RESOLUTION NO. 2024-9323
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN THAT ALLOWS UP TO 228 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ENTITLEMENTS FOR A 228 RESIDENTIAL UNIT PROJECT IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (SPA) ZONE EIR24-002
The Las Posas Owner LPV, LLC
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2021, January 11, 2022, and January 2, 2024, the City received applications from The Las Posas Owner LPV, LLC requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA21-0002) to allow for a change of land use designation from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA); a Rezone (R21-0002) to change the zone from Industrial (I) to Specific Plan Area (SPA); a Specific Plan (SP22-0001) to establish rules and regulations for the development of up to 228 residential units on the project site and preserving a minimum of 60% of the site as Conservation area; a Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP24-0001) to allow the construction of 228 residential condominiums; and a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0001) to create one open space lot and a two-lot condominium map for 228-units on a 33.2-acre vacant site bounded by Pacific Street, La Mirada Drive, Las Posas Road, and Linda Vista Drive in the Business/Industrial District (Project); and WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos is the lead agency for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the project, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and the California Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA located at Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq. (“State CEQA Guidelines”); and WHEREAS, the project is subject to compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of San Marcos Environmental Review Ordinance, Municipal Code, Title 18, Sections 18.04.010-18.04.350 (“Local CEQA Guidelines”), since the project requires approval of discretionary actions by the City of San Marcos, including: a (i) Specific Plan; (ii) General Plan Amendment; (iii) Rezone; (iv) Multi-Family Site Development Plan; (v) Tentative Subdivision Map; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, the City held an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meeting to provide an overview of the project Notice of Preparation, in accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15083, and Public Workshop with the general public; and WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos has prepared, or caused to be prepared, an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) to assess the project’s conformance with CEQA and the City of San Marcos as lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was available to the general public and other public agencies for a 45-day review and comment period from March 2, 2023 to April 17, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos has consulted with other public agencies and the general public and has provided an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR as required by the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City received eight comment letters on the Draft EIR from private individuals, private entities, or public agencies; and WHEREAS, the City issued a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR24-002, State Clearinghouse No. 2022050650 (Final EIR)) on June 17, 2024, incorporating the March 2023 Draft EIR; comments and recommendations received by the City on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary, and a list of private individuals or entities and public agencies that submitted comments; City responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; modifications made to the text of the Draft EIR that are also included in the Final EIR; and appendices to the Draft and Final EIRs; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR evaluates the possible environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA22-0002), Rezone (R22-0002), Specific Plan (SP22-0001), Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP24-0001), and Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM24-0001); and WHEREAS, in compliance with CEQA, the Final EIR identifies project alternatives which reduce or significantly lessen one or more identified significant impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, was evaluated in the Final EIR, and recommended for approval based on the findings herein; and WHEREAS, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization provides for development within a reduced footprint in the southern portion of the project site, and would include 228 residential units (including a mix of rowhomes and villas) on approximately 9.7 acres, 532 parking spaces, 82,311 square feet of common open space area, landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The remaining approximately 23.5 acres of the 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored as open space and habitat; and WHEREAS, the City of San Marcos desires and intends to use the Final EIR (FEIR No. 24-002) certified pursuant to Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the documents incorporated by reference therein, as the environmental documentation required by CEQA and the State and Local CEQA Guidelines for each of the above-referenced discretionary actions to the extent authorized by law; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR evaluates the possible environmental impacts of the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization and associated discretionary actions; and WHEREAS, the City prepared the Findings of Fact as specified in Exhibit A in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 18.04 (City CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is responsible pursuant to San Marcos Municipal Code Chapter 18.04 for reviewing the Final EIR and making a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the Final EIR should be certified if prepared in compliance with all applicable requirements; and WHEREAS, a staff report was presented to the Planning Commission discussing the issues in the matter and the required public hearing held on (June 17, 2024) was duly noticed and held in the manner prescribed by law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final EIR to the City Council on June 17, 2024 by a 6-0 vote, in favor; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2024 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing in the manner prescribed by law to consider the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, with Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves as follows:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.
The Final EIR identifies that the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would be environmentally superior to the project and would reduce identified significant impacts compared to the project; and The City Council accepts Planning Commission’s recommendation and considers the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization as the development project; and The Final EIR concludes that the Project and Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have direct and/or cumulative impacts in the following areas which can be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures in the Final EIR:
Air Quality (volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions during construction) Biological Resources (impacts to sensitive vegetation and animals) Cultural Resources (unknown cultural resources during project grading) Tribal Cultural Resources (unknown cultural resources during project grading) Geology and Soils (unknown impacts to paleontological resources during grading) The Final EIR indicates that the Project and Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following areas without the implementation of mitigation measures:
Aesthetics
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Energy
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Utilities and Service Systems
Wildfire
The Final EIR indicates the Project and Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization will not have significant, direct and/or unavoidable and adverse impacts on the environment after all feasible mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR are implemented.
The Final EIR was prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA and all applicable requirements, as required by Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines, including the Findings of Fact to be considered.
The City Council hereby adopts the Final EIR and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and certifies the following:
The Final EIR complies with CEQA and all applicable requirements, as required by Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines; It reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as the lead agency;
3. The Final EIR was presented to City Council, together with the staff report (copies of which are on file in the Planning Division), public testimony presented at the hearing, and all other oral and written evidence received by the City on this Project, which reviewed the considered the information in the Final EIR before approving the project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Marcos, California, at a regular meeting thereof, held on this 23rd day of July, 2024, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED:
Rebecca D. Jones, Mayor
ATTEST:
Phillip Scollick, City Clerk
Attachment(s):
Exhibit A –Findings of Fact
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-9323
EIR 24-002
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings Regarding Significant Effects for the Pacific Specific Plan Project GPA21-0002, R21-0002, SP22-0001, MFSDP24-0001, TSM24-0001 SCH No. 2022050650
The City of San Marcos has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Pacific Specific Plan Project (Project) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. as amended).
FINAL EIR EVALUATION
The Final EIR evaluated potential effects for the following environmental areas of potential concern: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The Final EIR identified no impact or less than significant impacts related to Aesthetics, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects related to Air Quality (construction of the project would exceed the significance threshold for VOC and O3 emissions); Biological Resources (potential to impact special-status species, riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional wetlands and waterways); Cultural Resources (unknown archeological resources and human remains during project excavation); Geology and Soils (potential to damage paleontological resources during construction); and Tribal Cultural Resources (potentially impact unknown tribal cultural resources during project construction).
The Final EIR determined that the potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures and hereby recommended to the City Council for certification pursuant to CEQA with adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures throughout implementation of the project, and Findings Regarding Significant Effects.
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City of San Marcos, as lead agency for this project, prepare written findings for any identified significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects on the environment. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), the City finds that for each of the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, changes or alterations (mitigation measures) have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will avoid or substantially lessen each of the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. The significant effects (impacts) and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR. The rationale for this finding for each impact is discussed below.
The official custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings is:
City of San Marcos Development Services Department, Planning Division 1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Copies of all these documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City’s decision is based, are, and at all relevant times have been, available upon request at the offices of the City, the custodian for such documents.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project described in the Final EIR includes development of 449 residential units, including a mix of apartments, rowhomes, villas, and affordable flats on approximately 15.09 acres of the 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. Sixty-eight (68) of the 449 total units (15% of the total) 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 project would also include a total of 927 parking spaces and 134,985 square feet (sf) of common open space area. The proposed project also includes landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The remaining approximately 17.94 acres of the 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored as 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 the EIR). The Tentative Map presents specific lot configurations for the site. The Multi-Family Site Development Plan will configure the site for multi family dwelling units, street configuration, infrastructure, recreational open space, and private open space.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
In response to input from agencies and stakeholders, the Final EIR evaluates two additional alternatives: the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization and the Reduced Pacific Specific Plan Alternative. These alternatives are similar to the original project and/or alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR.
The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization has been identified through the CEQA process as the environmentally superior alternative and is recommended for approval as the development project. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives and reduce the severity of impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources in comparison to the proposed project due to the reduced unit count and reduced development footprint.
In response to comments received from USFWS on the Draft EIR, this Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization proposed as part of the Final EIR considers a variation on the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative previously evaluated under Section 4.4.5. of the Draft EIR. Under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, development would occur within a reduced development footprint in the southern portion of the project site. The reduced development consists of 228 residential units, including a mix of rowhomes and villas on approximately 9.7 acres of the 33.2-acre project site. The reduced development includes a total of 532 parking spaces and 82,311 square feet of common open space area. The reduced development also includes landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The remaining approximately 23.5 acres of the 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored as open space and habitat area. The reduced development would have a density of approximately 6.86 dwelling units per acre, including the open space and habitat area (Figure 4-3 of the Final EIR).
Similar to the proposed project described in the EIR, the environmental impacts of the environmentally superior alternative would be similar to the proposed project, would require the same or similar mitigation for impacts to biological resources, and would require 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).
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The City identified project objectives to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to analyze within the Final EIR. The objectives for the proposed Project are:
Promote infill development and develop housing on a site that is served by existing utilities, services, and street access, within close proximity to public transportation and shopping centers.
Assist the City in implementing its housing goals by changing a non-residentially zoned site to a site where medium to high-density housing is allowed.
Provide a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, to align with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements.
Restore, manage, and conserve sensitive onsite biological resources, to the extent feasible, while accommodating residential uses.
Design buildings, spaces, site layout, and uses that enhance and respect the character of the surrounding area in a manner typical to residential developments and planning principles and to enhance connectivity.
To the extent possible given site constraints, maximize the opportunity to provide medium-density housing for the City of San Marcos up to 15.0 dwelling units per acre, which is comparable to other medium-density housing developments in the City of San Marcos.
These objectives have been considered in preparing the findings discussed below.
Section I Findings Regarding Certification of Final EIR Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council of the City of San Marcos as the lead agency under CEQA is responsible for certification of the EIR and therefore makes the following findings:
The Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and its Guidelines; The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and Planning Commission, which reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to making its decision on the project; The certification of the Final EIR and the findings set forth herein reflect the City’s independent judgment and analysis in its capacity as lead agency; The City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A) to reduce or avoid the significant and mitigable impacts of the project; The City Council finds that the Final EIR properly evaluated the project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts based on General Plan buildout, and that this analysis included all past, present and probable future projects in the project vicinity that could cause or contribute to such significant cumulative effects; and The City Council finds that the additional information and evidence submitted after release of the Draft EIR and prior to certification of the Final EIR does not constitute “significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, but rather, merely clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the Draft EIR.
By these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the Final EIR. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the mitigation measures specified therein, as well as the project design features identified in the Draft EIR , are hereby approved and adopted, and shall be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements or other measures.
Any finding made by the City shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. The City intends that these findings be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or not any part of these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or committed to be made by the City with respect to any particular subject matter of the Final EIR, shall be deemed to be made if it appears in any portion of these findings. If any term, provision or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
Section II Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant The Final EIR determined , based upon substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts associated with the project are less than significant and no mitigation is required: Aesthetics, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire The Final EIR summarizes impacts that were found to be insignificant in Chapters 3 and 5. The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, results in the same impact determinations as the proposed project under the EIR for environmental impacts found not to be significant. The City adopts the Final EIR’s determination of insignificance and no further findings are required for the impacts found to be insignificant.
Section III Environmental Effects Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that, for each of the following significant effects identified in the Final EIR, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects on the environment to less than significant levels. The significant effects and mitigation measures are stated fully in the Final EIR and each of the mitigation measures have been imposed. The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, results in the same impact determinations as the proposed project under the EIR for potentially significant environmental impacts. These findings for the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization are explained below and are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings.
AIR QUALITY
The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, will result in potentially significant impacts due to the fact that construction of the project would exceed the significance threshold for VOC emissions.
Mitigation Measures: The air quality mitigation measures developed for the proposed project would apply to the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, as identified in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.
All air quality impacts and mitigation measures are detailed in Attachment A at the end of this document. Mitigation measure MM-AQ-1 will mitigate potentially significant impacts related to air quality.
In order to mitigate potential impacts due to construction exceeding the significance threshold for VOC emissions, implementation of the following mitigation measure will be required:
MM-AQ-1 Architectural Coatings. The project shall use low volatile organic compound (VOC) architectural coatings for interior application that do not exceed VOC content of 10 grams per liter, for exterior application that do not exceed VOC content of 50 grams per liter, and for parking application do not exceed VOC content of 100 grams per liter.
Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos finds that mitigation measure MM-AQ-1, recommended in the Final EIR to mitigate the significant environmental effects to air quality, has been adopted as stated in the approval resolution and that these measures will mitigate the impact of VOC emissions to a less than significant level under the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The proposed Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would reduce the number of units compared to the proposed project by 221 units. As the project site is zoned industrial, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would still need a GPA/Rezone to a SPA. However, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would still be within the SANDAG growth projections for the City and therefore would not conflict with the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) or State Implementation Plans (SIP). As the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have fewer units than the proposed project, emissions during construction would be similar to or less than that of the proposed project. During operation, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would result in fewer emissions compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in units and vehicle trips. The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have similar or reduced impacts to sensitive receptors compared to the proposed project due to the reduction in disturbed area and focus in the southern portion of the site. This proposed alternative would not result in odors during construction or operation that adversely affect a substantial number of people. Overall, impacts of the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have similar to or reduced impacts to air quality compared to the proposed project.
The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization could result in direct impacts to air quality due to project construction would emit VOCs beyond the threshold of significance. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-AQ-1 would reduce this impact to below a level of significance by utilizing low volatile organic compound (VOC) architectural coatings for interior application that do not exceed VOC of 10 grams per liter, for exterior application that do not exceed VOC content of 50 grams per liter, and for parking application do not exceed VOC content of 100 grams per liter. Specifically, daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, with incorporation of this measure, potential impacts to air quality will be reduced to below a level of significance.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, would result in potentially significant impacts related to the potential for project construction and operational activities to cause disturbances to special-status species, riparian habitats/sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional wetlands/waterways.
Mitigation Measures: The biological mitigation measures developed for the proposed project would apply to the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, as identified in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.
All biological resource impacts and mitigation measures are detailed in Attachment A at the end of this document. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8b would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to a level below significance under the recommended Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
Mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8b outlined below would ensure consistency with the MHCP and draft San Marcos Subarea Plan, reduce potential impacts related to special status plants and animals, would reduce potential impacts on sensitive natural communities, and would ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained and that impacts are compensated in accordance with USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW requirements:
MM-BIO-1 Rare Plant Transplant Plan. Prior to the issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project site, the project Applicant or Developer shall submit a rare plant transplant plan to the City and resource agencies (USFWS and CDFW) regarding transplanting and monitoring of special-status plants to be impacted by the project: San Diego button-celery, Orcutt’s brodiaea, and thread leaved brodiaea. The transplant plan shall be approved by the City and resource agencies prior to implementation and prior to issuance of clearing, grubbing, other land disturbance, or grading permits related to the project. The transplant plan shall meet currently accepted standards for sensitive plant species translocation and include, at minimum, methods for plant salvage, seed/bulb/corm collection, transplantation, relocation, performance standards, and maintenance and monitoring to achieve establishment success. San Diego button-celery, Orcutt’s brodiaea, and thread-leaved brodiaea to be impacted shall be translocated and/or replanted through propagation on-site as specified in the approved rare plant transplant plan. Resource Agencies may require the rare plant transplant plan also include off-site translocation or replanting at one of several candidate sites in the City having appropriate soils and habitat for these species. Contingency or remedial measures shall also be included in the approved transplant plan to ensure performance standards are achieved. Such measures may include supplemental seeding or transplantation of nursery grown plants, replacing dead plants, improving weed control, or other adaptive management techniques required by the resource agencies. Resource agency verification that transplant plan performance standards have been met is required for the completion of this measure. In addition to the transplant plan, a cost estimate to implement the plan shall be provided to and approved by the City and resource agencies. Prior to implementation, transplantation and monitoring in accordance with the rare plant transplant plan shall be fully funded by the Applicant or Developer via an endowment or other funding mechanism, as approved by the City and pertinent permit-issuing resource agencies.
MM-BIO-2 Vernal Pools Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project site, the project Applicant or Developer shall submit a Vernal Pool Mitigation Plan (VPMP) to the City and applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e. USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) describing vernal pool creation, expansion, and/or restoration, as well as maintenance and monitoring of such vernal pools. The VPMP shall be approved by the City and permit-issuing resource agency prior to implementation and prior to issuance of clearing, grubbing, other land disturbance, or grading permits related to the project. The proposed distribution of the vernal pool mitigation herein shall be on-site as specified in the approved VPMP. The VPMP shall include, at minimum, creation and restoration methods, performance standards, maintenance and monitoring, and contingency measures if performance standards are not met. Agency sign-off, as applicable per the regulatory permit(s) issued for the project, shall be required for verification that VPMP criteria has been met and for completion of this measure. If impacts to vernal pools occupied by listed San Diego fairy shrimp cannot be fully avoided, prior to impacts, a consultation shall be completed with USFWS to obtain take authorization pursuant to the federal ESA and as described in mitigation measure BIO-3. Measures required by USFWS as a result of consultation shall be implemented, which may include preparation and implementation of a resource salvage plan and translocation of cysts by inoculation into suitable habitat within approved preserve areas or into created or restored habitat. Suitable habitat is located on-site within existing depressions (found not occupied) near existing vernal pools to be preserved on-site, all of which is located within the Vernal Pool Major Amendment Area in the City’s Draft Subarea Plan. In addition to the VPMP, a cost estimate to implement the plan shall be provided to and approved by the City and pertinent resource agencies. Implementation and monitoring per VPMP plan shall be fully funded by the Applicant or Developer via an endowment or other funding mechanism, as approved by the City and pertinent resource agencies.
MM-BIO-3 Listed Species Conservation Measures. Prior to issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project site, the project Applicant or Developer shall demonstrate to the City that consultation with USFWS for adverse effects to San Diego Fairy shrimp, thread leaved brodiaea, and San Diego button celery has occurred in accordance with Section 7 or Section 10 of the federal ESA, as applicable. Impacts to San Diego button celery and thread leaved brodiaea shall also require either a Section 2080.1 Consistency Determination or a Section 2081(b) Incidental Take Permit from CDFW, according to the federal action, or demonstrate to the City that none was required by CDFW. Impacts to habitat occupied by these listed species shall be compensated by the implementation of habitat-based mitigation via an HMMP and long-term conservation and management via a PMP (see mitigation measures MM-BIO-7a and MM-BIO-7b).
MM-BIO-4 Avoidance of Nesting Birds and Raptors. To prevent direct impacts to nesting birds, including raptors, protected under the federal MBTA and the CFGC, any project construction activities requiring the removal and/or trimming of vegetation suitable for nesting birds (including clearing, grubbing, trenching, grading, or any land disturbances) shall occur outside of the breeding season for general birds, including raptors (January 15 to September 15). The City may waive this condition, provided that the following additional avoidance measures are taken. If the construction activities cannot avoid the bird breeding season, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey within 7 days prior to the activities to confirm the presence or absence of active bird nests. If no active bird nests are found by the qualified biologist, then the activities shall proceed with the reassurance that no violation to the MBTA and CFG would occur. If an active bird nest is found by the qualified biologist, then vegetation removal and/or trimming activities at the nest location and within 300 feet for passerine birds and 500 feet for raptors shall not be allowed to occur until the qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. Buffers may be reduced only at the discretion of the qualified biologist, depending on the bird species and construction/vegetation removal activities required in the vicinity of the active nest.
MM-BIO-5 Construction Work Limits Fencing. Prior to the issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project site, the Applicant or Developer shall demonstrate to the City that the approved grading boundaries and limits of work are presented on the Final Construction Drawings, including the limits of work fencing. To help ensure inadvertent/unauthorized impacts to environmentally sensitive areas outside of the approved limits of work footprint are avoided, temporary construction fencing (orange fencing or similar), including silt fencing as appropriate, shall be installed at the edges of the approved impact limits. This fencing shall be installed prior to construction and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Fencing shall be installed in a manner that does not impact sensitive species or habitats to be avoided. Prior to installation, a qualified biologist shall survey the fencing location to inspect that the fencing alignment is consistent with the Final Construction Drawings and to verify no special-status plant species occur within the fencing installation location. If special-status plants are detected, the fencing alignment shall be adjusted to avoid those plant individuals, or such plants shall be relocated into the project preserve areas to avoid their impact as a result of fence installation. Once the fencing is installed, the City and project biologist (see MM BIO-6) shall determine the need for additional inspections and monitoring activities throughout the duration of construction. If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of impact, work in the affected areas shall cease until the problem has been remedied and mitigation identified satisfactory to the City and qualified biologist. All temporary construction fencing shall be removed upon completion of construction.
MM-BIO-6 Biological Construction Monitoring. Prior to any clearing, grubbing, or issuance of grading permits for the project site, the project Applicant or Developer shall demonstrate to the City that a qualified biologist has been retained to monitor construction activities, including monitoring of the temporary work/impact limits fencing installation (see MM-BIO-5), which clearly delineates the edge of the approved work limits and the edges of environmentally sensitive areas that occur beyond the approved limits. The qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction environmental training session for construction personnel to inform them of the sensitive biological resources in the local area and the avoidance measures in place to remain in compliance. The monitoring, at minimum, shall include inspection of construction work areas, including staging and storage areas, to confirm that activities are kept within the approved limits and that Best Management Practices are in place. The biologist shall regularly monitor construction activities throughout construction. If items of non-compliance are identified, the biologist shall notify the on-site construction superintendent immediately to discuss and implement corrective actions. Issues of non-compliance that result in additional impacts to sensitive biological resources shall be documented and provided to the City within 72 hours of identification. Mitigation for unauthorized impacts shall adhere to the applicable measures in the Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the project.
MM-BIO-7a Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities. Impacts to sensitive natural communities (e.g., Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, non-native grassland, mixed grassland, and vernal pools) as a result of project implementation shall be mitigated per the following ratios. A 3:1 mitigation ratio shall be provided for impacts to vernal pools (minimum 1:1 creation/expansion), a 2:1 ratio for impacts to native grassland (including disturbed), a 1:1 ratio for Diegan coastal sage scrub (including disturbed and Baccharis dominated), a 0.5:1 ratio for impacts to mixed grassland (including disturbed), and a 0.5:1 ratio for impacts to non-native grassland. Mitigation shall not occur at levels below these ratios unless otherwise conditioned in permits or discretionary approvals issued by the City and/or applicable permit-issuing resource agency (USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW). The mitigation to sensitive natural communities shall be implemented per MM-BIO-7b.
MM-BIO-7b Compensatory Mitigation for Permanent Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities. Prior to the issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project site, the Applicant or Developer shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City, and applicable permit-issuing agency (i.e. USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) that compensatory mitigation for direct permanent impacts to sensitive natural communities (e.g., Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, non-native grassland, mixed grassland, and vernal pools) has been adequately provided in accordance with the ratios described in mitigation measure MM-BIO-7a and secured through one or a combination of the following mechanisms:
Implementation of on-site and/or off-site habitat preservation, creation/expansion, restoration, and/or enhancement; or Purchase of off-site conservation credits from a conservation bank in the region (such as Brook Forest Mitigation Bank, Cleveland Corridor Conservation Bank, Heights of Pala Mesa Conservation Bank, Manchester Avenue Conservation Bank, Ramona Grasslands Conservation Bank, Red Mountain Conservation Bank, or another location deemed acceptable by the City).
Prior to issuance of any land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or issuance of grading permits for the site, compensatory mitigation areas proposed on- and/or off-site through habitat creation/expansion, enhancement, and/or restoration shall be required to prepare and implement a Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and a Preserve Management Plan (PMP), which shall be subject to City and applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits for the proposed project. Because the rare plant transplant plan and vernal pool mitigation plan (see MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 above) ultimately prescribes actions resulting in grasslands and vernal pools establishment, re-establishment, and/or restoration, such plans shall suffice as the HMMP provided the pertinent information prescribed below is incorporated.
The HMMP shall prescribe the on-/off-site mitigation actions of creation/establishment/expansion, re-establishment, restoration, enhancement, and/or preservation. The HMMP shall include the location of any creation/establishment, re-establishment, restoration, enhancement and/or preservation site(s); requirements for site preparation, soil amendments, temporary irrigation, native plant palettes, installation methods, maintenance, and performance monitoring, as appropriate. The HMMP shall include graceful tarplant into the native habitat planting seed palette, where appropriate. The HMMP shall also include information pertaining to any specific rare plant translocation plans (see MM-BIO-1) or vernal pool resources mitigation plans (see MM-BIO-2) as required by MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2. The HMMP shall require that all mitigation (except for preservation areas not restored) be subject to monitoring with specific performance standards to ensure that the impacted functions and services are restored. All the mitigation areas shall be subject to long-term management as outlined by the approved PMP for the project.
The PMP for the proposed project shall prescribe the on-/off-site actions of stewardship and perpetual management of the preserve areas and include at a minimum: (a) the location and description of the mitigation area(s); final plans for the mitigation area(s); (b) the responsible entities for the mitigation area(s); (c) the management funding amount and mechanism, based on a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or similar cost estimation method approved by the City and applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW); (d) specific habitat and monitoring management directives, including: vegetation monitoring, sensitive species monitoring, water pollution, and control and treatment of non-native invasive/exotic plant species; (e) specific success criteria (f) public awareness programs/initiatives; (g) preserve barriers, fencing management, and signage to prevent human intrusion and control illegal dumping; (h) monitoring and reporting schedules; and (i) adaptive management recommendations for the preserve area. Implementation of long-term management shall be provided by a qualified entity approved by the City and applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) with experience in managing preserve lands.
Prior to the issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project, a protective instrument, such as a conservation easement or restrictive covenant, shall be recorded over the mitigation areas where such a protective instrument does not already exist (including all on-/off-site conservation areas), and in-perpetuity management shall be provided by a qualified manager in accordance with the PMP, which would be funded by an endowment or other acceptable funding mechanism.
The draft HMMP and PMP, including the endowment estimate and documentation, shall be provided to the City and applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) at least 60- days prior to project impacts. The HMMP and PMP shall be approved by the City and applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USFWS, USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) prior to the issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project. for Implementation of the HMMP and PMP shall be fully funded by the Applicant or Developer via an endowment or other funding mechanism, as approved by the City and pertinent permit-issuing resource agency prior to any land disturbance for the project.
MM-BIO-8a Regulatory Permitting. Prior to issuance of land disturbance, clearing, grubbing, or grading permits for the project, the Applicant or Developer shall provide the City copies of all applicable regulatory permits required by the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW for project impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources.
MM-BIO-8b Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. Impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources under the regulation of USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW that result from the proposed project shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio consisting of a minimum 1:1 creation/expansion/establishment/re-establishment, subject to regulatory permitting requirements of USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, as applicable (MM-BIO-8a). Mitigation shall be provided through one or a combination of the following mechanisms below:
Purchase of preservation, creation/establishment, re-establishment, rehabilitation, and/or enhancement credits from a mitigation bank (such as the Brook Forest Mitigation Bank, Ramona Grasslands Conservation Bank, San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank, or another bank) approved by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW as applicable.
Implementation of permittee-responsible preservation, creation/expansion/establishment, reestablishment, restoration, rehabilitation and/or enhancement at an on- and/or off-site location approved by the applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW). Permittee-responsible mitigation proposed on- and/or off-site shall be required to prepare and implement a Habitat Mitigation Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and a Preserve Management Plan (PMP) (see MM-BIO-7b), which shall be subject to the applicable permit-issuing resource agency (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW) review and approval prior to implementation. The HMMP shall prescribe the on-/off-site mitigation actions proposed, and the PMP shall provide the parameters for stewardship and perpetual management.
Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos finds that: The mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8b recommended in the Final EIR to mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts have been adopted as stated in the approval resolution and that these mitigation measures will mitigate impacts to a less than significant level under the recommended Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The recommended Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would result in approximately 16% less (5.22 acres less) development impact area within the 33.2-acre project site in comparison to the proposed project described in the EIR. When comparing impacts to biological resources, the proposed project and the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would both impact native vegetation, vernal pools, and listed special-status plant species. However, the proposed project would also impact a listed special-status animal (federally listed endangered San Diego fairy shrimp) whereas the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have no impacts to listed special-status animals. Both the proposed project and the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would result in impacts to grassland, Diegan coastal sage scrub, and vernal pool vegetation. Although both projects would impact vernal pools, the proposed project would impact vernal pools and other features known to be occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp. The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would avoid all features occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp.
Regarding listed special-status plants, the proposed project would impact two listed plant species (thread-leaved brodiaea and San Diego button celery), while the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would impact only thread-leaved brodiaea. However, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would impact a larger amount of thread-leaved brodiaea in comparison to the project; approximately 72,158 additional plants impacted, which in total reflects impacts to approximately 60% of the thread-leaved brodiaea population at the site.
The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would cluster development along and within the southern boundary of the project site which would reduce the development interfaces adjacent to proposed biological resource preservation areas on-site. The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization layout is expected to result in a reduction of potential indirect impacts related to edge effects. Nonetheless, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would still be required to incorporate mitigation measures MM-BIO-1a through MM-BIO-8b as identified for the proposed project, in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would result in a similar determination of less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-3 would be required to ensure direct impacts to San Diego button-celery and thread-leaved brodiaea would be reduced to less than significant levels. Direct impacts/loss of occupied habitat resulting from the proposed project would be mitigated through preparation and the implementation of an HMMP and/or a Preserve Management Plan (PMP) in accordance with mitigation measures MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-7a, and MM-BIO-7b.
Direct impacts to San Diego button-celery and thread-leaved brodiaea could also occur if appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are not implemented during construction. Potential direct impacts could be avoided through installation of temporary construction and/or silt fencing at the limits of work (mitigation measures MM-BIO-5), biological construction monitoring where work limits occur adjacent to known sensitive resources (mitigation measure MM-BIO-6), and implementation of construction BMPs.
Implementation of minimization, conservation, and translocation measures prescribed by mitigation measures, MM-BIO-1, and MM-BIO-3 would be required to ensure impacts to Orcutt’s brodiaea would be reduced to less than significant levels. Direct impacts/loss of occupied habitat for this species would be mitigated by the implementation of an HMMP in accordance with mitigation measures MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-7a and MM-BIO-7b.
Direct impacts to Orcutt’s brodiaea could also occur if appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are not implemented during construction, including the installation of temporary construction and/or silt fencing at the limits of work (refer to MM-BIO-5), biological construction monitoring where work limits occur adjacent to known sensitive resources (refer to MM-BIO-6), and implementation construction BMPs. Perpetual protection and management of occupied habitat for Orcutt’s brodiaea would be provided by the implementation of a PMP as set forth in mitigation measure MM-BIO-7b.
Implementation of avoidance, minimization, conservation, and translocation measures prescribed by mitigation measures MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-3 would ensure project impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp would be reduced to less than significant levels. Further, direct impacts to this listed species would require authorization and consultation with USFWS through the ESA Section 7 or Section 10 processes, as applicable, as well as with CDFW in accordance with the CESA Section 2081 or Section 2080.1 of the CFGC (MM-BIO-3). Direct impacts/loss of occupied habitat for this species would be mitigated by the implementation of an HMMP in accordance with mitigation measures MM-BIO3, MM-BIO-7a and MM-BIO-7b.
Direct impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp could also occur if appropriate avoidance and minimization measures are not implemented, including measures proposed for potential indirect impacts on other sensitive species, such as: the installation of temporary construction and/or silt fencing at the limits of work (MM-BIO-5), biological construction monitoring where work limits occur adjacent to known sensitive resources (MM-BIO-6), and long-term protection and management of avoided resources through the implementation of a PMP (MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-7a and MMBIO7b). Impacts to San Diego fairy shrimp would be considered potentially significant without mitigation.
The project site contains trees, shrubs, and other vegetation that provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds, including raptors, protected under the MBTA and CFGC. Construction of the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization includes vegetation clearing, which could result in direct impacts to nesting birds if the removal or trimming of vegetation occurs during the bird nesting season. Such impacts to nesting birds would be in violation of the MBTA and CFGC and would be significant, especially if the activities would impact the nesting of candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Additionally, construction activities could result in indirect impacts through disturbance to nesting from noise, dust, and physical presence, such that the disturbance results in nest abandonment or nest failure. These indirect impacts would also be considered significant. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-4 would require preconstruction surveys prior to impacts and construction fencing and biological monitoring measures MM-BIO-5 and MM-BIO-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts on nesting birds, including raptors, to less-than-significant levels.
Direct impacts to USFWS critical habitat by the proposed project are considered significant. These impacts would require authorization and consultation with USFWS through the ESA Section 7 or Section 10 processes, as applicable. Implementation of minimization, conservation, and/or translocation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant. Specifically, mitigation measures MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-3, MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-6 would be required, as well as the implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-7a and MM-BIO-7b, which would ensure direct impacts to these species would be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of the recommended alternative would result in significant impacts to sensitive natural communities (i.e., Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, non-native grassland, mixed grassland, and vernal pools). Native habitat creation/restoration/preservation of impacted habitats would fully compensate for the loss of habitat and reduce impacts to below a level of significance. With the implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-5, MMBIO-6, MM-BIO-7a and MM-BIO-7b, impacts on sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
As a regulatory requirement, the recommended alternative requires notification to and necessary permits obtained from the resource agencies responsible, including USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW, as applicable. Implementation of measures MMBIO-8a and MM-BIO-8b would ensure that the appropriate permits are obtained and that the impact is compensated in accordance with USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW requirements, as applicable. Implementation of required construction BMPs, in combination with mitigation measures MM-BIO-5 and MM-BIO-6 to protect sensitive species, would ensure that construction activities are regularly monitored, are contained within the proposed work limits, and that no additional impacts (including indirect impacts) to adjacent jurisdictional resources occur. Implementing the recommended alternative would result in significant impacts to protected jurisdictional resources under potential regulation by USACE, RWQCB, and or CDFW. The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would be required to secure the necessary regulatory permits prior to impacts per mitigation measure MM-BIO-8a. It is anticipated that a 404 permit from USACE, 401 Certification from the RWQCB, and a 1602 agreement from CDFW would be needed. If the wetlands or waters on site are ruled non-jurisdictional by USACE, it is anticipated that a Waste Discharge Requirement Permit from RWQCB and a 1602 agreement from CDFW would be required. Mitigation measure MMBIO-8b proposes ratios consistent with those typically required by these regulatory agencies and, therefore, would compensate for impacts to jurisdictional resources, such that impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The recommended alternative would also comply with minimum standards and mitigation ratios required by the MHCP, as set forth in mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8b. Compliance with mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8b would ensure that the recommended alternative would reduce impacts, including impacts to Narrow Endemic Species, to less than significant. Overall, compliance with existing regulations, in addition to the implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-8b, would ensure the recommended alternative would not preclude or prevent finalizing and/or adoption of the City’s draft Subarea Plan under the MHCP.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, significant environmental impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a level of less than significant under the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Implementation of the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would not impact any identified archaeological resources, historical resources, or any known human remains interred outside a formal cemetery. Construction of the recommended alternative would involve ground-disturbing activities with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified archaeological resources. In addition, no known human remains are present on the project site. However, construction of the recommended alternative would involve ground-disturbing activities, such as grading and surface excavation, with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified human remains.
Mitigation Measures: The cultural mitigation measures developed for the proposed project would apply to the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, as identified in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings. All cultural resource impacts and mitigation measures are detailed in Attachment A at the end of this document. Mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 would mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level under the recommended alternative. Mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 would also substantially lessen potential impacts to tribal cultural resources which are discussed later in this document.
In order to mitigate potential impacts to unidentified subsurface cultural resources and human remains, implementation of the following mitigation measures would be required:
MM-TCR-1 Pre-Excavation Agreement: Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner shall enter into a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Repatriation Agreement (Pre-Excavation Agreement) with a Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American Tribe (TCA Tribe), identified in consultation with the City. The purpose of the Pre-Excavation Agreement shall be to formalize protocols and procedures between the Applicant/Owner and the TCA Tribe for the protection, treatment, and repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, cultural and/or religious landscapes, ceremonial items, traditional gathering areas, and other tribal cultural resources. Such resources may be located within and/or discovered during ground disturbing and/or construction activities for the proposed project, including any additional culturally appropriate archaeological studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations, grading, preparation for wet and dry infrastructure, and other ground disturbing activities. Any project-specific Monitoring Plans and/or excavation plans prepared by the project archaeologist shall include the TCA Tribe requirements for protocols and protection of tribal cultural resources that were agreed to during the tribal consultation.
The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all non-burial related tribal cultural resources collected during construction monitoring and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the TCA Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The requirement and timing of such release of ownership, and the recipient thereof, shall be reflected in the Pre-Excavation Agreement. If the TCA Tribe does not accept the return of the cultural resources, then the cultural resources will be subject to curation.
MM-TCR-2 Construction Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or ground disturbing activities, the Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor shall provide written documentation (either as signed letters, contracts, or emails) to the City’s Planning Division stating that a Qualified Archaeologist and Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated Native American monitor (TCA Native American monitor) have been retained at the Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor’s expense to implement the construction monitoring program, as described in the Pre-Excavation Agreement.
The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be invited to attend all applicable pre-construction meetings with the General Contractor and/or associated subcontractors to present the construction monitoring program. The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on site during grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground-disturbing activities that occur in areas of native soil or other permeable natural surfaces that have the potential to unearth any evidence of potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources. In areas of artificial paving, the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall be present on site during grubbing, grading, trenching, and/or other ground disturbing activities that have the potential to disturb more than six inches below the original pre-project ground surface to identify any evidence of potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources. No monitoring of fill material, existing or imported, will be required if the General Contractor or developer can provide documentation to the satisfaction of the City that all fill materials being utilized at the site are either: 1) from existing commercial (previously permitted) sources of materials; or 2) are from private or other non-commercial sources that have been determined to be absent of tribal cultural resources by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor.
The Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall maintain ongoing collaborative coordination with one another during all ground disturbing activities. The requirement for the construction monitoring program shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including demolition plans, grading plans, etc. The Applicant/Owner or Grading Contractor shall provide written notice to the Planning Division and the TCA Tribe, preferably through e-mail, of the start and end of all ground disturbing activities.
Prior to the release of any grading bonds, or prior to the issuance of any project Certificate of Occupancy, an archaeological monitoring report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the construction monitoring shall be submitted by the Qualified Archaeologist, along with any TCA Native American monitor’s notes and comments received by the Qualified Archaeologist, to the Planning Division Manager for approval. Once approved, a final copy of the archaeological monitoring report shall be retained in a confidential City project file and may be released, as a formal condition of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation, to Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, or any parties involved in the project specific monitoring or consultation process. A final copy of the report, with all confidential site records and appendices, will also be submitted to the South Coastal Information Center after approval by the City.
MM-TCR-3 Unanticipated Discovery Procedures: Both the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor may temporarily halt or divert ground disturbing activities if potential archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction activities. Ground disturbing activities shall be temporarily directed away from the area of discovery for a reasonable amount of time to allow a determination of the resource’s potential significance. Isolates and clearly non-significant archaeological resources (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native American monitor) will be minimally documented in the field. All unearthed archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources will be collected, temporarily stored in a secure location (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction.
If a determination is made that the archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are considered potentially significant by the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor, then the City and the TCA Tribe shall determine, in consultation with the Applicant/Owner and the Qualified Archaeologist, the culturally appropriate treatment of those resources.
If the Qualified Archaeologist, the TCA Tribe, and the TCA Native American monitor cannot agree on the significance or mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Division Manager for decision. The Planning Division Manager shall make a determination based upon the provisions of CEQA and California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) with respect to archaeological resources and California Public Resources Section 21704 and 21084.3 with respect to tribal cultural resources, and shall take into account the religious beliefs, cultural beliefs, customs, and practices of the TCA Tribe.
All sacred sites, significant tribal cultural resources, and/or unique archaeological resources encountered within the project area shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation. If avoidance of the resource is determined to be infeasible by the City as the Lead Agency, then the City shall require additional culturally appropriate mitigation to address the negative impact to the resource, such as, but not limited to, the funding of an ethnographic study and/or a data recovery plan, as determined by the City in consultation with the Qualified Archaeologist and the TCA Tribe. The TCA Tribe shall be notified and consulted regarding the determination and implementation of culturally appropriate mitigation and the drafting and finalization of any ethnographic study and/or data recovery plan, and/or other culturally appropriate mitigation. Any archaeological isolates or other cultural materials that cannot be avoided or preserved in place as the preferred mitigation shall be temporarily stored in a secure location on site (or as otherwise agreed upon by the Qualified Archaeologist and TCA Tribe), and repatriated according to the terms of the Pre-Excavation Agreement, unless ordered to do otherwise by responsible agency or court of competent jurisdiction. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will be inventoried with oversight by the TCA Native American monitor.
If a data recovery plan is authorized as indicated above and the TCA Tribe does not object, then an adequate artifact sample to address research avenues previously identified for sites in the area will be collected using professional archaeological collection methods. If the Qualified Archaeologist collects such resources, the TCA Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Moreover, if the Qualified Archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the TCA Native American monitor may, at their discretion, collect said resources for later reburial or storage at a local curation facility, as described in the Pre-Excavation Agreement.
In the event that curation of archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources is required by a superseding regulatory agency, curation shall be conducted by an approved local facility within San Diego County and the curation shall be guided by California State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The City shall provide the Applicant/Owner final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the grading permit, if applicable, during project construction. The Applicant/Owner shall be responsible for all repatriation and curation costs and provide to the City written documentation from the TCA Tribe or the curation facility, whichever is most applicable, that the repatriation and/or curation have been completed.
MM-TCR-4 Human Remains: As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found on the project site during ground disturbing activities or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the Medical Examiner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98.
If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected (as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by State law, the Medical Examiner will determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the Medical Examiner recognizes the remains to be Native American, and not under his or her jurisdiction, then he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission by telephone within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination as to the Most Likely Descendent, who shall be afforded 48 hours from the time access is granted to the discovery site to make recommendations regarding culturally appropriate treatment.
If suspected Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ (in place) until after the Medical Examiner makes its determination and notifications, and until after the Most Likely Descendent is identified, at which time the archaeological examination of the remains shall only occur on site in the presence of the Most Likely Descendent. The specific locations of Native American burials and reburials will be proprietary and not disclosed to the general public. According to California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052). In the event that the Applicant/Owner and the Most Likely Descendant are in disagreement regarding the disposition of the remains, State law will apply, and the mediation process will occur with the NAHC. In the event that mediation is not successful, the landowner shall rebury the remains at a location free from future disturbance (see Public Resources Code Section 5097.98[e] and 5097.94[k]).
Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos finds that mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4, recommended in the Final EIR to mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects to archaeological resources and human remains have been adopted as stated in the approval resolution and that these measures will mitigate potential impacts to archaeological resources and human remains to a less than significant level under the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The cultural resources inventory for the proposed project did not identify any cultural resources within the project site, thus, no cultural resources were identified under this Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization Area of Potential Effect (APE). Neither the proposed project nor the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization pose the potential to impact known cultural resources. However, following Native American consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18, the City is including mitigation measures to assure identification and appropriate handling of potentially buried Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) within the original project site. As the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization APE proposes a reduced development footprint in comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization has a reduced potential of impacting undiscovered TCRs that may be buried within the APE. Mitigation measures TCR-1 to TCR-4 developed for the proposed project would apply to this alternative and would be sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Specifically, implementation of mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3 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, MM-TCR-2, and MM-TCR-3 will require proper handling and treatment of such resources by providing for a proper evaluation to determine whether additional archaeological work is necessary.
Finally, potential impacts to human remains will be mitigated through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-TCR-4, which includes the requirement that any remains uncovered during ground disturbing activities shall not be further disturbed until the San Diego County Coroner has determined origins of the remains and final treatment has been agreed to with input of Native American Tribes as necessary. Therefore, with incorporation of these measures, potential impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to below a level of significance.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization could result in potentially significant impacts to unidentified paleontological resources on-site during project construction.
Mitigation Measures: The geological mitigation measures developed for the proposed project would apply to the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, as identified in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.
All geology and soil impacts and mitigation measures are detailed in Attachment A at the end of this document.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to unidentified paleontological resources:
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 monitoring 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 paleontological 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.
Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos finds that: The mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 recommended in the Final EIR to mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects to paleontological resources, has been adopted as stated in the approval resolution and that these mitigation measures will mitigate the impact to paleontological resources to a less than significant level under the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, ground-disturbance areas would be reduced. However, similar to the proposed project, due to the high potential for paleontological resources on-site, mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 as proposed for the project would be required under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in similar impacts relative to geology and soils.
The recommended alternative could result in direct impacts to paleontological resources during construction. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-GEO-1 will reduce this impact to below a level of significance by retaining a qualified paleontologist to prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the project and having a qualified paleontological monitor present on site during initial rough grading and other significant ground-disturbing activities. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during this process, the monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity to allow recovery and documentation of paleontological resources.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation measure, significant environmental impacts to paleontological resources will be less than significant.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction of the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would involve ground-disturbing activities such as grading and surface excavation, with the potential to unearth or adversely impact previously unidentified tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures: The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization includes mitigation measures in the MMRP that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.
All tribal cultural resources impacts and mitigation measures are detailed in Attachment A at the end of this document. Implementation of mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 discussed above under Cultural Resources will reduce potential impacts to unidentified tribal cultural resources to a level below significance under the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
In order to mitigate potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, implementation of the following mitigation measures will be required:
MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4, discussed above under Cultural Resources.
Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos finds that mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4, recommended in the Final EIR to mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects to tribal cultural resources have been adopted as stated in the approval resolution and that these measures will mitigate the impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level under the recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The recommended environmentally superior alternative, Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would have a similar or slightly reduced potential to affect unknown tribal cultural resources compared to the proposed project, as described above under Cultural Resources. The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would still require implementation of mitigation measures MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-4 proposed for the project. Thus, with the implementation of mitigation, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Section IV Environmental Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance This section identifies the significant unavoidable impacts that require a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued by the City upon approval of the project. Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, none of the analyzed impacts have been determined to fall within this “significant unavoidable impact” category. The mitigation measures listed in the EIR would reduce impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and tribal cultural resources to below a level of significance. The analysis shows that, as mitigated, all project impacts would be less than significant. Detailed analyses of significant environmental effects and mitigation are provided in Chapter 3 of the EIR.
Section V Findings Regarding Project Alternatives
The State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) requires the discussion of a “a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The Guidelines states that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” (Section 15126(c)). The Final EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives are:
No Project Alternative
Existing Land Use Designation Alternative
Reduced Development Footprint Alternative
Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization Reduced Pacific Specific Plan Project Alternative
An alternative may be rejected if it is “infeasible” or if it fails to achieve the most basic project objectives identified within the EIR. “Feasibility” under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project based on a reasonable balancing of relevant economic, environmental, social, or other considerations which make infeasible the project alternatives.
Table 1 below provides a list of the project objectives and offers a qualitative comparison of each alternative’s conformance to the project objectives.
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
CEQA requires a No Project Alternative to be addressed in an EIR. Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be implemented, and the project site would remain undeveloped in its existing condition. This alternative would eliminate all the significant impacts identified for the proposed project. Habitat on the project site would not be impacted under this alternative but would not be preserved or managed.
Since the No Project Alternative would not provide any development, overall impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project. However, certain benefits would not be realized under this alternative, including the provision of housing units as identified in the General Plan in an infill area; restoring, managing, and conserving biological resources; and enhanced uses and connectivity in the surrounding area. As the No Project Alternative would not develop the site or allow for housing, this alternative would not fulfill any of the project objectives.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos rejects the No Project/No Development Alternative for the following reasons:
1. The project will provide additional housing units as identified in the General Plan to accommodate various family demographics and to contribute to the growing housing needs of the region by providing livable development in proximity to transit.
2. The opportunity to retore, manage, and conserve biological resources, while enhancing uses and connectivity in the surrounding area would not be provided if this alternative were adopted.
3. The No Project/No Development Alternative does not meet any of the project objectives, as shown in Table 1, below.
The No Project/No Development Alternative is therefore rejected.
Alternative 2: Existing Land Use Designation Alternative Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative, the project site would be developed per the City’s General Plan land use designation as an Industrial (I) land use. 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 adequately 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 Industrial Zone is intended to implement and be consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the General Plan (City of San Marcos 2018). For the purpose of this analysis, and to provide a direct comparison against the proposed project, the existing land use alternative assumes development 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.
Because development of the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative would include grading and development of the same site, construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed project and would require similar mitigation for impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. However, the Industrial use of the site would be expected to result in greater impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazards and hazardous materials, in comparison to the impacts resulting from the proposed project’s residential use, and additional mitigation may be required. This alternative would promote infill development on site; however, it would not fulfill any of the project objectives, would not reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts, and would also not aid the City in achieving its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation. This alternative is further described in Section 4.4.4 in Chapter 4 of the EIR.
Although this alternative would be consistent with the existing designated land use and zoning for the site, this alternative would not reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts and would not meet any project objectives.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos rejects the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative for the following reasons:
1. This alternative would promote infill development on site; however, it would not fulfill any of the basic project objectives and would also not aid the City in achieving its Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation, as no residential uses would be provided under this alternative.
2. The project site has been designated for industrial development under the existing and previous General Plans but has remained vacant, evidencing that it is not marketable, socially, or environmentally feasible for industrial uses.
3. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed project, requiring the same mitigation measures, but the commercial use of the site would be expected to result in greater impacts to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and wildfire. Additional mitigation may be required to combat these impacts.
For these reasons, the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative is rejected.
Alternative 3: Reduced Developed Footprint Alternative
Under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative, the proposed project would be constructed to avoid all vernal pools and wetlands mapped across the site, including pools/basins found not to support vernal pool branchiopods “fairy shrimp.” In order to avoid all vernal pools and wetlands on site and achieve the 25% maximum building footprint requested by the Wildlife Agencies, the project development footprint would be constructed in three separate non-contiguous areas of the site: the northwest corner, the northeast corner, and the south-central portions of the site. In addition to the reduced development footprint, the unit count under this alternative would be reduced substantially from 449 units to 321 units. This alternative footprint would cover 8.3 acres of the 33.2acre site, with 24.9 acres preserved.
The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative, while avoiding vernal pools, would result in impacts to the federally listed threatened and state-listed endangered thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia). These impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea via implementation of this alternative would directly impact the majority of the thread-leaved brodiaea plant locations on site. Because the project site is identified as a critical and major population of this species in the region, impacts of this magnitude would need approval by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife and may not be to be allowable/feasible. Therefore, although this alternative is a reduced footprint and has minimal impacts to vernal pools in comparison to the proposed project, this alternative would cause a significant impact to the endangered thread-leaved brodiaea above the Narrow Endemic threshold, impacting approximately 53% of the thread-leaved brodiaea on site. For this reason, the proposed project is considered to be a more desirable approach in protecting/avoiding the sensitive habitat on site.
Additionally, this alternative would not meet project objectives 5 and 6. This alternative would provide 128 less housing units in comparison to the proposed project. Furthermore, the reduced number of units proposed would negatively impact the amount of affordable housing provided by the project, thus reducing housing opportunities for lower income families. Due to the site configuration, recreation amenities would be decentralized and disconnected making accessibility to each amenity difficult to each resident. The site configuration was designed to impact as small an area as possible to accommodate recommendations and requests of the Wildlife Agencies; however, this alternative layout results in long dead-end roads, which would potentially not meet Fire Department standards and create potential concerns for fire evacuation. Further, this detached site configuration creates challenges for utility service, drainage, and pedestrian connections.
Considering the analysis above, it is determined that impacts associated with implementation of the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would be similar to those associated with development of the proposed project. However, as described above, the proposed project is considered to be a more desirable approach in protecting/avoiding the sensitive habitat on site, and development of this layout and reduced unit count may not be economically feasible for the applicant/developer. This alternative is further described in Section 4.4.5 in Chapter 4 of the EIR.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos rejects the Reduced Density Alternative for the following reasons:
1. This alternative would implement less housing compared to the proposed project and less efficiently promote infill development. This alternative would provide less varied housing and less affordable housing compared to the proposed project. This alternative would also not maximize housing density for the city, failing to meet the project objective.
2. Although, this alternative would have a lesser footprint than that analyzed for the proposed project, edge effects that are short-term as a result of the project construction or long-term due to the design of the of the proposed project and the effects it may have on biological resources and impacts to federally listed threaten and state-listen endangered thread-leaved brodiaea would be increased.
3. This alternative would cause the site to be atypically designed in a manner that does not enhance connectivity.
For these reasons, the Reduced Density Alternative is therefore rejected by the City in favor of Alternative 4.
Alternative 4: Reduced Developed Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization Under the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization, development would occur only within a reduced development footprint in the southern portion of the Project site, resulting in the development of 228 multi-family homes. The reduced development consists of 228 residential units, including a mix of rowhomes and villas on approximately 9.7 acres of the 33.2-acre project site. The reduced development includes a total of 532 parking spaces and 82,311 square feet of common open space area. The reduced development also includes landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The remaining approximately 23.5 acres of the 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored as open space and habitat area. The reduced development would have a density of approximately 6.86 dwelling units per acre, including the open space and habitat area.
Because development of this alternative would include construction of the same site, construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed project and, like the proposed project, would require similar mitigation for impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources. While this alternative would provide for a larger biological preservation area of the site (approximately 23.11 acres in comparison to the proposed project’s 17.89-acres of preserved area), reduced edge effects, and would reduce impacts to San Diego button celery and vernal pools in comparison to the project; this alternative would result in substantially more impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea (approximately 72,158 plants). As described above, this alternative would avoid vernal pools occupied by listed branchiopods (fairy shrimp) across the site in comparison to the project and achieve a 30% maximum building footprint at the site.
While this alternative would develop infill housing on an urbanized site and rezone the site to residential to assist the City to implement its housing goals (project objectives 1 and 2), it would implement less housing compared to the proposed project and less efficiently promote infill development. This alternative would also provide less varied housing types compared to the proposed project and would not include any affordable/low-income housing units (objective 3). This alternative would meet objective 4 by avoiding vernal pools but would result in greater impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea that would be inconsistent with objective 4. This alternative would meet project objective 5 because the site would be designed in a manner that enhances connectivity. This alternative would not meet objective 6 to the same extent as the project, as it would not maximize housing density for the City.
Considering the analysis above, it is determined that impacts associated with implementation of the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative would be similar to those associated with development of the proposed project. However, as described above, the proposed project is considered to be a more desirable approach in protecting/avoiding the sensitive habitat on site, and development of this layout and reduced unit count may not be economically feasible for the applicant/developer. This alternative is further described in Section 4.4.6 in Chapter 4 of the EIR.
The EIR determined that the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization would be considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. This alternative would meet most of the project objectives and reduce the severity of impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources in comparison to the proposed project due to the reduced unit count and reduced development footprint. However, such impacts under this alternative would still remain as less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to the proposed project. Additionally, while this alternative would develop infill housing on an urbanized site and rezone the site to residential to assist the City to implement its housing goals (project objectives 1 and 2), it would implement less housing compared to the proposed project and less efficiently promote infill development. This alternative would also provide less varied housing compared to the proposed project and would not include any affordable/low-income housing units. In comparison to the proposed project, this Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization alternative would cluster development along and within the southern boundary of the site, which would consolidate development potentially reducing the development interfaces/edges to adjacent preservation areas on-site.
Although this alternative would impact a substantially larger amount of thread-leaved brodiaea in comparison to the project; the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization has been determined the environmentally superior alternative due to the reduction in impacts to vernal pools, and increase in preserve area in comparison to the proposed project. Furthermore, this alternative supports the City’s goal of being responsive to the Trustee Agencies’ comments provided on the Draft EIR.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos considers the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization for the following reasons:
1. This alternative would implement less housing compared to the proposed project and less efficiently promote infill development. This alternative would also not maximize housing density for the city, failing to meet the project objective. However, this alternative would meet most of the project objectives and reduce the severity of impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources in comparison to the proposed project due to the reduced unit count and reduced development footprint.
2. Although this alternative would impact a substantially larger amount of thread-leaved brodiaea in comparison to the project; this alternative would reduce impacts to vernal pools and increase in preserve area in comparison to the proposed project.
3. Although this alternative would not include any affordable/low-income housing units; this alternative would pay the required affordable housing in-lieu fee, and this alternative supports the City’s goal of being responsive to the Trustee Agencies’ comments provided on the Draft EIR.
For these reasons, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization has been considered by the City and recommended as the development project for approval.
Alternative 5: Reduced Pacific Specific Plan Project
The Reduced Pacific Specific Plan Project Alternative consists of 299 residential units, including a mix of rowhomes, villas, and affordable units on approximately 13.3 acres of the 33.2-acre project site. The reduced project includes a total of 646 parking spaces and 111,025 square feet of common open space area. 45 of the 299 total units (15% of the total) 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 reduced project also includes landscaping, bio-retention areas, and circulation improvements. The remaining approximately 19.9 acres of the 33.2-acre project site would be preserved and restored as open space and habitat area. The reduced project would have a density of approximately 8.99 dwelling units per acre, including the open space and habitat area.
This alternative would result in fewer impacts to special-status plants, sensitive natural communities, potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources, vernal pools, and grassland. However, mitigation similar to that proposed for the project would still be required under this alternative to reduce impacts to biological resources. Additionally, under this alternative, impacts to greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced; while impacts to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be similar compared to the proposed Project. The Reduced Pacific Specific Plan Project would meet project objectives to a lesser extent compared to the proposed project, as it would implement less housing, less dense housing, and less varied housing compared to the proposed project. Off-site improvements under this alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
While this alternative would develop infill housing on an urbanized site and rezone the site to residential to assist the City to implement its housing goals (project objectives 1 and 2), it would implement less housing compared to the proposed project and less efficiently promote infill development. This alternative would also provide less varied housing compared to the proposed project. This alternative would meet objective 4 similar to the project. This alternative would meet project objective 5 because the site would be designed in a manner that enhances connectivity. But this alternative would not meet objective 6 to the same extent as the project, as it would not maximize housing density for the City.
Finding and Facts in Support of Finding
The City Council of the City of San Marcos rejects the Pacific Specific Plan Project Alternative for the following reasons:
1. This alternative would meet project objectives to a lesser extent compared to the proposed project, as it would implement less housing, less dense housing, and less varied housing compared to the proposed project.
2. This alternative would result in 0.01-acre less impacts to vernal pools and would avoid two vernal pools occupied by San Diego fairy shrimp, which would be impacted by implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would provide for a larger biological preservation area of the site (approximately 1.81 acres more than the proposed project). However, because development of this alternative would include construction of the same site, construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed project and this alternative would require the same or similar mitigation for impacts to biological resources.
3. Although the development footprint would be slightly reduced under this alternative, because development of this alternative would include construction of the same site, construction-related impacts would be similar to the proposed project, and like the proposed project, would require the same or similar mitigation for impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and tribal cultural resources.
For these reasons, the Reduced Pacific Specific Plan Project Alternative is therefore rejected.
Table 1. Summary of Project Objectives and Alternatives Objective
Alternative
No Project/No Development
Existing Land Use Designation
Reduced Development Footprint
Reduced Development Footprint – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization Reduced Pacific Specific Plan
Meets objectives?
Promote infill development and develop housing on a site that is served by existing utilities, services, and street access, within close proximity to public transportation and shopping centers.
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Assist the City in implementing its housing goals by changing a non-residentially zoned site to a site where medium to high-density housing is allowed.
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Provide a variety of housing types, including affordable housing, to align with the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements.
No
No
Yes
No
No
Restore, manage, and conserve sensitive onsite biological resources, to the extent feasible, while accommodating residential uses.
No
No
Partial
Partial
Partial
Design buildings, spaces, site layout, and uses that enhance and respect the character of the surrounding area in a manner typical to residential developments and planning principles and to enhance connectivity.
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
To the extent possible given site constraints, maximize the opportunity to provide medium-density housing for the City of San Marcos up to 15.0 dwelling units per acre, which is comparable to other medium-density housing developments in the City of San Marcos.
No
No
No
No
No
Section VI Recirculation Not Required
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 provides the criteria that a lead agency is to consider when deciding whether it is required to recirculate an EIR. Recirculation is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR is given, but before certification. (CEQA Guidelines, §15088.5(a).) “Significant new information,” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), means information added to an EIR that changes the EIR so as to deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a “substantial adverse environmental effect” or a “feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible Project alternative) that the Project’s proponents have declined to implement.” An example of significant new information provided by the CEQA Guidelines is a disclosure showing that a “new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented;” that a “substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance;” or that a “feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15088.5(a)(1)-(3).) Recirculation is not required where “the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, §15088.5(b).) Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR — indeed, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post-Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies. In short, recirculation is “intended to be an exception rather than the general rule.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1132.) In this legal context, the City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR prior to certification is not required. In addition to providing responses to comments, the Final EIR includes revisions to expand upon information presented in the Draft EIR; explain or enhance the evidentiary basis for the Draft EIR’s findings; update information; and to make clarifications, amplifications, updates, or helpful revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR’s revisions, clarifications and/or updates do not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact.
Further, the City appropriately considers alternatives – including the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization – without the need for additional public review. Where information added to a final EIR consists of a new suggested project alternative or mitigation measure, recirculation is only required where all the following criteria are met: it is feasible, it is considerably different from the alternatives or mitigation measures already evaluated in the EIR, it would clearly lessen the Project’s significant impacts, and it is not adopted. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112; South County Citizens for Smart Growth v. County of Nevada (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 316, 330.) The Reduced Development Footprint Alternative – Vernal Pool Impact Minimization is a variation upon, and not considerably different from, the Reduced Development Footprint Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR and is proposed for adoption here.
In sum, the changes reflected in the Final EIR also do not indicate that meaningful public review of the Draft EIR was precluded in the first instance. Accordingly, recirculation of the EIR is not required as revisions to the EIR are not significant as defined in Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
MMRP TEXT AS SEPARATE PDF]
Resolution No. 2024-9323
EIR24-002
July 23, 2024