San Marcos City Council
September 9, 2025

Woodward 46 Residential
Initial Study

SP22-0005/SP-22-006/GPA22-0004/MFSD22-0005/TSM22-0004/CUP22--0005

Prepared for:

City of San Marcos
Planning Division
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069
Contact: Norm Pedersen, Associate Planner

Prepared by:

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

August 2023

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 1 City of San Marcos
Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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 .................................................................................................. 15 VI. ENERGY ........................................................................................................................... 16 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...................................................................................................... 17 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..................................................................................... 20 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................... 21 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................ 25 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................................. 28 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 29 XIII. NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 29 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ........................................................................................... 30 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 31 XVI. RECREATION .................................................................................................................... 33 XVII. TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................................... 33 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 35 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 36 XX. WILDFIRE ......................................................................................................................... 37 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................... 38 PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........40 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........41

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ................................................................................................... 42 Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................................................. 43 Woodward 46 Specific Plan 2 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 Initial Study Checklist

1. Project Title:

Woodward 46 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:

Norm Pedersen, Association Planner
760-744-1050 ext. 3236
[email protected]

4. Project Location:

The approximately 8.57-acre project site is located on the east side of Woodward Street , generally between Mission Road to the south and Vineyard Road to the north in the Richland neighborhood in City of San Marcos (City), California. The project site is approximately 0.5 mile north of State Route 78 (SR-78) and 0.1 mile north from the Civic Center SPRINTER rail station.

The assessor parcel number (APN) is 220-210-49-00. See Figure 1 located at the end of this document. The project site is undeveloped and steeply slopped. Elevation ranges from 754 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the eastern portion of the project site down to 615 feet in the southwestern portion of the project site.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Cornerstone Communities
1241 Cave Street, Suite 200
La Jolla, CA 92037

6. General Plan Designation:

The project site has a General Plan Designation of SPA (Specific Plan Area) and is associated with the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP). In the HOCSP, certain properties along the Mission Road corridor, such as the project site, have a sub-plan designation of Richmar Specific Plan. Development criteria for the Richmar Specific Plan has not been adopted by the City; therefore, properties requesting development within this sub -plan area are required to establish individual specific plans based on the underlying land use for the property as designated by the HOCSP . For the subject propert y, the underlying designation allows for residential development at 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment to remove the Richmar Sub-Plan designation from the project site in order to establish its own development criteria under the proposed Woodward 46 Specific Plan which would allow for 5.7 dwelling units per acre.

7. Zoning Designation:

The Zoning on the project site is located within the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area (SPA).

No change in zoning is proposed as part of the project.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 3 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

8. Description of Project:

The project applicant is requesting approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to the HOCSP (SP22-0006), adoption of a new Woodward 46 Specific Plan (SP22 -0005), General Plan Amendment (GP A22-0004), Multifamily Site Development Plan ( MFSD22-0005), Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM22 -0004), and Conditional Use Permit (CUP22--0005). If approved, these entitlements would allow for the development of the proposed 46 unit condominium development on the project site. The conceptual site plan is presented in Figure 2.

Residential Development
The project prop oses 46 duplex residential units in 23 buildings. The p roposed residential units will all be three bedroom and 3.5 baths and range from 1,585 square feet (s.f.) to 1,900 s.f. The units will be three stories and approximately 35 feet in height. Each unit will have a two-car garage. Proposed materials include stucco walls, stone veneer, wood fascia, metal and stucco railings, and concrete tile roof materials.

Open Space
A total of 6.01 acres s.f. of open space is proposed. The proposed open space includes 5.15 acres of common open space with grades of 10% or greater and 0.86 acres of common open space with grades less than 10% . The project also includes private open space, which totals 38,375 s.f. and includes decks and ground-floor patios for all the units.

The 7,480 s.f. community r ecreation area is located in the southwest portion of the site and includes a tot lot with fall safe surfacing, turf play areas, shaded picnic table, looped trike track, and a sensory play area. The homeowners association would be responsible for the maintenance of the common open space areas, including the recreation area/park.

Other Project Components
Access and Circulation
Access to the project site will be via one unsignalized driveway on Woodward Street. The entrance driveway will be ungated and will be 24-feet wide. Internal vehicular movement will be via a 24-foot-wide drive aisle. A cul -de-sac and turnout have been incl uded in the project design for emergency vehicle movement.

Parking
The project proposes a total of 1 08 on-site parking spaces. Each of the residential units will have a two-car garage. In addition, 16 guest spaces are included. Each garage will be wired to accommodate an electric vehicle charger.

Landscape Plan
The proposed landscape plan includes a mix of trees, shrubs, vines, grasses and groundcover and the plant selection emphasizes low and moderate water use species. The project will also comply with the City’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) and Municipal Code, Title 20.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 4 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 Project Construction
Grading
The project is anticipated to start construction in 2025. Grading will consist of approximately 41,989 cubic yards (CY) of cut material and 50,2 70 CY of fill material requiring an export of approximately 8,281 CY of material. The project design incorporates retaining walls to manage the topography of the site and create areas for the access driveway and building pads. The proposed retaining walls include geogrid, cinderblock and soil nail styles, depending on the location within the project.

The import and export of earth material is guided by Section 17.32.080 of the City’s Municipal Code and prior to any import of soils, a haul route will 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 t hrough Friday, per Section 17.32.180 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Blasting and Rock Crushing
Due to bedrock condition, blasting will be required on the project site. The project would comply with all provisions identified in the City’s Municipal Code 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 required issuance of a Blasting Permit from the San Marcos Fire Department.

The project’s requested approvals include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP22--0005), which would allow for the use of the temporary rock crusher. The rock crusher , a Thunderbird Hazemag impact crusher, will be located in the central portion of the site to provide the most distance from adjacent residential uses. The crusher will be approximately 329 feet from the residential use to the east, 667 feet from the closest residential use to the north and 531 feet from the closest residential use 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 will connect to the existing 8-inch water main in Woodward Street at the main entry to the project site. Water connections to the dwelling units will be provided via 4-inch lines. An 8-inch fire main will parallel the potable water line for fire service to the site.

For sewer service, the project will extend the existing 8-inch gravity sewer main located north of the project site in Woodward Street for approximately 4 90 feet. The proposed sewer line extension would be within the existing roadway on Woodward Street. Dwell ing units would connect to sewer via an 8-inch sewer main that will run the length of the main driveway.

Site Drainage and Stormwater Management
Storm drain systems and connections would be designed to accommodate the proposed future development. The project will construct two biofiltration basins (BMP-A and BMP-B) for storm water quality, which will be located at the northeast corner and northwest edge of the project Woodward 46 Specific Plan 5 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 site. These features will collect storm water from the building and street and direct the storm water through storm water drainage pipes to POCs. Hydromodification will be required with final engineering submittals in conformance with the 2023 City of San Marcos BMP Design Manual.

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 West Mission Road, approximately 0.25 miles west of the project site. There are two easements on the site associated with vegetation management for fire fuel reduction. One is located along a portion of the site’s eastern boundary and the other is located along a portion of the site’s southern boundary. These are associated with fire buffer maintenance requirements of adjacent development. The project will also implement a zoned brush management plan which will provide a minimum of 150 feet of clearance. The brush management will follow CAL FIRE’s guidance for defensible space (CAL FIRE 2023) which includes three zones of defensible space.

Police Protection
Police protection for the proposed project would be provided by the County of San Diego Sheriff’s Department. The County Sheriff provides contract law enforcement services to the City of San Marcos through the station located at 182 Santar Place, approximately 0.75 mile 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. Students generated by the project would attend Richland Elementary School, Woodland Park Middle School and Mission Hills High School.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is in a developed portion of the City. The project vicinity include s single-family residential neighborhoods to the north and east, multi -family residential developments to the south, and undeveloped land to the west across Woodward Street. Directly north of the project site is an area designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan. The City of San Marcos Civic Center is located south of the project site and contains a mix of institutional, office, and medical office uses as well as adjacent commercial land uses which offer a variety of retail space, restaurants, service uses, and shopping. The Civic Center SPRINTER rail station is located approximately 0.1 - mile from the project site at the intersection of Mission Road and San Marcos Boulevard.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
• Vallecitos Water District for water and sewer service

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 6 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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 Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) will summarize the City’s consultation efforts with local tribes.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 7 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
X Geology and Soils X Transportation
□ Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Tribal Cultural Resources □ Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Utilities and Service Systems X Hydrology and Water Quality □ Wildfire
X Mandatory Findings of Significance

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 8 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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 revisio ns or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Norm Pedersen, Associate Planner D ate

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 9 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The project site is located within the Richland Neighborhood 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 architectures 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). b) 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 0.4 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.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 10 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surrounding ? (Public views are tho se 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 will 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.
d) 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

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 11 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
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? No Impact . The project site is not mapped as P rime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or F armland 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 P rime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact is identified, and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site has a General Plan designation of SPA (Specific Plan Area) and a zoning designation of Specific Plan Area (SPA). 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 t ax 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. 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))?
No Impact. The project site has a General Plan designation of SPA (Specific Plan Area) and a zoning designation of Specific Plan Area (SPA). 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. d) 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.
e) Involve other changes in the existing en vironment 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.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 12 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
a) 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 46 multi -family residential (duplex) development will be calculated along with assessment of the project’s consistency with the SIP and RAQS. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
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? 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, PM10, and PM2.5 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. c) 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 south and southeast and single family residences to the north and east. Since the proposed project could expose sensitive receptors to Woodward 46 Specific Plan 13 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 substantial pollutant concentrations, impacts are considered potentially significant. A project-specific air quality report will be prepared for the project and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR. d) 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 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
Woodward 46 Specific Plan 14 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Based upon the Biological Resources Report prepared for the project by Rincon (2023), the project has the potential to impact sensitive species i nclude coastal California Gnatcatchers, species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and rare plants. The EIR will analyze the potential for the project to 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 (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
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?
Potentially Significant Impac t. Based upon the Biological Resources Report prepared by Rincon (2023), there is the potential for the project to impact sensitive habitats including Diegan coastal sage scrub, disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub. This topic will be further analyzed in the EIR. 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?
No Impact. Based upon the Biological Resources Report prepared by Rincon (2023), no drainages or wetlands were observed in the project area during the surveys or background research. Concrete v- ditches were identified in the n ortheast portion of the study area along a chain link fence that runs along the slope and down towards the junction of Woodward and Vineyard Street. Vegetation has overgrown much of the areas along the ditch. An additional concrete v -ditch has been constru cted along the southeast area at the top of the retaining wall that was constructed for the development to the south. No waters of the United States of Waters of the States were observed in the project area.

No impact will occur, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 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?
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 area is a habitat island, with Woodward Street Woodward 46 Specific Plan 15 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 along the western boundary of the project area which separates it from Twin Oaks Valley Creek to the west, Mission Road south of the project area, and residential development north , south, and east of the project area blocking any wildlife movement. There is an Open Space lot directly north of the project site, however the project area and vicinity are not identified as being within or adj acent to a wildlife corridor per Figure 4-2 of the City of San Marcos General Plan (San Marcos 2012). The project area is also not within or adjacent to a Biological Core and Linkage Area (BCLA) as illustrated in Figure 2-3 of the Final Multiple Habitat Conservation Program ( MHCP) Plan. Finally, the project is not within or adjacent to an essential connectivity area or natural landscape block as identified by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. Therefore impacts would be less than significant and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
e) 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 County of San Diego 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. f) 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 MH CP 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 MH CP Focused 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

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
No Impact. The project site is undeveloped and no historical resources were identified on the project (ASM 2023). This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 16 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact Implementation of the project will result in grading which can impact cultural resources if they are located within the grading footprint. This represents a potentially significant impact. A cultural resources report will be prepared for the project to determine if there are any significant archaeological resources on the project site. The study will include a records search and site walk. Additionally, the City will consult with local tribes pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 and SB 18. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact. The 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
a) 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 equipment. Project operations would include the use of energy for the proposed residential use. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) 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
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
Woodward 46 Specific Plan 17 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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.

Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located in the tectonically active Southern California area and will likely experience shaking effects from earthquakes. The type and severity of seismic hazards Woodward 46 Specific Plan 18 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 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.

Therefore, the potential for surface rupture on the project site is low. This topic will still be analyzed in the EIR as part of the geology and soils analysis.
b) 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 still be analyzed in the EIR as part of the geology and soils analysis. c) 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 2019), the liquefaction and seismic settlement potential on the project site is considered to be negligible due to shallow bedrock and the absence of a shallow groundwater table. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR as part of the geology and soils analysis.
d) 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 steeply sloped. Elevation ranges from 754 feet amsl in the eastern portion of the project site, sloping down to 615 feet in the southwestern portion. There is existing netting along the Woodward Street frontage to minimize the potential for rock and debris fall onto the roadway. As noted on the proposed grading plans for the project, a portion of this netting will be removed to accommodate the project grading. The netting would be re-anchored to the new top of slope or as recommended by the soils engineer during project construction.

The 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 i s considered negligible.

However, this topic will be further analyzed in the EIR as part of the geology and soils analysis. e) 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 Woodward 46 Specific Plan 19 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Impacts would be less than significant. This topic will still be analyzed in the EIR as part of the geology and soils analysis.
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 res ult 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 2019), 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. Surficial slope stability was further analyzed as part of a subsequent memorandum prepared for the project (GeoTek 2023). Overall, the surficial stability is considered to be stable. The geotechnical report also noted that the potential for secondary seismic hazards such as seiche and tsunami is considered to be remote due to site elevation and distance from an open body of water (GeoTek 2019). This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. As discussed in VII.d, above, there is existing netting along the Woodward Street frontage to minimize the potential for rock and de bris fall onto the roadway. As noted on the proposed grading plans for the project, a portion of this netting will be removed to accommodate the project grading. The netting would be re-anchored to the new top of slope or as recommended by the soils engineer during project construction.
g) 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 undocumented artificial fill, colluvium and Cretaceous age crystalline bedrock.

Soil near subgrade would be classified as “very low” expansive. Impacts would be less than significant.

This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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? No Impact. Septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed as part of the project. The project will receive wastewater service from VWD and will connect to existing sewer infrastructure in Woodward Street. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area and this topic will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
i) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Impact. According to the geotechnical study prepared for the project, the site is geologically mapped as sitting near the boundary of the Santiago Formation and undifferentiated metasedimentary and metavolcanic rock. The potential for the site to support paleontological resources will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 20 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which was developed to help reduce the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of the CAP, the City developed a CAP Consistency Review Checklist (Checklist). The purpose of the Checklist is to implement the GHG reduction measures from the CAP that apply to new discretionary development. New development that demonstrate consistency with relevant CAP strategies would not conflict with the City’s ability to achieve the identified GHG reduction targets through implementation of applicable measures. Projects that are consistent with the CAP, as determined through the use of the Checklist, may rely on the CAP for the cumulative impact analysis of GHG emissions. The Checklist identifies certain sizes and types of projects that would emit fewer than 500 metric tons ( MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. Projects that emit fewer than 500 MT CO2e per year would be determined to have a less than significant GHG impact and would not be subject to the measures of the CAP. Multifamily residential projects of 55 dwelling units or le ss are considered to emit fewer than 500 MT CO2e per year. The project proposes 46 multifamily units. Therefore, it would fall under the 55 multifamily unit criteria and GHG impacts would be less than significant. This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact . Under the City’s CEQA thresholds, the method for determining significance for project-level environmental documents is through the CAP Checklist. As discussed in VIII.a, above, the project would be consistent with the City’s CAP and no conflict is identified. Therefore, this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 21 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
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 the
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
a) 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 Woodward 46 Specific Plan 22 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 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 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 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.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the enviro nment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
No Impact. The project site is vacant and undeveloped . There are no existing site conditions which would result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions that could involve the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impact is identified for this issue area and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
c) 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 Elementary school, which is located approximately 0.5 miles to the southwest. No impact is identified, and this topic will not be analyzed in the EIR. 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?
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. Governmen t Code Section 65962.5 requires California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop an updated Cortese List annually, at minimum. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other California state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.

A search of the DTSC EnviroStor site was conducted on May 16, 2023 to see if there a re any current or historical environmental cleanups or permitted facilities on or adjacent to the project site. There are no current or past permitted facilities or cleanup activities on the project site. The closest listed sites per EnviroStor are:
• TRI-M-CO, 528 E Mission Road - A leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site located approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site. The cleanup was completed in 1993 and the case is closed.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 23 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 • United States Post Office, 420 N. Twin Oaks Valley Road - A LUST cleanup site located approximately 0.2 mile west of the project site. The cleanup was completed in 12006 and the case is closed.

Due to the distance of these listings from the project site as well as the fact they have been cleaned up, there is no impact associated with the project. No impact would occur, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
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 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. While the project is on an elevated hillside, the site is situated, overall, in the lower elevation portion 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 excessive 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. f) 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. g) 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 Signi ficant 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. There are two easements on the site associated with vegetation management for fire fuel reduction. One is located along a portion of the site’s eastern boundary and the other is located along a portion of the site’s southern boundary. The project site is located in a Local Responsibility Area, not a St ate 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 Hazard s 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.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 24 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
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
X
Woodward 46 Specific Plan 25 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for
which the water body is already impaired?
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

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Potentially 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 will be required to comply with the City of San Marcos BMP Design Manual. The SWQMP will 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. Project impact s are potentially significant, and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR. b) 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 will be served by VWD for water service. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The project will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site; however, the project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Impacts are less than significant, and this topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. c) 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? Potentially 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, which could increase runoff flow rates or volumes, which could result in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project would be required to implement design feature to ensure that changes to drainage patterns do not result in substantial erosion, this could include offsite flow routing and hydromodification to meet City and regional standards. Project impacts are potentially significant and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 26 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 d) 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?
Potentially 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, which could increase runoff flow rates or volumes, potentially resulting in erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The project would be required to implement design feature s to ensure that changes to drainage patterns do not result in substantial erosion, this could include offsite flow routing and hydromodification to meet City and regional standards. Project impacts are potentially significant, and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
e) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the area of impervious surfaces on the project site, which could increase runoff flow rates or volumes, which could result in flooding on- or off-site. The project would be required to implement design features to ensure that changes to drainage patterns do not result in a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off-site. This could include offsite flow routing and hydromodification to meet City and regional standards. Project impacts are potentially significant, and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR. f) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above, the proposed project would increase the area of impervious surfaces on the project site. The project will also implement a grading plan which will modify the topography and could alter drainage patterns on the site. However, there are no onsite streams or rivers which would be impacted. Project impacts are potentially significant, and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
g) 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 06073C0793G the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2012). The project site is approximately 10 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. h) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Potentially 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 EIR will address the project’s potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 27 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 i) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Potentially 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 sidewalks. This represents a potentially significant impact , and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
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).

Potentially Significant Impact . The project site is located in the Carlsbad hydro logic 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 will generate potential water quality pollutants through construction and operations. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Impaired water bodies in the Carlsbad watershed include San Marcos Creek and Lake San Marcos. While the project will include a comprehensive water quality approach including a storm drain system , there is a potential for an impact . This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
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? Potentially 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 M arcos Creek, Lake San Marcos and ultimately to Batiquitos Lagoon. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR. m) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland waters?
Potentially Significant Impa ct. The project will generate pollutants both during construction and operation that could impact water quality. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 28 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes residential 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. b) 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 Specific Plan Amendment to the HOCSP, adoption of a new Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Multifamily Site Development Plan, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Conditional Use Permit. If approved, these entitlements would allow for the development of a 46 unit condominium development on the project site. 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

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 29 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
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?
No Impact. According to the City of San Marcos General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, the City has land classified in all four Mineral Re source 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. 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? No Impact . The proposed project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resou rce 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.

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
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 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 blasting, rock crushing, grading, site preparation, paving , and building construction. During operations, the proposed project would Woodward 46 Specific Plan 30 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 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. 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. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. Due to bedrock conditions, blasting and rock crushing is proposed as part of the project. The temporary rock crushing will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit. 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. c) 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 a irstrip. The public airport closest to the project site is the McClellan-Palomar Airport, located approximately 6.5 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
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)?
No Impact. The project site is currently zoned SPA as part of the HOCSP with residential uses (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) contemplated for the site. As part of the requested approvals, the project would modify the HOCSP via a Specific Plan Amendment; remove the current Richmar Sub-Plan designation for the site; and establish a new Specific Plan (Woodward 46 Specific Plan) which would allow for the development of 46 residential condominiums on the project site. Under the proposed Specific Plan, a slight increase in d ensity would occur (5.7 du/acre). However, this is generally a similar level of Woodward 46 Specific Plan 31 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 development intensity as what was contemplated in the HOCSP. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth in an area, directly or indirectly and no impact is identified.

This topic will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
b) 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 will not remove existing housing. The project propose s 46 multifamily units which 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.

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 significant 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:
a) Fire protection?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site would be served by the SMFD . Implementation of the proposed project would increase demand for fire protection and emergency response services due to the construction of 46 residential units on the project site. This could result in a significant increase in demand for fire protection services and result in a potentially significant impact. The project will be required to annex into a Community Facilities District for fire and paramedic service. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) 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 for police protection services due to the construction of 46 residential units. This could result Woodward 46 Specific Plan 32 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 in a significant increase in demand for police protection services and result in a potentially significant impact. The project will be required to annex into a Community Facilities District for Police service.

This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
c) Schools?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the service boundary of SMUSD and is within the current attendance boundaries of Richland Elementary School, Woodland Park Middle School and Mission Hills High School. 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 house 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. d) 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 a tot lot, turf play areas and a sensory garden. These features would be included within the development footprint of the project. Additionally , the project will pay Public Facility Fees (PFF), a portion of which goes toward funding a c ity-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.
e) 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

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 33 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 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?
b) 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 res ult in an increase in demand on neighborhood and regional parks. The project proposes common open space area, including a tot lot, turf play areas and a sensory garden. These features would be included within the development footprint of the project. Additionally, the project will pay Public Facility Fees (PFF), a portion of which goes toward funding a c ity-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.

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
a) 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 worker s 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 46 multifamily (duplex) units. 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 t his topic will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 34 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 b) 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. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact . All roadways, including off-site improvements, constructed in association with the proposed project, would be subject to existing City design standards and safety specifications for roadways. This topic will still be analyzed in the EIR. d) 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 entrance from Woodward Street. This topic will be 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

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 35 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) 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. b) 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 l andscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, 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
Woodward 46 Specific Plan 36 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
a) 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 will 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 will result in an increase in demand of utility resources an infrastructure. This represents a potentially significant impact and this topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to ser ve 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 w ith 46 multifamily (duplex) units results in an increase in demand of water supply. This represents a potentially significant impact. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is within the service area of VWD for wastewater service.

Development of the project site with 46 multifamily (duplex) units will result in an increase in demand for wastewater treatment to serve the future residences. This could result in a potentially significant impact. A 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. 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? 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 generate solid waste from future residences. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant. This topic will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 37 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 e) 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
landslide, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

XX. WILDFIRE
a) 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 unc ontrolled 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 Woodward 46 Specific Plan 38 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 as Non-VHFHSZ. Further, per Figure 6 -4 of the City’s General Plan, the project site and surrounding area are not identifie d as a SMFPD Community Hazard Zone. It should be noted there are two easements on the site associated with vegetation management for fire fuel reduction. One is located along a portion of the site’s eastern boundary and the other is located along a portion of the site’s southern boundary. These are associated with fire buffer maintenance requirements of adjacent development. The project will also implement a zoned brush management plan which will provide a minimum of 150 feet of clearance. The brush management will follow CAL FIRE’s guidance for defensible space (CAL FIRE 2023) which includes three zones of defensible space. 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
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
a) 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 sensitive species including coastal California gnatcatcher, bird species protected under the MBTA and rare plants. The project also has the potential to impact unidentified archaeological resources during project grading. These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 39 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 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.) Potentially Significant Impact. Cumulative Impacts are considered potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR.
c) 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, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts are considered potentially significant. These topics will be analyzed in the EIR.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 40 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

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 Manager
Norm Pedersen, Associate Planner
Bradley Holder, P.E., CFM, Assistant Engineer – Land Development

Consultant
Sophia Mitchell & Associates, LLC
Sophia Habl Mitchell, LEED AP, Project Manager
Melyssa Sheeran, Senior Environmental Consultant

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 41 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023

REFERENCES
ASM 2023. Archaeological Survey and Evaluation Report for Woodward 46 Project, San Marcos, California. April 2023.

CAL FIRE. 2023. Defensible Space. https://www.readyforwildfire.org/prepare-for-wildfire/get- ready/defensible-space/ Viewed June 12, 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06073C0793G .

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). EnviroStor database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T06019712665 Viewed May 16, 2023.

Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). EnviroStor database. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report?global_id=T0607300992 Viewed May 16, 2023.

GeoTek, Inc. 2023. Response to Review Comments Proposed Residential Subdivision Adjacent to Woodward Street, between Vineyard Road and E. Mission Road. San Marcos, CA. March 28.

GeoTek, Inc. 2019. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed Residential Development APN 220-210-49-00 Northeast of Woodward & Mission, San Marcos, California. May 16.

Rincon Consultants. 2023. Draft Woodward Specific Plan Full Biological Resources Report. March.

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.

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 42 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity

Woodward 46 Specific Plan 43 City of San Marcos Initial Study Checklist August 2023 Figure 2. Conceptual Site Plan