17
PM 47
EBR 240 AM 411
PM 679
Notes: ft = feet.
BOLD indicates queue is calculated to exceed available storage. a Direction/turn lane (e.g., SBR = southbound right-turn lane). b 95th percentile queue length.
Daily Street Segment Levels of Service
Table 3.15 -4 summarizes the segment operations under existing conditions. As seen in Table 3.15 -5, study segment #12 (San Marcos Boulevard: Pacific Street to Las Posas Road) and study segment #13 (San Marcos Boulevard: Las Posas Road to Via Vera Cruz) currently operate at LOS E.
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-11
Table 3.15-5. Existing Street Segment Operations
Street Segment Classification
Capacity
(LOS E) a ADT LOS V/C
Las Posas Road
1. Descanso Ave to SR-78 WB Ramps 6-Lane Prime Arterial 60,000 38,300 C 0.638
2. SR-78 WB Ramps to Grand Ave 6-Lane Prime Arterial 60,000 43,600 C 0.727
3. Grand Ave to La Mirada Dr 4-Lane Major Arterial 40,000 15,400 B 0.385
4. La Mirada Dr to Linda Vista Dr 4-Lane Major Arterial 40,000 14,500 A 0.363
5. Linda Vista Dr to San Marcos Blvd 4-Lane Secondary
Arterial
30,000 11,400 B 0.380
Pacific Street
6. La Mirada Dr to Linda Vista Dr 2-Lane Collector
(Commercial/Industrial)
8,000 4,800 C 0.600
7. Linda Vista Dr to San Marcos Blvd 2-Lane Collector
(Commercial/Industrial)
8,000 4,500 C 0.563
La Mirada Drive
8. Pacific St to Las Posas Rd 2-Lane Collector
(Commercial/Industrial)
8,000 3,600 B 0.450
Linda Vista Drive
9. Rancho Santa Fe Rd to Pacific St 2-Lane Collector
(Continuous TWLTL)
15,000 12,600 D 0.840
10. Pacific St to Las Posas Rd 4-Lane Secondary
Arterial
30,000 9,200 A 0.307
11. Las Posas Rd to Via Vera Cruz 4-Lane Collector
(No TWLTL)
15,000 6,500 B 0.433
San Marcos Boulevard
12. Pacific St to Las Posas Rd 4-Lane Major Arterial 40,000 39,600 E 0.990
13. Las Posas Rd to Via Vera Cruz 4-Lane Major Arterial 40,000 35,400 E 0.885 Source: Appendix J.
Notes:
ADT = Average Daily Traffic Volumes; Level of Service = LOS; V/C = Volume to Capacity; TWLTL = two-way left-turn lane. a Capacities based on based on the City of San Marcos’ Roadway Classifications, Capacity, and LOS (see Appendix J).
Near -Term (Interim Year 2025) Conditions
This section describes Near-Term (Interim Year 2025) roadway network and traffic volume conditions. Year 2025 was selected based on the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) pre-established interim year scenarios, as the closest to the opening year of the project. The existing street system as illustrated in Figure 3-1 of the VMT Analysis (Appendix J) is assumed for Near-Term conditions with no notable improvements within the study area. To forecast future traffic volumes for Near -Term (Interim Year 2025) conditions, the SANDAG Series 14 Model was utilized. The forecasted ADT volumes were then used to calculate peak hour volumes based partially on the existing relationship between ADT and peak hour volumes.
Several other traffic engineering principles and factors such as the K -factor (the proportion of daily volume that occurs during the peak period) and D-factor (the directional split of the traffic volumes) were also considered in the
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-12
forecast analysis. The forecast volumes were also checked for consistency between intersections, where no driveways or roadways exist between intersections, and were compared to existing volumes for accuracy.
3.15.2 Regulatory Setting
The following provides a general description of the applicable regulatory requirements and guidelines for the project area.
State
California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the primary state agency responsible for transportation issues. One of its duties is the construction and maintenance of the state highway system. Caltrans has established standards for roadway traf fic flow and has developed procedures to determine if intersections require improvements. For projects that may physically affect facilities under its administration, Caltrans requires encroachment permits before any construction work may be undertaken. Fo r projects that would not physically affect facilities but may influence traffic flow and levels of services at such facilities, Caltrans may recommend measures to mitigate the traffic impacts of such projects.
Assembly Bill 1358 – California Complete Streets Act of 2008 The California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (Assembly Bill 1358) requires circulation elements as of January 1, 2011, to accommodate the transportation system from a multimodal perspective, including public transit, walking, and biking.
Senate Bill 743, CEQA Guidelines Update
In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package, including CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which implements Senate Bill (SB) 743. SB 743 required the development of new metrics for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA in order to provide an alternative to the LOS metric. Under SB 743, measurements of transportation impacts may include VMT,1 vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. SB 743 further directed that unless otherwise provided, a project’s effect on automobile delay shall no longer be considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA.2 Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, VMT was determined to be the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.
The justification for this paradigm shift is that when significant impacts are identified under a LOS and delay-based analysis, the mitigation is often to provide road improvements, which increase roadway capacity that inherently accommodates more vehicular traffic resulting in additional greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, under a VMT based analysis, mitigation typically takes the form of strategies intended to reduce vehicle traffic, rather than accommodate such traffic, thereby reducing vehicle traffic and associated emissions.
1 VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. 2 CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21099, subsection (b). SB 743 also amends congestion management law to allow cities and counties to opt out of LOS standards within certain infill areas (OPR 2023).
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-13
Lead agencies were tasked to transition to the new guidelines and establish thresholds for transportation impacts no later than July 1, 2020. The City adopted its VMT thresholds for CEQA purposes in November 2020 as part of the City’s TIAG, which, relevant to this project proposing a residential land use, provides that a significant impact will occur if a project generates VMT per resident exceeding a level of 15 % below the existing countywide average. The City’s TIAG also provide VMT thresholds for other l and use types including employment projects (office and industrial), retail uses, mixed-use projects, and redevelopment projects.
Local
SANDAG ’s San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan
The SANDAG San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan (Regional Plan) combines the region’s two most important existing planning documents —the Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan and its Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The Regional Comprehensive Plan , adopted in 2004, laid out key principles for managing the region’s growth while preserving natural resources and limiting urban sprawl. The plan covered eight policy areas, including urban form, transportation, housing, healthy e nvironment, economic prosperity, public facilities, our borders, and social equity. These policy areas were addressed in the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/SCS and are now fully integrated into the Regional Plan.
The SANDAG Board of Directors adopted the 2021 Regional Plan on December 10, 2021. The 2021 Regional Plan is a 30-year plan that considers growth, movement, and residential location around the region. The 2021 Regional Plan combines the regional Transportation Plan, SCS, and Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such, the 2021 Regional Plan must comply with specific state and feral mandates. These include an SCS, p er California SB 375, that achieves GHG emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board, compliance with federal civil rights requirements (Title VI); environmental justice considerations; air quality conformity; and public participation (SANDAG 2021).
Congestion Management Program
The 2008 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for San Diego County was developed to meet the requirements of Section 65089 of the California Government Code. Since that time, the local agencies within San Diego County elected to opt out of the CMP requirements, as allowed within the Government Code. As such, there are no CMP - specific requirements associated with this project. However, to ensure the region’s continued compliance with the federal congestion management process, SANDAG has prepared San Diego Forward: The 2021 Regional Plan. The Regional Plan incorporates performance monitoring and measurement of the regional transportation system, multimodal alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles, land use impact analysis, congestion management tools, and Integration with the Regional Transportation Improvement Program process.
City of San Marcos Bikeway Master Plan
The 20 16 Bikeway Master Plan is an update to the City’s original master plan adopted in 2001. Goals of the master plan were to obtain State Bicycle Transportation Account grant funds and improve bicycle facilities throughout the City for safer routes to school, connections to adjacent cities and incorporate an environmental inventory analysis. One of the goals of the master plan was to connect the City’s trails to bicycle facilities to complete a safe and enjoyable trail and bikewa y system.
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-14
City of San Marcos General Plan
Land Use and Community Design Element
The Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan identifies specific policies related to congestion management. Those that are applicable to the proposed project are identified below.
Policy LU-3.7: Require new development to prepare traffic demand management programs.
Policy LU -3.8: Require new development and discretionary actions to annex into a Congestion Management Community Facilities District.
Mobility Element
The Mobility Element of the General Plan identifies specific goals and policies related to an efficient circulation system, traffic calming and safety, and alternative modes of travel. Those that are applicable to the proposed project are identified below.
Goal M-1: Provide a comprehensive multimodal circulation system that serves the City land uses and provides for the safe and effective movement of people and goods.
Policy M-1.1: Safely and efficiently accommodate traffic generated by development and redevelopment associated with implementation of the General Plan Land Use Policy Map.
Policy M-1.2: Require new development to finance and construct internal adjacent roadway circulation and City-wide improvements as necessary to mitigate project impacts, including roadway, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Policy M-1.3: Require new developments to prepare and implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs to minimize vehicle trip generation and promote alternative modes of travel within the City.
Policy M -1.4: Utilize multi -modal LOS techniques to evaluate transportation facilities. For identified prioritized modes (based on facility typology), provide the following minimum LOS as shown in Table 3-4 of the Mobility Element:
▪ LOS D or better for Vehicles as a prioritized mode
- Generally, provides facilities that have minimum vehicle congestion during peak periods. Most motorists are delayed less than 55 seconds at a signal (or less than one signalized cycle).
▪ The City shall allow for flexible LOS where warranted (e.g., accepting a lower LOS than identified above).
Policy M-1.6: Work to improve connectivity within the City by closing gaps in the existing bicycle, pedestrian, trail, transit, and roadway network. Work with new development to provide connectivity and redundancy in the mobility network.
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-15
Policy M-1.7: Strive to ensure that streets within San Marcos shall be complete streets where feasible; thereby providing accessibility, safety, connectivity, and comfort for all modes and users of the system. Appropriate new local streets and Main Streets will prioritize pedestrian and bicycle users through the corridor.
Goal M-2: Protect neighborhoods by improving safety for all modes of travel and calming traffic where appropriate.
Policy M-2.1: Work with new development to design roadways that minimize traffic volumes and/or speed, as appropriate within residential neighborhoods; while maintaining the City’s desire to provide connectivity on the roadway network.
Policy M-2.3: Consider roundabouts, as appropriate, as an intersection control device with demonstrated air quality, traffic efficiency, and safety benefits.
Goal M -3: Promote and encourage use of alternative transportation modes, including transit, bicycles, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs), and walking, within the City.
Policy M-3.1: Develop an integrated, multimodal circulation system that accommodates transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles; provides opportunities to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions; and reinforces the role of the street as a public space that unites the City.
Policy M-3.2: Improve safety conditions, efficiency, and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians through design, maintenance and law enforcement. Install wider sidewalks and curb extensions at pedestrian crossings (bulb outs) where appropriate.
Policy M-3.3: Provide a pedestrian and bicycle network in existing and new neighborhoods that facilitates convenient and continuous pedestrian and bicycle travel free of major impediments and obstacles.
Policy M-3.5: Ensure that streets in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity (such as employment centers, residential areas, mixed use areas, and schools) support safe pedestrian travel by providing detached sidewalks, bulb-outs, enhanced pedestrian crossings, pedestrian bridges, and medians.
Policy M-3.9: Create a pleasant walking environment for roadway typologies where pedestrian travel is prioritized. This includes providing shade trees, landscaping, benches, pedestrian -scale lighting, way finding signage, transit shelters, and other appropriate amenities.
3.15.3 Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides thresholds for determining significant environmental impacts. A project may be deemed to have a significant impact on transportation/traffic if it would:
Threshold No. 1: Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Threshold No. 2: Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-16
Threshold No. 3: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves, or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Threshold No. 4: Result in inadequate emergency access.
3.15.4 Project Impact Analysis
The following discussion summarizes the findings of the LTA (Appendix K) as it relates to project trip generation, project trip distribution and assignment, Near-Term (Year 2025) Scenarios with and without the proposed project, and Horizon Year (Year 2050) Scenarios with and without the proposed project. The discussion herein supports the findings of the project impact analysis.
Project Trip Generation
As described in Chapter 2 , Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting, of this EIR, the project proposes development of 449 residential dwelling units under the proposed Specific Plan Area designation. To determine the traffic generation of the proposed project, SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region (April 2002) rates were applied to the proposed project. The trip generation rate for “Apartment (or any multifamily units more than 20 DU/acre)” was used based on the proposed project density of approximately 29.8 dwelling unit per acre ( DU/acre) (including the proposed open space and habitat area , the project density would be approximately 13.5 DU/acre). SANDAG provides for a 5% daily trip reduction for land uses with transit access or near transit stations accessible within 0.25 miles. The site is located adjacent to transit service with bus stops located near both the north and south ends of the site along Las Posas Road. The project will also upgrade the existing bus stop along its frontage with enhanced amenities and include clear and direct access to bus stops in the site design. To provide a conservative analysis, however, no transit trip reduction was applied to the trip generation for this analysis.
Table 3.15-6 tabulates the total proposed project traffic generation. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 2,694 ADT with 216 AM peak hour trips ( 43 inbound and 173 outbound) and 242 PM peak hour trips (169 inbound and 73 outbound).
Table 3.15-6. Proposed Project Trip Generation
Land Use Size
Daily Trip Ends
(ADTs) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate a ADT Rate
In:Out
Split
Volume
Rate
In:Out
Split
Volume
In Out Total In Out Total
Apartments
(multifamily
>20 du/
acre)
449
DU
6/DU 2,694 8% 20:80 43 173 216 9% 70:30 169 73 242
Source: Appendix J.
Notes: DU = dwelling unit.
Trip generation rate from SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 (“SANDAG Brief Guide”).
3.15 - TRANSPORTATION
FINAL EIR FOR CITY OF SAN MARCOS PACIFIC SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT 13170 MAY 2024 3.15-17
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment
Trip distribution is the process of determining traffic percentage splits on the regional and local roadway network.
Trip distribution is determined based on the characteristics of the project and upon the general location of other land uses to which proje ct trips would originate or terminate, such as employment, housing, schools, recreation , and shopping.
The traffic generated by the proposed project was distributed and assigned based on anticipated traffic patterns to and from the site, and the project site’s proximity to state highways and arterials. The project will be served by three driveways located on La Mirada Drive, and one driveway on Linda Vista Drive. All driveways are assumed to provide full turning movements. An emergency-only access is proposed on Las Posas Road; no day-to-day project traffic was distributed to this driveway. The split of project traffic among each driveway was determined based on the number of dwelling units served by each access point.