Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan
Initial Study
SP-23-0001/ GPA23-0002 /R23-0001/ SDP23-0003/ CUP23-0002
Prepared for:
City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Contact: Sean del Solar, Senior Planner
Prepared by:
Sophia Mitchell & Associates
P.O. Box 1700
Gualala, CA 95445
Contact: Sophia Habl Mitchell
October 2023
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 1 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................ ................................ ........... 7 DETERMINATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 I. AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................ 9 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ................................................................. 11 III. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................... 12 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 14 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. 16 VI. ENERGY ........................................................................................................................... 17 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................... 19 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................... 21 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 22 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................ 27 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................. 30 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 31 XIII. NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 32 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................... 33 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 34 XVI. RECREATION .................................................................................................................... 35 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................... 36 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 37 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 38 XX. WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................................... 40 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................... 41 PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........42 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........43
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ................................................................................................... 45 Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 46
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 2 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Initial Study Checklist
1. Project Title:
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Marcos
Development Services Department, Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Sean del Solar, Senior Planner
760-744-1050 ext. 3223
[email protected]
4. Project Location:
The approximately 2.44-acre project site is located at 225 N. Las Posas Road. The site is located on the north side of Armorlite Drive generally between N. Las Posas Road to the west and Bingham Drive to the east in the Business/Industrial District in the City of San Marcos (City), California. The Specific Plan Area was created from the subdivision of the neighboring AT&T lot. The project site is approximately 0. 25 miles north of State Route 78 ( SR-78) and adjacent to the Palomar Station SPRINTER rail station. The assessor parcel number (APN) is 219-162-62-00. See Figure 1 located at the end of this document . The project site is undeveloped and generally flat. Elevation ranges from 575 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near the center of the project site to approximately 562 amsl along Armorlite Drive.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Las Posas Venture, LLC
705 B Street, Suite 3010
San Diego, CA 92101
6. General Plan Designation:
The project site has a General Plan D esignation of PI (Public Institutional). A General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the site designation to SPA (Specific Plan Area).
7. Zoning Designation:
The Zoning on the project site is Public -Institutional (P-I). A rezone is proposed to change the site zoning to Specific Plan Area (SPA).
8. Description of Project:
The project applicant is requesting approval of a Specific Plan ( SP23-0001) General Plan Amendment (GPA23-0002), Rezone (R23-0001), Site Development Plan (SDP23-0003) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP23-0002) for use of a potential rock crusher during construction.
If approved, these entitlements would allow for the development of 165 apartment units and 5,600 square feet (s.f.) of commercial use.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 3 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Residential Development
The project proposes 165 residential apartments. The project utilizes a base density consistent with the Mixed -Use 2 (MU -2) zone of 45 dwelling units per acre, with a density bonus for a proposed density of 67 dwelling units/acre. As proposed, 15% of units calculated from the base density would be affordable units at the very-low income level (30% to 50% of the Area Median Income or AMI) 1. The conceptual site plan is included as Figure 2 at the end of this document.
One building is proposed and would have four stories of stacked flats over one level of podium parking (five stories total). The building would have a maximum height of 57 to 65 feet, due to site topography. Overall, the project proposes 93 one bedroom/one bath units (ranging from 620 s.f. to 670 s.f.) and 72 two bedroom/one bath units (ranging from 875 s.f. to 1,020 s.f.).
All units would be single story. Proposed materials include stucco walls, siding, stone veneer, metal and glass railings, metal or stucco awnings, decorative stucco frame and the use of decorative metal grilles.
Commercial Use
The project proposes 5,600 s.f. of commercial use. This would be on the ground-floor facing Armorlite Drive adjacent to the project’s entrance.
Flex Space Concept
The Specific Plan includes a provision for Flex Space. Flex Space allows for the temporary use of commercial space as apartments, depending on market conditions and subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) . Section 3.2.1 of the Specific Plan provides more detail. supporting documentation on the market conditions affecting commercial vacancies.
Open Space
A total of 47,37 5 s.f of open space is proposed. The proposed open space includes 34,894 s.f. of common outdoor open space, which covers approximately 32% of the site. The common outdoor space includes ground -level passive areas (18,291 s.f) and a dog park with dog washing station (1,905 s.f.). On the second level will be a pool and spa area, courts (13,198 s.f.), an indoor-outdoor lounge open to the pool area (700 s.f.), and a roof deck (800 s.f.).
The proposed project also includes 2 ,050 s.f. of common indoor space (fitness area and lounge), and 10,431 s.f. of private open space. The private open space consists of balconies and patios ranging from 55 s.f. to 80 s.f, depending on the unit type and location. Cultural Resources Repatriation Area
An approximate 100 s.f. area would be set aside on the project site should repatriation of cultural resources be the preferred approach for any found resources. This area would be subject to a conservation easement.
1 Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint of a region’s income distribution- half of the families in a region earn more than the median and half earn less than the median. This can also be looked at as the Median household income.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 4 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Other Project Components
Access and Circulation
Primary access to the project site would be via one unsignalized driveway on Armorlite Drive.
The entrance driveway would be ungated and would be 24 -feet wide. Internal vehicular movement would be via a minimum 24-foot-wide drive aisle. Secondary emergency -only access would be provided at the northwest corner of the project site and would be accessed through the adjacent AT&T parcels (APN 219 -162-61-00) via an easement, providing access to N. Las Posas Road.
Parking
Per the San Marcos Municipal Code (SMMC) Section 20.340 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) 339 spaces would be required for the residential use and 23 spaces would be required for the commercial use ( 362 total). However, p er the requirements of Measures T -12 of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), the project is required to reduce its total required parking by 27% (98 spaces ) since the site is within one half mile of a major transit station. To meet the requirements of the CAP, the project would provide 247 spaces for the residential use (69 garage standard spaces, 102 garage tandem spaces, 18 tuck under spaces and 58 open spaces) and 17 spaces for the commercial use. Commercial parking requirements would be met by provid ing 7 open parking spaces, and 10 of the residential open spaces would be available for commercial use from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM to meet the required 17 spaces. T he project design includes 13 Level 2 electric vehicle (EV) spaces, 62 EV ready spaces and 25 EV capable spaces. The project also includes 34 bicycle parking spaces.
Landscape Plan
The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of native trees, shrubs, vines, accent grasses and groundcover and the plant selection emphasizes low and moderate water use species. The project would also comply with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) and Municipal Code, Title 20.
Project Construction
Grading
The project is anticipated to start construction in 2026 with full occupancy in late 2027/early 2028. Grading would consist of approximately 6,950 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 4,400 CY of fill material requiring an export of approximately 2,250 CY of material . The maximum cut depth will be 8 feet with maximum fill depths of 9.5 feet. The project design incorporates retaining walls along most of the northern project boundary and along a portion of the eastern boundary. Retaining wall heights would be up to 4 to 9 feet on the northern boundary and up to 9 feet on the eastern boundary. Blasting and the use of a temporary rock crusher may be required due to bedrock conditions on the project site.
The import and export of earth material is guided by SMMC Section 17.32.080 and prior to any import of soils, a haul route would be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grading and other earth moving activities are restricted to the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, per Section 17.32.180 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 5 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Blasting and Rock Crushing
The project has been designed to avoid the need for blasting, however, d ue to bedrock conditions on the project site , blasting and rock crushing may be required once grading commences. Should blasting be required, t he project would comply with all provisions identified in the SMMC Section 17.60.06 as it relates to blasting and blasting shall only be permitted between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM during any weekday. Blasting also requires issuance of a Blasting Permit from the San Marcos Fire Department and notification to surrounding property owners.
The project’s requested approvals include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP2 3--0002), which would allow for the use of the temporary rock crusher. The rock crusher, a Thunderbird Hazemag impact crusher, would be located in northwest corner of the project site, which would position the crusher as far as possible from the existing residences to the east and south. The crusher would be approximately 300 feet from the multi -family residential to the east and approximately 500 feet to the residential uses to the south.
Public Utilities and Services
Water and Sewer Services
The project site lies within the service area of Vallecitos Water District (VWD) for water service and sewer service. The project would connect to the existing 8 -inch water main in Armorlite Drive at the main entry to the project site. Water connections to the residential budling would would be provided via 4-inch lines. An 8-inch fire main would parallel the potable water line for fire service to the site and a 6-inch line for fire sprinkler service would also be provided. For sewer service, the project would connect to the existing 8-inch sewer main in Armorlite Drive.
Site Drainage and Stormwater Management
Storm drain systems and connections would be designed to accommodate the proposed future development. The project would construct two biofiltration basin s (BMP-A and BMP -B) for stormwater quality and a stormwater vault (BMP-C). These features would collect stormwater from the building paved areas and direct the stormwater through stormwater drainage pipes to POCs. Hydromodification would be required with final engineering submittals in conformance with the 2023 City of San Marcos BMP Design Manual. The project would also construct storm drain improvements in Armorlite Drive to connect the project to the existing storm drain system and relocate existing water quality facilities . Th e work includes the installation of approximately 175 feet of 12-inch reinforced concrete storm drain. This work would take place within the Armorlite Drive right -of-way and full pavement restoration would be required once the work is completed.
Fire Protection
The project is located within the San Marcos Fire Protection District (SMFPD) boundary. The San Marcos Fire Department (SMFD) would provide fire protection for urban and wildland fires and emergency services to the project site. SMFD services San Marcos with four stations, the closest of which is Fire Station No. 1 located at 180 W. Mission Road, approximately 1.4 miles west of the project site.
Police Protection
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 6 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Police protection for the proposed project would be provided by the County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department. The County Sheriff provides contract law enforcement services to the City of San Marcos through the station located at 182 Santar Place , approximately 2.5 miles east of the project site.
Schools
The project site is within the San Marcos Unified School District (SMUSD) boundary. SMUSD is 49 square miles in size and encompasses most of the City of San Marcos and portions of the Cities of Vista, Escondido and Carlsbad, as well as unincorporated areas of the County of San Diego between these cities. The project would generate approximately 82 students for SMUSD.
Students generated by the project would attend La Mirada Academy (grades K -8) and San Marcos High School (grades 9-12).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is in a developed portion of the City. The project vicinity includes a mix of multi- family residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The site is bounded by North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad right of way to the north, the Palomar Station development to the east and south, and George Burgers and AT&T to the west. The Palomar Station SPRINTER rail station is located approximately 0.1-miles northeast of the project site at the southeast corner of Las Posas Road and W. Mission Road.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
• Vallecitos Water District for water and sewer service
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally or culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City has notified the tribes in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21074. The Jamul Indian Village and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians responded and deferred consultation to the San Luis Rey Band. The Pechanga Band of Indians is still evaluating the project and had indicated they will provide comments during consultation. The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians requested additional information on the project and the City is in on -going consultation with these Tribes . The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would summarize the City’s consultation efforts with local tribes.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 7 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Detailed responses to this checklist are provided in Section IV, Environmental Analysis.
X Aesthetics X Land Use and Planning
□ Agriculture and Forestry Resources □ Mineral Resources X Air Quality X Noise
X Biological Resources X Population and Housing
X Cultural Resources X Public Services
X Energy □ Recreation
□ Geology and Soils X Transportation
□ Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Tribal Cultural Resources □ Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Utilities and Service Systems □ Hydrology and Water Quality □ Wildfire
X Mandatory Findings of Significance
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 8 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect : 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Sean del Solar, Senior Planner D ate
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 9 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with the applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
X
I. AESTHETICS
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. The project site is located within the Business/Industrial District in the city. The City has a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone to protect natural viewsheds and unique natural resources, minimize physical impacts to ridgelines, and to establish innovative sensitive architecture standards. The project site is not located in the Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone.
Further, the project site does not include any primary or secondary ridgelines, as identified in Figure 4-5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (San Marcos 2012). Therefore, development of the project site would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and no impact would occur. This topic will not be further analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.25 miles north of SR-78. A portion of SR-78 is recognized as a Scenic Highway by California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans); however, that portion is not in the project vicinity. The portion identified as a Scenic Highway is approximately 50 miles east of the project site near Anza Borrego (Caltrans 2020). At a local level, SR-78 is designated by the City of San Marcos as a view corridor. The highway corridor provides view s of the Merriam Mountains, Mount Whitney, and Double Peak. There are no scenic resources on the project site. The project site is undeveloped and does not support any historic buildings (ASM 2023). In summary, the project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. No impact would occur. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 10 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surrounding ? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point) . If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15387. The EIR will analyze whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, including the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan relating to visual character and visual quality . This will include an analysis of the proposed retaining walls.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially Significant Impact. There is currently no lighting on the project site. The project includes lighting for street lighting, wayfinding and entry point locations, common areas, and pedestrian walkways. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland . In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest Legacy Assessment Project and the carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural
use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
that, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 11 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact . The project site is not mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as determined by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, as shown on Figure 4-4 (Agricultural Areas) in the San Marcos General Plan (San Marcos 2012). Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact is identified, and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site has a General Plan designation of Public/Institutional (PI) and a zoning designation of Public-Institutional (P-I). The project site does not support zoning for agricultural use.
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value . The project site is not located within a Williamson Act contract area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact is identified and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The project site has a General Plan designation of Public/Institutional (PI) and a zoning designation of Public-Institutional (P-I). The proposed project is not located in an area that is zoned for forest land, timber land or for timber production nor is it adjacent to lands that are zone forest land, timber land or for timber production. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned t imberland production. No impact is identified and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is undeveloped. The project site does not support forests, nor is there any forest land adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact is identified and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
No Impact. The project would not result in any other changes to the existing environment that would, due to their location or nature, result in the conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There is no agricultural activity on the project site or in the project vicinity. No impact is identified, and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 12 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY . Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations . Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
III. AIR QUALITY
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Significant Impact. San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the basin— specifically, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Regional Air Quality Standards (RAQS). Air quality emissions generated by the proposed 165 apartment units and 5,600 s.f. of commercial use would be calculated along with assessment of the project’s consistency with the SIP and RAQS. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions from dust, off-road equipment, vehicle emissions, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Following the completion of construction activities, the project would generate VOC, NO x, CO, SO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5 emissions from mobile sources, including vehicular traffic generated by residents of the project site; area sources, including the use of landscaping equipment and consumer products; and from architectural coatings. As such, air quality emissions associated with both construction and operation of the project could be potentially significant. An air quality report will be prepared for the project and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term healthcare facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement h omes. The project site is located adjacent to existing residential uses, including multifamily residential to the east and south. Since the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, impacts are considered Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 13 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 potentially significant. A project-specific air quality report will be prepared for the project and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Result in other emissions such as those leading to odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Odors would be generated from vehicles and/or equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the proposed project. Odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment and architectural coatings. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore, impacts associated with odors during construction would be considered less than significant.
Land uses associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. As a mixed-use residential project, the project would not engage in any of these activities.
Moreover, typical odors generated from operation of the proposed project would primarily include vehicle exhaust generated by residents of the project site, as well as through the periodic use of landscaping or maintenance equipment . An air quality report will be prepared for the project and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 14 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fis h and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. The majority of the project site supports disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, which can provide nesting and foraging habitat for special status species such as the coastal California gnatcatcher ( Polioptila californica) (CAGN). A project -specific biological resources report, including a protocol survey for CAGN and a rare plant survey, were prepared for the project by Dudek (2023). Focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher within the project were negative. Focused surveys special-status plants within the p roject site were also negative. No additional special -status species were determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site (Dudek 2023). The project has the potential to impact species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
This potential impact will be further analyzed in the EIR and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified to reduce impacts.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. The majority of the project site supports disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is a sensitive habitat (Dudek 2023). The project design would result in the impact to all of the vegetation on the project site. The project would be required to mitigate for impact to sensitive habitats consistent with the ratios identified in the County of San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) and the City’s Draft Subarea Plan. This topic will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project -specific biological resources report was prepared for the project (Dudek 2023). No aquatic resources are present within the project site. San Diego fairy shrimp critical habitat, designated in 2007, encompasses nearly the entire project site. However, as discussed in the biology report (Dudek 2023). field study observations in 2023 show that the site does not support suitable ponding or habitat for fairy shrimp. Therefore, the site does not contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species (i.e., primary constituent elements, such as vernal pools or supporting topographic features). This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR
.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 15 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, and areas with vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. The project site is a predominantly undeveloped parcel surrounded by existing, high-density residential and mixed commercial development. The project site is also fenced on all sides (with chain-linked fencing on three sides and open cable railing on a single side) which would preclude its use in facilitating any wildlife movement through urban development.
In addition, the project site is not identified as a wildlife corridor or linkage in Figure 4 -2 (Wildlife Corridor and Linkage) of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan (San Marcos 2023). This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project site occurs within the MHCP. The City of San Marcos has prepared a draft MHCP Subarea Plan but does not yet have an MHCP implementing agreement with the USFWS or CDFW. However, the City of San Marcos uses their Subarea Plan as a guide in project processing and mitigation planning. The proposed project site is not within a City of San Marcos MHCP focused planning area. The EIR will analyze the project’s compliance with the City’s draft MHCP subarea plan and applicable local policies and ordinances.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact. The City of San Marcos has prepared a draft MHCP Subarea Plan but does not yet have an MHCP implementing agreement with the USFWS or CDFW. However, the City uses their Subarea Plan as a guide in project processing and mitigation planning. The proposed project site is not within a City of San Marcos MHCP F ocused Planning Area. The EIR will analyze the project’s compliance with the City’s draft MHCP subarea plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to §15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 16 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. ASM's archaeological inventory and survey to assess potential impacts to cultural included a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a sacred lands file search with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), Native American outreach, literature review, archival research, archaeological pedestrian survey, and resource documentation (ASM 2023). Results are summarized below.
Site CA-SDI-5633
CA-SDI-5633 has been previously recorded within the project area. The site was recorded as a prehistoric habitation area with significant subsurface archaeological deposits. Site evaluation and testing took place in 1990 and the site was recommended signif icant under CEQA. It was recommended that the site should be avoided or mitigated with a data recovery program . Additional testing took place by Gallegos and Associates in 2001 and the site was recommended eligible for nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In 2002 a data recovery program was conducted on the site, excavating a 2 to 3% sample of the significant portion of the site. In total, 67 1x1 meter units were excavated and it was determined that SDI-5633 was likely a habitation site circa AD 1170 to AD 1690 involved in hunting-oriented subsistence practices, production and maintenance of arrow points, along with some non -hunting food processing acti vities. Human remains were identified near the project site and were repatriated to the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians. 2023 Archeological Survey
The current archaeological survey was conducted by ASM with a Native American Monitor . Ground surface visibility within the project area was poor due to dense vegetation. The survey identified three bedrock milling features which contained nine milling slicks and four mortars, and six artifacts consisting of one brownware ceramic body sherd , three volcanic interior flakes, one groundstone fragment, and one faunal bone fragment. The bedrock milling features and artifacts were identified in the same location as the previous data recovery area within CA-SDI -5633. The results of the archaeological survey were consistent with the previous work conducted within the project area.
The record search of the Sacred Lands File held by the NAHC was negative. Information request letters were sent to 33 tribal contacts provided by the NAHC. To date, responses have been received from the Jamul Indian Village, Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians and the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians.
Based on a review of the reporting from the previous archaeological work within SDI -5633, ASM concurred with the previous evaluation, that SDI-5633 is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and that the site yielded important information to the prehistory of the local area. In addition, human remains were identified within the site. Therefore, SDI -5633 is a historical resource under CEQA.
The proposed project would develop the entire project site, which would cause an adverse impact to historical resource SDI-5633. Mitigation of adverse impacts is required if the proposed project would cause substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change s include demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource would be impaired. In 2002 Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 17 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 a data recovery program was conducted to mitigate the adverse impact to SDI-5633, by excavating a 2-3% sample of the eligible portion of the site.
Due to the presence of a historical resource under CEQA within the project area and the previous identification of human remains within the project area it is recommend that the following occur:
• A Pre-Excavation Agreement should be prepared between the project proponent, the City, and all Tribal groups participating in the project; • An archaeological monitoring work plan should be prepared to guide the monitoring effort, the identification and discovery of intact features, and the protocols for the identification of human remains;
• Monitoring of all ground disturbances within the project area is recommended and should include both a qualified archaeologist and Native American Monitor.
The project applicant would also set aside an approximate 100 s.f. area within the project site for the repatriation of cultural resources, should they be encountered be the preferred approach for any found resources. This topic will be fully analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in V(b), above, based on a review of the reporting from the previous archaeological work within SDI -5633, the site yielded important information to the prehistory of the local area. In addition, human remains were identified within the site. T he handling of unanticipated discovery of human remains is guided by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
VI. ENERGY
Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction, or operation?
Potentially Significant Impact. During construction, the proposed project would utilize temporary electric power for lighting and electronic equipment (such as computers inside temporary construction trailers and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning), and petroleum for construction
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 18 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 equipment. Project operations would include the use of energy for the proposed residential use. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will analyze if the project would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42. X
b) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
c) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
X
d) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X
f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
X
g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
h) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
X
i) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 19 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evid ence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located in the tectonically active Southern California area and would likely experience shaking effects from earthquakes. The type and severity of seismic hazards affecting the site are to a large degree dependent upon the distance to the causative fault, the intensity of the seismic event, and the underlying soil characteristics. Based upon the preliminary geotechnical report prepared for the project, no known active faults have been mapped at or near the project site (GeoTek 2023b). Therefore, the potential for surface rupture on the project site is low and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project would be located in tectonically- active Southern California, the project would be required to comply with the California Building Code, including recommendations for seismic safety. Impacts would be less than significant . This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated, generally fine sands and silts are subjected to strong ground shaking . The soils lose shear strength and become liquid; potentially resulting in large total and differential ground surface settlements as well as possible lateral spreading during an earthquake. Seismically induced settlement can occur in response to liquefaction of saturated loose granular soils, as well as the reorientation of soil particles during strong shaking of loose, unsaturated sands.
Based upon the geotechnical investigation for the project ( GeoTek 2023b), the liquefaction and seismic settlement potential on the project site is considered to be negligible due to the anticipated medium dense consistency and thickness of less than 10 feet of anticipated fills, shallow bedrock and the absence of a shallow groundwater table. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is generally flat. Elevations range from 575 amsl in the central knoll on the site to approximately 562 feet amsl along Armorlite Drive. T he project site is identified as having Zero Susceptibility for soil slippage susceptibility (landslide/liquefaction) per Figure 6 -1 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan (San Marcos 2012) . Additionally, the geotechnical investigation for the project did not find evidence of ancient landslides or slope instability on the site, thus the potential for landslides is considered negligible (GeoTek 2023b). This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 20 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact . The project would be under the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Construction Permit, which prohibits sediment or pollutant release from the project site and requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that would incorporate erosion and sediment control measures during and after grading operations to stabilize these areas. The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. Based upon the geotechnical report prepared for the project ( GeoTek 2023a), evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during the geotechnical investigation. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible. The geotechnical report also noted that the potential for secondary se ismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is considered to be remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water (GeoTek 2023a). This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Based upon the geotechnical report prepared for the project site, the surficial soils consist of colluvium and alluvium (undifferentiated) and tonalite. Based upon GeoTek’s visual classification encountered onsite and the laboratory testing, soils near subgrade would be classified as “very low” expansive . The geotechnical report (GeoTek 2023b ) includes design considerations in Section 5.3 which would be implemented as part of the project’s conditions of approval. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed as part of the project. The project would receive wastewater service from VWD and would connect to existing sewer infrastructure in Armorlite Drive. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area and this topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the geotechnical study prepared for the project, the project site is in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. Based on subsurface exploration conducted as part of the geotechnical evaluation, the project site is locally underlain by a layer of colluvium over Cretaceous age Tonalite (granitic) bedrock (GeoTek 2023b ). Known fossil occurrences in the Peninsular Range region are extremely rare though some areas may have a high to moderate potential to contain paleontological resources (County of San Diego 2009) . Given the project site supports granitic bedrock and colluvium, it would not be characterized as having a high or moderate potential for paleontological resources. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 21 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which was developed to help reduce the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Generally, this is achieved by demonstrating consistency with the permitted land use. The project would change the land use on the site from Public-Institutional Use to Specific Plan for the development of a mixed -use residential project.
Projects that do not comply with t he land use designation at the time the CAP was developed are generally considered inconsistent with the CAP. However, if buildout of the proposed land use can be demonstrated to result in fewer emissions than buildout of the existing land use designated i n the General Plan, the project would be consistent with the CAP. A project -specific GHG report will be prepared for the project and will include a comparison of anticipated GHG emissions for both the Public-Institution scenario and the proposed project. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact. Under the City’s CEQA thresholds, the method for determining significance for project-level environmental documents is through the CAP Consistency Review Checklist. The EIR will assess the project’s consistency with the CAP. Until then, impacts are considered potentially significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 22 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in t
he
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics could pose a threat to human health or the environment. Hazards include the risks associated with potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment. The proposed project would involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids needed for operation of construction equipment at the site on an as-needed basis by equipment service trucks. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments, including diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets, would be present during project construction. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment; however, the proposed project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and City Municipal Code restrictions which regulate and control those materials handled onsite. Compliance with these restrictions and laws would ensure that potentially significant impacts would not occur during project construction.
In addition, as a mixed use residential project, the only hazardous materials anticipated for transport or disposal associated with the proposed project during operation are routinely used household products such as cleaners, paint, solvents, motor oil/ automotive products, batteries, and garden maintenance products. It is anticipated that the use, handling, and disposal of these products would be addressed by Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 23 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 household hazardous waste programs that are part of the Integrated Waste Management Plan of the County of San Diego and other Federal, State, and City Municipal Code regulations.
In summary, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant.
This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The following technical analyses were prepared to assess the potential for the project site to contain hazardous materials:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment AT&T San Marcos, 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, San Diego County, California. May 10, 2019. Prepared by Terracon Consultants, Inc. • Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California, 92069. March 23, 2021. Prepared by Stantec.
• Due Diligence Environmental Review. A Portion of APN 219-162-57-00, 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California. January 26, 2023. Prepared by GeoTek. • Statement of Clarification Regarding Suspected UST, A Portion of APN 219 -162-57-00, 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California. October 5, 2023. Prepared by GeoTek.
The project site is vacant and undeveloped. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 1 ESA) was prepared. The Phase 1 ESA covered a larger area than the proposed project site, as the project site was previous part of a larger parcel that includes an AT&T building and other AT&T related infrastructure.
Based on a review of the regulatory database and records from the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, three diesel-containing underground storage tanks (USTs), one 550-gallon UST, one 1,000-gallon UST, and one 5,000-gallon UST were identified in the Phase 1 ESA analysis area.
The 1,000 -gallon diesel UST was located outside of the proposed development footprint and was removed in 1994, with soil assessment completed and closure from the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (SDCDEH).
The existing 5,000 -gallon diesel UST was installed in 1994, with upgrades to the piping and sump completed in 1998. The 5,000-gallon diesel UST is not located within the development footprint area of the proposed project and is associated with the existing AT&T infrastructure. The location and status of the 550-gallon diesel UST was considered unknown in the Phase 1 ESA.
Based upon the results of the Phase 1 ESA, a Phase 2 ESA was prepared for the project site by Stantec in 2021. Soil sampling and installation of soil vapor probes was performed between February 22 and March 4, 2021. Additionally, a ground penetrating radar survey was conducted to try to located the 550-gallon UST.
Soil Sampling Results
The results of soil samples collected along the northern property line near the rail line were "non - detect" for arsenic and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) except for a minor detection of Heptachlor at Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 24 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
0.0014 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is well below its screening levels for residential uses.
Lead was detected at 4.8 and 7.2 mg/kg . Because all detected metals concentrations are within typical California naturally-occurring background concentration ranges, and do not exceed Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) Note 3 or Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Regional Screening Levels ( RSLs) for residential use, the adjacent railroad tracks do not r epresent a recognized environmental condition ( REC) to the p roperty and no further assessment appears warranted.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as vapor (TPHv) and various volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) were detected at low concentrations. These concentrations were all below the most conservative screening level between the USEPA Region 9 RSL and DTSC HERO Note 3 with an attenuation factor of 0.03, with the exception of benzene. Benzene was detected at 5.7 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3) in
SV-2 which is above the regulatory screening level with an attenuation factor of 0.03 (3.2 µg/m3), but below the regulatory screening level with an attenuation factor or 0.001 (97 µg/m 3). Given the concentration was only slightly above the regulatory screening level with an attenuation factor of 0.03 (which is not the official screening level and which has not been adopted by any state agency), and well below the risk-based screening level of 97 µg/m
3, this single detection is considered a de minimis
condition and no further assessment appears warranted for soil vapor.
Ground Penetrating Radar Results and Further Investigation The ground penetrating radar survey identified an anomaly which may be the 550 -gallon UST in the northwest portion of the property at approximately 2 to 4-feet in depth. Stantec (2021) recommended removing and disposing of the UST in accordance with all applicable laws. Based upon this recommendation, additional site work was conducted to attempt to locate the potential 550-gallon UST.
On December 14, 2022, Hal Hays Construction, Inc. was contracted by the property owner others to evaluate the anomaly identified by Stantec’s Phase II ESA. A Professional Geologist and an Environmental Professional from GeoTek were on site during the field exploration. The excavation was performed with a conventional rubber-tired backhoe with a 24 -inch wide, smooth edge, bucket. The excavation was approximately six feet long and three feet wide. Shallow refusal by granitic rock (Tonalite) was encountered at an approximate depth of two to three feet below grade. A weathered core stone was encountered at the approximate location of the anomaly identified in Stantec’s Phase II ESA. A second core stone was encountered approximately six feet north of the recorded anomaly.
To further evaluate a potential UST, the excavation was lengthened to the north and south for a total linear excavation length of approximately twelve feet. North and south of the excavation, core-stones extruded from the subsurface. The excavation encountered a thin layer of topsoil over weathered Tonalite and encountered non-rippable rock at a depth three feet, but became as shallow as one foot above the core-stones. Based upon this, GeoTek concluded that evidence is not present to conclude the 550-gallon UST is present on the site. And GeoTek concluded that no further environmental investigation is necessary (GeoTek 2023c).
In conclusion, based upon the Phase 1 ESA, Phase 2 ESA, and subsequent exploratory investigations, there are not any RECs or significant hazards on the project site which has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 25 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The project site is not located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school. The closest school is San Marcos Middle School which is located approximately 0. 6 miles west of the project site. No impact is identified, and this topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is a planning document used by the state and local agencies to provide information about hazardous materials release sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop an updated Cortese List annually, at minimum. California DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List.
Other California s tate and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.
The Phase 1 ESA prepared for the project included a search of federal and state databases. The site was not identified on being on the Cortese List (Terracon 2019). A subsequent review of the Cortese List in 2023 reconfirmed that the project site is not identified on a Cortese List (DTSC 2023). Therefore, the project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and no impact is identified for this issue area. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport is the McClellan -Palomar Airport in Carlsbad, which is located approximately 6.5 miles to the southwest of the project site. According to Figure 6 -5 of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is located within R eview Area 2 of the airport influence area. Review Area 2 limits the heights of structures in areas of high terrain. The project site is situated in a lower elevation area of the City. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, the project site is not located within the existing or future 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011).
Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard of e xcessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. No impact is identified, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. According to the General Plan Safety Element, the San Marcos Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) governs the operations of the City during a disaster. This plan addresses response to moderate evacuation scenarios, including the identification of evacuation points and general routes (San Marcos 2012). The project would not result in any changes to the transportation network which could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. No impact would occur, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 26 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a developed part of the City and is not located where wildlands are adjace nt to urbanized areas, nor does the project propose residences mixed in with wildlands. The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area, not a State Responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2022). The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area with a Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non -VHFHSZ) designation per California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) San Marcos Fire Hazards Severity Zones Map (2009) and is surrounded by areas identified as Non-VHFHSZ. Further, per Figure 6-4 of the City’s General Plan, the project site and surrounding area are not identified as a SMFPD Community Hazard Zone. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there the project may impede substantial
groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
X
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: create or contribute to runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would: impede or redirect flood flows?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 27 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
g) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X
h) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
i) Result in significant alteration of receiving water
quality during or following construction?
X
j) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to
receiving waters? Consider water quality
parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, and other typical storm water pollutants
(e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum
derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances, and trash).
X
k) Be tributary to an already impaired water body as
listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If
so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for
which the water body is already impaired?
X
l) Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological
Significance, etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already
existing sensitive conditions?
X
m) Have a potentially significant environmental impact
on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or
wetland waters?
X
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The applicant would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Regionally, this is achieved by preparing and implementing a Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) based on the standards set forth in the 2023 City of San Marcos BMP Design Manual. The project would be required to comply with the City of San Marcos BMP Design Manual. The SWQMP would require implementation of water quality BMPs to ensure that water quality standards are met and that stormwater runoff from construction areas do not result in a degradation of water quality in receiving water bodies. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant I mpact. Implementation of the project would not use any groundwater. The project would be served by VWD for water service. VWD water supplies come from the Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. Both of these agencies use some Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 28 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 groundwater for their supplies. The proposed project would be supplied from existing VWD supplies, which would have assumed the use of groundwater. The project would not develop any new groundwater wells to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: create or contribute to runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would increase the area of impervious surfaces on the project site through the construction of rooftops, driveways, parking lots, and concrete walkways within the project site. The project would be required to implement design feature to ensure that changes to drainage patterns do not result in adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality.
The project design incorporates two proprietary treatment facilities (e.g., Modular Wetland System or approved equal) and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit.
Based upon the Drainage Study prepared for the project (Latitude 33, 2023), the current runoff rate is 3.45 cubic feet per second (cfs). With t installation of the two treatment facilities and underground storage vault, which are proposed as part of the project design, the runoff rate would be 1.58 cfs. This represents a decrease of 1.77 cfs in the proposed condition. Therefore, the project would not result in substantially alter the drainage patter of the site or area that would result in substantial erosion on- or off-site, increase surface runoff resulting in flooding on - or off -site, provide substantial sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
In flood hazards, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. Per the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 06073C0789H, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2012). The project site is approximately 8 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to inundation by tsunami. Given that the project site is not located near a large standing body of water, inundation by seiche (or standing wave) is considered negligible. No impact would occur, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 29 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in a sustainable groundwater management plan area. The project site is located within the Carlsbad Management Area Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP). The project would be required to implement design feature to ensure that changes to drainage patterns do not result in adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The project design incorporates two proprietary treatment facilit ies (e.g., Modular Wetland System or approved equal) and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential construction-related impacts associated with receiving water quality would include siltation and erosion, the use of fuels for construction equipment, and the generation of trash and debris from the construction site. During project operation, potential impacts associated with receiving water quality could include runoff associated with landscaping/outside pesticide use, pest control (indoor/structural), fire sprinkler test water, and runoff from parking areas and s idewalks. The project design incorporates two proprietary treatment facilit ies and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit. I mpacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters ? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash).
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Carlsbad hydrologic unit (904) .
Impaired water bodies in this watershed, as listed in the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 303(d) impaired waters list. San Marcos Creek is listed on the 2020-2022 Integrated Report (CWA Section 303(d)/305(b)) List of Impaired Water Segments as being impaired for Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus), Metals (Selenium), Total Toxics (toxicity), Other Causes (Benthic Community Effects), Pesticides (bifenthrin, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene [DDE] and pyrethroids), Pathogens (indicator bacteria), and Total Dissolved Solids. Further downstream, Batiquitos Lagoon is also listed as being impaired for toxicity. Furthermore, San Marcos Lake was identified under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as impaired due to nutrients (ammonia as nitrogen and phosphorous, and metals [copper]) (SWRCB 2022). The project would be required to implement design features to ensure that changes to drainage patterns do not result in adverse impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The project design incorporates two proprietary treatment facilities and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit. Impacts would be less than significant a nd this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?
Less Than Significant Impact. Impaired water bodies in the Carlsbad watershed include San Marcos Creek, Batiquitos Lagoon and Lake San Marcos. The project design includes a comprehensive water quality approach including a storm drain system . The project design incorporates two proprietary Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 30 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 treatment facilities and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Significance, etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located outside of the Biological Resource Conservation area for the MHCP . Runoff from the project site eventually flows to San Marcos Creek, Lake San Marcos and ultimately to Batiquitos Lagoon. The project design includes a comprehensive water quality approach including a storm drain system. The project design incorporates a two proprietary treatment facilities and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland waters?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate pollutants both during construction and operation that could impact water quality. The project design includes a comprehensive water quality approach including a storm drain system. The project design incorporates two proprietary treatment facilities and an underground storage vault beneath the parking lot to regulate stormwater discharge rates and provide a water quality treatment benefit. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
and environmental effect?
X
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes residential and commercial uses in an area that is already developed with similar uses. The project would not physically divide an established community. No impact is identified for this issue area and this topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 31 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially Significant Impact . The project applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Specific Plan, Site Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Conditional Use Permit. If approved, these entitlements would allow for the development of 165 apartments and 5,600 s.f. of commercial uses. The EIR will analyze if there is a potential for the project to cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The land use and planning section of the EIR will also include a level of service traffic analysis to address the project’s consistency with the Mobility Element of the General Plan.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
X
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the City of San Marcos General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, the City has land classified in all four Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) (San Marcos 201 2). California does not require that local governments protect land designated as MRZ -1, MRZ -3, or MRZ -4.
However, the City is responsible for recognizing lands designated as MRZ-2 and protecting these areas from premature development incompatible with mining. The lands designated as MRZ-2 include small portions between Double Peak, Mt. Whitney, and Franks Peak; and small portions in the northern Sphere of Influence within Twin Oaks Valley Neighborhood . These locations do not overlap with the proposed project site; therefore, no loss of known mineral resources would occur . No impact would occur. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact . The proposed project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site on any local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan (San Marcos 2012). Due to the location and the nature of the proposed project, there would be no impact on mineral resources.
This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 32 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the
local genera plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
X
XIII. NOISE
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in temporary increases in noise due to the use of construction equipment for grading, site preparation, paving, and building construction. The project has been designed to avoid the need for blasting, however, due to bedrock conditions on the project site, blasting and rock crushing may be required once grading commences. During operations, the proposed project would generate noise through the introduction of traffic on site and in the project vicinity, and an increase on stationary source noise, such as increased human presence on -site and the use of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant. A project-specific noise report will be prepared for the project and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR. The noise report will address construction and operational noise for the project as well as exterior and interior noise levels in relation to area roadways and the SPRINTER rail line.
Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. The project has been designed to avoid the need for blasting, however, due to bedrock conditions on the project site, blasting and rock crushing may be required once grading commences. The temporary rock crushing will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP would incorporate measures to reduce noise, as determined necessary by a noise study. Blasting and crushing activities could result in the generation of groundborne vibration or noise levels. Impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. the project.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 33 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 For a project located within an airport land use plan within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The public airport closest to the project site is the McClellan -Palomar Airport, located approximately 5 miles to the southwest. According to the ALUCP for the McClellan-Palomar Airport, the project site is not located within the existing or future 60 dB CNEL noise contour of the airport (San Diego County Regional Airport Authority 2011). Therefore, people residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to substantial airport noise. This topic will not be analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Potentially Significant. The Zoning on the project site is Public-Institutional (P-I). A rezone is proposed to change the site zoning to Specific Plan Area (SPA) to allow for a development density of up to 165 apartments and 5,600 s.f. of commercial. The EIR will analyze the potential for the project to induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly.
Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitati ng the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. There is no existing housing on the project site. Therefore, the project would not remove existing housing. The project proposes 165 residential apartments for a proposed density of 67 dwelling units/acre. As proposed, 15% of units calculated from the base density would be affordable units at the very-low income level (30% to 50% of the AMI). The project would add to the housing stock in the City. No impact is identified for this issue area and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 34 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES . Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause signif icant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site would be served by the SMFD. Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand on fire protection and emergency response services due to the construction of 165 residential units and commercial uses on the project site. This could result in a significant increase in demand for fire protection services and result in a potentially significant impact, requiring annexation into a Community Facilities District for fire and paramedic services. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Police protection?
Potentially Significant Impact . The project site would be served by the San Marcos Sheriff’s Department for police protection services. Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand on police protection services due to the construction of 165 apartments and commercial uses. This could result in a significant increase in demand for police protection services and result in a potentially significant impact, requiring annexation into a Community Facilities District for p olice services. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Schools?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the service boundary of SMUSD and is within the current attendance boundaries of La Mirada Academy (grades K-8) and San Marcos High School (grades 9-12). As part of the EIR preparation, SMUSD will be contacted to confirm the schools that would serve the project and the ability of SMUSD to accommodate the students at these schools.
The project will also be required to pay applicable school fees to SMUSD prior to the issuance of building permits. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 35 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes residential uses which can result in an increase in demand on neighborhood and regional parks. The project proposes common open space area, including ground-level passive areas, a dog park, courts, a California room and a roof deck. These features would be included within the development footprint of the project. The proposed project also includes 2.050 s.f. of common indoor space (fitness area and lounge). Additionally, the project will pay Public Facility Fees (PFF), a portion of whic h goes toward funding a city -wide park and recreation facilities. Since the project provides on-site recreational amenities and will pay PFF, impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Other public facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will analyze if the project has the potential to impact any other public facilities.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
XVI. RECREATION
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include any recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreation facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes residential uses which can result in an increase in demand for neighborhood and regional parks. However, the project has incorporated recreational amenities into their design. The project proposes common open space area to include ground-level passive areas, a dog park, courts, a California room , and a roof deck. The proposed project also includes 2,050 s.f. of common indoor space (fitness area and lounge) . The proposed project will pay PFF, a portion of which goes toward funding a city-wide park and recreation facilities. Since the project provides on-site recreational amenities and will pay PFF, impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 36 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in trips associated with construction workers and supply and materials deliveries to the site. During operations, the proposed project would generate traffic potentially impacting the existing roadway network through the development of 165 apartments and 5,600 s.f. of commercial. Project-generated traffic would also result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and will therefore need to be analyzed for consistency with State and local guidance. Impacts are considered potentially significant. A project- specific VMT analysis and a local transportation analysis (LTA) will be prepared for the project and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Potentially Significant Impact . CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service analysis that evaluated a project's impacts on traffic conditions on nearby roadways and intersections.
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute traffic to the existing roadway network and increase VMT. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant. A project-specific VMT analysis will be prepared and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The project does not propose any feature that would result in a substantial increase in hazards due to geometric design or incompatible use. Project access would be via a driveway on Armorlite Drive. The projects entrance and circulation has been designed to meet City standards. No impact is identified and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 37 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The California Fire Code, along with SMFD, administers the rules and regulations on fire access design. The proposed project must present a design which affords fire and emergency responders suitable fire access roads in terms of dimensions and surfaces (Chapter 5, § 503.1 through 503.4 of the California Fire Code). The project proposes one primary entrance from Armorlite Drive. A secondary emergency-only access from Las Posas Road would be provided at the northwest corner of the project site through the adjacent AT&T parcel. Drive aisles within the project would be designed to accommodate SMFD standard tiller trucks and engines. Impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? Potentially Significant Impact. The City has notified local Tribes in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21074. Tribal consultation input will be considered throughout the environmental document preparation process. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 38 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the City has notified local Tribes in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21074. Tribal consultation input will be considered throughout the environmental document preparation process. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in relocation or the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment
facilities, or stormwater drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Require or result in the construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in an increase in demand for water, wastewater, energy and telecommunication services. The project site is within the service area of VWD for water and wastewater service, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) for natural gas and electricity service and Cox Communications for telephone and cable service. Stormwater drainage and detention onsite would be the responsibility of the project applicant and stormwater flows would eventually enter City of San Marcos stormwater infrastructure. The project would result in an increase in demand for utility resources an infrastructure. This represents a potentially significant impact , and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 39 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Potentially Significant Impact . Water service for potable residential use and fire service would be provided by VWD. Development of the project site with 165 apartments and commercial uses would result in an increase in demand for water supply. This represents a potentially significant impact. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within the service area of VWD for wastewater service.
Development of the project site with 165 apartments and commercial uses would result in an increase in demand for wastewater treatment to serve the future residences. This could result in a potentially significant impact. A water/sewer study will be prepared by VWD for the project, which will include an analysis of wastewater treatment capacity. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste such as scrap lumber, concrete, residual wastes, packing materials, and plastics .
Operation of the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste from future residences.
As such, impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially Significant Impact . As discussed above, the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste during construction and operations. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing wind, and other factors,
exacerbate wildlife risk, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a
wildlife or the uncontrolled spread of wildlife?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in the temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risk,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 40 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
landslide, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, would the project:
• Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? • Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
• Require the installation of maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? • Expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area, not a State Responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2022). The project site is in a Local Responsibility Area with a Non -Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Non -VHFHSZ) designation per California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) San Marcos Fire Hazards Severity Zones Map (2009) and is surrounded by areas identified as Non-VHFHSZ. Further, per Figure 6 -4 of the City’s General Plan, the pro ject site and surrounding area are not identified as a SMFPD Community Hazard Zone. No impact is identified for this issue area, and it will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
X
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 41 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact . The project has the potential to impact sensitive species including coastal California gnatcatcher. The project also has the potential to impact unidentified archaeological resources during project grading associated with Site CA-SDI -5633. These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.
Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. As evaluated throughout this document, the proposed project could result in impacts related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Energy, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts are considered potentially significant. These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 42 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
PREPARERS
This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document .
This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines.
City of San Marcos
Joe Farace, Planning Division Director
Sean del Solar, Senior Planner
Brad Holder, P.E., Associate Engineer
Consultant
Sophia Mitchell & Associates, LLC
Sophia Habl Mitchell, LEED AP, Project Manager
Melyssa Sheeran, Senior Environmental Consultant
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 43 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024
REFERENCES
ASM 2023. Archaeological Survey Report for Armorlite Lofts Project, San Marcos, California. July 2023.
CAL FIRE. 2022. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in State Responsibility Areas (SRA) https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/dqfbrtl1/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_sandiego_ada.pdf CAL FIRE. 2009.Fire Hazard Severity Zones, San Marcos.
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5970/san_marcos.pdf
Caltrans. 2020. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.
City of San Marcos. 2023. City of San Marcos BMP Design Manual. February. https://www.san- marcos.net/home/showpublisheddocument/27192/638114580843700000 City of San Marcos. 2012. General Plan
http://www.san-marcos.net/work/economic-development/general-plan Consultants Collaborative Inc., 2023. Draft Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan.
County of San Diego. 2009. Guidelines for Determining Significance Paleontological Resources.
January 15.
Department of Toxic Substance Control. 2023. EnviroStor Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Coretese).
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type=CS ITES,FUDS&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIS T+%28CORTESE%29 Viewed September 14, 2023.
Dudek. 2023. Biological Resources Technical Report. Armorlite Lofts. October.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C0793G . Viewed September 14, 2023.
Gallegos and Associates, 2002. Data Recovery Program for Pacbell Site CA -SDI-5633, San Marcos, California.
Gallegos, Dennis and Andrew Pigniolo . 1990. The Copley Project, San Marcos California, Cultural Resources Survey and Testing Program at SDI-5633. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co.
GeoTek, Inc. 2023a. Due Diligence Environmental Review. A Portion of APN 219-162-57-00, 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California. January 26.
GeoTek, Inc. 2023b. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Eastern Portion of 225 N. Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California. August 10.
GeoTek, Inc. 2023c, Statement of Clarification Regarding Suspected UST, A Portion of APN 219- 162-57-00, 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California. October 5.
Latitude 33. 2023. Drainage Study. Armorlite Lofts, Armorlite Drive, San Marcos, California 92069.
May 26.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 44 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, Airport Land Use Commission (SDCRAA-ALUC). 2010.
McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. January 25. Amended March 4, 2010 and December 1, 2011.
Stantec. 2021. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, California, 92069. March 23.
Terracon. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment AT&T San Marcos, 225 North Las Posas Road, San Marcos, San Diego County, California. May 10.
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 45 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
Armorlite Lofts Specific Plan 46 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist January 2024 Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan