Agenda packet — San Marcos City Council, May 26, 2026 (part 9 of 10)

PDP SWQMP Preparation Date: December 2024
ATTACHMENT 4 COPY OF PLAN SHEETS WITH PERMANENT STORM WATER BMPS

This is the cover sheet for Attachment 4.

Use this checklist to ensure the required information has been included on the plans:

The plans must identify:

Structural BMP(s) with ID numbers matching Form I-6 Summary of PDP Structural BMPs The grading and drainage design shown on the plans must be consistent with the delineation of DMAs shown on the DMA exhibit
Details and specifications for construction of structural BMP(s) Signage indicating the location and boundary of structural BMP(s) as required by the [City Engineer] How to access the structural BMP(s) to inspect and perform maintenance Features that are provided to facilitate inspection (e.g., observation ports, cleanouts, silt posts, or other features that allow the inspector to view necessary components of the structural BMP and compare to maintenance thresholds)
Manufacturer and part number for proprietary parts of structural BMP(s) when applicable Maintenance thresholds specific to the structural BMP(s), with a location-specific frame of reference (e.g., level of accumulated materials that triggers removal of the materials, to be identified based on viewing marks on silt posts or measured with a survey rod with respect to a fixed benchmark within the BMP)
Recommended equipment to perform maintenance
When applicable, necessary special training or certification requirements for inspection and maintenance personnel such as confined space entry or hazardous waste management Include landscaping plan sheets showing vegetation requirements for vegetated structural BMP(s) All BMPs must be fully dimensioned on the plans
When proprietary BMPs are used, site-specific cross section with outflow, inflow, and model number shall be provided. Photocopies of general brochures are not acceptable.

1968
560
55 555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SSSSSSSSSS

SD SD SD SD
SD
WW
SS
SDSD
SDSD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD

SDSDSDSD
F
F
F
F

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

W W W W W W W
WWW
WW
WWW

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
WWW
SD

S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SS
WWW
SS
SSS
SSS

S S S S S S S S S S
SS
W

WWWWWWWWWWWW
W

W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
S
S

S S S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S S
S
W
W

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSD
SD
SDSD
SD SD
SDSD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 217-161-17
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 219-114-28 APN: 219-114-28
APN: 217-161-19
APN: 217-161-18-00
EX. CFD MAINTAINED SLOPE
EX. CFD MAINTAINED LANDSCAPEEX. CFD MAINTAINED LANDSCAPE 6 15
9 8

PORTION OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE

MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AREA TO

BE QUITCLAIMED
4 6

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°08'14"E

28.75'
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°32'36"E

0.60'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N71°30'04"E

8.15'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N66°25'12"E

3.98'

PROPERTY

BOUNDARY
N61°15'13"E

87.61'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N23°37'25"E 138.53'
377.31'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N66°38'44"W 250.78'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°50'13"E

32.84'
N23°34'48"PROPERTY BOUNDARY 167.99'
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4
BUILDING 5BUILDING 6BUILDING 7
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N23°19'42"E
PROP. NEW P/L PER

SEPARATE LLA
1 1
EX. P/L TO BE

ADJUSTED PER

SEPARATE LLA
1 15
16 1

PORTION OF EXISTING LANDSCAPE

MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AREA TO

BE QUITCLAIMED

PORTION OF

EASEMENTS TO

BE REMOVED
WHERE EX. P/L

IS ADJUSTED
8 14
15 6
9 6
7 7
7 5
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 30'
0 30' 60' 90'
J:\ACTIVE JOBS\3527 MAYER-SOUTH SANTA FE AVE\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS\TOWNHOME SITE PLAN TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR:
2972 & 2982 S. SANTA FE AVENUE
LEGEND

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

CENTERLINE OF ROAD

ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE / RIGHT-OF-WAY

EXISTING CONTOUR LINE

PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER

PROPOSED UNDERGROUND STORM DRAIN DETENTION SYSTEM

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN

EXISTING WATER MAIN

EXISTING SEWER MAIN

EXISTING STORM DRAIN

EXISTING GAS MAIN

EXISTING TELECOM CONDUIT
W W
S S
SD SD
G G
T T
SD SD

PROPOSED DOMESTIC WATER W W

PROPOSED FIRE WATER F F

PROPOSED SEWER S S

PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT

PROPOSED RIBBON GUTTER

PROPOSED GRADING DAYLIGHT

EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION

PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
64 (XXX.XX) FG
XXX.XX FS

AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY
AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY SUPPLIED BY: HOOPER LAND COMPANY
1642 MOON ROCK ROAD
FALLBROOK, CA 92028
(760) 723-2891
SURVEY COMPLETED: JUNE 2020

ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
217-161-18-00, 217-161-19-00, PORTION OF 217-161-17-00

RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
CUT: 23,300 CY
FILL: 3,200 CY
NET (EXPORT): 20,100 CY
THE ABOVE RAW EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATES ONLY.

CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT RELY UPON QUANTITIES FOR BID PURPOSES.

CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES TO THEIR SATISFACTION PRIOR TO START OF WORK.

NOTE: QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDE ANY EARTHWORK FOR REMEDIAL PURPOSES. EARTHWORK ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON IN PLACE VOLUMES AN

DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR ANY SHRINKAGE OR SWELL OF THE SOIL THAT MAY OCCUR DURING GRADING.

LANDSCAPE EASEMENT NOTES

ALL PROPOSED PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN EXISTING CITY LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT

WILL REQUIRE AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AND ALL PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS AND

APPURTENANCES WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED.

PROPOSED EASEMENT INFORMATION

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT FOR OPEN SPACE SLOPE TO THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS.
1 EXISTING EASEMENT INFORMATION (217-161-18, -19)

EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY PURPOSES, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1913 IN BOOK 500, PAGE 135, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE VACATED. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR PIPELINE AND OTHER DISTRICT WORKS, RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1925, IN BOOK 1136, PAGE 238, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, INGRESS AND EGRESS, RECORDED JUNE 19, 1973 AS DOC. NO. 73-167727, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1979 AS DOC. NO. 79-448104, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE VACATED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED JUNE 24, 1987 AS DOC. NO. 87-353275 TO BE VACATED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR PUBLIC STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 13, 2005 AS DOC. NO. 2005-0887133.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR OPEN SPACE SLOPE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 13, 2005 AS DOC. NO. 2005-0887134, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED NOVEMBER 17, 2005 AS DOC. NO. 2005-0996226, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE REVISED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1913 IN BOOK 500, PAGE 135 OF DEEDS TO BE VACATED. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR PIPELINES, INGRESS AND EGRESS, AND ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES, RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1925 IN BOOK 1136, PAGE 238 OF DEEDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO FAIRMONT FOODS COMPANY FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED JULY 5, 1973 AS DOC. NO. 73-184604, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE ADJUSTED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR UTILITIES, INGRESS AND EGRESS, RECORDED JUNE 24, 1987 AS DOC. NO. 87-353275, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE VACATED. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO BARENY COLEMAN AND JEAN S. COLEMAN FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES, INGRESS AND EGRESS RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1959 IN BOOK 7959, PAGE 126, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED.
4 5
6 7
8 9
15 16
17 2
3 13
14 ABBREVIATIONS
AC
ADA
BFD
BLDG
BS
BW
CB
CF
CMU
CO
COMM
CONC
DS
EG
ELEC

ASPHALT CONCRETE

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

BACKFLOW DEVICE

BUILDING

BOTTOM OF STAIRS

BOTTOM OF WALL

CATCH BASIN

CURB FACE

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT

CLEANOUT

COMMUNICATIONS

CONCRETE

DOWNSPOUT

EDGE OF GUTTER

ELECTRICAL

OWNER'S STATEMENT

WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT WE ARE THE RECORD OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON

THESE PLANS AND THAT SAID PLANS SHOW OUR ENTIRE CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP (EXCLUDING SUBDIVISION LOTS). WE UNDERSTAND THAT PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED CONTIGUOUS EVEN IF IT IS SEPARATED BY ROADS, STREETS, UTILITY EASEMENTS OR RAILROADS RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

OWNER

SANTA FE FLORES LP
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
P.O. BOX 903
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067

ENGINEER OF WORK

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PORTION OF LOT 4 IN BLOCK 95 OF RANCHO LOS VALLECITOS DE SAN MARCOS, IN THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP NO. 806, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, DECEMBER 21, 1895.

GENERAL NOTES:

1. APN: 217-161-18-00, 217-161-19-00 , PORTION OF 217-161-17-00

2. GROSS ACREAGE: 2.87 AC

3. GROSS ACREAGE WITHOUT LAS FLORES ROW: 2.60 AC

4. NET ACREAGE : 2.60 AC

5. NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 46

6. EXISTING ZONING: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3-10 (R-3-10) & COMMERCIAL (C)

7. PROPOSED ZONING: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 3-6 (R-3-6)

8. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 (MDR2) & COMMERCIAL (C)

9. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR)

10. FINISH GRADES SHOWN HEREON ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN FINAL DESIGN.

11. PROPOSED DENSITY: 17.69 DU/AC

12. CUT AND FILL SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 2:1

13. PUBLIC SERVICES AND DISTRICTS:

GAS & ELECTRIC: SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC
TELEPHONE: AT&T
WATER: VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT
SEWER: BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT/ CITY OF VISTA
FIRE DISTRICT: CITY OF SAN MARCOS
SCHOOL DISTRICT: SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

14. PROPOSED SETBACKS: FRONT YARD = MINIMUM 15'
SIDE YARD = MINIMUM 10'
REAR YARD= MINIMUM 10'

13. SEE STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGMENT PLAN PREPARED BY: PLSA (DATED: JUNE 2025)

14. SEE PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY PREPARED BY: PLSA (DATED: JUNE 2025)

15. SEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PREPARED BY: GEOCON , INC. DATED: AUGUST 12, 2024 (PROJECT NO. G3355-42-01)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, MULTI-FAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSP) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PROPOSING A 46-UNIT

MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH PARKING LOTS, ACCESS DRIVE, AMENITY AREAS, MISCELLANEOUS HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPING.

TYPICAL SECTION - LAS FLORES DRIVE
CL

TYPICAL SECTION - LAS FLORES DRIVE
TYPICAL SECTION - S. SANTA FE AVENUE
EX. 6" CURB AND GUTTER
EX. CONC. SIDEWALK
EX. AC PAVEMENT SECTION
EX. 6" CURB AND GUTTER

R/W R/W

R/WR/WR/W R/W
EX. CONC. SIDEWALK
EX. 6" CONC.

CURB
EX. 6" CONC.

CURB
(10')
(10') (6') CURB LINE

BIKE LANESIDEWALK
(13')

DRIVE LANE
(13')

DRIVE LANE
(9')
MEDIAN
(9')
MEDIAN
(13')

DRIVE LANE
(13')

DRIVE LANE
(6')

BIKE LANE
(10')

SIDEWALK
(51') (51')
(102')
2%
2%
2%
2%

CURB LINE

SIDEWALK

CURB LINE
VARIES (20' MIN.)

DRIVE LANE
(20')

DRIVE LANE

CURB LINE
(5.5')
SWLK
(10')
VARIES (30' MIN.) (30')
VARIES (64' MAX)
EX. CONC. SIDEWALK
EX. 6" CURB AND GUTTER
EX. AC PAVEMENT SECTION
EX. 6" CURB AND GUTTER
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX
2%
2%
2%
2%
10' (101+97.90 TO 104+01.52)
VARIES, 11' MAX (104+01.52
TO 105+49.97) SIDEWALK
(VARIES)
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX

DRIVE LANE

CURB LINE
2%
2%
2%
2%
EX. AC PAVEMENT SECTIONEX. 6" CURB AND GUTTER
EX. CONC. SIDEWALK
VARIES (23' MIN.)
(12')

DRIVE LANE
VARIES (30' MAX., 16' MIN.)
VARIES (64' MAX., 39' MIN.)
CL
CL
VARIES
EX. 6" CURB AND GUTTER

CURB LINE

WILLIAM
J.SUITE R

SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION
1 TITLE SHEET
2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
3 SITE SECTIONS
4-6 DETAILS
LOT: 113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE) SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10'TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITSSITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
18 28
ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LP PHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0% -
-
OF 6
LANDSCAPING: 38,759 34%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 1

PROPOSED PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM

PROPOSED ARTIFICIAL TURF

PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT

PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT

PROPOSED BUILDING
SHEET 1 OF 6

CONDOMINIUM NOTE
THIS SUBDIVISION IS A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4125 OF THE

CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS FILED PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS IS 46.

BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD 83 (CCS83), ZONE 6, AS DETERMINED LOCALLY BY A LINE BETWEEN FIRST ORDER CONTROL STATIONS SM127 AND VC 009 BEING A GRID BEARING OF S 0°54'41" E AS DERIVED FROM GEODETIC VALUES SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 13928, CITY OF SAN MARCOS SURVEY CONTROL, FILED ON 10/01/1992 AS FILE NUMBER 92-625379 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY.

BENCHMARK
ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON 2" IRON PIPE & DISK AS SHOWN ON ROS 13928 AS SM 127. ELEVATION: 450.50 FEET. NGVD 29

PROPOSED AREA DRAIN

PAUL MAYER
WILLIAM J. SUITER RCE 68964
NOTE: ALL EXISTING COUNTY HIGHWAY EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TO BE VACATED.

EXISTING EASEMENT INFORMATION (217-161-17)

EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY PURPOSES, RECORDED JUNE 11, 1913, BOOK 500, PAGE 136, OFFICIAL RECORDS. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO BARNEY COLEMAN AND JEAN S. COLEMAN FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1959 IN BOOK 7959, PAGE 126, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED JUNE 19, 1973, DOCUMENT NO. 73-167728, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO MARY ELIZABETH ESHLEMAN FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED JULY 5, 1973, DOCUMENT NO. 1973-184604, OFFICIAL RECORDS. A PORTION TO BE QUITCLAIMED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED JULY 3, 2003, DOCUMENT NO. 2003-0793497, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

NOTE: ALL EXISTING COUNTY HIGHWAY EASEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TO BE VACATED.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR PIPELINE AND OTHER DISTRICT WORK PURPOSES, RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1925, IN BOOK 1136, PAGE 238, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED. NOT PLOTTABLE.

EASEMENT GRANTED TO SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES, RECORDED APRIL 25, 1951, IN BOOK 4073, PAGE 83, OFFICIAL RECORDS TO BE QUITCLAIMED.
4 5
6 7
8 9
14 EASEMENT GRANTED TO CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR SLOPE AND DRAINAGE PURPOSES, RECORDED MARCH 12, 2004, DOCUMENT NO. 2004-0206660, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 15 MIN
PA
PBOX
P/L
POC
POT
PP
PROP
PVC
R/W
SCO
SD
SDCO
SDMH
SL

MINIMUM

PLANTER AREA

PULL BOX

PROPERTY LINE

POINT OF CONNECTION

PATH OF TRAVEL

POWER POLE

PROPOSED

POLYVINYL CHLORIIDE

RIGHT-OF-WAY

SEWER CLEANOUT

STORM DRAIN

STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE

STREET LIGHT
SMH
TC
TD
TE
TG
TS
TW
TYP
WAR
WM
WV

SEWER MANHOLE

TOP OF CURB

TOP OF DECK

TRASH ENCLOSURE

TOP OF GRATE

TOP OF STAIRS

TOP OF WALL

TYPICAL

WATER AIR RELEASE

WATER METER

WATER VALVE
EX
FF
FG
FL
FM
FS
GA
GB
GFF
GP
GV
HP
HT
INV
MH

EXISTING

FINISH FLOOR

FINISHED GRADE

FLOW LINE

FORCE MAIN

FINISHED SURFACE

GUY ANCHOR

GRADE BREAK

GARAGE FINISH FLOOR

GUY POLE

GAS VALVE

HIGH POINT
HEIGHT
INVERT

MANHOLE
EX. CONC. SIDEWALK
1969
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535 535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510 510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500 500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD
WWW
SSSS
SDSDSD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD
SD

SD SD SD

SDSDSDSDSDSD
F
F
FF
FF
F
F
F
F
F F F

F F F F

F F F F F F
W

W W W W W W W W
W W
WWWWW
WWWW
WWWW

W W W W

W W W W W W

W W W W W

W W W W W W

W W W W W
W W
WWWWW
SDSD

S S S S S S S S S S
S S S

S S S S

S S S S
S

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SSSS
WWWWW
SSSS
SSSS
SSSSS

S S S S S S S

S S S S

S S S S
S
SSSS
W
W
W

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
W WW
W W W
W W
W W
W W

W W W W W W
W
W
W
W

W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S S S
S
S S
S S
S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S S S
S S
S S
S
S
W
W
W
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SDSDSDSD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD
SDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD SD
SDSDSD
SD
SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD SD
SDSDSD
SDSD
SDSDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD
W
W
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
EX.SDMH
EX.

SMH
EX. 18" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 60" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
EX. 8" PVC S PER COV DWG. NO. 3804
EX. 10" PVC W PER D-2140
EX. 42" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
EX.

SDMH
EX. 8" PVC S PER COV D-3810
EX. 42" RCP SD PER COSM GP-2280
EX.SDMH
EX.

FH
EX. 6" PVC W PER D-2140
EX. 18" RCP SD
EX.SDMH
EX. 10" PVC W PER I-3007
EX.

SDMH
EX.

SMH
EX.

SMH
EX.SMH
EX.

SDMH
EX.SDMH
EX. 18" RCP SD PER COSM GP-2280
EX.

SMH
EX. 8" PVC S PER COV D-3804
EX. 8" W PER D-2140
EX. 8" S
EX. 10" W
EX. 42" RCP SD
±(494.16) TC±(493.71) FL
PROP. CURB OUTLETPER SDRSD D-25A
PROP. DRIVEWAYPER CITY OF SANMARCOS RADIUSTYPE DRIVEWAY PROP. SMH483.88 IE, 8" S±(483.68) IE
PROP. IRRG. WATERMETER & BACKFLOW
PROP. CONNECTIONTO EX. 10" W
PROP. (2) DOM. WATERMETERS & BACKFLOWS
PROP. FIRE SERVICEBACKFLOW EX. ELEC. VAULTTO REMAIN
ABANDON EX. WM & LATERAL
EX.

SMH
EX. 10" PVC W PER D-2140
(51')
(51')
(102')
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN71°08'14"E

28.75'
EX. 24" RCP SD PERCOSM IP-4589

EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
EX. CURB INLETEX. 24" RCP PER COSM GP-2280EX. 24" RCP PERCOSM GP-2280 EX. CURB INLET
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 217-161-17
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 219-114-28
(515)
(510)
(505)
(520)
(525)
(530)
(500)
(515)
(510)
(505)
(500)
(520)
(525)
(535)
(525)
(520)
(515)
(510)
(530)
VARIES
PER DOC 2005-0887132 &
2005-0887133
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX. RAISED MEDIAN
EX. 18" RCP SD
EX. RAISED MEDIAN
EX. VEHICULAR GUARDRAIL
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
VARIESPER DOC2005-0887132 &
2005-0887133
PROTECT IN PLACEEX. BACKFLOW,WM& LATERAL
EX. 18" RCP SD PERCOSM GP-2280
ABANDON EX. IRRIGATIONWATER SERVICEEX. 18" RCP SD.EMRA TO BE PROVIDED EX. FENCING
PROP. 3' WIDE RIBBONGUTTER. PERMISSION TOGRADE LETTER TO BEPROVIDED.

EX. AC PARKING LOT

24.00'
STRIPING OF RELOCATED EX. STALLS& NEW STOP LEGEND. PERMISSIONTO GRADE LETTER TO BE PROVIDED.

PROPERTY BOUNDARYN23°32'36"E0.60'
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN71°30'04"E

8.15'PROPERTY BOUNDARYN66°25'12"E3.98'
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN61°15'13"E, 87.61'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°19'42"E 377.31'
PROPERTY BOUNDARY N66°38'44"W 250.78'
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN23°50'13"E32.84'
N23°34'48"

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
167.99'
BUILDING 1FF=499.00
BUILDING 2FF=499.00
BUILDING 6FF=526.00
BUILDING 5FF=531.00
BUILDING 7FF=502.50
BUILDING 4FF=536.00
N23°37'25"E 138.53'
533.08 TC
532.58 FS 533.06 TC532.56 FS
530.81 TC530.31 TG528.31 IE
531.40 TC530.90 FSHP
530.25 FS
529.73 FS
525.00 FS
530.84 TC
530.34 FL
529.86 TC529.36 FL
525.13 TC524.63 FL
539.23 TC
538.73 FS
534.37 TC533.87 FL
532.17 TC
531.67 FL
538.92 TC538.42 FS
BUILDING 3FF=535.00

2.2%5.0%

1.0%

4.0%1.0%
530.52 FS

2.2%

5.0%5.0%

4.8%

6.0%

1.0%

5.0%

4.8% 1.0%

1.0%
537.80 TW533.00 BW
HT=4.80'
490.26 IE
530.53 IE526.60 IE
495.77 FL

1.8% 7.5%

4.0%
497.72 TC
497.22 FS 498.32 TC497.82 FL 8.2%
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=502.50
GFF=502.50

0.6%
499.40 TC498.90 FL

18.6%

5.0%

6.2%

1.2%
498.50 TC498.00 FS

1.0%

4.1%

4.2%5.0% 5.0%533.80 TC
533.30 FS

5.0%

AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00
PROP. SMH495.00 IE

6.5%
498.35 FL 498.77 FL
496.85 TC496.35 FL

1.0%
499.01 TC498.51 FL
500.31 TC499.81 FS

12.4%

5.0%

AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00

PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATION
SYSTEM,499.50 IE-IN498.17 IE-OUT

PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM
527.44 IE-IN526.11 IE-OUT
GFF=535.00 GFF=535.00

7.0%

7.0%
PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM532.20 IE-IN, 530.87 IE-OUT PROP. PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM, 495.91 IE-IN, 494.58 IE-OUT PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM, 491.32 IE-OUT
UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEMTOP=531.72, BOT=526.60
PROP. WEIR
BYPASSSTRUCTURE496.19 IE-IN,495.99 IE-OUT
PROP. WEIR BYPASS STRUCTURE526.53 IE-IN, ±(526.33) IE-OUT 494.56 IE
494.93 IE
530.42 IE
497.33 IE
492.66 IE
PROP.UNDERGROUNDDETENTION
SYSTEM,TOP=495.93BOT=490.26

UNDERGROUNDDETENTION
SYSTEM,TOP=498.33
BOT=492.66

UNDERGROUNDDETENTION
SYSTEM,TOP=527.06
BOT=520.06
520.06 IE
526.06 IE
PROP. WEIR BYPASSSTRUCTURE519.94 IE-IN519.74 IE-OUT
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
PROP. BROW DITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75
PROP. BROWDITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75PROP. "GEOGRIDANCHORPLEX"RETAINING WALL PROP. PERMANENTSHORING WALL
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"RETAINING WALL
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"RETAINING WALL
PROP. STAIRS
PROP. STAIRS
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"RETAINING WALL
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC. RIBBON GUTTER
GFF=536.00 GFF=536.00
PROP. CONC. RIBBON GUTTER
GFF=526.00
GFF=526.00
GFF=531.00
GFF=531.00
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
525.00
514.20 TW499.00 BWHT=15.20'
PROP. "GEOGRIDANCHORPLEX"RETAINING WALLPROP. BROWDITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75 A A
B
B
C
C
(530)
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
PROP. PERMANENTSHORING WALL
505.50 TW/502.50 BWHT=3.0'PROP. MSE
"GEOGRID"
RET. WALL
3:1 MAX
EX. TRASH ENCLOSURETO BE REMOVED ANDREBUILT/RELOCATED.PERMISSION TO GRADELETTER TO BEPROVIDED. 2:1 MAX
PROP. MASONRYRETAINING WALL (5'MAX EXPOSED HT.)
PROP. MASONRY RETAINING WALL
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
514.50
519.80 TW517.80 BW
HT=2.0'
516.00 TW502.50 BW
HT=13.5'
508.50 TW
502.50 BWHT=6.0'
(508.48)
EG
(538.95)
EG
539.10 TW
533.10 BWHT=6.00' 540.10 TW534.40 BWHT=5.70' 541.70 TW538.10 BW HT=3.60'
537.80 TW536.00 BWHT=1.80'
(548.42)
EG
537.00 TW535.00 BWHT=2.00'
513.50 TW499.00 BWHT=14.50'
501.50 TW499.00 BWHT=2.50'
506.00 TW499.00 BW
HT=7.00'
499.00 TW496.00 BWHT=3.00'
497
499
504.20 TW, 499.00 BW
HT=5.20'
535.00 TW, 517.20 BWHT=17.80'
535.00 TW, 526.00 BWHT=9.00'
PROP.

STAIRS
(494.29)
EG
PROP. 8" FSPROP. DOM. W
PROP. SDPROP. 8" S
PROP.

FH
PROP.

FH
PROP. CURB INLET
PROP. CURB INLET
PROP.SDMH
PROP.

SDMH
PROP. 8" FSPROP. DOM. W
PROP. SDPROP. 8" S
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. 8" S
(494.22)
EG
PROP. SMH530.00 IE
PROP. SMH529.06 IE-IN528.86 IE -OUT
PROP. SMH
524.98 IE-IN524.78 IE-OUT
PROP. SMH, 494.67 IE-OUT, 494.87 IE-OUT

1.0%
PROP. SMH
521.00 IE
PROP. SMH526.00 IE
PROP. 8" S
PROP. DOM. W
499.77 FL
PROP. SMH
494.00 IE
PROP. 6" S
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. 6" S
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. 6" S
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. 6" S
PROP. SMH
497.50 IE
PROP. 6" S
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. SDCO (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-09.
485.32 IE, 18" SD±(485.02) IE, EX. 60" SD TE
TE
PROP.TRANSF.

PROP.TRANSF.

PROP.

TRANSF. PROP.TRANSF.
535.76 FL534.40 TG

25.00'

26.00'

24.00'

24.00'24.00'

18.00' 18.00'
PROP. NEW P/L PERSEPARATE LLA
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EX. ON-SITE 18" RCPSD AND CAP AT PROPERTY LINE.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EX. ON-SITEINLET, MANHOLE & 18" RCP SD CONNECT TO EX. 18" RCP

10.00' EX. ACCESS ESMT
PER DOC. 73-184604
PROP. 18" PRIVATESD. EMRA TO BEPROVIDED.

BUILDING CAISSON AND GRADEBEAM FOUNDATION
D
D
APPROX. LIMITSOF GEOGRIDFABRIC (TYP.)
APPROX. LIMITS OF GEOGRID FABRIC (TYP.)
APPROX. LIMITSOF GEOGRIDFABRIC

PROTECT IN
PLACE EX.ELEC. METER
(495.88)
EG
(496.86)
EG
(497.14)
EG

5.0%

1.8%
(497.28)
EG
(497.39)
EG
(497.42)
EG
(497.41)
EG
(497.58)
EG
497.34 TC
496.84 FS

1.2%

1.8%

1.2%
PORTION OF EX.ACCESS ESMT TOBE QUITCLAIMEDPER SEPARATEINSTRUMENT

40.14'

19.93'
APPROX. LIMITS OF"ANCHORPLEX"CONCRETE BACKFILLAPPROX. LIMITS OF"ANCHORPLEX"CONCRETE BACKFILL

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK
EX.

R/W
PROP.

BNDY
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
PROP. MASONRY

RETAINING WALL
2:1 MAX
PROP. BROW

DITCH (TYPE A)
PER SDRSD D-75
EX. GRADE
EX. CURB & GUTTER
EX. SIDEWALK

LAS FLORES DRIVE
±(552.96) FG
538.00 TW
536.00 BW
PROP. SD
PROP. SD
PROP. UNDERGROUND

DETENTION SYSTEM
BOT=526.60
TOP=531.72
APN: 219-114-28
PROP. GRADE
PROP. GRADE
PROP. SIDEWALK GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20'
0 20' 40' 60'
LOT: 113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE) SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10'TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITSSITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
18 28
ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LP PHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0% -
-
OF 6
LANDSCAPING: 38,759 34%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 2
SHEET 2 OF 6
NOTES

1. BOTTOM OF WALL (BW) ELEVATIONS ON THIS PLAN IDENTIFIES THE LOWER SURFACE GRADE ADJACENT TO THE RETAINING WALL.

2. RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS (HT) ON THIS PLAN IDENTIFY THE EXPOSED HEIGHT (ABOVE GRADE) OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS.

SECTION D-D
1970

LAS FLORES DRIVE
EX. CURB & GUTTER
EX. SIDEWALK
EX.

R/W
PROP. PERMANENT

SHORING WALL
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
EX. GRADE
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"

RETAINING WALL
PROP. CURB
& GUTTER
PROP. 6" CURB2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
EX. P/L
TO BE

REMOVED
EX.

P/L
PROP. AC PAVEMENT
PROP. GRADE PROP. SIDEWALK
BUILDING 7
FF=502.50
PROP. ARTIFICIAL TURF
PROP. PERMANENT

SHORING WALL
EX. GRADE EX. GRADEEX. GRADE
216.99'

23.24' 12.59'

17.57' 5.67' 25.00'

DRIVE AISLE

5.67'18.50' 6.92'3.33'

53.83'
EX. GRADE
±(519.73) FS
512.63 TW
499.00 BW
502.56 TW
499.00 BW
502.06 TC
501.56 FL
503.27 TC
502.77 FS
515.41 TW
502.50 BW
±(518.57) FG
APN: 217-161-25

7.00'
APPROX. LIMITS OF

GEOGRID FABRIC
EX.

R/W
EX.

P/L
233.06'
PROP. GRADE PROP. SIDEWALK
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00
PROP. AC PAVEMENT PROP. CONC.

RIBBON GUTTER

LAS FLORES DRIVE
EX. CURB & GUTTER
EX. SIDEWALK
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. GRADE
PROP. GRADE
PROP. CURB & GUTTER
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"

RETAINING WALL
PROP. AC PAVEMENT
PROP. 6" CURB2:1 MAX
PROP. GRADE
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. GRADE
BUILDING 6
FF=526.00
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. GRADE
2:1 MAX
EX. GRADE
EX. GRADE
EX. GRADE

16.52' 24.00'

BUILDING DRIVE AISLE

61.05' 12.99'

11.77' 3.33' 25.00'

DRIVE AISLE

20.95'
EX. GRADE
APN: 217-161-25
±(525.65) FG
±(537.41) FS
535.50 TW
521.15 BW
520.99 TC
520.49 FL
521.51 TC
521.01 FS
534.41 FL

BUILDING CAISSON

AND GRADE BEAM

FOUNDATION
APPROX. LIMITS OF

GEOGRID FABRIC
S. SANTA FE AVENUE
EX. CURB & GUTTER
EX. SIDEWALK ±(495.40) FG
EX.

R/W
499.50 TW
496.18 BW
PROP. GRADE PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. SIDEWALK
EX. GRADE
BUILDING 1
FF=499.00
BUILDING 1
FF=499.00
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
PROP. GRADE
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. AC PAVEMENT PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. GRADE
514.50 TW
499.00 BW
EX. GRADE
PROP. GRADE

AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00

AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00
FG=525.00
2:1 MAX
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"

RETAINING WALL
PROP. CONC.

RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.

RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. AC PAVEMENT

54.02'

5.02' 49.00'

24.00'

BUILDING DRIVE AISLE

12.00' 24.00'

BUILDING DRIVE AISLE
554.93'

32.67'
498.56 FL498.53 FL

47.66'
APPROX. LIMITS OF GEOGRID FABRIC
PROP. UNDERGROUND

DETENTION SYSTEM
BOT=490.26
TOP=495.93
2:1 MAX PROP. ARTIFICIAL TURF
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
PROP. GRADE
PROP. SIDEWALK
PROP. GRADE
535.04 TC
534.54 FL
535.40 TC
534.90 FS
PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. GRADE
PROP. CONC.

RIBBON GUTTER
EX. GRADE
EX. GRADE
±(543.77) FG
540.77 TW
535.40 BW
2:1 MAX
554.93'

5.00' 14.33' 62.75'

8.00'27.75' 24.00'

DRIVE AISLE
EX.

P/L
PROP. "GEOGRID
ANCHORPLEX"

RETAINING WALL
PROP. BROW

DITCH (TYPE A)
PER SDRSD D-75
PROP. GRADE
APN: 217-560-51
PROP. AC PAVEMENTPROP. 6" CURB
PROP. 6" CURB

3.00'

47.66'
LOT: 113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE) SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10'TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITSSITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
18 28
ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LP PHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0% -
-
OF 6
LANDSCAPING: 38,759 34%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 3

SECTION B-B

SECTION C-C

SECTION A-A

MATCHLINE - SEE BOTTOM LEFT FOR CONTINUATION

MATCHLINE - SEE TOP RIGHT FOR CONTINUATION
SHEET 3 OF 6
1971
LOT: 113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE) SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10'TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITSSITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
18 28
ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LP PHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0% -
-
OF 6
LANDSCAPING: 38,759 34%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 4

4" MIN

SET SCREWS (TYP)

WEIR FRAME

ADJUSTABLE

WEIR PLATE

EMBEDMENT

ANCHORS
(TYP)
3'
2'-2"
MIN
4' MIN

VARIABLE DIAMETER

WATER QUALITY

FLOW OUTLET PIPE

INLET PIPE

PEAK FLOW

OUTLET PIPE

GRADE RING
(TYP)
24" Ø FRAME AND

COVER (STD)

STORMGATE ADJUSTABLE
WEIR (SEE DETAIL 1/2)

MANHOLE C/L
IE IN
4'-0"

LEFT END VIEWPLAN VIEW

ELEVATION VIEW RIGHT END VIEW

LEFT END VIEWPLAN VIEW

RIGHT END VIEWELEVATION VIEW
C/L
C/L
C/L
IE IN
C/L
C/L
IE OUT

WETLANDMEDIA
BED

INLET PIPE

VERTICAL

UNDERDRAIN

MANIFOLD
C/L
RIM/FG

BYPASS OVERFLOW WEIR

FLOW CONTROL RISER
4'-0"
8'-0"

MANHOLE

VEGETATION
PLANT

ESTABLISHMENT
MEDIA

OUTLET PIPE

PATENTED

PERMITER

VOID AREA

DRAIN DOWN LINE
C/L

PRE-FILTER

CARTRIDGE

OPTIONAL

CURB INLET
4'-0" TYP
6" MIN. BASE
4'-0" TYPC/L
RIM/FG
IE OUT

FLOW CONTROL
RISER

WETLANDMEDIA
BED

PRE-FILTER

CARTRIDGE

OPTIONAL

CURB INLET

INLET PIPE

DRAIN DOWN LINE

PATENTED

PERMITER

VOID AREA

VERTICAL

UNDERDRAIN

MANIFOLD

OUTLET PIPE
6" MIN. BASE
C/L
17'-0"

TYPICAL BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM (WITH INTERNAL BYPASS)

NOT TO SCALE

TYPICAL BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM (WITHOUT INTERNAL BYPASS)

NOT TO SCALE

STORMGATE MANHOLE - PLAN VIEW

STORMGATE MANHOLE - SECTION VIEW

WEIR DETAIL - PLAN VIEW
TYPICAL "STORMGATE" WEIR BYPASS DETAIL

NOT TO SCALE

WEIR DETAIL - SECTION VIEW
SHEET 4 OF 6
1972
LOT: 113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE) SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10'TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITSSITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
18 28
ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LP PHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0% -
-
OF 6
LANDSCAPING: 38,759 34%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 5
"STORMTRAP" DETENTION VAULT - BMP 1B
"STORMTRAP" DETENTION VAULT - BMP 2B
SHEET 5 OF 6
1973
LOT: 113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE) SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10'TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITSSITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
18 28
ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LP PHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0% -
-
OF 6
LANDSCAPING: 38,759 34%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 6"STORMTRAP" DETENTION VAULT - BMP 3B
"STORMTRAP" DETENTION VAULT - BMP 4B
SHEET 6 OF 6
1974

ATTACHMENT D.10

NOISE ANALYSIS
1975

Noise Analysis for the
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
San Marcos, California
Project Nos. GPA25-0001, R25-0001, MFSDP25-0001, and
TSM25-0001

Prepared for
Santa Fe Flores, LP
P.O. Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Contact: Paul Mayer

Prepared by
RECON Environmental, Inc.
3111 Camino del Rio North, Suite 600
San Diego, CA 92108
P 619.308.9333

RECON Number 10587
January 28, 2026

Jessica Fleming
Senior Air Quality/Noise/GHG Specialist
1976
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... iii Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1

1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3

1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Fundamentals of Noise .................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Applicable Noise Standards ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

2.1 General Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Municipal Code ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 California Green Building Standards Code – Environmental Comfort ........................... 10

3.0 Existing Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 10

4.0 Analysis Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13

4.1 Construction Noise Analysis ......................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Traffic Noise Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 14

4.3 On-site Generated Noise Analysis .............................................................................................. 16

5.0 Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts ................................ ................................ ......... 17

5.1 Construction Noise .......................................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Traffic Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 18

5.3 On-site Generated Noise ............................................................................................................... 23

6.0 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 25

6.1 Construction Noise .......................................................................................................................... 25

6.2 Traffic Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 26

6.3 On-site Generated Noise ............................................................................................................... 26

7.0 References Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 27

FIGURES
1: Regional Location ............................................................................................................................................. 4 2: Project Location on Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................... 5 3: Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 4: Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................................... 12 5: Construction Noise Contours ...................................................................................................................... 19 6: Future Vehicle and Rail Traffic Noise Contours ..................................................................................... 19 7: HVAC Noise Contours .................................................................................................................................. 24 1977
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
TABLES
1: Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 9 2: Municipal Code Property Line Noise Standards ................................................................................... 10 3: Noise Measurements ...................................................................................................................................... 11 4: 15-minute Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................................... 11 5: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...................................................................................... 13 6: Modeled Vehicle Traffic Parameters ......................................................................................................... 15 7: Modeled Sprinter Trains ............................................................................................................................... 15 8: Future Vehicle Traffic Parameters .............................................................................................................. 16 9: Construction Noise Levels ............................................................................................................................ 17 10: Future Vehicle and Rail Traffic Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 21 11: Traffic Noise Level with and without Project and Ambient Noise Increases .............................. 23 12: HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Properties ........................................................................................... 25

ATTACHMENTS
1: Noise Measurement Data
2: HVAC Specifications
3: SoundPLAN Data – Construction Noise
4: SoundPLAN Data – On-site Traffic and Rail Noise
5: Fresnel Barrier Reduction Calculations
6: FHWA RD-77-108 – Off-site Traffic Noise
7: SoundPLAN Data – On-site Generated Noise
1978
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
APN assessor parcel number
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
City City of San Marcos
CNEL community noise equivalent level
dB decibel
dB(A) A-weighted decibel
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GPA General Plan Amendment
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
L90 noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time
Leq one-hour equivalent noise level
LLG Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Inc.

Lmax maximum noise level
Lpw sound power level
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
project Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project
STC sound transmission class

1979
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 1 ends

Executive Summary
The Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project (project) is located in the city of San Marcos at 2966, 2972, and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue, adjacent to North Las Flores Drive. The 2.6-acre (net) project site is comprised of assessor parcel numbers (APNs) 217-161-18, 217-161-19, and 0.37 acres of APN 217- 161-17. The project would require a General Plan A mendment (GPA) and Rezone to allow the development of 46 multi-family residential townhome units. The project also proposes approximately 0.12 acres of off -site improvements, including the construction of a new shared driveway extending into the southern portion of APN 217 -161-17, upgrades to the existing liquor store parking lot, and landscaping within the 8-foot-wide irrevocable offer of dedication area along the project frontage. The liquor store, Gourmet Liquor, located on the southern portion of APN 217- 161-17 is not part of the project and would remain.

This report discusses potential noise impacts from the construction and operation of the project. As part of this assessment, noise levels due to vehicle traffic were calculated and evaluated against City of San Marcos (City) noise and land use compatibility guidelines. In addition to compatibility, the potential for noise to impact adjacent uses from future on-site sources and construction activity was assessed. A summary of the findings is provided below.

Construction Noise
Construction activity is regulated by the City Municipal Code, which limits noise by restricting construction activities to hours unlikely to impact the community. Noise associated with the grading, building, and paving for the project would potentially result in short -term impacts to surrounding residential properties. Construction noise levels would range from 56 to 73 A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level (dB(A) L
eq) at the adjacent properties. Construction activities would generally occur over the period between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Although the existing adjacent uses would be exposed to construction noise levels that may be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary and would not exceed 75 dB(A) L eq. As construction activities associated with the project would comply with Section 10.24.020 (b)(9) of the City Municipal Code, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.

Traffic Noise
The additional vehicle trips associated with the project would increase noise levels on nearby roadways. A noise increase of 3 dB or more would be considered significant because 3 dB is the level at which an increase in noise is perceptible to a person. Ho wever, the project would not generate enough trips to result in a direct or cumulative noise increase of more than 3 dB. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant direct and cumulative impacts related to traffic noise.

The main source of noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue and North Las Flores Drive as well as Sprinters on the adjacent rail line. Exterior noise levels were modeled at the project site to determine compatibility with City standards. The applicable standards for multi-family uses are an exterior noise level of 65 community noise equivalent level (CNEL) and an 1980
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 2 ends

interior noise level of 45 CNEL. The project’s exterior useable spaces include second- and third-floor balconies, roof decks, and the five amenity areas located on the south side of Building 1, on the north side of Building 2 , on the east side of Building 4, on the north side of Building 5, and between Buildings 6 and 7. These amenity areas consist of active play areas and passive gathering space. As calculated in this analysis, without consideration of any noise barriers, exterior noise levels are projected to range from 42 to 70 CNEL at the building façades and amenity areas. Noise levels would be compatible with the City’s exterior multi-family noise level standard of 65 CNEL at all locations except the amenity area on the south side of Building 1 ( Amenity Area A, Receiver 1) and the south and east sides of Building 1 facing the roadways (Receivers 8 and 9). In order to reduce noise levels at these locations, the project would include a 6-foot barrier adjacent to the amenity area south of Building 1, and a solid 3.5 -foot barrier on the balconies located on the south and east sides of Building 1 and on the south and east sides of the Building 1 roof deck. With construction of these barriers, exterior noise levels would be reduced to less than 65 CNEL and exterior nois e impacts would be less than significant.

The interior noise level standard is 45 CNEL. Interior noise levels can be reduced through standard construction techniques. When windows are closed, standard construction techniques provide various exterior-to-interior noise level reductions depending on the type of structure and window.

Standard light-frame construction would reduce exterior to interior noise levels by at least 20 dB (Federal Highway Administration 2011). With the installation of windows with a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 25 or higher, interior noise levels within the units in Building 1 would be reduced to 45 CNEL and interior noise levels would be less than significant. Interior noise levels at all other buildings would be 45 CNEL with standard light frame construction and without consideration of specific building components.

On-site Generated Noise
The project site is surrounded by single-family residential uses to the northeast and southeast, multi-family residential uses to the east, a mobile home park to the south, a commercial use to the southwest, and industrial uses to the west and north. The applicable daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Noise Ordinance limits are 60 dB(A) L eq and 50 dB(A) Leq at the single-family residential uses, 65 dB(A) Leq and 55 dB(A) L eq at the multi -family residential and mobile home park uses, 65 dB(A) Leq and 55 dB(A) Leq at the commercial uses, and 65 dB(A) Leq and 60 dB(A) L eq at the industrial uses. The noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of any residential use, such as vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play, and landscape maintenance machinery. None of these noise sources are anticipated to violate the Municipal Code. Rooftop heating, ventilating, and air conditioning noise levels were modeled at the property line adjacent properties. As calculated in this analysis, HVAC noise levels would range from 33 to 42 dB(A) Leq at the adjacent properties. Noise levels would not exceed the applicable Noise Ordinance limits at the property lines.

1981
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 3 ends

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Project Description
The project is located in the city of San Marcos at 2966, 2972, and 2982 South Santa Fe Avenue adjacent to North Las Flores Drive on assessor parcel numbers (APNs) 217 -161-18, 217-161-19, and

0.37 acres of APN 217-161-17 . The 2.6-acre (net) project site is comprised of APNs 217 -161-18, 217- 161-19, and 0.37 acres of APN 217-161-17. The project also proposes approximately 0.12 acres of off- site improvements, including the construction of a new shared driveway extending into the southern portion of APN 217-161-17, upgrades to the existing liquor store parking lot, and landscaping within the 8-foot-wide irrevocable offer of dedication area along the project frontage. Figure 1 shows the regional location. Figure 2 shows an aerial photograph of the project site and vicinity.

On February 28, 2023, the City of San Marcos City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND; ND22-008; SCH No. 2022090486), approved a GPA (GPA21-0008), approved a Rezone (21 - 0004), and approved a Multi-Family Site Development Plan (MFSDP21-0002) for the Santa Fe Flores, LP Project (approved project). The requested Rezone (R21-0004) required a second reading prior to approval on March 14, 2023. The approved project evaluated the impacts associated with a GPA to change the land use from Commercial (C) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) and a zone change from Commercial (C) and Light Industrial (L-I) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3-10) to allow for the construction of 50 multi-family residential townhome units, in conjunction with a Density Bonus, on a 2.23-acre site consisting of two parcels, APNs 217-161-18 and 217-161-19.

Subsequent to MND approval, the applicant modified the site plan and added 0.37 acres of APN 217-161-17 through a lot line adjustment to be proces sed. The project would require a GPA from Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for APNs 217 - 161-18 and 217-161-19, and a GPA from Commercial (C) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) for 0.37 acres of the northern portion of APN 217-161-17. Additionally, the project would rezone APNs 217-161-18 and 217-161-19 from Multi-Family Residential 3 (R-3-10) to Multi-Family Residential (R-3- 6) and 0.37 acres of the northern portion of APN 217-161-17 from Commercial (C) to Mu lti-Family Residential (R-3-6). The project would develop 46 multi-family residential townhome units in seven buildings that would be three stories in height. Vehicle parking would include 92 spaces within attached garages and 15 guest spaces. The liquor store would not be part of the project and would remain. Project grading would include 23,300 cubic yards of cut and 3,200 cubic yards of fill resulting in the export of 20,100 cubic yards of soil. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan.

1982
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Los
Penasquitos Canyon Presv
Daley Ranch
Lake Wohlford
Batiquitos Lagoon
Lake Hodges
San Vicente
Reservoir
Usmc Air
Station
Miramar
Camp Pendleton
Marine Co Base
Cleveland National
Forest
Temecula
San Diego
Encinitas
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos
Vista
Carlsbad
Santee
Escondido
Solana
Beach
Del
Mar
Pauma and
Yuima
Reservation
Pala
Reservation
San
Pasqual
Reservation
Rincon
Reservation
Pechanga
Tribal Lands
Bonsall
Camp Pendleton
North
Camp Pendleton South
Eucalyptus
Hills
Fairbanks
Ranch
Fallbrook
Hidden
Meadows
Lake
San Marcos
Rainbow
Rancho
Santa Fe
Valley Center

R I V E R S I D E

C O U N T Y

S A N D I E G O

C O U N T Y
78 56
67 805
5 15
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 10/29/2024 fmm Regional Location
FIGURE 1
0 5Miles [
Project Locationkj
kj
1983
FIGURE 2
Project Location on Aerial Photograph
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
% % % % %
%
%
% % % % %
%
%%
%
% % % % %
%
%
% % % % %
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % %
%
%
% % % % %
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
VIA LA
VENTA
VIA S
ANT
ALINA

LAS FLOR
ES DR

VIA HACIENDA
N L

ASFLORES DR

HOLLENCRE
STRD
BOS

STICKBLVD

POLLEY DR

HYDRACT

NORMAN STRASSE R
D

S SANTA FE AVE
DE LE
ONE
RD
UV78

SPRINTER
0 300Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 07/21/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2025)
1984
1985
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 7 ends

1.2 Fundamentals of Noise
Sound levels are described in units called the decibel (dB). Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. Thus, a doubling of the energy of a noise sou rce, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the energy would result in a 3 dB decrease.

However, human perception of noise has no simple correlation with acoustical energy. A change in noise levels is generally perceived as follows: 3 A -weighted dB (dB(A)) barely perceptible, 5 dB(A) readily perceptible, and 10 dB(A) perceived as a doubling or halving of noise (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

In technical terms, sound levels are described as either a “sound power level” or a “sound pressure level,” which while commonly confused, are two distinct characteristics of sound. Both share the same unit of measure, the dB. However, sound power, expressed as L pw, is the energy converted into sound
by the source. As sound energy travels through the air, it creates a sound wave that exerts pressure on receivers such as an eardrum or microphone, the sound pressure level. Sound measurement instruments only measure sound pressure, and limits used in standards are generally sound pressure levels.

The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. To accommodate this phenomenon, the A -scale, which approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds, was devise d. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A-scale sound levels of those sounds. Therefore, the “A -weighted” noise scale is used for measurements and standards involving the human perception of noise. Noise levels using A-weighted measurements are designated with the notation dB(A).

1.2.1 Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.

The noise descriptors used for this study are the equivalent noise level (L eq) and the community noise
equivalent level (CNEL). The Leq is the equivalent steady-state noise level in a stated period of time that is calculated by averaging the acoustic energy over a time period; when no period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed.

The CNEL is a 24 -hour equivalent sound level. The CNEL calculation applies an additional 5 dB(A) penalty to noise occurring during evening hours, between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and a 10 dB(A) penalty is added to noise occurring during the night, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These increases for certain times are intended to account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during the evening and night.
1986
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 8 ends

1.2.2 Propagation
Sound from a localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound level decreases or drops off at a rate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of the distance (e.g., a noise level of 60 dB(A) at 50 feet from a point source would attenuate to 54 dB(A) at 100 feet).

Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. The movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point when viewed over some time interval. The drop-off rate for a line source is 3 dB(A) for each doubling of distance (e.g., a noise level of 60 dB(A) at 50 feet from a line source would attenuate to 57 dB(A) at 100 feet).

The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption.

A hard site (such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water) receives no additional ground attenuation, and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) are simply the geometric spreading of the source. A soft site (such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) provides an additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance. For example, under soft site conditions, a noise level of 60 dB(A) at 50 feet from a point source would attenuate to 52.5 dB(A) at 100 feet, and a noise level of 60 dB(A) at 50 feet from a line source would attenuate to 55.5 dB(A) at 100 feet.

2.0 Applicable Noise Standards

2.1 General Plan
The Noise Element of the City General Plan provides land use compatibility guidelines to ensure that new developments are sited, designed, and constructed in such a manner that ambient noise levels would not create an unacceptable noise environment for the occupants and patrons of the new development. Table 1 provides the interior and exterior noise guidelines for various types of uses and developments.

The project proposes multi-family residential uses. As shown in Table 1, the applicable standards for multi-family uses are an exterior noise level of 65 CNEL and an interior noise level of 45 CNEL. The exterior noise level standard is applicable at the proposed exterior use areas. For the proposed project, this includes second- and third-floor balconies, rooftop decks, and the five proposed amenity areas consisting of active play areas and passive gathering areas. 1987
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 9 ends

Table 1
Interior and Exterior Noise Guidelines
Land Use
Maximum Noise Level
(CNEL)
Interior1 Exterior2,3
Residential – single-family, mobile homes, or age-restricted housing 45 60 Residential – multi-family residences or mixed use 45 65 Lodging – hotels, motels 45 65
Schools, churches, hospitals, residential care facility, childcare facilities 50 65 Passive recreational parks, nature preserves, contemplative spaces, cemeteries -- 65 Active parks, golf courses, athletic fields, outdoor spectator sports, water recreation -- 65 Office/professional, government, medical/dental, commercial, retail, laboratories 50 65 Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, mining, stables, ranching, warehouse, maintenance/repair -- 65
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
SOURCE: City of San Marcos General Plan Update, Noise Element 2012. 1Applies only to interior habitable rooms.
2Exterior noise standard does not apply for land uses where no exterior use area is proposed or necessary, such as a library.
3For single-family detached dwelling units, “exterior noise level” is defined as the noise level measured at an outdoor living area that adjoins and is on the same lot as the dwelling.

2.2 Municipal Code

2.2.1 Title 10, Chapter 10.24 – Construction
Section 10.24.020 (b)(9) of the City Municipal Code identifies permissible hours for general construction activities. Excluding City holidays, construction may occur weekdays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. or Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Grading is often the loudest phase of construction.

Section 17.32.180 restricts grading and earthworks activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

2.2.2 Title 20 – Zoning Ordinance
City Municipal Code Title 20 – Zoning Ordinance contains General Development Standards.

Performance standards in Section 20.300.070 (f) set restrictions on noise levels by zoning. No person shall create or allow the creation of exterior noise that causes the noise level to exceed the noise standards shown in Table 2.
1988
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 10 ends

Table 2
Municipal Code Property Line Noise Standards
Zone Time
Allowable Property
Line Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
Single-Family Residential (A, R-1, R-2) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
60 50
Multi-Family Residential (R-3) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
65 55
Commercial (C, O-P, SR) 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
65 55
Industrial 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
65 60
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level
SOURCE: Section 20.300.070(f) Table 20.300-4, San Marcos Municipal Code Title 20 – Zoning Code.

The project site is surrounded by si ngle-family residential uses to the northeast and southeast, multi-family residential uses to the east, a mobile home park to the south, a commercial use to the southwest, and industrial uses to the west and north.

2.3 California Green Building Standards Code –
Environmental Comfort
Interior noise levels for habitable rooms are regulated also by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) California Noise Insulation Standards. Title 24, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, of the 2019 California Building Code requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable room. A habitable room is a room used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, closets, hallways, utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms for this regulation (24 CCR, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4).

3.0 Existing Conditions
Existing noise levels in the vicinity of the project site were measured on March 22, 2022 , using one Larson-Davis Model LxT, Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter, serial number 3895. The following parameters were used:

Filter: A-weighted
Response: Slow
Interval Period 1 minute
Time History Period: 5 seconds
The meter was calibrated before and after each measurement. The meter was set 5 feet above the ground level for each measurement.

Noise measurements were taken to obtain typical ambient noise levels at the project site and in the vicinity. The weather was sunny and warm. Two 15-minute measurements were taken, as described 1989
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 11 ends

below. The measurement locations are shown on Figure 4, and detailed data is contained in Attachment 1.

Measurement 1 was located near the southern project boundary, 50 feet north of S outh Santa Fe Avenue. Noise levels were measured for 15 minutes. The main noise source at this location was vehicle traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue . Vehicle traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue was counted during the measurement period. The average measured noise level was 63.2 dB(A) Leq.

Measurement 2 was located near the eastern project boundary, approximately 50 feet west of North Las Flores Drive. Noise levels were measured for 15 minutes. The main noise source at this location was vehicle traffic on North Las Flores Drive. Secondary sources of noise included vehicle traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue . Vehicle traffic on North Las Flores Drive was counted during the measurement period. The average measured noise level was 57.5dB(A) L eq.

Noise measurements are summarized in Table 3. Traffic counts conducted during Measurements 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 4.

Table 3
Noise Measurements
Measurement Location Time Main Noise Source Leq
1 50 Feet North of
South Santa Fe Avenue 1:34 p.m. – 1:49 p.m. Vehicle Traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue 63.2
2 50 feet west of
North Las Flores Drive 1:55 p.m. – 2:10 p.m. Vehicle traffic on North Las Flores Drive 57.5
L90 = Noise level exceeded 90 percent of the time.

NOTE: Noise measurement data is contained in Attachment 1.

Table 4
15-minute Traffic Counts
Measurement Roadway Direction Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Buses Motorcycles
1 South Santa Fe
Avenue
Eastbound 78 8 0 5 0
Westbound 71 4 1 2 0
2 North Las
Flores Drive
Northbound 13 0 0 0 0
Southbound 11 0 0 0 0

1990
FIGURE 4
Noise Measurement Locations
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
%%
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

SPRINTER
1 2
0 200Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 07/21/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Noise Measurement Location
Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2025)
1991
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 13 ends

4.0 Analysis Methodology
Noise level predictions and contour mapping were developed using noise modeling software, SoundPlan Essential, version 4.1 (Navcon Engineering 2018). SoundPLAN calculates noise propagation based on the International Organization for Standardization method (ISO 9613 -2 – Acoustics, Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors). The model calculates noise levels at selected receiver locations using input parameter estimates such as total noise generated by each noise source; distances between sources, barriers, and receivers; and shielding provided by intervening terrain, barriers, and structures. The model outputs can be developed as noise level contour maps or noise levels at specific receivers. In all cases, receivers were modeled at 5 feet above ground elevation, which represents the average height of the human ear.

4.1 Construction Noise Analysis
Project construction noise would be generated by diesel engine-driven construction equipment used for site preparation and grading, building construction, loading, unloading, and placing materials and paving. Diesel engine-driven trucks also would bring materials to the site and remove the soils from excavation.

Construction equipment with a diesel engine typically generates maximum noise levels from 70 to 95 dB(A) Leq at a distance of 50 feet (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2006 and 2008, Federal Transit Authority 2018). D uring construction, equipment moves to different locations and goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for nonequipment tasks, such as measurement. Table 5 summarizes typical construction equipment noise levels and duty cycles.

Table 5
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
Noise Level at 50 Feet
(dB(A) Leq) Typical Duty Cycle
Auger Drill Rig 85 20%
Backhoe 80 40%
Blasting 94 1%
Chain Saw 85 20%
Clam Shovel 93 20%
Compactor (ground) 80 20%
Compressor (air) 80 40%
Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40%
Concrete Pump 82 20%
Concrete Saw 90 20%
Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20%
Dozer 85 40%
Dump Truck 84 40%
Excavator 85 40%
Front End Loader 80 40%
Generator (25 kilovolt amps or less) 70 50%
Generator (more than 25 kilovolt amps) 82 50%
1992
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 14 ends

Table 5
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
Noise Level at 50 Feet
(dB(A) Leq) Typical Duty Cycle
Grader 85 40%
Hydra Break Ram 90 10%
Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop) 95 20%
In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20%
Jackhammer 85 20%
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20%
Paver 85 50%
Pneumatic Tools 85 50%
Pumps 77 50%
Rock Drill 85 20%
Roller 74 40%
Scraper 85 40%
Tractor 84 40%
Vacuum Excavator (vac-truck) 85 40%
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20%
Vibratory Pile Driver 95 20%
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels average noise level
SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration 2006 and 2008; Federal Transit Authority 2018.

Construction equipment would generate maximum noise levels between 70 and 95 dB(A) maximum noise level ( Lmax) at 50 feet from the source when in operation. During excavation, grading, and paving operations, equipment moves to different locations and goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for nonequipment tasks, such as measurement. Average construction noise levels were calculated for the simultaneous operation of three common pieces of construction equipment: dozer, e xcavator, and loader . FTA guidance recommends analyzing the two noisiest pieces of construction equipment (FTA 2018), therefore this is a conservative assessment.

The usage factors were applied to the maximum noise level at 50 feet for each piece of equipment, and then noise levels were added logarithmically. Hourly average noise levels would be approximately 85 dB(A) L
eq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing three pieces of common construction equipment working simultaneously.

4.2 Traffic Noise Analysis

4.2.1 On-site Traffic and Rail Noise
The SoundPLAN program uses the FHWA Traffic Noise Model algorithms and reference levels to calculate noise levels at selected receiver locations. The model uses various input parameters, such as projected hourly average traffic rates; vehicle mix, distribution, and speed; roadway lengths and gradients; distances between sources, barriers, and receivers; and shielding provided by intervening terrain, barriers, and structures. Receivers, roadways, and barriers were input into the model using three-dimensional coordinates. The locations of future buildings were obtained from project plans and drawings.
1993
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 15 ends

The main source of traffic noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue and North Las Flores Drive as well as Sprinters on the adjacent rail line. Future year 205 0 with project traffic volumes for South Santa Fe Avenue were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project (Linscott, Law & Greenspan , Engineers [LLG] 2026). Future year 2050 traffic volumes for North Las Flores Drive were obtained from San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) traffic projections (SANDAG 2025). A vehicle classification mix of 93.0 percent automobiles, 3.0 percent medium trucks, 2.0 percent heavy trucks, 1.0 percent buses, and 1.0 percent motorcycles were modeled. Based on the field traffic counts, this classification mix is conservative.

Table 6 summarizes the traffic volumes and vehicle classification mixes for the modeled roadways.

Table 6
Modeled Vehicle Traffic Parameters
Roadway Segment
Year 2050
Average
Daily Traffic Speed
Vehicle Mix (percent)
Autos
Medium
Trucks
Heavy
Trucks Buses Motorcycles
South
Santa Fe
Avenue
Community Drive to
North Las Flores Drive 22,570 45 93 3 2 1 1
North Las Flores Drive
to North Rancho Santa
Fe Road
21,480 45 93 3 2 1 1
Las Flores
Drive
South of South Santa
Fe Avenue 3,400 25 93 3 2 1 1
North Las
Flores Drive
North of South Santa
Fe Avenue 1,600 25 93 3 2 1 1

The project site is also located approximately 150 feet southwest of the Sprinter rail line. The Sprinter is a light rail commuter train operated by the North County Transit District. The east -west Sprinter rail spans 22 miles from Oceanside to Escondido. The Palomar College Station is the closest Sprinter station to the project site. Fridays experience the largest number of daily Sprinter trains. The number of Friday daytime, evening, and nighttime Sprinter trains was obtained from published schedules and is summarized in Table 7.

Table 7
Modeled Sprinter Trains
Direction
Daytime
7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Evening
7:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.

Nighttime
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.

Eastbound 24 6 10
Westbound 24 6 8
TOTAL 48 12 18

4.2.2 Off-site Traffic Noise
Off-site traffic noise was modeled using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model algorithms and reference levels. Traffic noise levels were calculated at 50 feet from the centerline of the affected roadways to determine the noise level increase associated with the project. The model uses various input parameters, such as traffic volumes, vehicle mix, distribution, and speed. 1994
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 16 ends

The roadways included in the traffic impact analysis are South Santa Fe Avenue, Hollencrest Road, and North Rancho Santa Fe Road . Traffic noise levels were calculated based on the total average daily traffic volumes on each roadway segment. For modeling purposes, “hard” ground conditions were used for the analysis of future conditions, since a majority of the project area is paved and the hard site provides the most conservative impact assessment.

Existing (year 2022), near term (year 2027 ), and future (year 2050) traffic volumes with and without the project were obtained from the project traffic impact analysis ( LLG 2026). Table 8 summarizes the future traffic volumes for the area roadway segments. Modeled noise levels do not account for shielding provided by intervening barriers and structures.

Table 8
Future Vehicle Traffic Parameters
Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic
Speed
(mph) Existing
Existing
+
Project
Year
2027
Year
2027 +
Project
Year
2050
Year
2050 +
Project
South Santa Fe Avenue
Similax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 14,850 14,960 16,110 16,220 22,200 22,310 45 Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 16,660 16,770 18,080 18,190 22,200 22,310 45 Community Drive to North Las Flores Drive 16,660 17,030 18,080 18,450 22,200 22,570 45 North Las Flores Drive to North Rancho
Santa Fe Road 14,600 14,780 15,840 16,020 21,300 21,480 45 North Rancho Santa Fe Road to North
Pacific Street 13,500 13,570 14,650 14,720 24,400 24,470 40 Hollencrest Road
De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 560 600 610 650 830 870 25 North Rancho Santa Fe Avenue
South Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 11,730 11,840 12,730 12,840 16,800 16,910 40 mph = miles per hour
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers, Inc. 2026.

4.3 On-site Generated Noise Analysis
On-site noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of any multi-family use, such as vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play, and landscape maintenance machinery. None of these noise sources are anticipated to violate the City Municipal Code or result in a substantial permanent increase in existing noise levels. However, the project would include rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Noise levels due to HVAC equipment were modeled and compared to City limits (see Table 2).

The HVAC equipment would be located on the roof with screened walls. It is not known at this time which manufacturer, brand, or model of unit or units will be selected for use in the project. For the purposes of this analysis, to determine what general noise levels the HVAC units would generate, it was assumed that the rooftop units would be similar to a Carrier unit with a sound power level of 75 dB(A). Noise specifications are contained in Attachment 2. All units were modeled at full capacity during the daytime and nighttime hours.
1995
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 17 ends

Noise levels due to on -site sources were modeled using SoundPLAN. The SoundPLAN program models noise propagation following the International Organization for Standardization method ISO 9613-2 – Acoustics, Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors . The model calculates noise levels at selected receiver locations using input parameter estimates such as total noise generated by each noise source; distances between sources, barriers, and receivers; and shielding provided by intervening structures.

5.0 Future Acoustical Environment and Impacts

5.1 Construction Noise
Noise associated with the grading, building, and paving for the project would potentially result in short-term impacts to surrounding residential properties. There are residential uses located northeast, east, southeast, and south of the project site. A variety of noise-generating equipment would be used during the construction phase of the project, such as excavators, backhoes, front-end loaders, and concrete saws, along with others. The exact number and pieces of construction equipment required are not known at this time. As discussed, average construction noise levels were calculated. Based on this analysis, hourly average noise levels would be approximately 85 dB(A) L eq
at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing three pieces of common construction equipment working simultaneously. Construction noise is considered a point source and would attenuate at approximately 6 dB(A) for every doubling of distance. To reflect the nature of grading and construction activities, equipment was modeled as an area source distributed over the project footprint. Noise levels were modeled at a series of 18 receivers located at the adjacent uses. The results are summarized in Table 9. Modeled receiver locations and construction noise contours are shown in Figure 5. SoundPLAN data is contained in Attachment 3.

Table 9
Construction Noise Levels
Receiver Land Use
Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
1 Single-Family Residential 58
2 Single-Family Residential 60
3 Single-Family Residential 61
4 Single-Family Residential 60
5 Single-Family Residential 59
6 Multi-Family Residential 56
7 Multi-Family Residential 58
8 Multi-Family Residential 68
9 Multi-Family Residential 70
10 Single-Family Residential 63
11 Mobile Home Park 66
12 Mobile Home Park 65
13 Mobile Home Park 61
14 Mobile Home Park 59
15 Industrial 68
16 Industrial 66
17 Industrial 73
18 Commercial 73
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level

1996
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 18 ends

As shown, construction noise levels would range from 56 to 73 dB(A) Leq at the adjacent uses. The City’s Municipal Code does not place noise limit restrictions on construction activities; however, other jurisdictions commonly apply a noise level limit of 75 dB(A) Leq at residential uses. Construction noise levels would not exceed 75 dB(A) L eq. Construction activities would generally occur over the period between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Although the existing adjacent uses would be exposed to construction noise levels that may be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary and would not exceed 75 dB(A) Leq. As construction activities associated with the project would comply with the time limits established in Section 10.24.020 (b)(9) of the City Municipal Code, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant.

5.2 Traffic Noise

5.2.1 On-site Traffic and Rail Noise
On-site traffic and rail noise contours were developed using the SoundPLAN program. Noise level contours were modeled at the first-floor level. These contours take into account shielding provided by the proposed buildings and grading. Future vehicle and rail traffic noise-level contours are shown in Figure 6. SoundPLAN data are contained in Attachment 4.

As discussed in Section 2.1, the exterior noise level standard for multi-family uses is 65 CNEL. This standard is applicable at exterior use areas which include second- and third-floor balconies, rooftop decks, and the five proposed amenity areas consisting of active play areas and passive gathering areas The interior noise level standard is 45 CNEL. To refine the noise analysis and determine noise levels at exterior use areas and the building façade, exterior noise levels were calculated at a series of fir st- through third-floor specific receiver locations at the outdoor use areas and around the proposed building. Modeled receiver locations are shown in Figure 6. Table 10 summarizes the projected future noise levels at the 26 modeled receivers. Modeled noise levels shown in Table 10 do not include noise reduction provided by any noise barriers.

1997
FIGURE 5
Construction Noise Contours
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
%%
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
LA
S
FLORES
DR
VIA LA
VENTA

NLAS FLOR
ES DR

NORMANSTRASSE
RD

S SANTA FE AVE

DELEONE RD

SPRINTER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
0 200Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/17/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Receivers
Construction Noise
60 dB(A) Leq
65 dB(A) Leq
70 dB(A) Leq
75 dB(A) Leq
Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2025)
1998
FIGURE 6
Future Vehicle and Rail Noise Contours
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % %
% % % % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % % %
% % % % % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

SPRINTER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 0 150Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/02/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Receivers
Site Plan
Amenity Area A 6-foot Barrier
Buildings
Vehicle and Rail Noise
50 CNEL
55 CNEL
60 CNEL
65 CNEL
Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2025)
1999
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 21 ends

Table 10
Future Vehicle and Rail Traffic Noise Levels
Receiver Location
Exterior Noise Level (CNEL)
First-Floor Second-Floor Third-Floor
1 Amenity Area A 68 -- --
2 Amenity Area B 46 -- --
3 Amenity Area C 50 -- --
4 Amenity Area D 46 -- --
5 Amenity Area E 54 -- --
6 Amenity Area E 42 -- --
7 Building 1 61 63 65
8 Building 1 67 69 70
9 Building 1 63 65 66
10 Building 1 and 2 49 53 55
11 Building 2 57 61 61
12 Building 2 46 50 52
13 Building 2 54 58 60
14 Building 3 54 55 56
15 Building 3 58 60 61
16 Building 3 57 60 60
17 Building 3 and 4 45 49 51
18 Building 4 51 55 59
19 Building 4 48 51 52
20 Building 4 46 51 52
21 Building 5 46 50 51
22 Building 5 45 49 50
23 Building 5 48 54 56
24 Building 5 and 6 43 49 50
25 Building 6 51 56 57
26 Building 6 55 58 59
27 Building 6 49 53 55
28 Building 7 43 45 49
29 Building 7 47 56 60
30 Building 7 59 63 65
31 Building 7 54 56 58
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
Bold = Exceeds 65 CNEL

As shown, exterior noise levels are projected to range from 42 to 70 CNEL at the building façade s and amenity areas. Noise levels would be compatible with the City’s exterior multi-family noise level standard of 65 CNEL at all locations except the amenity area on the south side of Building 1 (Amenity Area A, Receiver 1) and the south and east sides of Building 1 facing the roadways (Receivers 8 and 9). There are second-floor balconies on the south side of Building 1 and third-floor balconies on the east side of Building 1 and a rooftop deck. These balconies and rooftop deck could be exposed to noise levels that exceed 65 CNEL. Based upon these findings, noise control recommendations are necessary at the amenity area south of Building 1, at the balconies on the south and east sides of Building 1, and on the south and east sides of the Building 1 roof deck in order to comply with the City’s noise standard of 65 CNEL. A 6-foot barrier adjacent to the amenity area as shown in Figure 6 was modeled using SoundPLAN and would be necessary to reduce noise levels to 65 CNEL or less 2000
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 22 ends

at this active play area. Modeling data is provided in Attachment 4. To determine the required barrier heights at the Building 1 balconies and roof deck, the Fresnel barrier noise reductions were modeled.

The balcony and roof deck barriers were modeled using this equation -based method rather than SoundPLAN because of the geometry of these barriers when elevated on balconies and the roof deck. These reductions are based on distance, source height, receiver elevation, and barrier height.

The Fresnel barrier reduction calculations are provided as Attachment 5. It was calculated that a

3.5-foot balcony barrier would provide a 7.4 dB reduction at the balconies on the south side of Building 1 (Receiver 2), a 5.9 dB reduction at the balconies on the east side of Building 1 (Receiver 3), and a 7.0 dB reduction on the roof deck. In order to reduce noise levels at these locations, the project would include a 3.5-foot balcony railing as a solid barrier. With construction of these barriers, exterior noise levels would be reduced to less than 65 CNEL.

Standard light-frame construction would reduce exterior to interior noise levels by at least 20 dB (FHWA 2011).

As shown in Table 10, noise levels would be as high as 70 CNEL at the south side of Building 1 and 66 CNEL at the east side of Building 1. While the proposed 3.5 -foot balcony barriers would reduce noise levels to 65 CNEL at a seated receiver, the entire building façade would not get the same noise attenuation, and the evaluation of specific building components is required. The sound transmission class (STC) rating of windows, walls, and roofs is an integer value that rates how well a building component attenuates noise. The STC rating generally reflects the decibel reduction that a building component can achieve. Standard walls and roofs typically have STC ratings greater than 40, while window components have lower ratings; thus, this analysis focuses on the minimum required window STC ratings. Because a noise reduction of up to 25 dB(A) is required to achieve interior noise levels of 45 CNEL or less, window components with an STC rating of 25 or higher are required for units located on the south and east side of Building 1. With the installation of windows with an STC rating of 25 or higher, interior noise levels within the units in Building 1 would be reduced to 45 CNEL and interior noise levels would be less than significant. Interior noise levels at all other buildings would be 45 CNEL with standard light frame construction and without consideration of specific building components.

5.2.2 Off-site Traffic Noise
The project would increase traffic volumes on local roadways. However, t he project would not substantially alter the vehicle classifications mix on local or regional roadways, nor would the project alter the speed on an existing roadway or create a new roadway. Thus, the primary factor affecting off-site noise levels would be increased traffic volumes. While changes in noise levels would occur along any roadway where project -related traffic occurs, for noise assessment purposes, noise level increases are assumed to be greatest nearest the project site, as this location would represent the greatest concentration of project -related traffic. Traffic noise increases attributable to the project were assessed against a significance threshold of 3 dB, which is the level at which an increase in noise is considered to be barely perceptible (Caltrans 2013). 2001
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 23 ends

Table 11 presents a conservative assessment of traffic noise levels based on the existing, near term (year 2027), and future (year 2050) noise levels without and with the project. Table 11 also summarizes the direct and cumulative traffic noise level increases due to the project. Noise level calculations are contained in Attachment 6.

Table 11
Traffic Noise Level with and without Project and Ambient Noise Increases (CNEL)
Roadway Segment
Existing Near-Term (Year 2027) Future (Year 2050) Cumulative Increase
Over
Existing
No
Project Project Increase
No
Project Project Increase
No
Project Project Increase
South Santa Fe Avenue
Similax Road to Bosstick
Boulevard 71.3 71.3 0.0 71.6 71.7 0.1 73.0 73.1 0.1 1.8 Bosstick Boulevard to
Community Drive 71.8 71.8 0.0 72.1 72.2 0.1 73.0 73.1 0.1 1.3 Community Drive to
North Las Flores Drive 71.8 71.9 0.1 72.1 72.2 0.1 73.0 73.1 0.1 1.3 North Las Flores Drive
to North Rancho Santa
Fe Road 71.2 71.3 0.1 71.6 71.6 0.0 72.9 72.9 0.0 1.7
North Rancho Santa Fe
Road to North Pacific
Street 69.8 69.8 0.0 70.1 70.1 0.0 72.3 72.3 0.0 2.5
Hollencrest Road
De Leone Road to
Hollenbeck Road 52.7 53.0 0.3 53.1 53.4 0.3 54.4 54.6 0.2 1.9 North Rancho Santa Fe Avenue
South Santa Fe Avenue
to Capalina Road 69.1 69.2 0.1 69.5 69.5 0.0 70.7 70.7 0.0 1.6 NOTE: Increase calculations may vary due to independent rounding.

As shown, the project would not result in a direct or cumulative noise increase of more than 3 dB.

Therefore, the project would result in less than significant direct and cumulative impacts related to traffic noise.

5.3 On-site Generated Noise
The primary noise sources on-site would be HVAC equipment. Rooftop HVAC equipment that would have the potential to produce noise in excess of City limits (see Table 2). Using the on -site noise source parameters discussed in Section 4.3, noise levels were modeled at a series of 17 receivers located at the adjacent properties. Noise generated by HVAC equipment would occur on an intermittent basis, primarily during the day and evening hours and less frequently during the nighttime hours. For a worst -case analysis, it was assumed that the HVAC units would operate at maximum capacity during the daytime and nighttime hours.

Modeled receivers and the locations of the HVAC units are shown in Figure 7. Modeled data is included in Attachment 7. Future projected noise levels are summarized in Table 12.

2002
FIGURE 7
HVAC Noise Contours
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
% % % % % %
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%

SPRINTER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
0 200Feet
M:\JOBS6\10587\common_gis\PRO\standard_figures\standardfigures.aprx 12/17/2025 bma [
Project Boundary
Off-site Improvements
Receivers
HVAC
Site Plan
Buildings
HVAC Noise
30 dB(A) Leq
35 dB(A) Leq
40 dB(A) Leq
45 dB(A) Leq
Image Source: Nearmap (flown May 2025)
2003
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 25 ends

As shown, HVAC noise levels would range from 33 to 42 dB(A) Leq. Noise levels would not exceed the applicable Noise Ordinance limits at the property lines and impacts related to on-site generated noise would be less than significant.

Table 12
HVAC Noise Levels at Adjacent Properties
Receiver Land Use
Noise Level
[dB(A) Leq]
Noise Ordinance Limit
Daytime/Nighttime
[dB(A) Leq]
1 Single Family Residential 33 60/50
2 Single Family Residential 35 60/50
3 Single Family Residential 36 60/50
4 Single-Family Residential 35 60/50
5 Single-Family Residential 34 60/50
6 Multi-Family Residential 34 65/55
7 Multi-Family Residential 35 65/55
8 Multi-Family Residential 42 65/55
9 Multi-Family Residential 41 65/55
10 Single-Family Residential 35 60/50
11 Mobile Home Park 36 65/55
12 Mobile Home Park 36 65/55
13 Mobile Home Park 35 65/55
14 Mobile Home Park 34 65/55
15 Industrial 39 65/60
16 Industrial 38 65/60
17 Industrial 40 65/60
18 Commercial 39 65/55
dB(A) Leq = A-weighted decibels equivalent noise level

6.0 Conclusions

6.1 Construction Noise
As shown in Table 9, construction noise levels would range from 56 to 73 dB(A) Leq at the adjacent property lines. The City’s Municipal Code does not place noise limit restrictions on construction activities, however, other jurisdictions commonly apply a noise level limit of 75 dB(A) L eq at residential
uses. Construction activities would generally occur over the period between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. Although the existing adjacent uses would be exposed to construction noise levels that may be heard above ambient conditions, the exposure would be temporary and would not exceed 75 dB(A) L
eq. As construction activities associated with the project would comply with the time limits established in Section 10.24.020 (b)(9) of the City Municipal Code, temporary increases in noise levels from construction activities would be less than significant. 2004
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 26 ends

6.2 Traffic Noise

6.2.1 On-site Traffic and Rail Noise
The main source of noise at the project site is vehicle traffic on South Santa Fe Avenue and North Las Flores Drive as well as Sprinters on the adjacent rail line . The exterior noise level standard for multi-family uses is 65 CNEL. This standard is applicable at exterior use areas which include second- and third-floor balconies, rooftop decks, and the five proposed amenity areas consisting of active play areas and passive gathering areas . As shown in Table 10 , without consideration of any noise barriers, exterior noise levels are projected to range from 42 to 70 CNEL at the building façades and amenity area. Noise levels would be compatible with the City’s exterior multi-family noise level standard of 65 CNEL at all locations except the amenity area on the south side of Building 1 (Amenity Area A, Receiver 1) and the south and east sides of Building 1 facing the roadways (Receivers 8 and 9). In order to reduce noise levels at these locations, the project would include a 6-foot barrier adjacent to the amenity area south of Building 1, and a solid 3.5-foot barrier on the balconies located on the south and east sides of Building 1 and on the south and east sides of the Building 1 roof deck.

With construction of these barriers, exterior noise levels would be reduced to less than 65 CNEL and exterior noise impacts would be less than significant.

Standard light-frame construction would reduce exterior to interior noise levels by at least 20 dB (FHWA 2011). With the installation of windows with an STC rating of 25 or higher, interior noise levels within the units in Building 1 would be reduced to 45 CNEL and interior noise levels would be less than significant. Interior noise levels at all other buildings would be 45 CNEL with standard light frame construction and without consideration of specific building components.

6.2.2 Off-site Traffic Noise
The additional vehicle trips associated with the project would increase noise levels on nearby roadways. A noise increase of 3 dB or more would be considered significant because 3 dB is the level at which an increase in noise is perceptible to a person. As shown in Table 11, the project would not result in a direct or cumulative noise increase of more than 3 dB. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant direct and cumulative impact related to traffic noise.

6.3 On-site Generated Noise
The noise sources on the project site after completion of construction are anticipated to be those that would be typical of any residential use, such as vehicles arriving and leaving, children at play, and landscape maintenance machinery. None of these noise sources are anticipated to violate the City Municipal Code. Rooftop HVAC noise levels were modeled at the adjacent properties. As shown in Table 12, HVAC noise levels would range from 33 to 42 dB(A) Leq. Noise levels would not exceed the applicable Noise Ordinance limits at the property lines. 2005
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

Page 27 ends

7.0 References Cited
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2013 Technical Noise Supplement. November.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2006 Roadway Construction Noise Model. FHWA-HEP-05-054, SOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. Final Report. January.

2008 Roadway Construction Noise Mode, V1.1. Washington, D.C.

2011 Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. FHWA-HEP-10-025. December.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. Prepared by John A.

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. September.

Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers, Inc. (LLG)
2026 Local Transportation Analysis for the Santa Fe Flores Project. LLG Ref. 3-24-3940. January.

Navcon Engineering, Inc.
2018 SoundPLAN Essential version 4.1.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
2025 Transportation Forecast Information Center. Year 2050 ABM2+/2021 RP Traffic Volumes.

Accessed January 20, 2025. https://tfic.sandag.org/.

San Marcos, City of
2012 City of San Marcos General Plan Update, Noise Element. 2006 Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENTS

2007
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 1
Noise Measurement Data

2008
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Noise Measurement Data
Summary
Start 2022/03/22 13:34:51
Stop 2022/03/22 13:49:56
Duration 0:15:04.7
Run Time 0:15:02.6
Pause 0:00:02.1
Pre Calibration 2022/03/22 13:33:32
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRMLxT1
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
Overload 144.6 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 100.6 97.6 102.6 dB
Under Range Limit 37.8 37.4 44.5 dB
Noise Floor 28.6 28.3 35.3 dB
Results
LAeq 63.2 dB
LAE 92.8 dB
EA 210.368 µPa²h
EA8 6.712 mPa²h
EA40 33.562 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2022/03/22 13:37:15 101.8 dB
LASmax 2022/03/22 13:39:26 74.7 dB
LASmin 2022/03/22 13:46:59 51.6 dB
SEA -99.9 dB
LAS > 60.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 31 563.6 s LAS > 70.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 6 27.3 s
LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LCeq 75.2 dB
LAeq 63.2 dB
LCeq - LAeq 12.0 dB
LAIeq 65.0 dB
LAeq 63.2 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.8 dB
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exch. Rate 5 5 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration 8 8 h
Results
Dose -99.9 -99.9 %
Projected Dose -99.9 -99.9 %
TWA (Projected) -99.9 -99.9 dB
TWA (t) -99.9 -99.9 dB
Lep (t) 48.2 48.2 dB
Statistics
LAS5.00 68.6 dB
LAS10.00 66.6 dB
LAS33.30 62.9 dB
LAS50.00 60.5 dB
LAS66.60 58.4 dB
LAS90.00 55.0 dB
Measurement 1 2009
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Noise Measurement Data
Summary
Start 2022/03/22 13:55:50
Stop 2022/03/22 14:10:51
Duration 0:15:00.5
Run Time 0:15:00.5
Pause 0:00:00.0
Pre Calibration 2022/03/22 13:33:30
Post Calibration None
Calibration Deviation ---
Overall Settings
RMS Weight A Weighting
Peak Weight A Weighting
Detector Slow
Preamp PRMLxT1
Microphone Correction Off
Integration Method Linear
Overload 144.6 dB
A C Z
Under Range Peak 100.6 97.6 102.6 dB
Under Range Limit 37.8 37.4 44.5 dB
Noise Floor 28.6 28.3 35.3 dB
Results
LAeq 57.5 dB
LAE 87.0 dB
EA 55.989 µPa²h
EA8 1.791 mPa²h
EA40 8.953 mPa²h
LApeak (max) 2022/03/22 14:03:57 102.3 dB
LASmax 2022/03/22 14:09:26 66.5 dB
LASmin 2022/03/22 14:03:45 49.9 dB
SEA -99.9 dB
LAS > 60.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 19 185.3 s LAS > 70.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s
LApeak > 135.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LApeak > 137.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LApeak > 140.0 dB (Exceedence Counts / Duration) 0 0.0 s LCeq 66.1 dB
LAeq 57.5 dB
LCeq - LAeq 8.6 dB
LAIeq 59.3 dB
LAeq 57.5 dB
LAIeq - LAeq 1.8 dB
# Overloads 0
Overload Duration 0.0 s
Dose Settings
Dose Name OSHA-1 OSHA-2
Exch. Rate 5 5 dB
Threshold 90 80 dB
Criterion Level 90 90 dB
Criterion Duration 8 8 h
Results
Dose -99.9 -99.9 %
Projected Dose -99.9 -99.9 %
TWA (Projected) -99.9 -99.9 dB
TWA (t) -99.9 -99.9 dB
Lep (t) 42.4 42.4 dB
Statistics
LAS5.00 61.7 dB
LAS10.00 60.6 dB
LAS33.30 57.6 dB
LAS50.00 56.1 dB
LAS66.60 54.4 dB
LAS90.00 52.7 dB
Measurement 2 2010
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 2
HVAC Specifications

2011
1 50VG - - -A
Performancet 16 SEER 2 - - -Stage Packaged
Air Conditioner System with Puron R (R - - -410A)
Refrigerant
Single and Three Phase
2t o5N o m i n a lT o n s( S i z e s2 4 - - - 6 0 )
Product Data
A09033
Fig. 1 - - Unit 50VG- -A
Single- -Packaged Products with Energy- -Saving Features and PuronR refrigerant.

S 15.0- -16.0 SEER / 12.0- -12.5 EER
S Factory- -Installed TXV
S Multi- -speed ECM Blower Motor - - Standard
S Sound levels as low as 72dBA
S Two Stages of Cooling
S Dehumidification Feature

FEATURES/BENEFITS
One- -piece cooling unit with optional electric heater, low sound levels, easy installation, low maintenance, and dependable performance.

Puron Environmentally Sound Refrigerant is Carrier’s unique refrigerant designed to help protect the environment. Puron is an HFC refrigerant which does not contain chlorine that can harm the ozone layer. Puron refrigerant is in service in millions of systems proving highly reliable, environmentally sound performance.

Easy Installation
Factory- -assembled package is a compact, fully self- -contained, electric cooling unit that is prewired, pre- -piped, and pre- -charged for minimum installation expense. These units are available in a variety of standard cooling sizes with voltage options to meet residential and light commercial requirements. Units are lightweight and install easily on a rooftop or at ground level. The high tech composite base eliminates rust problems associated with ground level applications.

Innovative Unit Base Design
On the inside a high- -tech composite material will not rust and incorporates a sloped drain pan which improves drainage and helps inhibit mold, algae and bacterial growth. On the outside metal base rails provide added stability as well as easier handling and rigging.

Convertible duct configuration
Unit is designed for use in either downflow or horizontal applications. Each unit is converted from horizontal to downflow and includes horizontal duct covers. Downflow operation is provided in the field to allow vertical ductwork connections. The basepan seals on the bottom openings to ensure a positive seal in the vertical airflow mode.

Efficient operation High- -efficiency design offers SEER (Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratios) of up to 16.0. (See page 4.) Durable, dependable components
Scroll Compressors have 2 stages of cooling and are designed for high efficiency. Each compressor is hermetically sealed against contamination to help promote longer life and dependable operation. Each compressor also has vibration isolation to provide quieter operation. All compressors have internal high pressure and overcurrent protection.

Multi- -speed ECM Blower Motor is standard on all 50VG- -A.

Direct- -drive PSC (Permanent Split Capacitor) condenser- -fan motors are designed to help reduce energy consumption and provide for cooing operation down to 40 _F( 4 . 4_C) outdoor temperature. Motormaster r II low ambient kit is available as a field- -installed accessory.

Thermostatic Expansion Valve - - A hard shutoff, balance port TXV maintains a constant superheat at the evaporator exit (cooling cycle) resulting in higher overall system efficiency.

Refrigerant system is designed to provide dependability. Liquid filter driers are used to promote clean, unrestricted operation. Each unit leaves the factory with a full refrigerant charge. Refrigerant service connections make checking operating pressures easier.

High and Low Pressure Switches provide added reliability for the compressor.

Indoor and Outdoor coils are computer- -designed for optimum heat transfer and efficiency. The indoor coil is fabricated from copper tube and aluminum fins and is located inside the unit for protection against damage. The outdoor coil is internally mounted on the top tier of the unit.

Low sound ratings ensure a quiet indoor and outdoor
environment with sound ratings as low as 72dBA. (See Page 4.) Easy to service cabinets provide easy 3 panel accessibility to serviceable com ponents during maintenance and installation. The basepan with integrated drain pan provides easy ground level installation with a mounting pad. A nesting feature ensures a positive basepan to roof curb seal when the unit is roof m ounted. A convenient 3/4- -in. (19.05 mm) wide perimeter flange makes frame mounting on a rooftop easy.
2012
4 AHRI* CAPACITIES
Cooling Capacities and Efficiencies
Unit Model
50VG-A
Nominal
To n s
Standard CFM
(High / Low Stage)
Net Cooling
Capacities - Btuh
(High Stage)
EER @A** SEER†
24 2 800 / 600 23000 12.0 15.0
30 2-1/2 1000 / 750 29000 12.0 15.0
36 3 1200 / 900 35400 12.5 16.0
42 3-1/2 1400 / 1050 42000 12.5 16.0
48 4 1600 / 1200 47500 12.3 16.0
60 5 1750 / 1200 57000 12.3 16.0
LEGEND
d B ---Sound Levels (decibels)
db—Dry Bulb
SEER—Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
wb—Wet Bulb
COP - - -Coefficient of Performance
* Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute.
**At “A ” conditions - - -80_F (26.7_C) indoor db/67 _F (19.4_C) indoor wb & 95_F( 3 5_C) outdoor db.
{ Rated in accordance with U.S. Government DOE Department of Energy) test procedures and/or AHRI Standards 210/240.

Notes:

1. Ratings are net values, reflecting the effects of circulating fan heat.

Ratings are based on:

Cooling Standard: 80F (26.7_C) db, 67 F wb (19.4 _C ) i n d o o r e n t e r i n g --- a i r temperature and 95 Fd b( 3 5_C) outdoor entering - - -air temperature.

2. Before purchasing this appliance, read important energy cost and effi- ciency information available from AHRIdirectory.org.

A- -WEIGHTED SOUND POWER LEVEL (dBA)
Model 50VG-A Sound Ratings
(dBA)
TYPICAL OCTAVE BAND SPECTRUM (dBA without tone adjustment) 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
24 73 60.0 62.5 68.5 68.5 64.0 60.0 53.0
30 77 57.5 67.0 73.5 72.0 67.0 61.0 52.5
36 73 62.5 65.5 67.5 68.0 65.5 60.0 52.5
42 73 60.5 63.5 68.0 68.0 66.0 60.5 53.0
48 72 60.0 63.5 66.0 67.0 63.5 58.5 49.5
60 75 69.0 67.0 69.0 68.0 65.0 61.5 54.0
NOTE: Tested in accordance with AHRI Standard 270 (not listed in AHRI). 50VG -- A
2013
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 3
SoundPLAN Data – Construction Noise

2014
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Construction
Noise
Source name Reference Level Cwall CI CT
dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Construction Lw/unit 116.3 - - -
Corrections
Construction 2015
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Construction
Noise
No. X Y Height Level
(meters) dB(A)
1 481468.23 3668972.47 182.38 58.4
2 481477.03 3668933.16 185.26 60.2
3 481491.51 3668901.09 186.46 60.8
4 481513.24 3668863.85 186.82 59.9
5 481534.96 3668832.30 186.16 58.7
6 481452.72 3668803.33 161.69 56.1
7 481417.03 3668787.30 160.02 57.7
8 481389.61 3668758.33 159.09 67.6
9 481373.58 3668720.06 157.61 69.9
10 481348.75 3668660.57 154.54 63.1
11 481317.72 3668679.71 153.92 66.0
12 481280.47 3668693.16 153.14 64.7
13 481232.89 3668717.47 152.07 61.4
14 481185.82 3668741.78 151.46 58.9
15 481288.85 3668803.43 156.64 67.9
16 481306.71 3668845.77 157.91 66.3
17 481370.21 3668885.46 167.46 73.2
18 481303.57 3668756.45 153.75 72.6
Coordinates
(meters)
Receivers 2016
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 4
SoundPLAN Data – On-site Traffic and Rail Noise

2017
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Traffic values Control Constr. Affect. Gradient
Station ADT Vehicles type Vehicle nameday evening night Speed device Speed veh. Road surface Min / Max km Veh/24h Veh/h Veh/h Veh/h km/h km/h % %
S Santa Fe Avenue Traffic direction: In entry direction 0+000 21474 Total - 1378 716 310 - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+000 21474 Automobiles - 1282 666 288 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+000 21474 Medium trucks - 41 21 9 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+000 21474 Heavy trucks - 28 14 6 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+000 21474 Buses - 14 7 3 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+000 21474 Motorcycles - 14 7 3 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+000 21474 Auxiliary vehicle - - - - - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 2.481481481 0+426 22566 Total - 1448 752 326 - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+426 22566 Automobiles - 1347 699 303 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+426 22566 Medium trucks - 43 23 10 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+426 22566 Heavy trucks - 29 15 7 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+426 22566 Buses - 14 8 3 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+426 22566 Motorcycles - 14 8 3 72 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+426 22566 Auxiliary vehicle - - - - - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) -2.923076923 0+985 - - - - - -
N Las Flores Drive Traffic direction: In entry direction 0+000 3396 Total - 218 113 49 - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+000 3396 Automobiles - 203 105 46 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+000 3396 Medium trucks - 7 3 1 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+000 3396 Heavy trucks - 4 2 1 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+000 3396 Buses - 2 1 0 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+000 3396 Motorcycles - 2 1 0 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+000 3396 Auxiliary vehicle - - - - - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 42 0+258 1602 Total - 103 53 23 - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+258 1602 Automobiles - 96 49 21 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+258 1602 Medium trucks - 3 2 1 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+258 1602 Heavy trucks - 2 1 0 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+258 1602 Buses - 1 1 0 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+258 1602 Motorcycles - 1 1 0 40 none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+258 1602 Auxiliary vehicle - - - - - none - - Average (of DGAC and PCC) 0.0 / 19.3 0+628 - - - - - -
Road 2018
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Track Coordinates of track axis Track Curve Multiple Corrected Station X Y Z type radius reflectionsEmission level
km [dB] [dB] [dB] day Evening night
Sprinter Rail track: Direction: Section: 1 Km: 0+000 Train type Number of trains Speed Length per Emission level day Evening night train Max day Evening night
km/h m dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
0 48 12 18 80 80 yes 57.3 57.3 54.3
0+000 481709.9 3668428 173.36 - - - - 57.3 57.3
0+951 481421.7 3669304 162.19 - - - - 57.3 57.3
Rail 2019
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
No. X Y Floor Height Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL (meters) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) 1 481335.65 3668716.01 1.Fl 153.62 66.2 63.3 59.7 68.1 61.8 59.0 55.3 63.7 -4.4 -4.3 -4.3 -4.3 1 481335.65 3668716.01 2.Fl 156.72 67.8 64.9 61.3 69.7 67.6 64.8 61.1 69.5 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 1 481335.65 3668716.01 3.Fl 159.82 67.8 65.0 61.4 69.7 67.8 65.0 61.3 69.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 481355.89 3668781.10 1.Fl 153.90 44.1 41.5 38.0 46.3 44.1 41.5 38.0 46.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 481355.89 3668781.10 2.Fl 157.00 47.4 44.8 41.2 49.5 47.4 44.8 41.2 49.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 481355.89 3668781.10 3.Fl 160.10 50.8 48.3 44.8 53.0 50.8 48.3 44.8 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 481402.17 3668834.91 1.Fl 164.87 47.2 45.0 41.6 49.7 47.2 45.0 41.6 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 481402.17 3668834.91 2.Fl 167.97 51.6 49.2 45.8 53.9 51.5 49.2 45.7 53.8 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 3 481402.17 3668834.91 3.Fl 171.07 56.1 53.6 50.1 58.3 56.1 53.6 50.0 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 481347.96 3668870.55 1.Fl 163.63 42.9 41.4 38.2 46.0 42.9 41.4 38.2 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 481347.96 3668870.55 2.Fl 166.73 48.6 46.6 43.3 51.3 48.6 46.6 43.3 51.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 481347.96 3668870.55 3.Fl 169.83 49.9 48.0 44.6 52.6 49.9 48.0 44.6 52.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 481330.02 3668811.50 1.Fl 160.91 51.8 49.1 45.5 53.8 51.8 49.1 45.5 53.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 481330.02 3668811.50 2.Fl 164.01 55.0 52.3 48.7 57.0 55.0 52.3 48.6 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 481330.02 3668811.50 3.Fl 167.11 56.9 54.1 50.5 58.9 56.9 54.1 50.5 58.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 481326.76 3668793.80 1.Fl 154.66 39.5 37.5 34.2 42.2 39.5 37.5 34.2 42.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 481326.76 3668793.80 2.Fl 157.76 42.1 40.5 37.2 45.1 42.1 40.5 37.2 45.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 481326.76 3668793.80 3.Fl 160.86 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 481331.07 3668741.36 1.Fl 153.90 59.0 56.2 52.5 60.9 59.0 56.2 52.5 60.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 481331.07 3668741.36 2.Fl 157.00 61.4 58.6 54.9 63.3 61.4 58.6 54.9 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 481331.07 3668741.36 3.Fl 160.10 63.0 60.1 56.5 64.9 63.0 60.1 56.5 64.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 481336.40 3668724.08 1.Fl 153.90 65.3 62.5 58.8 67.2 63.1 60.3 56.6 65.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 8 481336.40 3668724.08 2.Fl 157.00 67.4 64.6 60.9 69.3 67.3 64.4 60.8 69.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 8 481336.40 3668724.08 3.Fl 160.10 67.9 65.0 61.4 69.8 67.9 65.0 61.4 69.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 481351.47 3668732.17 1.Fl 153.96 61.0 58.2 54.6 62.9 60.8 58.0 54.4 62.7 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 9 481351.47 3668732.17 2.Fl 157.06 62.6 59.7 56.1 64.5 62.5 59.7 56.0 64.4 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 9 481351.47 3668732.17 3.Fl 160.16 63.6 60.8 57.2 65.5 63.6 60.8 57.2 65.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 481344.49 3668750.54 1.Fl 153.90 46.6 44.1 40.6 48.8 46.6 44.1 40.6 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 481344.49 3668750.54 2.Fl 157.00 51.3 48.7 45.1 53.4 51.4 48.7 45.1 53.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 481344.49 3668750.54 3.Fl 160.10 53.2 50.6 47.0 55.3 53.2 50.6 47.0 55.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 481359.92 3668758.08 1.Fl 153.90 54.7 51.9 48.2 56.6 54.7 51.9 48.3 56.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 481359.92 3668758.08 2.Fl 157.00 58.5 55.8 52.1 60.5 58.5 55.8 52.1 60.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 481359.92 3668758.08 3.Fl 160.10 59.5 56.7 53.1 61.4 59.5 56.7 53.1 61.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 481355.15 3668776.09 1.Fl 153.90 43.9 41.4 37.9 46.1 43.9 41.4 37.9 46.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 481355.15 3668776.09 2.Fl 157.00 47.8 45.2 41.7 50.0 47.8 45.2 41.7 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 481355.15 3668776.09 3.Fl 160.10 49.9 47.5 44.1 52.2 49.9 47.5 44.1 52.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 481339.34 3668768.00 1.Fl 153.90 52.2 49.4 45.8 54.2 52.2 49.4 45.8 54.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 481339.34 3668768.00 2.Fl 157.00 56.0 53.2 49.6 57.9 56.0 53.2 49.6 57.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 481339.34 3668768.00 3.Fl 160.10 57.8 55.0 51.4 59.8 57.8 55.0 51.4 59.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 481360.11 3668813.57 1.Fl 164.57 51.9 49.3 45.7 54.0 51.9 49.3 45.7 54.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 481360.11 3668813.57 2.Fl 167.67 52.7 50.0 46.4 54.7 52.7 50.0 46.4 54.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 481360.11 3668813.57 3.Fl 170.77 53.4 50.8 47.2 55.5 53.4 50.8 47.2 55.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 481366.91 3668795.75 1.Fl 164.34 56.2 53.5 49.9 58.2 56.2 53.5 49.9 58.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 481366.91 3668795.75 2.Fl 167.44 58.1 55.4 51.7 60.1 58.1 55.4 51.7 60.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 481366.91 3668795.75 3.Fl 170.54 59.2 56.4 52.8 61.1 59.2 56.4 52.8 61.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 481386.75 3668803.65 1.Fl 164.57 55.1 52.3 48.7 57.0 55.1 52.3 48.7 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 481386.75 3668803.65 2.Fl 167.67 58.1 55.4 51.9 60.2 58.1 55.4 51.9 60.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 481386.75 3668803.65 3.Fl 170.77 58.4 55.7 52.1 60.4 58.4 55.7 52.1 60.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 481379.40 3668822.58 1.Fl 164.87 42.6 40.7 37.4 45.3 42.6 40.7 37.4 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 481379.40 3668822.58 2.Fl 167.97 46.5 44.8 41.5 49.4 46.5 44.8 41.5 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 481379.40 3668822.58 3.Fl 171.07 47.6 45.9 42.6 50.5 47.6 45.9 42.6 50.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 481397.04 3668829.19 1.Fl 164.87 48.6 46.4 42.9 51.0 48.6 46.4 42.9 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 481397.04 3668829.19 2.Fl 167.97 52.7 50.2 46.7 54.9 52.8 50.2 46.7 54.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 481397.04 3668829.19 3.Fl 171.07 56.6 54.0 50.5 58.7 56.6 54.0 50.5 58.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 481390.79 3668848.85 1.Fl 164.87 44.6 43.8 40.6 48.3 44.6 43.8 40.6 48.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 481390.79 3668848.85 2.Fl 167.97 46.8 46.0 42.8 50.5 46.8 46.0 42.8 50.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 481390.79 3668848.85 3.Fl 171.07 48.1 47.2 44.0 51.7 48.1 47.2 44.0 51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 481372.23 3668840.95 1.Fl 164.87 43.2 41.5 38.2 46.1 43.2 41.5 38.2 46.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 481372.23 3668840.95 2.Fl 167.97 48.8 46.5 43.0 51.2 48.8 46.5 43.0 51.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 481372.23 3668840.95 3.Fl 171.07 49.5 47.2 43.7 51.9 49.5 47.2 43.7 51.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 481358.45 3668847.75 1.Fl 163.35 42.9 41.6 38.4 46.2 42.9 41.6 38.4 46.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 481358.45 3668847.75 2.Fl 166.45 47.2 45.3 41.9 49.9 47.2 45.3 41.9 49.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 481358.45 3668847.75 3.Fl 169.55 48.2 46.3 43.0 51.0 48.2 46.3 43.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 481354.78 3668864.47 1.Fl 163.35 41.6 40.4 37.2 45.0 41.6 40.4 37.2 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 481354.78 3668864.47 2.Fl 166.45 45.8 44.6 41.5 49.2 45.8 44.6 41.5 49.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 481354.78 3668864.47 3.Fl 169.55 46.9 45.7 42.5 50.2 46.9 45.7 42.5 50.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 481338.24 3668856.75 1.Fl 163.36 46.2 43.5 39.9 48.2 46.2 43.5 39.9 48.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 481338.24 3668856.75 2.Fl 166.46 52.4 49.7 46.1 54.4 52.4 49.7 46.1 54.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 481338.24 3668856.75 3.Fl 169.56 53.8 51.1 47.5 55.8 53.8 51.1 47.5 55.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 481341.92 3668839.85 1.Fl 162.53 40.3 38.5 35.1 43.1 40.3 38.5 35.1 43.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 481341.92 3668839.85 2.Fl 165.63 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 481341.92 3668839.85 3.Fl 168.73 48.0 45.7 42.2 50.3 48.0 45.7 42.2 50.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 481326.48 3668829.93 1.Fl 161.82 49.1 46.4 42.8 51.1 49.1 46.4 42.8 51.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 481326.48 3668829.93 2.Fl 164.92 53.7 50.9 47.3 55.7 53.7 50.9 47.3 55.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 481326.48 3668829.93 3.Fl 168.02 55.2 52.4 48.8 57.1 55.2 52.4 48.8 57.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 481330.89 3668813.57 1.Fl 161.73 52.9 50.1 46.5 54.9 52.9 50.1 46.5 54.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 481330.89 3668813.57 2.Fl 164.83 55.6 52.8 49.2 57.5 55.6 52.8 49.2 57.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 481330.89 3668813.57 3.Fl 167.93 57.4 54.7 51.0 59.4 57.4 54.7 51.0 59.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 481346.51 3668821.84 1.Fl 161.82 46.9 44.3 40.8 49.0 46.9 44.3 40.8 49.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 481346.51 3668821.84 2.Fl 164.92 51.2 48.6 45.0 53.3 51.2 48.6 45.0 53.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 481346.51 3668821.84 3.Fl 168.02 52.6 50.0 46.4 54.7 52.6 50.0 46.4 54.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 481322.44 3668793.91 1.Fl 154.66 39.8 38.0 34.6 42.6 39.8 38.0 34.6 42.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 481322.44 3668793.91 2.Fl 157.76 42.3 40.8 37.5 45.3 42.3 40.8 37.5 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 481322.44 3668793.91 3.Fl 160.86 46.0 43.9 40.5 48.6 46.0 43.9 40.5 48.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 481307.92 3668785.09 1.Fl 154.66 45.4 42.7 39.1 47.4 45.4 42.7 39.1 47.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 481307.92 3668785.09 2.Fl 157.76 53.6 50.8 47.2 55.5 53.6 50.8 47.2 55.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 481307.92 3668785.09 3.Fl 160.86 58.3 55.4 51.8 60.2 58.3 55.4 51.8 60.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 481311.78 3668768.92 1.Fl 154.66 57.5 54.7 51.0 59.4 57.4 54.5 50.9 59.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 30 481311.78 3668768.92 2.Fl 157.76 61.0 58.2 54.6 62.9 61.0 58.1 54.5 62.9 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 30 481311.78 3668768.92 3.Fl 160.86 62.9 60.1 56.4 64.8 62.9 60.1 56.4 64.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 481326.85 3668775.72 1.Fl 154.70 51.7 48.9 45.3 53.6 51.6 48.8 45.2 53.5 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 31 481326.85 3668775.72 2.Fl 157.80 54.1 51.3 47.7 56.1 54.0 51.3 47.7 56.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 31 481326.85 3668775.72 3.Fl 160.90 55.8 53.1 49.5 57.8 55.6 53.0 49.4 57.7 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 Coordinates
(meters)
Noise Level without Amenity Area A Barrier Noise Level with Amenity Area A Barrier Difference Receivers 2020
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Source name Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
1 1.Fl 66.2 63.3 59.7 68.1 61.8 59.0 55.3 63.7 N Las Flores Drive 51.4 48.5 44.9 53.3 47.0 44.1 40.5 48.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 66.0 63.2 59.5 67.9 61.6 58.8 55.2 63.5 Sprinter 37.8 37.8 34.8 42.2 37.7 37.7 34.7 42.2
1 2.Fl 67.8 64.9 61.3 69.7 67.6 64.8 61.1 69.5 N Las Flores Drive 52.9 50.0 46.4 54.8 52.7 49.8 46.2 54.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 67.6 64.8 61.2 69.5 67.5 64.6 61.0 69.4 Sprinter 38.3 38.3 35.3 42.8 38.3 38.3 35.3 42.7
1 3.Fl 67.8 65.0 61.4 69.7 67.8 65.0 61.3 69.7 N Las Flores Drive 53.0 50.1 46.5 54.9 53.0 50.1 46.5 54.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 67.7 64.8 61.2 69.6 67.7 64.8 61.2 69.6 Sprinter 39.7 39.7 36.7 44.1 39.6 39.6 36.6 44.1
2 1.Fl 44.1 41.5 38.0 46.3 44.1 41.5 38.0 46.3 N Las Flores Drive 42.7 39.8 36.2 44.5 42.7 39.8 36.2 44.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 37.6 34.7 31.1 39.5 37.6 34.7 31.1 39.5 Sprinter 32.5 32.5 29.5 36.9 32.5 32.5 29.5 36.9
2 2.Fl 47.4 44.8 41.2 49.5 47.4 44.8 41.2 49.5 N Las Flores Drive 46.2 43.4 39.7 48.1 46.2 43.4 39.7 48.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 39.8 36.9 33.3 41.7 39.8 36.9 33.3 41.7 Sprinter 35.3 35.3 32.2 39.7 35.3 35.3 32.2 39.7
2 3.Fl 50.8 48.3 44.8 53.0 50.8 48.3 44.8 53.0 N Las Flores Drive 48.4 45.5 41.9 50.3 48.4 45.5 41.9 50.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 46.1 43.3 39.6 48.0 46.1 43.3 39.6 48.0 Sprinter 40.2 40.2 37.2 44.7 40.2 40.2 37.2 44.7
3 1.Fl 47.2 45.0 41.6 49.7 47.2 45.0 41.6 49.7 N Las Flores Drive 45.2 42.4 38.7 47.1 45.2 42.3 38.7 47.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 39.9 37.1 33.5 41.8 39.8 36.9 33.3 41.7 Sprinter 39.8 39.8 36.8 44.2 39.8 39.8 36.8 44.2
3 2.Fl 51.6 49.2 45.8 53.9 51.5 49.2 45.7 53.8 N Las Flores Drive 48.3 45.5 41.8 50.2 48.3 45.5 41.8 50.2 S Santa Fe Avenue 47.7 44.8 41.2 49.6 47.4 44.6 40.9 49.3 Sprinter 42.7 42.7 39.7 47.1 42.7 42.7 39.7 47.1
3 3.Fl 56.1 53.6 50.1 58.3 56.1 53.6 50.0 58.3 N Las Flores Drive 52.0 49.1 45.5 53.9 52.0 49.1 45.5 53.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.4 50.5 46.9 55.3 53.3 50.5 46.8 55.2 Sprinter 45.3 45.3 42.3 49.7 45.3 45.3 42.3 49.7
4 1.Fl 42.9 41.4 38.2 46.0 42.9 41.4 38.2 46.0 N Las Flores Drive 36.7 33.8 30.2 38.6 36.7 33.8 30.2 38.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 38.5 35.7 32.0 40.4 38.5 35.7 32.0 40.4 Sprinter 39.0 39.0 35.9 43.4 39.0 39.0 35.9 43.4
4 2.Fl 48.6 46.6 43.3 51.3 48.6 46.6 43.3 51.3 N Las Flores Drive 37.2 34.3 30.7 39.1 37.2 34.3 30.7 39.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 46.8 44.0 40.4 48.7 46.8 44.0 40.4 48.7 Sprinter 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.1 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.1
4 3.Fl 49.9 48.0 44.6 52.6 49.9 48.0 44.6 52.6 N Las Flores Drive 37.7 34.8 31.2 39.6 37.7 34.8 31.2 39.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 48.4 45.5 41.9 50.3 48.4 45.5 41.9 50.3 Sprinter 43.7 43.7 40.7 48.2 43.7 43.7 40.7 48.2
5 1.Fl 51.8 49.1 45.5 53.8 51.8 49.1 45.5 53.8 N Las Flores Drive 38.8 35.9 32.3 40.7 38.8 35.9 32.3 40.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 51.5 48.7 45.0 53.4 51.5 48.7 45.0 53.4 Sprinter 36.0 36.0 33.0 40.4 36.0 36.0 33.0 40.4
5 2.Fl 55.0 52.3 48.7 57.0 55.0 52.3 48.6 57.0 N Las Flores Drive 40.6 37.7 34.1 42.5 40.6 37.7 34.1 42.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 54.8 51.9 48.3 56.7 54.8 51.9 48.3 56.7 Sprinter 37.7 37.7 34.7 42.1 37.7 37.7 34.7 42.1
5 3.Fl 56.9 54.1 50.5 58.9 56.9 54.1 50.5 58.9 N Las Flores Drive 41.8 39.0 35.3 43.7 41.8 39.0 35.3 43.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 56.7 53.9 50.3 58.6 56.7 53.9 50.2 58.6 Sprinter 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.1 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.1
6 1.Fl 39.5 37.5 34.2 42.2 39.5 37.5 34.2 42.2 N Las Flores Drive 36.4 33.6 29.9 38.3 36.4 33.6 29.9 38.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 33.5 30.7 27.0 35.4 33.5 30.7 27.0 35.4 Sprinter 33.5 33.5 30.5 37.9 33.5 33.5 30.5 37.9
6 2.Fl 42.1 40.5 37.2 45.1 42.1 40.5 37.2 45.1 N Las Flores Drive 38.5 35.6 32.0 40.4 38.5 35.6 32.0 40.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 35.8 32.9 29.3 37.7 35.8 32.9 29.3 37.7 Sprinter 37.5 37.5 34.4 41.9 37.5 37.5 34.4 41.9
6 3.Fl 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 N Las Flores Drive 40.0 37.2 33.5 41.9 40.0 37.2 33.5 41.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 43.6 40.7 37.1 45.5 43.6 40.7 37.1 45.5 Sprinter 39.0 39.0 36.0 43.4 39.0 39.0 36.0 43.4
7 1.Fl 59.0 56.2 52.5 60.9 59.0 56.2 52.5 60.9 N Las Flores Drive 25.6 22.7 19.1 27.5 25.6 22.7 19.1 27.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 59.0 56.1 52.5 60.9 59.0 56.1 52.5 60.9 Sprinter 33.3 33.3 30.3 37.7 33.3 33.3 30.3 37.7
7 2.Fl 61.4 58.6 54.9 63.3 61.4 58.6 54.9 63.3 N Las Flores Drive 27.6 24.7 21.1 29.5 27.6 24.7 21.1 29.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 61.4 58.5 54.9 63.3 61.4 58.5 54.9 63.3 Sprinter 33.7 33.7 30.7 38.1 33.7 33.7 30.7 38.1
7 3.Fl 63.0 60.1 56.5 64.9 63.0 60.1 56.5 64.9 N Las Flores Drive 31.0 28.1 24.5 32.9 31.0 28.1 24.5 32.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 63.0 60.1 56.5 64.9 63.0 60.1 56.5 64.9 Sprinter 34.1 34.1 31.1 38.5 34.1 34.1 31.1 38.5
Noise Level without Amenity Area A Barrier Noise Level with Amenity Area A Barrier Contributions 2021
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Source name Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Noise Level without Amenity Area A Barrier Noise Level with Amenity Area A Barrier 8 1.Fl 65.3 62.5 58.8 67.2 63.1 60.3 56.6 65.0 N Las Flores Drive 50.3 47.4 43.8 52.2 46.4 43.5 39.9 48.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 65.2 62.3 58.7 67.1 63.0 60.2 56.5 64.9 Sprinter 36.2 36.2 33.2 40.6 36.1 36.1 33.1 40.5
8 2.Fl 67.4 64.6 60.9 69.3 67.3 64.4 60.8 69.2 N Las Flores Drive 51.9 49.0 45.4 53.8 51.5 48.6 45.0 53.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 67.3 64.4 60.8 69.2 67.2 64.3 60.7 69.1 Sprinter 36.2 36.2 33.2 40.6 36.2 36.2 33.2 40.6
8 3.Fl 67.9 65.0 61.4 69.8 67.9 65.0 61.4 69.8 N Las Flores Drive 52.1 49.2 45.6 54.0 52.1 49.2 45.6 54.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 67.8 64.9 61.3 69.7 67.8 64.9 61.3 69.7 Sprinter 37.2 37.2 34.2 41.6 37.2 37.2 34.1 41.6
9 1.Fl 61.0 58.2 54.6 62.9 60.8 58.0 54.4 62.7 N Las Flores Drive 55.1 52.2 48.6 56.9 55.0 52.1 48.5 56.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 59.7 56.8 53.2 61.6 59.4 56.6 52.9 61.3 Sprinter 40.1 40.1 37.1 44.6 40.1 40.1 37.1 44.6
9 2.Fl 62.6 59.7 56.1 64.5 62.5 59.7 56.0 64.4 N Las Flores Drive 56.2 53.3 49.7 58.1 56.2 53.3 49.7 58.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 61.4 58.5 54.9 63.3 61.3 58.4 54.8 63.2 Sprinter 41.3 41.3 38.3 45.8 41.3 41.3 38.3 45.8
9 3.Fl 63.6 60.8 57.2 65.5 63.6 60.8 57.2 65.5 N Las Flores Drive 56.0 53.1 49.5 57.8 56.0 53.1 49.5 57.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 62.8 59.9 56.3 64.7 62.7 59.9 56.3 64.6 Sprinter 42.4 42.4 39.4 46.8 42.4 42.4 39.4 46.8
10 1.Fl 46.6 44.1 40.6 48.8 46.6 44.1 40.6 48.8 N Las Flores Drive 41.3 38.4 34.8 43.2 41.3 38.4 34.8 43.2 S Santa Fe Avenue 44.2 41.4 37.8 46.1 44.2 41.4 37.8 46.1 Sprinter 37.2 37.2 34.2 41.6 37.2 37.2 34.2 41.6
10 2.Fl 51.3 48.7 45.1 53.4 51.4 48.7 45.1 53.4 N Las Flores Drive 45.1 42.2 38.6 47.0 45.1 42.2 38.6 47.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 49.9 47.0 43.4 51.8 49.9 47.0 43.4 51.8 Sprinter 38.4 38.4 35.4 42.8 38.4 38.4 35.4 42.8
10 3.Fl 53.2 50.6 47.0 55.3 53.2 50.6 47.0 55.3 N Las Flores Drive 45.1 42.2 38.6 47.0 45.1 42.2 38.6 47.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.3 49.4 45.8 54.2 52.3 49.4 45.8 54.2 Sprinter 40.2 40.2 37.2 44.7 40.2 40.2 37.2 44.7
11 1.Fl 54.7 51.9 48.2 56.6 54.7 51.9 48.3 56.7 N Las Flores Drive 50.1 47.2 43.6 52.0 50.1 47.2 43.6 52.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.8 50.0 46.3 54.7 52.9 50.0 46.4 54.8 Sprinter 31.6 31.6 28.6 36.0 31.6 31.6 28.6 36.0
11 2.Fl 58.5 55.8 52.1 60.5 58.5 55.8 52.1 60.5 N Las Flores Drive 54.7 51.8 48.2 56.6 54.7 51.8 48.2 56.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 56.1 53.2 49.6 58.0 56.1 53.3 49.6 58.0 Sprinter 40.9 40.9 37.9 45.3 40.9 40.9 37.9 45.3
11 3.Fl 59.5 56.7 53.1 61.4 59.5 56.7 53.1 61.4 N Las Flores Drive 54.8 51.9 48.3 56.7 54.8 51.9 48.3 56.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 57.5 54.7 51.1 59.4 57.5 54.7 51.1 59.4 Sprinter 42.2 42.2 39.2 46.6 42.2 42.2 39.2 46.6
12 1.Fl 43.9 41.4 37.9 46.1 43.9 41.4 37.9 46.1 N Las Flores Drive 43.1 40.2 36.5 44.9 43.1 40.2 36.5 44.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 32.4 29.6 26.0 34.3 32.4 29.6 26.0 34.3 Sprinter 33.8 33.8 30.8 38.3 33.8 33.8 30.8 38.3
12 2.Fl 47.8 45.2 41.7 50.0 47.8 45.2 41.7 50.0 N Las Flores Drive 47.2 44.4 40.7 49.1 47.2 44.4 40.7 49.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 33.3 30.4 26.8 35.2 33.3 30.4 26.8 35.2 Sprinter 37.0 37.0 34.0 41.5 37.0 37.0 34.0 41.5
12 3.Fl 49.9 47.5 44.1 52.2 49.9 47.5 44.1 52.2 N Las Flores Drive 49.0 46.1 42.5 50.8 49.0 46.1 42.5 50.8 S Santa Fe Avenue 37.5 34.7 31.0 39.4 37.5 34.7 31.0 39.4 Sprinter 41.3 41.3 38.3 45.7 41.3 41.3 38.3 45.7
13 1.Fl 52.2 49.4 45.8 54.2 52.2 49.4 45.8 54.2 N Las Flores Drive 31.0 28.1 24.5 32.9 31.0 28.1 24.5 32.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.1 49.3 45.7 54.0 52.1 49.3 45.7 54.0 Sprinter 33.1 33.1 30.0 37.5 33.1 33.1 30.0 37.5
13 2.Fl 56.0 53.2 49.6 57.9 56.0 53.2 49.6 57.9 N Las Flores Drive 32.5 29.6 26.0 34.4 32.5 29.6 26.0 34.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 55.9 53.1 49.4 57.8 55.9 53.1 49.4 57.8 Sprinter 36.6 36.6 33.6 41.1 36.6 36.6 33.6 41.1
13 3.Fl 57.8 55.0 51.4 59.8 57.8 55.0 51.4 59.8 N Las Flores Drive 34.5 31.7 28.0 36.4 34.5 31.7 28.0 36.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 57.7 54.9 51.3 59.6 57.7 54.9 51.3 59.6 Sprinter 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.0 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.0
14 1.Fl 51.9 49.3 45.7 54.0 51.9 49.3 45.7 54.0 N Las Flores Drive 34.9 32.1 28.4 36.8 35.0 32.1 28.5 36.8 S Santa Fe Avenue 51.6 48.8 45.2 53.5 51.6 48.8 45.2 53.5 Sprinter 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.0 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.0
14 2.Fl 52.7 50.0 46.4 54.7 52.7 50.0 46.4 54.7 N Las Flores Drive 35.5 32.6 29.0 37.4 35.5 32.7 29.0 37.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.4 49.5 45.9 54.3 52.4 49.5 45.9 54.3 Sprinter 39.0 39.0 36.0 43.4 39.0 39.0 36.0 43.4
14 3.Fl 53.4 50.8 47.2 55.5 53.4 50.8 47.2 55.5 N Las Flores Drive 35.8 32.9 29.3 37.7 35.8 33.0 29.3 37.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.2 50.3 46.7 55.1 53.2 50.3 46.7 55.1 Sprinter 39.5 39.5 36.5 43.9 39.5 39.5 36.5 43.9
Contributions 2022
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Source name Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Noise Level without Amenity Area A Barrier Noise Level with Amenity Area A Barrier 15 1.Fl 56.2 53.5 49.9 58.2 56.2 53.5 49.9 58.2 N Las Flores Drive 48.9 46.0 42.4 50.8 48.9 46.0 42.4 50.8 S Santa Fe Avenue 55.2 52.4 48.8 57.1 55.2 52.4 48.8 57.1 Sprinter 39.5 39.5 36.5 44.0 39.5 39.5 36.5 44.0
15 2.Fl 58.1 55.4 51.7 60.1 58.1 55.4 51.7 60.1 N Las Flores Drive 50.1 47.2 43.6 52.0 50.1 47.2 43.6 52.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 57.3 54.5 50.8 59.2 57.3 54.5 50.8 59.2 Sprinter 40.6 40.6 37.6 45.0 40.6 40.6 37.6 45.0
15 3.Fl 59.2 56.4 52.8 61.1 59.2 56.4 52.8 61.1 N Las Flores Drive 50.2 47.3 43.7 52.0 50.2 47.3 43.7 52.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 58.5 55.6 52.0 60.4 58.5 55.6 52.0 60.4 Sprinter 41.4 41.4 38.4 45.8 41.4 41.4 38.4 45.8
16 1.Fl 55.1 52.3 48.7 57.0 55.1 52.3 48.7 57.0 N Las Flores Drive 51.8 48.9 45.3 53.7 51.8 48.9 45.3 53.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.1 49.2 45.6 54.0 52.1 49.3 45.6 54.0 Sprinter 38.5 38.5 35.5 42.9 38.5 38.5 35.5 42.9
16 2.Fl 58.1 55.4 51.9 60.2 58.1 55.4 51.9 60.2 N Las Flores Drive 55.2 52.3 48.7 57.1 55.2 52.3 48.7 57.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 54.6 51.7 48.1 56.5 54.6 51.8 48.1 56.5 Sprinter 44.5 44.5 41.5 48.9 44.5 44.5 41.5 48.9
16 3.Fl 58.4 55.7 52.1 60.4 58.4 55.7 52.1 60.4 N Las Flores Drive 55.0 52.1 48.5 56.9 55.0 52.1 48.5 56.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 55.2 52.3 48.7 57.1 55.2 52.3 48.7 57.1 Sprinter 45.7 45.7 42.7 50.1 45.7 45.7 42.7 50.1
17 1.Fl 42.6 40.7 37.4 45.3 42.6 40.7 37.4 45.3 N Las Flores Drive 40.4 37.6 33.9 42.3 40.4 37.6 33.9 42.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 33.4 30.6 27.0 35.3 33.4 30.6 27.0 35.3 Sprinter 36.9 36.9 33.9 41.4 36.9 36.9 33.9 41.4
17 2.Fl 46.5 44.8 41.5 49.4 46.5 44.8 41.5 49.4 N Las Flores Drive 43.7 40.8 37.1 45.5 43.7 40.8 37.1 45.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 38.3 35.4 31.8 40.2 38.3 35.4 31.8 40.2 Sprinter 41.7 41.7 38.7 46.1 41.7 41.7 38.7 46.1
17 3.Fl 47.6 45.9 42.6 50.5 47.6 45.9 42.6 50.5 N Las Flores Drive 44.1 41.2 37.6 45.9 44.1 41.2 37.6 45.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 41.5 38.6 35.0 43.4 41.5 38.6 35.0 43.4 Sprinter 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.1 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.1
18 1.Fl 48.6 46.4 42.9 51.0 48.6 46.4 42.9 51.0 N Las Flores Drive 46.2 43.3 39.6 48.0 46.2 43.3 39.6 48.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 42.9 40.1 36.4 44.8 42.9 40.1 36.5 44.8 Sprinter 40.7 40.7 37.7 45.2 40.7 40.7 37.7 45.2
18 2.Fl 52.7 50.2 46.7 54.9 52.8 50.2 46.7 54.9 N Las Flores Drive 49.4 46.5 42.9 51.3 49.4 46.5 42.9 51.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 49.3 46.5 42.8 51.2 49.3 46.5 42.9 51.2 Sprinter 42.2 42.2 39.2 46.6 42.2 42.2 39.2 46.6
18 3.Fl 56.6 54.0 50.5 58.7 56.6 54.0 50.5 58.7 N Las Flores Drive 52.7 49.9 46.2 54.6 52.7 49.9 46.2 54.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.6 50.8 47.1 55.5 53.6 50.8 47.2 55.5 Sprinter 45.5 45.5 42.5 49.9 45.5 45.5 42.5 49.9
19 1.Fl 44.6 43.8 40.6 48.3 44.6 43.8 40.6 48.3 N Las Flores Drive 39.9 37.0 33.4 41.7 39.9 37.0 33.4 41.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 30.7 27.9 24.2 32.6 30.7 27.9 24.2 32.6 Sprinter 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.0 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.0
19 2.Fl 46.8 46.0 42.8 50.5 46.8 46.0 42.8 50.5 N Las Flores Drive 40.8 37.9 34.3 42.7 40.8 37.9 34.3 42.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 37.7 34.9 31.3 39.6 37.7 34.9 31.2 39.6 Sprinter 44.8 44.8 41.8 49.2 44.8 44.8 41.8 49.2
19 3.Fl 48.1 47.2 44.0 51.7 48.1 47.2 44.0 51.7 N Las Flores Drive 42.5 39.6 36.0 44.4 42.5 39.6 36.0 44.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 39.6 36.7 33.1 41.5 39.6 36.7 33.1 41.5 Sprinter 45.8 45.8 42.8 50.3 45.8 45.8 42.8 50.3
20 1.Fl 43.2 41.5 38.2 46.1 43.2 41.5 38.2 46.1 N Las Flores Drive 32.1 29.2 25.6 34.0 32.1 29.2 25.6 34.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 41.0 38.1 34.5 42.9 41.0 38.1 34.5 42.9 Sprinter 38.3 38.3 35.3 42.7 38.3 38.3 35.3 42.7
20 2.Fl 48.8 46.5 43.0 51.2 48.8 46.5 43.0 51.2 N Las Flores Drive 33.0 30.2 26.5 34.9 33.0 30.2 26.5 34.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 48.1 45.2 41.6 50.0 48.1 45.2 41.6 50.0 Sprinter 40.1 40.1 37.1 44.5 40.1 40.1 37.1 44.5
20 3.Fl 49.5 47.2 43.7 51.9 49.5 47.2 43.7 51.9 N Las Flores Drive 31.7 28.8 25.2 33.6 31.7 28.8 25.2 33.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 48.8 45.9 42.3 50.7 48.8 45.9 42.3 50.7 Sprinter 40.9 40.9 37.9 45.4 40.9 40.9 37.9 45.4
21 1.Fl 42.9 41.6 38.4 46.2 42.9 41.6 38.4 46.2 N Las Flores Drive 33.8 31.0 27.3 35.7 33.8 31.0 27.4 35.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 39.0 36.2 32.6 40.9 39.0 36.2 32.6 40.9 Sprinter 39.6 39.6 36.6 44.1 39.6 39.6 36.6 44.1
21 2.Fl 47.2 45.3 41.9 49.9 47.2 45.3 41.9 49.9 N Las Flores Drive 35.8 33.0 29.3 37.7 35.8 33.0 29.3 37.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 45.4 42.5 38.9 47.3 45.4 42.5 38.9 47.3 Sprinter 41.5 41.5 38.5 45.9 41.5 41.5 38.5 45.9
21 3.Fl 48.2 46.3 43.0 51.0 48.2 46.3 43.0 51.0 N Las Flores Drive 37.8 34.9 31.3 39.7 37.8 35.0 31.3 39.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 46.2 43.4 39.8 48.1 46.2 43.4 39.8 48.1 Sprinter 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.0 42.6 42.6 39.6 47.0
Contributions 2023
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Source name Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Noise Level without Amenity Area A Barrier Noise Level with Amenity Area A Barrier 22 1.Fl 41.6 40.4 37.2 45.0 41.6 40.4 37.2 45.0 N Las Flores Drive 37.2 34.3 30.7 39.1 37.2 34.3 30.7 39.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 32.3 29.4 25.8 34.2 32.3 29.4 25.8 34.2 Sprinter 38.7 38.7 35.7 43.2 38.7 38.7 35.7 43.2
22 2.Fl 45.8 44.6 41.5 49.2 45.8 44.6 41.5 49.2 N Las Flores Drive 38.2 35.3 31.7 40.1 38.2 35.3 31.7 40.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 40.4 37.6 34.0 42.3 40.4 37.6 34.0 42.3 Sprinter 43.0 43.0 40.0 47.4 43.0 43.0 40.0 47.4
22 3.Fl 46.9 45.7 42.5 50.2 46.9 45.7 42.5 50.2 N Las Flores Drive 38.7 35.8 32.2 40.6 38.7 35.8 32.2 40.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 42.0 39.2 35.6 43.9 42.0 39.2 35.6 43.9 Sprinter 44.0 44.0 41.0 48.4 44.0 44.0 41.0 48.4
23 1.Fl 46.2 43.5 39.9 48.2 46.2 43.5 39.9 48.2 N Las Flores Drive 17.7 14.8 11.2 19.6 17.7 14.8 11.2 19.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 46.0 43.1 39.5 47.9 46.0 43.1 39.5 47.9 Sprinter 32.7 32.7 29.6 37.1 32.7 32.7 29.6 37.1
23 2.Fl 52.4 49.7 46.1 54.4 52.4 49.7 46.1 54.4 N Las Flores Drive 18.6 15.8 12.1 20.5 18.6 15.8 12.1 20.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.3 49.5 45.8 54.2 52.3 49.5 45.8 54.2 Sprinter 37.1 37.1 34.1 41.6 37.1 37.1 34.1 41.6
23 3.Fl 53.8 51.1 47.5 55.8 53.8 51.1 47.5 55.8 N Las Flores Drive 23.3 20.5 16.8 25.2 23.3 20.5 16.8 25.2 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.7 50.9 47.2 55.6 53.7 50.9 47.2 55.6 Sprinter 38.1 38.1 35.1 42.5 38.1 38.1 35.1 42.5
24 1.Fl 40.3 38.5 35.1 43.1 40.3 38.5 35.1 43.1 N Las Flores Drive 30.6 27.8 24.1 32.5 30.6 27.8 24.1 32.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 38.0 35.2 31.6 39.9 38.0 35.2 31.6 39.9 Sprinter 35.0 35.0 31.9 39.4 35.0 35.0 31.9 39.4
24 2.Fl 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 46.1 44.0 40.5 48.6 N Las Flores Drive 30.2 27.4 23.7 32.1 30.2 27.4 23.7 32.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 45.1 42.2 38.6 47.0 45.1 42.2 38.6 47.0 Sprinter 38.9 38.9 35.8 43.3 38.9 38.9 35.8 43.3
24 3.Fl 48.0 45.7 42.2 50.3 48.0 45.7 42.2 50.3 N Las Flores Drive 32.8 29.9 26.3 34.7 32.8 29.9 26.3 34.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 47.2 44.3 40.7 49.1 47.2 44.3 40.7 49.1 Sprinter 39.4 39.4 36.3 43.8 39.4 39.4 36.3 43.8
25 1.Fl 49.1 46.4 42.8 51.1 49.1 46.4 42.8 51.1 N Las Flores Drive 17.8 14.9 11.3 19.7 17.8 14.9 11.3 19.7 S Santa Fe Avenue 49.0 46.2 42.6 50.9 49.0 46.2 42.6 50.9 Sprinter 32.6 32.6 29.6 37.0 32.6 32.6 29.6 37.0
25 2.Fl 53.7 50.9 47.3 55.7 53.7 50.9 47.3 55.7 N Las Flores Drive 19.4 16.5 12.9 21.3 19.4 16.5 12.9 21.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.6 50.8 47.1 55.5 53.6 50.8 47.1 55.5 Sprinter 36.5 36.5 33.5 40.9 36.5 36.5 33.5 40.9
25 3.Fl 55.2 52.4 48.8 57.1 55.2 52.4 48.8 57.1 N Las Flores Drive 23.5 20.6 17.0 25.4 23.5 20.6 17.0 25.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 55.1 52.3 48.7 57.0 55.1 52.3 48.7 57.0 Sprinter 36.8 36.8 33.8 41.3 36.8 36.8 33.8 41.3
26 1.Fl 52.9 50.1 46.5 54.9 52.9 50.1 46.5 54.9 N Las Flores Drive 39.0 36.1 32.5 40.9 39.0 36.1 32.5 40.8 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.6 49.7 46.1 54.5 52.6 49.7 46.1 54.5 Sprinter 36.8 36.8 33.8 41.2 36.8 36.8 33.8 41.2
26 2.Fl 55.6 52.8 49.2 57.5 55.6 52.8 49.2 57.5 N Las Flores Drive 41.0 38.2 34.5 42.9 41.0 38.1 34.5 42.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 55.3 52.5 48.8 57.2 55.3 52.5 48.8 57.2 Sprinter 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.0 38.6 38.6 35.6 43.0
26 3.Fl 57.4 54.7 51.0 59.4 57.4 54.7 51.0 59.4 N Las Flores Drive 42.3 39.4 35.8 44.2 42.3 39.4 35.8 44.2 S Santa Fe Avenue 57.2 54.4 50.8 59.1 57.2 54.4 50.8 59.1 Sprinter 39.3 39.3 36.3 43.7 39.3 39.3 36.3 43.7
27 1.Fl 46.9 44.3 40.8 49.0 46.9 44.3 40.8 49.0 N Las Flores Drive 33.7 30.8 27.2 35.6 33.7 30.8 27.2 35.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 46.3 43.5 39.8 48.2 46.3 43.5 39.8 48.2 Sprinter 35.6 35.6 32.6 40.0 35.6 35.6 32.6 40.0
27 2.Fl 51.2 48.6 45.0 53.3 51.2 48.6 45.0 53.3 N Las Flores Drive 37.7 34.8 31.2 39.6 37.7 34.8 31.2 39.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 50.8 47.9 44.3 52.7 50.8 47.9 44.3 52.7 Sprinter 38.8 38.8 35.8 43.2 38.8 38.8 35.8 43.2
27 3.Fl 52.6 50.0 46.4 54.7 52.6 50.0 46.4 54.7 N Las Flores Drive 39.4 36.5 32.9 41.3 39.4 36.5 32.9 41.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 52.2 49.3 45.7 54.1 52.2 49.3 45.7 54.1 Sprinter 39.9 39.9 36.9 44.3 39.9 39.9 36.9 44.3
28 1.Fl 39.8 38.0 34.6 42.6 39.8 38.0 34.6 42.6 N Las Flores Drive 37.0 34.1 30.5 38.9 37.0 34.1 30.5 38.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 32.8 29.9 26.3 34.7 32.8 29.9 26.3 34.7 Sprinter 34.3 34.3 31.3 38.7 34.3 34.3 31.3 38.7
28 2.Fl 42.3 40.8 37.5 45.3 42.3 40.8 37.5 45.3 N Las Flores Drive 38.7 35.9 32.2 40.6 38.7 35.9 32.2 40.6 S Santa Fe Avenue 34.8 31.9 28.3 36.7 34.8 31.9 28.3 36.7 Sprinter 38.1 38.1 35.1 42.5 38.1 38.1 35.1 42.5
28 3.Fl 46.0 43.9 40.5 48.6 46.0 43.9 40.5 48.6 N Las Flores Drive 40.1 37.2 33.6 42.0 40.1 37.2 33.6 42.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 43.4 40.5 36.9 45.3 43.4 40.5 36.9 45.3 Sprinter 39.1 39.1 36.1 43.5 39.1 39.1 36.1 43.5
Contributions 2024
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - Vehicle and Rail Traffic
Source name Day Evening Night CNEL Day Evening Night CNEL dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
Noise Level without Amenity Area A Barrier Noise Level with Amenity Area A Barrier 29 1.Fl 45.4 42.7 39.1 47.4 45.4 42.7 39.1 47.4 N Las Flores Drive 18.6 15.7 12.1 20.4 18.5 15.7 12.1 20.4 S Santa Fe Avenue 45.2 42.3 38.7 47.1 45.2 42.3 38.7 47.1 Sprinter 31.7 31.7 28.7 36.2 31.7 31.7 28.7 36.2
29 2.Fl 53.6 50.8 47.2 55.5 53.6 50.8 47.2 55.5 N Las Flores Drive 20.0 17.2 13.6 21.9 20.0 17.2 13.5 21.9 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.6 50.7 47.1 55.5 53.6 50.7 47.1 55.5 Sprinter 31.9 31.9 28.9 36.4 31.9 31.9 28.9 36.4
29 3.Fl 58.3 55.4 51.8 60.2 58.3 55.4 51.8 60.2 N Las Flores Drive 24.1 21.2 17.6 26.0 24.1 21.2 17.6 26.0 S Santa Fe Avenue 58.2 55.4 51.8 60.1 58.2 55.4 51.8 60.1 Sprinter 33.2 33.2 30.2 37.7 33.2 33.2 30.2 37.7
30 1.Fl 57.5 54.7 51.0 59.4 57.4 54.5 50.9 59.3 N Las Flores Drive 40.7 37.9 34.2 42.6 40.6 37.7 34.1 42.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 57.4 54.5 50.9 59.3 57.2 54.4 50.8 59.1 Sprinter 34.2 34.2 31.2 38.6 34.2 34.2 31.2 38.6
30 2.Fl 61.0 58.2 54.6 62.9 61.0 58.1 54.5 62.9 N Las Flores Drive 41.8 38.9 35.3 43.7 41.4 38.6 34.9 43.3 S Santa Fe Avenue 61.0 58.1 54.5 62.9 60.9 58.1 54.4 62.8 Sprinter 35.3 35.3 32.2 39.7 35.3 35.3 32.2 39.7
30 3.Fl 62.9 60.1 56.4 64.8 62.9 60.1 56.4 64.8 N Las Flores Drive 42.7 39.8 36.2 44.6 42.6 39.8 36.1 44.5 S Santa Fe Avenue 62.8 60.0 56.4 64.7 62.8 60.0 56.4 64.8 Sprinter 37.4 37.4 34.4 41.8 37.4 37.4 34.4 41.8
31 1.Fl 51.7 48.9 45.3 53.6 51.6 48.8 45.2 53.5 N Las Flores Drive 38.5 35.6 32.0 40.4 38.3 35.4 31.8 40.2 S Santa Fe Avenue 51.4 48.5 44.9 53.3 51.3 48.4 44.8 53.2 Sprinter 34.6 34.6 31.6 39.0 34.6 34.6 31.6 39.0
31 2.Fl 54.1 51.3 47.7 56.1 54.0 51.3 47.7 56.0 N Las Flores Drive 39.9 37.0 33.4 41.8 39.9 37.0 33.4 41.8 S Santa Fe Avenue 53.9 51.0 47.4 55.8 53.8 50.9 47.3 55.7 Sprinter 36.7 36.7 33.7 41.2 36.7 36.7 33.7 41.2
31 3.Fl 55.8 53.1 49.5 57.8 55.6 53.0 49.4 57.7 N Las Flores Drive 41.2 38.4 34.7 43.1 41.2 38.3 34.7 43.1 S Santa Fe Avenue 55.4 52.6 49.0 57.3 55.3 52.5 48.8 57.2 Sprinter 41.6 41.6 38.6 46.0 41.6 41.6 38.6 46.0
Contributions 2025
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 5
Fresnel Barrier Reduction Calculations

2026
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Fresnel Barrier Reduction Calculations
Fresnel Barrier Reduction Calculations
Receiver 8, Level 2, Santa Fe Avenue
Reference Noise Level 69.2 GF = 500
Reference Distance 104 2nd Floor = 510
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
108 3 111 498 513.5 513 6.97 69 61.66
Receiver 8, Level 2, Las Flores Drive
Reference Noise Level 53.8 GF = 500
Reference Distance 72 2nd Floor = 510
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
46 3 49 504 513.5 513 7.58 57 49.56
Receiver 8, Level 2, Combined Santa Fe Avenue and Las Flores Drive No Barrier 69.3
With Barrier 61.9
Barrier Reduction 7.4
Receiver 9, Level 3, Santa Fe Avenue
Reference Noise Level 64.7 GF = 500
Reference Distance 151 3rd Floor = 520
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
108 3 111 498 523.5 523 7.98 67 59.39
Receiver 9, Level 3, Las Flores Drive
Reference Noise Level 57.8 GF = 500
Reference Distance 39 3rd Floor = 510
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
46 3 49 504 523.5 523 9.84 56 45.98
Receiver 9, Level 3, Combined Santa Fe Avenue and Las Flores Drive No Barrier 65.5
With Barrier 59.6
Barrier Reduction 5.9
2027
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Fresnel Barrier Reduction Calculations
Receiver 8, Roof Deck, Santa Fe Avenue
Reference Noise Level 69.2 GF = 500
Reference Distance 104 Roof = 530
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
108 3 111 498 533.5 533 8.98 69 59.65
Receiver 8, Roof Deck Las Flores Drive
Reference Noise Level 53.8 GF = 500
Reference Distance 72 Roof = 530
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
46 3 49 504 533.5 533 11.64 57 45.50
Receiver 8, Roof Deck, Combined Santa Fe Avenue and Las Flores Drive No Barrier 69.3
With Barrier 59.8
Barrier Reduction 9.5
Receiver 9, Roof Deck, Santa Fe Avenue
Reference Noise Level 64.7 GF = 500
Reference Distance 151 Roof = 530
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
108 3 111 498 533.5 533 8.98 67 58.39
Receiver 9, Roof Deck, Las Flores Drive
Reference Noise Level 57.8 GF = 500
Reference Distance 39 Roof = 530
Site Conditions Hard Balcony Wall = 3.5
Distance from Barrier to
Source
Distance
from Barrier
to Receiver
Distance
from Source
to Receiver
Height of
Source
Height of
Wall
Height of
Receiver
Noise Level
Reduction
Unabated
Noise Level
Resultant
Noise Level
46 3 49 504 533.5 533 11.64 56 44.18
Receiver 9, Roof Deck, Combined Santa Fe Avenue and Las Flores Drive No Barrier 65.5
With Barrier 58.6
Barrier Reduction 7.0
2028
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 6
FHWA RD-77-108 – Off-site Traffic Noise
2029
Data Input Sheet
Project Name : Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Project Number : 10587 Surface Refelction: CNEL
Modeled Condition : Existing Assessment Metric: Hard
Peak ratio to ADT: 10.0
Traffic Desc. (Peak or ADT) : ADT
Segment Roadway Segment Traffic Vol. % Autos %MT % HT Day % Eve % Night %

WITHOUT PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 14,850 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 16,660 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 16,660 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 14,600 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 13,500 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 560 25 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 11,730 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00

WITH PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 14,960 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 16,770 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 17,030 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 14,780 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 13,570 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 600 25 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 11,840 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 Predicted Noise Levels
Project Name : Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Project Number : 10587
Modeled Condition : Existing
Assessment Metric: Hard
Segment Roadway Segment Auto MT HT Total 75 dB 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 55 dB 50 dB

WITHOUT PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 69.2 62.5 65.2 71.3 21 67 213 674 2,133 6,745 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 69.7 63.0 65.7 71.8 24 76 239 757 2,393 7,568 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 69.7 63.0 65.7 71.8 24 76 239 757 2,393 7,568 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 69.2 62.4 65.1 71.2 21 66 208 659 2,084 6,591 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 67.3 61.3 64.3 69.8 15 48 151 477 1,510 4,775 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 47.6 44.3 50.1 52.7 0 1 3 9 29 93 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 66.7 60.6 63.7 69.1 13 41 129 406 1,285 4,064

WITH PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 69.3 62.5 65.2 71.3 21 67 213 674 2,133 6,745 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 69.8 63.0 65.7 71.8 24 76 239 757 2,393 7,568 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 69.8 63.1 65.8 71.9 24 77 245 774 2,449 7,744 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 69.2 62.4 65.2 71.3 21 67 213 674 2,133 6,745 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 67.4 61.3 64.3 69.8 15 48 151 477 1,510 4,775 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 47.9 44.6 50.4 53.0 0 1 3 10 32 100 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 66.8 60.7 63.8 69.2 13 42 132 416 1,315 4,159 Noise Levels, dBA Hard Distance to Traffic Noise Level Contours, Feet FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Speed
(Mph)
Distance
to CL K-Factor
FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model
2030
Data Input Sheet
Project Name : Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Project Number : 10587 Surface Refelction: CNEL
Modeled Condition : Near-Term (2027) Assessment Metric: Hard Peak ratio to ADT: 10.0
Traffic Desc. (Peak or ADT) : ADT
Segment Roadway Segment Traffic Vol. % Autos %MT % HT Day % Eve % Night %

WITHOUT PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 16,110 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 18,080 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 18,080 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 15,840 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 14,650 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 610 25 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 12,730 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00

WITH PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 16,220 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 18,190 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 18,450 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 16,020 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 14,720 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 650 25 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 12,840 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 Predicted Noise Levels
Project Name : Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Project Number : 10587
Modeled Condition : Near-Term (2027)
Assessment Metric: Hard
Segment Roadway Segment Auto MT HT Total 75 dB 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 55 dB 50 dB

WITHOUT PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 69.6 62.8 65.6 71.6 23 72 229 723 2,285 7,227 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 70.1 63.3 66.1 72.1 26 81 256 811 2,564 8,109 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 70.1 63.3 66.1 72.1 26 81 256 811 2,564 8,109 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 69.5 62.7 65.5 71.6 23 72 229 723 2,285 7,227 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 67.7 61.6 64.7 70.1 16 51 162 512 1,618 5,116 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 48.0 44.6 50.5 53.1 0 1 3 10 32 102 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 67.1 61.0 64.1 69.5 14 45 141 446 1,409 4,456

WITH PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 69.6 62.9 65.6 71.7 23 74 234 740 2,339 7,396 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 70.1 63.4 66.1 72.2 26 83 262 830 2,624 8,298 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 70.2 63.4 66.1 72.2 26 83 262 830 2,624 8,298 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 69.6 62.8 65.5 71.6 23 72 229 723 2,285 7,227 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 67.7 61.6 64.7 70.1 16 51 162 512 1,618 5,116 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 48.3 44.9 50.8 53.4 0 1 3 11 35 109 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 67.1 61.0 64.1 69.5 14 45 141 446 1,409 4,456 FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Speed
(Mph)
Distance
to CL K-Factor
FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Noise Levels, dBA Hard Distance to Traffic Noise Level Contours, Feet 2031
Data Input Sheet
Project Name : Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Project Number : 10587 Surface Refelction: CNEL
Modeled Condition : Long-Term (2050) Assessment Metric: Hard Peak ratio to ADT: 10.0
Traffic Desc. (Peak or ADT) : ADT
Segment Roadway Segment Traffic Vol. % Autos %MT % HT Day % Eve % Night %

WITHOUT PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 22,200 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 22,200 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 22,200 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 21,300 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 24,400 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 830 25 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 16,800 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00

WITH PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 22,310 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 22,310 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 22,570 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 21,480 45 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 24,470 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 870 25 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 16,910 40 50 95.00 3.00 2.00 77.00 10.00 13.00 Predicted Noise Levels
Project Name : Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Project Number : 10587
Modeled Condition : Long-Term (2050)
Assessment Metric: Hard
Segment Roadway Segment Auto MT HT Total 75 dB 70 dB 65 dB 60 dB 55 dB 50 dB

WITHOUT PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 71.0 64.2 67.0 73.0 32 100 315 998 3,155 9,976 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 71.0 64.2 67.0 73.0 32 100 315 998 3,155 9,976 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 71.0 64.2 67.0 73.0 32 100 315 998 3,155 9,976 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 70.8 64.0 66.8 72.9 31 97 308 975 3,083 9,749 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 69.9 63.8 66.9 72.3 27 85 269 849 2,685 8,491 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 49.3 46.0 51.8 54.4 0 1 4 14 44 138 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 68.3 62.2 65.3 70.7 19 59 186 587 1,858 5,874

WITH PROJECT
1 S. Santa Fe Avenue Smilax Road to Bosstick Boulevard 71.0 64.2 67.0 73.1 32 102 323 1,021 3,228 10,209 2 S. Santa Fe Avenue Bosstick Boulevard to Community Drive 71.0 64.2 67.0 73.1 32 102 323 1,021 3,228 10,209 3 S. Santa Fe Avenue Community Drive to Las Flores Drive 71.0 64.3 67.0 73.1 32 102 323 1,021 3,228 10,209 4 S. Santa Fe Avenue Las Flores Drive to N. Rancho Santa Fe Road 70.8 64.1 66.8 72.9 31 97 308 975 3,083 9,749 5 S. Santa Fe Avenue N. Rancho Santa Fe Road and N. Pacific Street 69.9 63.8 66.9 72.3 27 85 269 849 2,685 8,491 6 Hollencrest Road De Leone Road to Hollenbeck Road 49.6 46.2 52.0 54.6 0 1 5 14 46 144 7 N. Rancho Santa Fe Road S. Santa Fe Avenue to Capalina Road 68.3 62.2 65.3 70.7 19 59 186 587 1,858 5,874 FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Speed
(Mph)
Distance
to CL K-Factor
FHWA RD-77-108
Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Noise Levels, dBA Hard Distance to Traffic Noise Level Contours, Feet 2032
Noise Analysis
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Project

ATTACHMENT 7
SoundPLAN Data – On-site Generated Noise
2033
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Reference Level Cwall CI CT
dB(A) dB(A) dB(A) dB(A)
HVAC1 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC2 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC3 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC4 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC5 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC6 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC7 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC8 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC9 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC10 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC11 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC12 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC13 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC14 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC15 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC16 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC17 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC18 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC19 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC20 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC21 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC22 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC23 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC24 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC25 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC26 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC27 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC28 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC29 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC30 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC31 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC32 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC33 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC34 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC35 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC36 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC37 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC38 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC39 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC40 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC41 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC42 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC43 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC44 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC45 Lw/unit 75 - - -
HVAC46 Lw/unit 75 - - -
Corrections
HVAC 2034
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
No. X Y Height Level
(meters) dB(A)
1 481468.23 3668972.47 182.38 32.8
2 481477.03 3668933.16 185.26 34.8
3 481491.51 3668901.09 186.46 35.5
4 481513.24 3668863.85 186.82 35.3
5 481534.96 3668832.30 186.16 34.3
6 481452.72 3668803.33 161.69 33.9
7 481417.03 3668787.30 160.02 35.0
8 481389.61 3668758.33 159.84 41.9
9 481373.58 3668720.06 157.61 40.7
10 481348.75 3668660.57 154.54 35.0
11 481317.72 3668679.71 153.92 35.5
12 481280.47 3668693.16 153.14 35.8
13 481232.89 3668717.47 152.07 34.9
14 481185.82 3668741.78 151.46 33.6
15 481288.85 3668803.43 156.64 39.0
16 481306.71 3668845.77 157.91 38.0
17 481370.21 3668885.46 167.45 39.6
18 481303.57 3668756.45 154.67 38.8
Coordinates
(meters)
Receivers 2035
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
1 1.Fl 32.8 0.0
HVAC1 10.9
HVAC2 11.3
HVAC3 10.7
HVAC4 12.3
HVAC5 10.8
HVAC6 9.9
HVAC7 8.0
HVAC8 7.6
HVAC9 7.4
HVAC10 5.6
HVAC11 6.3
HVAC12 6.3
HVAC13 14.7
HVAC14 15.0
HVAC15 12.6
HVAC16 10.0
HVAC17 13.2
HVAC18 15.4
HVAC19 16.1
HVAC20 16.3
HVAC21 16.5
HVAC22 15.4
HVAC23 16.3
HVAC24 16.9
HVAC25 17.5
HVAC26 18.9
HVAC27 18.7
HVAC28 17.9
HVAC29 18.3
HVAC30 18.3
HVAC31 18.5
HVAC32 18.7
HVAC33 18.7
HVAC34 18.9
HVAC35 19.2
HVAC36 19.2
HVAC37 19.2
HVAC38 19.2
HVAC39 16.8
HVAC40 16.8
HVAC41 16.9
HVAC42 16.8
HVAC43 16.8
HVAC44 16.9
HVAC45 16.8
HVAC46 16.7
2 1.Fl 34.8 0.0
HVAC1 13.7
HVAC2 15.4
HVAC3 14.9
HVAC4 15.6
HVAC5 15.6
HVAC6 12.6
HVAC7 10.1
HVAC8 10.9
HVAC9 16.3
HVAC10 7.6
HVAC11 9.0
HVAC12 7.9
HVAC13 12.6
HVAC14 14.5
HVAC15 14.9
HVAC16 11.9
HVAC17 14.8
HVAC18 12.9
HVAC19 17.2
HVAC20 18.9
HVAC21 16.9
HVAC22 17.0
HVAC23 17.6
HVAC24 18.2
HVAC25 18.8
HVAC26 20.6
HVAC27 20.1
HVAC28 19.3
HVAC29 20.7
HVAC30 19.6
HVAC31 20.6
HVAC32 21.1
HVAC33 20.8
HVAC34 21.8
HVAC35 21.4
HVAC36 21.0
HVAC37 21.4
HVAC38 21.2
HVAC39 18.3
HVAC40 18.6
HVAC41 18.7
HVAC42 19.7
HVAC43 19.0
HVAC44 18.7
HVAC45 19.6
HVAC46 19.4
Contributions 2036
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
3 1.Fl 35.5 0.0
HVAC1 15.8
HVAC2 15.9
HVAC3 15.3
HVAC4 15.9
HVAC5 16.1
HVAC6 16.2
HVAC7 12.8
HVAC8 17.0
HVAC9 16.7
HVAC10 16.8
HVAC11 14.0
HVAC12 9.8
HVAC13 11.9
HVAC14 13.2
HVAC15 14.4
HVAC16 14.8
HVAC17 13.3
HVAC18 10.2
HVAC19 17.2
HVAC20 17.9
HVAC21 18.9
HVAC22 17.5
HVAC23 17.3
HVAC24 17.8
HVAC25 19.0
HVAC26 20.7
HVAC27 20.2
HVAC28 19.7
HVAC29 21.0
HVAC30 19.6
HVAC31 21.6
HVAC32 22.6
HVAC33 21.9
HVAC34 21.7
HVAC35 21.6
HVAC36 21.0
HVAC37 22.4
HVAC38 22.0
HVAC39 19.2
HVAC40 20.0
HVAC41 20.0
HVAC42 20.1
HVAC43 19.5
HVAC44 19.0
HVAC45 20.5
HVAC46 20.2
4 1.Fl 35.3 0.0
HVAC1 16.4
HVAC2 16.8
HVAC3 15.6
HVAC4 16.1
HVAC5 16.9
HVAC6 16.7
HVAC7 17.0
HVAC8 17.4
HVAC9 17.0
HVAC10 17.4
HVAC11 17.6
HVAC12 16.9
HVAC13 14.0
HVAC14 13.0
HVAC15 13.4
HVAC16 12.8
HVAC17 11.7
HVAC18 10.4
HVAC19 18.2
HVAC20 16.6
HVAC21 16.6
HVAC22 18.4
HVAC23 16.8
HVAC24 17.5
HVAC25 18.1
HVAC26 19.7
HVAC27 19.2
HVAC28 19.4
HVAC29 19.8
HVAC30 18.7
HVAC31 21.1
HVAC32 22.6
HVAC33 21.7
HVAC34 21.0
HVAC35 20.8
HVAC36 20.5
HVAC37 21.5
HVAC38 21.2
HVAC39 19.4
HVAC40 20.7
HVAC41 19.9
HVAC42 19.5
HVAC43 19.3
HVAC44 19.0
HVAC45 20.0
HVAC46 19.6
Contributions 2037
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
5 1.Fl 34.3 0.0
HVAC1 16.6
HVAC2 17.0
HVAC3 15.4
HVAC4 15.9
HVAC5 17.2
HVAC6 17.0
HVAC7 17.3
HVAC8 17.8
HVAC9 16.5
HVAC10 16.9
HVAC11 17.9
HVAC12 17.4
HVAC13 15.4
HVAC14 15.3
HVAC15 14.9
HVAC16 11.7
HVAC17 13.4
HVAC18 11.5
HVAC19 16.2
HVAC20 15.8
HVAC21 15.5
HVAC22 15.7
HVAC23 16.4
HVAC24 16.3
HVAC25 16.6
HVAC26 16.9
HVAC27 17.2
HVAC28 18.0
HVAC29 18.2
HVAC30 17.2
HVAC31 20.1
HVAC32 20.6
HVAC33 19.8
HVAC34 19.5
HVAC35 19.3
HVAC36 19.2
HVAC37 20.0
HVAC38 19.6
HVAC39 18.3
HVAC40 19.8
HVAC41 18.8
HVAC42 18.7
HVAC43 18.4
HVAC44 18.2
HVAC45 19.5
HVAC46 18.9
6 1.Fl 33.9 0.0
HVAC1 19.1
HVAC2 19.7
HVAC3 20.0
HVAC4 20.6
HVAC5 20.0
HVAC6 19.7
HVAC7 19.7
HVAC8 20.9
HVAC9 21.4
HVAC10 21.6
HVAC11 20.5
HVAC12 18.2
HVAC13 16.6
HVAC14 13.1
HVAC15 12.5
HVAC16 3.4
HVAC17 7.6
HVAC18 12.8
HVAC19 7.2
HVAC20 6.5
HVAC21 6.2
HVAC22 5.5
HVAC23 6.2
HVAC24 6.8
HVAC25 6.4
HVAC26 5.1
HVAC27 4.9
HVAC28 3.7
HVAC29 4.4
HVAC30 4.8
HVAC31 7.7
HVAC32 9.1
HVAC33 10.2
HVAC34 11.5
HVAC35 13.9
HVAC36 15.6
HVAC37 12.7
HVAC38 10.8
HVAC39 12.5
HVAC40 15.4
HVAC41 19.5
HVAC42 21.6
HVAC43 23.9
HVAC44 23.6
HVAC45 20.3
HVAC46 18.1
Contributions 2038
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
7 1.Fl 35.0 0.0
HVAC1 20.9
HVAC2 22.7
HVAC3 23.1
HVAC4 24.2
HVAC5 23.1
HVAC6 19.1
HVAC7 20.3
HVAC8 24.5
HVAC9 21.3
HVAC10 22.6
HVAC11 20.7
HVAC12 16.4
HVAC13 14.7
HVAC14 13.8
HVAC15 13.1
HVAC16 12.5
HVAC17 13.7
HVAC18 14.6
HVAC19 10.3
HVAC20 9.9
HVAC21 9.1
HVAC22 5.0
HVAC23 9.5
HVAC24 10.5
HVAC25 7.1
HVAC26 5.8
HVAC27 5.3
HVAC28 5.1
HVAC29 5.4
HVAC30 6.0
HVAC31 9.4
HVAC32 11.3
HVAC33 13.0
HVAC34 14.2
HVAC35 15.6
HVAC36 16.8
HVAC37 15.0
HVAC38 11.7
HVAC39 16.5
HVAC40 15.4
HVAC41 20.6
HVAC42 21.6
HVAC43 22.7
HVAC44 23.2
HVAC45 15.9
HVAC46 12.6
8 1.Fl 41.9 0.0
HVAC1 25.3
HVAC2 27.2
HVAC3 28.2
HVAC4 29.7
HVAC5 27.8
HVAC6 26.5
HVAC7 27.0
HVAC8 30.4
HVAC9 31.8
HVAC10 32.6
HVAC11 30.5
HVAC12 29.0
HVAC13 24.2
HVAC14 23.6
HVAC15 22.9
HVAC16 23.5
HVAC17 24.0
HVAC18 26.7
HVAC19 24.0
HVAC20 20.8
HVAC21 20.6
HVAC22 12.9
HVAC23 12.3
HVAC24 8.7
HVAC25 7.7
HVAC26 6.6
HVAC27 7.0
HVAC28 5.3
HVAC29 5.7
HVAC30 5.6
HVAC31 9.4
HVAC32 12.8
HVAC33 20.5
HVAC34 21.5
HVAC35 21.9
HVAC36 24.3
HVAC37 12.8
HVAC38 10.1
HVAC39 17.4
HVAC40 19.7
HVAC41 24.3
HVAC42 24.1
HVAC43 25.0
HVAC44 27.5
HVAC45 24.6
HVAC46 23.6
Contributions 2039
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
9 1.Fl 40.7 0.0
HVAC1 25.3
HVAC2 29.1
HVAC3 32.7
HVAC4 32.4
HVAC5 28.9
HVAC6 25.2
HVAC7 23.8
HVAC8 27.0
HVAC9 29.9
HVAC10 28.6
HVAC11 26.2
HVAC12 24.1
HVAC13 20.3
HVAC14 15.8
HVAC15 15.2
HVAC16 14.6
HVAC17 15.8
HVAC18 17.5
HVAC19 21.4
HVAC20 19.0
HVAC21 20.1
HVAC22 20.8
HVAC23 21.8
HVAC24 20.4
HVAC25 10.5
HVAC26 18.0
HVAC27 16.2
HVAC28 16.2
HVAC29 10.1
HVAC30 6.9
HVAC31 7.8
HVAC32 9.5
HVAC33 17.7
HVAC34 18.4
HVAC35 19.3
HVAC36 17.6
HVAC37 10.4
HVAC38 10.1
HVAC39 17.6
HVAC40 18.1
HVAC41 24.4
HVAC42 20.1
HVAC43 20.7
HVAC44 23.7
HVAC45 22.0
HVAC46 22.1
10 1.Fl 35.0 0.0
HVAC1 23.2
HVAC2 23.0
HVAC3 25.5
HVAC4 24.2
HVAC5 22.0
HVAC6 20.8
HVAC7 18.4
HVAC8 19.8
HVAC9 21.7
HVAC10 21.6
HVAC11 19.3
HVAC12 17.5
HVAC13 14.7
HVAC14 14.2
HVAC15 19.8
HVAC16 14.5
HVAC17 13.5
HVAC18 12.5
HVAC19 15.5
HVAC20 16.4
HVAC21 16.2
HVAC22 14.8
HVAC23 15.7
HVAC24 14.9
HVAC25 15.2
HVAC26 12.9
HVAC27 11.5
HVAC28 11.0
HVAC29 12.0
HVAC30 14.6
HVAC31 8.1
HVAC32 8.3
HVAC33 14.8
HVAC34 15.3
HVAC35 14.1
HVAC36 13.4
HVAC37 9.6
HVAC38 9.6
HVAC39 16.7
HVAC40 16.9
HVAC41 18.7
HVAC42 20.2
HVAC43 17.3
HVAC44 19.0
HVAC45 18.8
HVAC46 18.9
Contributions 2040
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
11 1.Fl 35.5 0.0
HVAC1 24.8
HVAC2 23.8
HVAC3 25.0
HVAC4 21.7
HVAC5 22.2
HVAC6 21.5
HVAC7 18.5
HVAC8 18.1
HVAC9 18.5
HVAC10 17.1
HVAC11 17.1
HVAC12 16.9
HVAC13 22.5
HVAC14 23.1
HVAC15 23.3
HVAC16 21.4
HVAC17 22.6
HVAC18 21.3
HVAC19 18.5
HVAC20 19.5
HVAC21 19.7
HVAC22 18.9
HVAC23 19.0
HVAC24 11.4
HVAC25 11.0
HVAC26 12.4
HVAC27 12.9
HVAC28 10.9
HVAC29 11.4
HVAC30 9.2
HVAC31 7.0
HVAC32 7.0
HVAC33 6.8
HVAC34 7.5
HVAC35 8.4
HVAC36 8.9
HVAC37 8.8
HVAC38 8.8
HVAC39 12.4
HVAC40 12.5
HVAC41 12.4
HVAC42 13.1
HVAC43 14.6
HVAC44 17.4
HVAC45 15.9
HVAC46 16.5
12 1.Fl 35.8 0.0
HVAC1 24.6
HVAC2 22.1
HVAC3 22.7
HVAC4 20.0
HVAC5 20.8
HVAC6 23.8
HVAC7 22.4
HVAC8 19.6
HVAC9 18.0
HVAC10 17.7
HVAC11 19.4
HVAC12 21.6
HVAC13 22.9
HVAC14 22.3
HVAC15 22.1
HVAC16 21.0
HVAC17 21.5
HVAC18 21.6
HVAC19 19.8
HVAC20 19.3
HVAC21 19.8
HVAC22 18.8
HVAC23 16.3
HVAC24 18.8
HVAC25 12.9
HVAC26 12.0
HVAC27 12.7
HVAC28 10.6
HVAC29 11.0
HVAC30 10.7
HVAC31 15.5
HVAC32 7.5
HVAC33 7.2
HVAC34 7.9
HVAC35 8.6
HVAC36 8.9
HVAC37 9.0
HVAC38 14.4
HVAC39 18.4
HVAC40 16.4
HVAC41 16.3
HVAC42 16.8
HVAC43 17.7
HVAC44 19.2
HVAC45 18.6
HVAC46 18.5
Contributions 2041
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
13 1.Fl 34.9 0.0
HVAC1 22.6
HVAC2 20.1
HVAC3 19.5
HVAC4 18.4
HVAC5 19.4
HVAC6 21.8
HVAC7 21.1
HVAC8 19.1
HVAC9 18.4
HVAC10 17.8
HVAC11 18.6
HVAC12 20.1
HVAC13 20.6
HVAC14 21.2
HVAC15 24.3
HVAC16 21.3
HVAC17 19.1
HVAC18 18.2
HVAC19 19.1
HVAC20 19.5
HVAC21 18.1
HVAC22 17.5
HVAC23 19.1
HVAC24 18.2
HVAC25 11.9
HVAC26 13.9
HVAC27 16.7
HVAC28 16.0
HVAC29 14.9
HVAC30 9.8
HVAC31 10.8
HVAC32 13.7
HVAC33 9.0
HVAC34 8.4
HVAC35 8.0
HVAC36 7.8
HVAC37 10.6
HVAC38 16.5
HVAC39 16.6
HVAC40 16.5
HVAC41 15.5
HVAC42 16.1
HVAC43 16.9
HVAC44 18.2
HVAC45 16.8
HVAC46 17.7
14 1.Fl 33.6 0.0
HVAC1 18.6
HVAC2 17.5
HVAC3 17.1
HVAC4 19.4
HVAC5 17.5
HVAC6 18.4
HVAC7 18.1
HVAC8 19.8
HVAC9 19.5
HVAC10 16.6
HVAC11 20.0
HVAC12 18.8
HVAC13 18.4
HVAC14 18.5
HVAC15 19.9
HVAC16 19.4
HVAC17 18.3
HVAC18 19.5
HVAC19 16.3
HVAC20 15.9
HVAC21 17.4
HVAC22 16.9
HVAC23 15.7
HVAC24 18.1
HVAC25 18.4
HVAC26 18.5
HVAC27 16.2
HVAC28 15.6
HVAC29 14.7
HVAC30 13.7
HVAC31 9.6
HVAC32 10.4
HVAC33 9.7
HVAC34 10.8
HVAC35 9.9
HVAC36 9.0
HVAC37 12.0
HVAC38 13.8
HVAC39 15.6
HVAC40 15.8
HVAC41 15.3
HVAC42 15.6
HVAC43 15.5
HVAC44 15.7
HVAC45 15.4
HVAC46 16.9
Contributions 2042
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
15 1.Fl 39.0 0.0
HVAC1 14.4
HVAC2 12.0
HVAC3 11.4
HVAC4 11.2
HVAC5 12.0
HVAC6 13.6
HVAC7 14.2
HVAC8 12.6
HVAC9 12.3
HVAC10 20.2
HVAC11 13.2
HVAC12 14.5
HVAC13 22.9
HVAC14 26.3
HVAC15 31.3
HVAC16 32.6
HVAC17 26.7
HVAC18 23.4
HVAC19 26.5
HVAC20 20.2
HVAC21 26.1
HVAC22 25.0
HVAC23 26.2
HVAC24 25.1
HVAC25 14.4
HVAC26 17.2
HVAC27 23.1
HVAC28 21.7
HVAC29 17.7
HVAC30 12.0
HVAC31 7.6
HVAC32 6.7
HVAC33 6.2
HVAC34 7.2
HVAC35 8.3
HVAC36 9.0
HVAC37 9.8
HVAC38 10.5
HVAC39 12.6
HVAC40 18.2
HVAC41 16.0
HVAC42 16.0
HVAC43 15.8
HVAC44 21.0
HVAC45 18.8
HVAC46 23.9
16 1.Fl 38.0 0.0
HVAC1 14.5
HVAC2 15.2
HVAC3 15.1
HVAC4 15.0
HVAC5 15.9
HVAC6 15.8
HVAC7 19.0
HVAC8 19.2
HVAC9 18.3
HVAC10 7.5
HVAC11 19.4
HVAC12 21.1
HVAC13 22.7
HVAC14 23.7
HVAC15 25.5
HVAC16 27.4
HVAC17 24.9
HVAC18 25.3
HVAC19 19.6
HVAC20 22.7
HVAC21 28.3
HVAC22 29.4
HVAC23 23.5
HVAC24 19.9
HVAC25 20.6
HVAC26 21.7
HVAC27 27.7
HVAC28 26.5
HVAC29 21.9
HVAC30 18.3
HVAC31 8.7
HVAC32 6.8
HVAC33 5.6
HVAC34 7.7
HVAC35 6.8
HVAC36 6.9
HVAC37 8.5
HVAC38 10.9
HVAC39 11.2
HVAC40 8.3
HVAC41 6.8
HVAC42 6.8
HVAC43 6.8
HVAC44 6.7
HVAC45 8.7
HVAC46 10.7
Contributions 2043
10587 Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
SoundPLAN Data - HVAC
Noise
Source name Level
dB(A)
17 1.Fl 39.6 0.0
HVAC1 18.4
HVAC2 18.6
HVAC3 15.2
HVAC4 13.6
HVAC5 18.7
HVAC6 19.0
HVAC7 20.2
HVAC8 20.6
HVAC9 12.5
HVAC10 9.7
HVAC11 17.3
HVAC12 21.0
HVAC13 11.2
HVAC14 7.8
HVAC15 7.3
HVAC16 7.1
HVAC17 7.7
HVAC18 11.5
HVAC19 15.3
HVAC20 15.2
HVAC21 14.9
HVAC22 16.0
HVAC23 15.7
HVAC24 16.4
HVAC25 25.1
HVAC26 26.3
HVAC27 25.1
HVAC28 30.3
HVAC29 28.8
HVAC30 30.9
HVAC31 29.5
HVAC32 26.7
HVAC33 27.0
HVAC34 24.4
HVAC35 22.1
HVAC36 21.2
HVAC37 23.0
HVAC38 26.6
HVAC39 25.9
HVAC40 18.3
HVAC41 15.6
HVAC42 15.6
HVAC43 15.5
HVAC44 15.4
HVAC45 19.5
HVAC46 23.7
18 1.Fl 38.8 0.0
HVAC1 29.2
HVAC2 23.9
HVAC3 22.0
HVAC4 22.1
HVAC5 24.0
HVAC6 29.5
HVAC7 29.2
HVAC8 23.7
HVAC9 22.4
HVAC10 21.3
HVAC11 23.6
HVAC12 28.1
HVAC13 26.8
HVAC14 25.0
HVAC15 27.6
HVAC16 21.7
HVAC17 22.6
HVAC18 28.7
HVAC19 12.2
HVAC20 11.8
HVAC21 12.8
HVAC22 11.4
HVAC23 9.1
HVAC24 11.0
HVAC25 7.1
HVAC26 6.5
HVAC27 7.5
HVAC28 5.7
HVAC29 5.7
HVAC30 5.2
HVAC31 5.4
HVAC32 4.9
HVAC33 4.0
HVAC34 4.5
HVAC35 5.4
HVAC36 6.0
HVAC37 6.5
HVAC38 7.7
HVAC39 11.6
HVAC40 9.5
HVAC41 9.2
HVAC42 9.8
HVAC43 11.0
HVAC44 22.4
HVAC45 12.0
HVAC46 12.2
Contributions 2044

ATTACHMENT D.11

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ASSESSMENT
2045

N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\VMT\Santa Fe Flores VMT_Dec 2025.docx December 4, 2025

Mr. Paul Mayer
Santa Fe Flores LP
PO Box 903
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067

LLG Reference: 3-24-3940

Subject: Santa Fe Flores Townhomes VMT Assessment
San Marcos, California

Dear Mr. Mayer:

Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) has prepared this assessment of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for the Santa Fe Flores Townhomes project (“Project”). The Project site is located at 2966, 2972 and 2982 S. Santa Fe Avenue , on the northwest corner of the S. Santa Fe Avenue / N. Las Flores Drive intersection in the City of San Marcos. The P roject proposes the development of 46 multi-family dwelling units. The Project’s site plan is shown on Figure 1.

This assessment has been prepared to evaluate the effects of the Project based on VMT, as proposed by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement California State Law Senate Bill (SB) 743 and subsequently adopted by the City of San Marcos in November 2020. The analysis methodology contained in this report utilizes the City of San Marcos’ latest Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (November 16, 2020).

VMT BACKGROUND
VMT is defined as the “amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network as well land uses in a region. VMT is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT accounts for two- way (roundtrip) travel and is estimated for a typical weekday for the purposes of measuring transportation impacts.

The potential transportation impacts of the proposed Project are based on VMT to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines through SB 743.

Public Resources Code section 20199, enacted pursuant to SB 743, identifies VMT as

2046
Mr. Paul Mayer
December 4, 2025

Page 2 ends

N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\VMT\Santa Fe Flores VMT_Dec 2025.docx an appropriate metric for measuring transportation impacts along with the elimination of auto delay/Level of service (LOS) for CEQA purposes statewide.

VMT ASSESSMENT
Based on the City of San Marcos Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines , the requirement to prepare a detailed transportation VMT analysis applies to all land development projects except for those that meet at least one of the provided screening criteria. A project that meets at least one of the screening criteria listed below would be considered to have a less -than-significant impact due to the project or location characteristics.

1. Small Projects (less than 110 daily vehicle trips)

2. Affordable Housing (100% deed restricted)

3. Local Serving Retail and Public Facilities (50,000 square feet gross floor area or less)

4. Adjacency to High-Quality Transit

5. Map-Based Screening (projects located in VMT efficient areas) : Residential and employment projects that are proposed in areas that generate VMT below adopted City thresholds can be presumed to have a less- than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. This determination must be made using SANDAG’s online residential and employment VMT maps, which show census tracts in the city where the VMT is below the regional average. The following types of projects could be screened out using this approach:
 Residential projects proposed in census tracts with residential VMT per capita below the City’s threshold of exceeding 85 percent of the SANDAG regional average
 Employment projects proposed in census tracts with work VMT per employee below the City’s threshold of exceeding 85 percent of the SANDAG regional average
Per SANDAG’s online residential VMT ma p, the Project site is located within Census Tract 200.18 as shown in Figure 2 . The VMT per capita of this Census Tract is 15.4 VMT, which is 81.2% of the SANDAG regional average of 19.0 VMT per capita. Therefore, screening criteria number five (5) listed above is applicable. As such, the Project can be presumed to have a less- than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis.
2047
Mr. Paul Mayer
December 4, 2025

Page 3 ends

N:\3940 - Santa Fe Flores\Report\VMT\Santa Fe Flores VMT_Dec 2025.docx Please call me with any questions.

Sincerely,
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers

John Boarman, P.E.

Principal
California Registration: C50033

cc: File
2048
S
S
545
540
0 540
0 540540
40404054054040540
540405400
54054540540540
54054540540540
540
540
540540540
5405
535535553553
5355353553
53353535
535
530
530353053
530
525
525
5252552525
520
520
520
515
5155
51051
5105
51055105
510 510
505550550
5005
5005050050
500
500
500
495
495
495
495

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
TOWNHOME 1OME 1TOWNOW
6-PLEX6-PLEX
FF=500.00FF=
TOWNHOME 2WNHOOWNHOMM
6-PLEX6- LE
FF=500.000.0051051055
FF= 00 0
TOWNHOME 5HOME
6-PLEX6-PL
FF=526.0000F
TOWNHOME 6ME 6TOW
6-PLEXPLEX
FF=531.00FF=5
TOWNHOME 4HOMET
8-PLEX8-P
FF=536.0000
498 FS498 FSFF
532 FSF
537 FS537 F5 FS5
534 FSF 54F S
525 FG
525 FS5F S552
TOWNHOME 7WNHO51551555OW 7E
6-PLEX65
PL
FF=500.0000.000.
496 FS496 F6 496 FS

RETAINING WALLWALLRETAT N WAT NG L
HT=4.0'HT=4

RETAINING WALLE WG
HT=3.0'T=

RETAINING WALLR AAR
HT=14.0'T

AMENITY AREAAA
PAD=500.00

RETAINING WALLR NN W
HT=10.0'T 00

RETAINING WALLNG WARR T I N W LLR

RETAINING WALLALLETAINTA N WAA L RETAINING WALLNING R AI G ALG WAL HT=10.0'T=10.1

RETAINING WALLWALLRETAIET NI W LWA
HT=6.0'HHT 0'

RETAINING WALLAW
HT=4.0'

RETAINING WALL
44G W
HT=4.5'

RETAINING WALLNINAIT
HT=1.5'H
S. SANTA FE AVENUEA EFEF A

LAS FLORES DRIVE
515515

L SS FFLLLOOOREES DDDRRR VEEE

MAY REQUIRE SHORING TO OVER EXCAVATE FOR BUILDING

MAY REQUIRE SHORING TO OVER EXCAVATE FOR BUILDINGUU R

MAY REQUIRE SHORING TO OVERO MAY REQUIRE SHORING TO OVERYY U H NN

EXCAVATE FOR BUILDINGXX A OO I

MAY REQUIRE SHORING TO OVERM R IR H N O R

EXCAVATE FOR BUILDINGX VA FO UU NEXCAVATE

WILL NEED TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY ACCESSCE

ALTERNATIVE FOR ADJACENT PROPERTYTY
DURING OVER EXCAVATION WORK.

MAY REQUIRE SHORING TO OVERI

EXCAVATE FOR ROADD

RETAINING WALL
HT=2.0'
526 FS526 F 530 FSS30 S 531 FS531

RETAINING WALL
HT=3.0'

RETAINING WALL
HT=5.0'

RETAINING WALLAALAL
HT=6.0'

RETAINING WALL
HT=5.0'
GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" =
0 20' 40' 60'
D 0/3/ 0
S O
TOWNHOME 7
TOWNHOME 5 & 6
TOWNHOME NO.

TOWNHOME 1 & 2
TOWNHOME 3 & 4

OVEREXCAVATION AREA
8,483 SF (10' OFFSET FROM BUILDING)
16,288 SF (10' OFFSET FROM BUILDING)
16,045 SF (10' OFFSET FROM BUILDING)
20,317 SF (10' OFFSET FROM BUILDING)
RAW REMEDIAL OVEREXCAVATION VOLUME*
1,571 CY **
3,016 CY **
2,971 CY **
11,320 CY **
3,762 CY **
* RAW REMEDIAL OVERXCAVATION QUANTITIES ARE ESTIMATES ONLY. CONTRACTOR/OWNER SHALL NOT RELY UPON QUANTITIES FOR BID PURPOSES. CONTRACTOR/OWNER TO VERIFY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES TO THEIR SATISFACTION. ** RAW OVEREXCAVATION VOLUMES FOR BUILDINGS AND ROADS ASSUMES 5' DEEP OVEREXCAVATION PER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN GEOCON'S GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR PROJECT NO. G3355-42-01 DATED AUGUST 12, 2024.

LEGEND

PROPERTY LINE

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF BUILDING REMEDIAL OVEREXCAVATION
TOTAL BUILDING OVEREXCAVATION VOLUME:

PRIVATE ROADS

ALL PRIVATE ROADS

OVEREXCAVATION AREA
28,590 SF (5' OFFSET FROM EDGE OF ROAD)
RAW REMEDIAL OVEREXCAVATION VOLUME*
5,294 CY **

APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PRIVATE ROAD REMEDIAL OVEREXCAVATION Project Site Plan
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
N:\3940\Figures
Date: 11/26/25
90’
Distance to
nearestBus Stop
ExistingSidewalk
ExistingBike Lane
ExistingSidewalk
N. Las Flores Drive
Figure 1
2049
Figure 2
SANDAG Screening Map Results
N:\3473\Figures\SANDAG
Screening Map Results
SANDAG Screening Map Results
Figure 2N:\3940\Figures
Date: 08/07/24
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
2050

ATTACHMENT D.12
BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT LETTER, JULY 17, 2025
2051
P: 760-639-6111 Icityofvista.com I F: 760-639-6112
200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, California 92084-6275

BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT

July 17, 2025

City of San Marcos
Attn: Associate Planner Sarah Cluff
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069

Re: Sewer Service for GPA25-0001 – Santa Fe Flores 46-Unit Condos

Dear Ms. Cluff,

The project applicant has requested the Buena Sanitation District (BSD) to provide sanitary sewer service for the proposed 46-unit condominium project located at S. Santa Fe Av. and Las Flores Dr. in the City of San Marcos. Though BSD infrastructure is available and has sufficient capacity, the subject property is not located within the BSD boundary. Pursuant to CA Government Code 56133, BSD cannot commit to serve the property unless San Diego LAFCO first approves an Out of Area Service request.

In March 2025, BSD staff submitted a request to serve the project to LAFCO, but a CEQA determination must be made on the project before LAFCO can move forward with the request. To facilitate the CEQA review, this letter serves to confirm that contingent upon LAFCO approval, satisfaction of BSD’s infrastructure improvement requirements, payment of fees, and recordation of an Out of Area Service Agreement, BSD is willing to provide sewer service to the subject project. A formal sewer commitment letter can be provided if/when LAFCO approves the OAS request.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Steven Nowak, PE, PLS
Principal Engineer

2052

ATTACHMENT D.13
BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT LETTER, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025
2053

Buena Sanitation Distri ct

September 3, 2025

City of San Marcos
Attn: Associate Planner Sarah Cluff
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos, CA 92069

Subject: Reconsideration of August 4, 2025 Sewer Service Determination – Santa Fe Flores 46-Unit Condos (GPA25-0001)

Dear Ms. Cluff,

This letter serves to formally rescind the Buena Sanitation District’s (BSD) correspondence dated August 4, 2025, regarding sewer service availability for the proposed Santa Fe Flores 46-unit condominium project located at S. Santa Fe Avenue and Las Flores Drive in the City of San Marcos.

Upon further evaluation, BSD has determined that it will proceed with offering sewer service to the Santa Fe Flores project. This decision is based on consideration of the historic project timeline and minor impact to BSD’s downstream system capacity. In addition to meeting BSD’s requirements and LAFCO approval, the project shall provide a proportional cost-share contribution towards capacity improvements as previously discussed with the applicant.

Please note that this determination is exclusive to the Santa Fe Flores project and does not establish a precedent for other projects located outside the BSD jurisdictional boundary within the City of San Marcos. Future requests for sewer availability can only be considered once BSD realizes progress on securing necessary easements to construct planned downstream capacity improvements.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Ken Knatz, P.E.

Sewer Engineering Manager

2054

ATTACHMENT E1

PROJECT CIVIL PLANS
2055
2056
D
D
D
S
S
570
570
565
565
560
560
560
555
555
555
555
550
550
550
550
545
545
545
545
545
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
535 535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535
535535
535
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
530
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
525
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
520
515
515
515 515
515
515
515
515
510
510
510
510
510
510
510510
505
505
505
505
505
505
505
500
500
500500
500
500
500
500
495
495
495
495
495
495
495
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

SDSDSDSD
SDSD
W W W

S S S S

SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD
SDSDSD
SDSDSD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
F F
F F
F
F
F
F
FFFF
FFFF
FFFF
FFFF
FFFF
FFFF

WWWWWWWW
WW

W W W W W

W W W W

W W W W
WWWWW
WWWWW
WWWWWW
WWWWW
WWWWWW
WW

W W W W W

SSSSSSSSSS
SSS
SSSS
SSSS
S

SDSDSDSD

S S S S

W W W W W

S S S S

S S S S S

SSSSSSS
SSSS
SSSS
S

S S S S
W
W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
WW W
WWW
WW
WW
WW
WWWWWW
W
W
W
W
WWWWW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SSS
S
SS
SS
SS
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSS
SS
SS
S
S
W
W
W
SD

SDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SD SD SD SD
SD
SD

SDSDSDSD
SD SD

SDSDSDSDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSD
SDSD

SD SD SD
SD
SDSD
SDSDSD

SDSDSDSDSDSD

SD SD SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD

SDSDSDSD

SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SDSD

SDSDSDSD

SDSDSDSD
SD
SD
SD SD
W
F
WWWF
USPS
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
EX.SDMH
EX.

SMH
EX. 18" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
EX. CURB INLET
EX. 60" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
EX. 8" PVC S PER COV DWG. NO. 3804
EX. 10" PVC W PER D-2140
EX. 42" RCP SD PER COSM IP-4589
EX.

SDMH
EX. 8" PVC S PER COV D-3810
EX. 42" RCP SD PER COSM GP-2280
EX.SDMH
EX.

FH
EX. 6" PVC W PER D-2140
EX. 18" RCP SD
EX.SDMH
EX. 10" PVC W PER I-3007
EX.

SDMH
EX.

SMH
EX.

SMH
EX.SMH
EX.

SDMH
EX.SDMH
EX. 18" RCP SD PER COSM GP-2280
EX.

SMH
EX. 8" PVC S PER COV D-3804
EX. 8" W PER D-2140
EX. 8" S
EX. 10" W
EX. 42" RCP SD
±(494.16) TC±(493.71) FL
PROP. CURB OUTLETPER SDRSD D-25APROP. DRIVEWAYPER CITY OF SANMARCOS RADIUSTYPE DRIVEWAY PROP. SMH483.88 IE, 8" S±(483.68) IE
PROP. IRRG. WATERMETER & BACKFLOWPROP.CONNECTIONTO EX. 10" WPROP. (2) DOM. WATERMETERS & BACKFLOWSPROP. FIRE SERVICEBACKFLOW EX. ELEC. VAULTTO REMAINABANDON EX. WM & LATERAL
EX.

SMH
EX. 10" PVC W PER D-2140
(51')
(51')
(102')
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN71°08'14"E

28.75'
EX. 24" RCP SD PERCOSM IP-4589

EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING
EX. CURB INLETEX. 24" RCP PER COSM GP-2280EX. 24" RCP PERCOSM GP-2280 EX. CURB INLET
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 217-560-51
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 217-161-17
APN: 217-161-25
APN: 219-114-28
APN: 219-114-28
(515)
(510)
(505)
(520)
(525)
(530)
(500)
(515)
(510)
(505)
(500)
(520)
(525)
(535)
(525)
(520)
(515)
(510)
(530)
VARIES
PER DOC 2005-0887132 &
2005-0887133
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
EX. RAISED MEDIAN
EX. 18" RCP SD
EX. RAISED MEDIAN
EX. VEHICULAR GUARDRAIL
EX. RIGHT-OF-WAYEX. RIGHT-OF-WAY
VARIESPER DOC2005-0887132 &
2005-0887133
PROTECT IN PLACEEX. BACKFLOW,WM& LATERAL
EX. 18" RCP SD PERCOSM GP-2280
ABANDON EX. IRRIGATIONWATER SERVICEEX. 18" RCP SD.EMRA TO BE PROVIDED EX. FENCING
PROP. 3' WIDE RIBBONGUTTER. PERMISSION TOGRADE LETTER TO BEPROVIDED.

EX. AC PARKING LOT

24.00'
STRIPING OF RELOCATED EX.STALLS & NEW STOP LEGEND.PERMISSION TO GRADE LETTER TO BE PROVIDED.

PROPERTY BOUNDARYN23°32'36"E

0.60'PROPERTY BOUNDARYN71°30'04"E

8.15'PROPERTY BOUNDARYN66°25'12"E

3.98'
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN61°15'13"E, 87.61'

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N23°19'42"E377.31'
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN66°38'44"W250.78'
PROPERTY BOUNDARYN23°50'13"E32.84'
N23°34'48"

PROPERTY BOUNDARY
167.99'
BUILDING 1FF=499.00
BUILDING 2FF=499.00
BUILDING 6FF=526.00
BUILDING 5FF=531.00
BUILDING 7FF=502.50
BUILDING 4FF=536.00
N23°37'25"E138.53'
533.08 TC
532.58 FS533.06 TC532.56 FS
530.81 TC530.31 TG528.31 IE
531.40 TC530.90 FSHP
530.25 FS
529.73 FS
525.00 FS
530.84 TC
530.34 FL
529.86 TC529.36 FL
525.13 TC524.63 FL
539.23 TC
538.73 FS
534.37 TC533.87 FL
532.17 TC
531.67 FL
538.92 TC538.42 FS
BUILDING 3FF=535.00

2.2% 5.0%

1.0%

4.0% 1.0%
530.52 FS

2.2%

5.0% 5.0%

4.8%

6.0%

1.0%

5.0%

4.8%1.0%

1.0%
537.80 TW533.00 BW
HT=4.80'
486.49IE
530.53 IE526.60 IE
495.77 FL

1.8%7.5%

4.0%
497.72 TC
497.22 FS 498.32 TC497.82 FL8.2%
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=499.00
GFF=502.50
GFF=502.50

0.6%
499.40 TC498.90 FL

18.6%

5.0%

6.2%

1.2%
498.50 TC498.00 FS

1.0%

4.1%

4.2% 5.0%5.0% 533.80 TC
533.30 FS

5.0%

AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00
PROP. SMH495.00 IE

6.5%
498.35 FL498.77 FL
496.85 TC496.35 FL

1.0%
499.01 TC498.51 FL
500.31 TC499.81 FS

12.4%

5.0%

AMENITY AREA
FG=499.00
PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 4-A)
499.50 IE-IN498.17 IE-OUT
PROPRIETARYBIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 3-A)527.44 IE-IN526.11 IE-OUT GFF=535.00GFF=535.00

7.0%

7.0%
PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM (BMP 1-A)532.20 IE-IN, 530.87 IE-OUT PROP. PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 2-A), 493.10 IE-IN, 491.77 IE-OUT PROPRIETARY BIOFILTRATIONSYSTEM (BMP 5-A)491.32 IE-OUT
UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM (BMP 1-B)TOP=531.77, BOT=526.60 PROP. WEIR
BYPASSSTRUCTURE493.35 IE-IN,493.15 IE-OUT
PROP. WEIR BYPASS STRUCTURE526.53 IE-IN, ±(526.33) IE-OUT 491.16 IE491.16IE
530.42 IE
495.34 IE
490.67 IE
PROP.UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM (BMP 2-B)TOP=492.16BOT=486.49 UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM (BMP 4-B)TOP=496.34BOT=490.67 UNDERGROUNDDETENTIONSYSTEM (BMP 3-B)TOP=527.06BOT=520.06 520.06 IE
526.06 IE
PROP. WEIR BYPASSSTRUCTURE519.94 IE-IN519.74 IE-OUT
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX 2:1 MAX
PROP. BROW DITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75
PROP. BROWDITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75PROP. "GEOGRIDANCHORPLEX"RETAINING WALL PROP. PERMANENTSHORING WALL
PROP. RETAINING WALL
PROP. RETAINING WALL
PROP. STAIRS
PROP. STAIRS
PROP. MSE "GEOGRID"RETAINING WALL
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC. RIBBON GUTTER
GFF=536.00GFF=536.00
PROP. CONC. RIBBON GUTTER
GFF=526.00
GFF=526.00
GFF=531.00
GFF=531.00
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
PROP. CONC.RIBBON GUTTER
526.30
514.60 TW499.00 BWHT=15.60'
PROP. "GEOGRIDANCHORPLEX"RETAINING WALLPROP. BROWDITCH (TYPE A)PER SDRSD D-75 AA
B
B
C
C
(530)
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
PROP. PERMANENTSHORING WALL
505.50 TW/502.50 BWHT=3.0'
3:1 MAX
EX. TRASH ENCLOSURETO BE REMOVED ANDREBUILT/RELOCATED.PERMISSION TO GRADELETTER TO BEPROVIDED. 2:1 MAX
PROP. MASONRYRETAINING WALL (5'MAX EXPOSED HT.)
PROP. MASONRY RETAINING WALL
2:1 MAX
2:1 MAX
514.50
519.80 TW517.80 BW
HT=2.0'
516.00 TW502.50 BW
HT=13.5'
508.50 TW
502.50 BWHT=6.0'
539.10 TW
533.10 BWHT=6.00'540.10 TW534.40 BWHT=5.70'541.70 TW538.10 BW HT=3.60'
537.80 TW536.00 BWHT=1.80'
537.00 TW535.00 BWHT=2.00'
513.50 TW499.00 BWHT=14.50'
501.50 TW499.00 BWHT=2.50'
506.00 TW499.00 BW
HT=7.00'
499.00 TW
496.50 BWHT=2.50'
497
499
504.20 TW, 499.00 BW
HT=5.20'
535.00 TW, 517.20 BWHT=17.80'
535.00 TW, 526.75 BWHT=8.25'
PROP.

STAIRS
PROP. 8" FSPROP. DOM. W
PROP. SDPROP. 8" S
PROP.

FH
PROP.

FH
PROP. CURB INLET
PROP. CURB INLET
PROP.SDMH
PROP.

SDMH
PROP. 8" FS
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. SDPROP. 8" S
PROP. DOM. W
PROP. 8" S
PROP. SMH530.00 IE
PROP. SMH529.06 IE-IN528.86 IE -OUT
PROP. SMH
524.98 IE-IN524.78 IE-OUT
PROP. SMH, 494.67 IE-OUT, 494.87 IE-OUT

PROP.

TRANSF.PROP.TRANSF.
535.76 FL 534.40 TG

25.00'

24.00'

24.00' 24.00'

18.00'18.00'
PROP. NEW P/L PERSEPARATE LLA
REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EX. ON-SITE 18" RCPSD AND CAP AT PROPERTY LINE.

REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF EX. ON-SITEINLET, MANHOLE & 18" RCP SD CONNECT TO EX. 18" RCP

10.00' PROP. ACCESS ESMT TO
AMEND/REPLACE EX. ACCESS ESMT
PROP. 18" PRIVATESD. EMRA TO BEPROVIDED.

D
D
APPROX. LIMITSOF GEOGRIDFABRIC (TYP.)
APPROX. LIMITSOF GEOGRID
FABRIC

PROTECT IN
PLACE EX.ELEC. METER

5.0%

1.8%
497.34 TC
496.84 FS

1.2%

1.8%

1.2%

40.14'

19.93'
APPROX. LIMITS OF"ANCHORPLEX"CONCRETE BACKFILL APPROX. LIMITS OF"ANCHORPLEX"CONCRETE BACKFILL

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK

10.00'

BLDG STBK
EX. P/L TO BEADJUSTED PERSEPARATE LLA
EX. P/L TO BE ADJUSTEDPER SEPARATE LLA
PROP. MSE"GEOGRID"RET. WALL

24.51'
PROP. CURB INLET

15.00'

BLDG STBK

1.0%
360' STOPPING LINE OF SIGHT PER CITYINTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCEGUIDELINES (45 MPH DESIGN SPEED) 360' STOPPING LINE OFSIGHT FOR PER CITYINTERSECTION SIGHTDISTANCE GUIDELINES(45 MPH DESIGN SPEED)

LINE OF SIGHT PER CITYINTERSECTION SIGHTDISTANCE GUIDELINES EX.

R/W
PROP.

BNDY
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
PROP. MASONRY

RETAINING WALL
2:1 MAX
PROP. BROW

DITCH (TYPE A)
PER SDRSD D-75
EX. GRADE
EX. CURB & GUTTER
EX. SIDEWALK

LAS FLORES DRIVE
±(552.96) FG
538.00 TW
536.00 BW
PROP. SD
PROP. SD
PROP. UNDERGROUND

DETENTION SYSTEM
BOT=526.60
TOP=531.72
APN: 219-114-28
PROP. GRADE
PROP. GRADE
PROP. SIDEWALKGRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20'
020'40'60'
LOT:113,209
BUILDING:

PARKING/PVMT:

LOADING:

PARKING
ADDRESS:

GARAGE
GUEST
OPEN
STUDIO
1 BDRM
2 BDRM

TOTAL UNITS
ORD. REQ.

HANDICAP
TOTAL

DRIVEWAY
(SIZE & SLOPE)SETBACKS
FRONT: 15' REAR: 10'
R. SIDE: 10'
L. SIDE: 10' TWO WAY: 24' MIN
ONE WAY: N/A
SLOPE: VARIES
COVERAGE %
PHONE: 949-661-6695

DWELLING UNITS SITE DATA
AREA (SQ. FT.)
APN(S): 217-161-17, -18, -19
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
3 BDRM
-
-
46 ZONE: MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3-6)

PRIVATE (SF)
21,610

OPEN SPACE DATA
ADDRESS: PO BOX 903, RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
OWNER: SANTA FE FLORES LPPHONE: 858-888-2488
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: GPA25-0001

CITY OF SAN MARCOS
34270 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SUITE B, DANA POINT, CA 92629

RESIDENTIAL, TOWNHOMES
CONTACT: PAUL MAYER
38,672
35,778
0 100%
34%
32%
0%-
-
OF 7
LANDSCAPING:38,75934%
SHEET:

ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, DESIGNER: PLSA
4 BDRM
92 14
0 0
1 107
14,795

COMMON (SF)
46 2
SHEET 2 OF 7
NOTES

1. BOTTOM OF WALL (BW) ELEVATIONS ON THIS PLAN IDENTIFIES THE LOWER SURFACE GRADE ADJACENT TO THE RETAINING WALL.

2. RETAINING WALL HEIGHTS (HT) ON THIS PLAN IDENTIFY THE EXPOSED HEIGHT (ABOVE GRADE) OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS.

3. PARKING SIGNS TO BE INSTALLED TO GUIDE GUESTS AND RESIDENTS TO

APPROPRIATE PARKING STALLS

SECTION D-D
SCALE: NTS
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062

ATTACHMENT E2

PROJECT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093

2095
2096
2097
Fernando Bendeck
Fernando Bendeck
2098

ATTACHMENT E3

PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLANS
2099

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
W W W
W W W

S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD

F F F F

F F F F
F
F F
F F
F F

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

S S S S S S S S

W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S
W
W
W

W W W W

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD
SD
BUILDING 1
FF=499.00
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
BUILDING 6
FF=526.00
BUILDING 5
FF=531.00
BUILDING 7
FF=502.50
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
W W W
F F F
W W W
W W W
W W W
F F F
SD
USPS
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
7 65432
1 16
17 18
20 21
22 23
109
8 19
15'-0"
Landscape
Setback
S
S
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
12 11
13 14
15 IRRIGATION METHODS
The following irrigation equipment and methods will be utilized on the site:
(1) Automatic controllers utilizing evapotranspiration or moisture sensing data, with manual and auto shut off.
(2) Reduced pressure backflow preventer with stainless steel cover. (3) Subsurface drip irrigation system designed to prevent runoff, low head drainage and overspray.
(4) Plants will be grouped into hydrozones. Different hydrozones will be irrigated separately.
(5) No spray irrigation will be used within 24" of a non-permeable surface

INVASIVE SPECIES
(1) No non-native invasive plant species shall be used, per Appendix N of the MSCP Subarea Plan, California Exotic Pest Plant Council List A-1 and California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC).

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
(1) All landscaped areas outside the CFD Landscape Maintenance Easement boundary shall be maintained by the owner.
(2) All landscape improvements within the CFD Landscape Maintenance Easement boundary shall be City maintained. (3) All fences and retaining walls shall be privately maintained by the owner.

PLANT MATERIALS
(1) The project has been designed with water conserving plant species, disease and pest-resistant plants, Trees have been utilized wherever possible to provide shading.
(2) All street trees shall have root barriers.
(3) All 24" box trees shall have a minimum trunk caliper of 1-1/2" and a minimum height of 6'. All 15 gal. trees shall have a minimum trunk caliper of 1" and a minimum height of 5'
(4) Landscape construction drawings shall be prepared to meet the requirements of CSM Water Ordinance.
(5) See sheet LCP-2 for inventory of existing trees to be removed, and to remain.
(6) All trees shall have a minimum of 25' sq. ft. pervious planting area.

EROSION CONTROL
(1) Best Management Practice devices and procedures shall be utilized as specified by the Project Civil Engineer.

MISCELLANEOUS
(1) On-site pedestrian and bicycle paths shall be clearly distinguished to ensure these routes are visible to drivers and require vehicles to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists.

Total Project Site: 113,209 s.f.

Total Landscape Area: 38,759 s.f.
% of Site Landscaped: 34 %
Total Uncovered Parking Spaces 15
Total Trees (111 Proposed, 12 Existing) 123
Santa Fe TownhomesLandscape Concept Plan Scale 1" = 20' 20' 10' 0 60'00
1951 f o u r t h a v e n u e , s t e. 302
s a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660 l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
E
D O
A
H

C I S S O AT
A W R
S
r l a 2 6 8 1
North
Proposed Tan, Slump Face Block
Retaining Walls per engineering plans.

Screened with tall shrubs and vines
LCP-1
See Sheet LCP-2 for Planting Legend, Water
Conservation Plan, Schematic Irrigation Plan,
and Tree Survey
Proposed Underground
Detention System (Typ.)
Proposed Underground
Detention System
Proposed Handicap
Parking Stall
NOVEMBER 20, 2025
Transformer
Proposed Fire Hydrant
(Typ.)
Existing CFD Slope Landscaping to remain
(Typ.). Bare areas where planting has
died or been damaged shall be replanted
with Slope Shrubs and Slope Ground
Covers , per Planting Legend, sht. LCP- 2
Existing Trees to be protected
in place (Typ.) See LCP-2 for
Existing Tree Survey
Existing Commercial Building
Existing Parking Lot
Existing Sidewalk
Existing Curb
No plant material over
24" height at maturity
shall be planted within
the corner sight distance
triangle
Las Flores Drive Sight
Line symbol (Typ.)
10'x21' Covered Trash
Enclosure screened
with vines
18" Concrete Step Out
at ends of parking
stalls (Typ.)
Proposed 42" ht. Black Tubular Steel
Fence at top of retaining wall
Existing Electrical Utilities
Parking Lot Trees - min. 1 per
7 spaces
· 15 Uncovered Parking
Spaces
· 6 Parking Area Shade Trees
Provided
Concrete Walk (Typ.)
Natural grey with
broom finish
Proposed 6' Tan
Vinyl Screen Fence
Screened with Tall
Shrubs (Typ.)
New 24" box Geijera parviflora
/ Australian Willows to replace
existing street trees removed
due to grading.

Artificial Turf Dog Relief Areas - Shown with Symbol
(Typ. at ends of Buildings)
(5) new Trees within the City
CFD Easement to be Geijera
Parviflora
Landscape Notes:

Existing CFD water meter & irrigation
controller to remain. Protect in place.

Concrete mow curb to be located at the limits of the adjusted publicly maintained City CFD Landscape Maintenance Easement. All trees, landscaping, and irrigation within the easement are subject to review by the Public Works Department and will be maintained by the CFD.

Separate CFD Landscape Improvement Plans will be provided for landscape reviewed and approved.

OPEN SPACE AREA 'A'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'B'
SEE SHEET LCP-3Fire
Hydrant
Pedestrian Paseo (Typ.) See
Sheet LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'C'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'D'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'E'
SEE SHEET LCP-3
See Sheet LCP-3 for Common Usable Open
Space Exhibit Amenities and calculations,
including open space areas A,B,C,D and
Pedestrian Paseos.

Transformer
Screened with
Shrubs and
Decorative
Utility box wrap
(Typ.)
Transformer
Transformer
10'x 21' Covered
Trash Enclosure
Planted Modular
Wetland Unit (Typ.)
Group Mailbox Structure
Fire Directory Sign
30" Ht. Tubular Steel Fence
42" Ht. Tan Vinyl Screen Fence
Screening Vines (Typ.)
Screening Shrubs and Vines
Outside Wall
Screening
Vines (Typ.)
Emergency Access
Walkway Connection
to Sidewalk
3' Wide Planting for
Screen Shrubs and
Vines along Drive
Retaining Wall
Screened with Vines (Typ.)
Colored, Scorned
Concrete Drive
Crossing (Typ.)
4' Wide Concrete
Walk Across
Driveway Entry

I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT

LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS AND SUBMIT A

COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION

PACKAGE

PROPERTY OWNER DATE
Retaining Wall
Screened with Vines (Typ.)
Stairs w/Handrail 4'X6' Concrete Pad for
(2)Bike Rack
(4'X6' Concrete Pad
for (2)Bike Rack
4'X6' Concrete Pad for
(2)Bike Rack
4'X6' Concrete Pad for
(2)Bike Rack
4'X6' Concrete Pad for
(2)Bike Rack
Postal Service
Designated Parking
Space
Stopping Sight
Distance Line of Sight
CFD Concrete Mow
Curb
Screening Vines (Typ.)
6' Ht. Tan Slump Block
Wall, Partially Retaining
2100
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
W
W W W
S S S
S S

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
F F F
F F F
F
F
F
F

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W

W W W W W

W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

S S S S S

W W W W W W W

S S S S S

S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S
S
S
S
S

S S S S S S S S S
S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD
BUILDING 1
FF=499.00
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
BUILDING 6
FF=526.00
BUILDING 5
FF=531.00
BUILDING 7
FF=502.50
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD
W W
F F
W W
W W
W W
F F
SD
USPS
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
S
S

X X X X X X X X
X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
POC
C
V V
V V
V V
V
V
V
V
V V
V
V
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN PLANTING LEGEND - SEE SHEET L-1

PLANT DESCRIPTION - SIZE, ESTIMATED QUANTITY
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME (WUCOLS ZONE 4)
TREES
LARGE ACCENT TREES - 36'' BOX (APPROX. QTY = 10)

TIPUANA TIPU/ TIPU TREE (M)

ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'TRUE GREEN'/ EVERGREEN ELM (L)
STREET TREES - EXISTING (APPROX. QTY = 12)
S. SANTA FE AVE. - RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC (L)

LAS FLORES DRIVE - GEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOW (M) STREET TREES - 24" BOX (APPROX. QTY = 39) - MIN. PLANTER WIDTH 5'

ARBUTUS 'MARINA' / MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE (M)
CHITALPA T. 'PINK DAWN' / CHITALPA PINK DAWN (L)

KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA / CHINESE FLAME TREE (L)

LAGERSTROEMIA 'TUSCARORA' / TUSCARORA CRAPE MYRTLE (M)

PISTACIA CHINENSIS / CHINESE PISTACHE (M)

RHUS LANCEA / AFRICAN SUMAC (L)
PERIMETER SHADE TREES WITHIN CFD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT BOUNDARY - 24" BOX (QTY. 5) - MIN. PLANTER WIDTH 5'

GEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOW (M)
SMALL ACCENT TREES - 24" BOX (APPROX. QTY = 25) - MIN. PLANTER WIDTH 5'

CERCIS 'FOREST PANSY' / FOREST PANSY EASTERN REDBUD (M)

ERIOBOTRYA DEFLEXA / BRONZE LOQUAT (M)

HYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM / SWEETSHADE (M)

LAGERSTROEMIA 'TUSCARORA' / TUSCARORA CRAPE MYRTLE (M)

PODOCARPUS HENKELII / LONG LEAF YELLOWWOOD (M)
SLOPE/PERIMETER TREES - 15 GAL. -24" BOX (APPROX. QTY = 32) - MIN. PLANTER WIDTH 5'

GEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOW (M)

TRISTANIA CONFERTA / BRISBANE BOX (M)

SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS
TALL SCREENING SHRUBS - 5 GAL (APPROX. QTY =120)

CALLISTEMON CITRINUS / CRIMSON BOTTLEBRUSH (L)

DODONEA VISCOSA / HOP BUSH (M)

PODOCARPUS 'MAKI'/ SHRUBBY YEW PODOCARPUS (M)
ILEX E. COLONNADE/ COLONNADE HOLLY (M)

TECOMA ORANGE JUBILEE / ORANGE BELLS (L)
SCREENING SHRUBS -- 5 GAL (APPROX. QTY = 329)

SALVIA 'WINNIFRED GILMAN' / WINNIFRED GILMAN BLUE SAGE (L)

WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA / COASTAL ROSEMARY (L)
MASSING SHRUBS - 1 GAL. - 5 GAL (APPROX. QTY = 500)

CALLISTEMON 'SLIM' / SLIM DWARF CALLISTEMON (M)

DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY (M)

HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA (L)

PENNISETUM RUBRUM / PURPLE FOUNTAIN GRASS (L)

ROSMARINUS 'ROMAN BEAUTY' / ROMAN BEAUTY ROSEMARY (L)
SALVIA G. 'FURMAN'S RED' / FURMAN'S RED AUTUMN SAGE (L)

PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA VARIEGATA / TOBIRA (M)

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY (L)
SMALL ACCENT SHRUBS - 1 GAL. - 5 GAL (APPROX. QTY = 383)

BUXUS 'UPTIGHT' - UPTIGHT BOXWOOD (M)

DIANELLA 'LITTLE REV' / LITTLE REV FLAX LILY (L)

LIGUSTRUM 'TEXANUM' / TEXAS PRIVET (M)

NANDINA 'OBSESSION' / OBSESSION HEAVENLY BAMBOO (M)
RHAPHIOLEPIS SPP. / INDIA HAWTHORN (M)

TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES / STAR JASMINE (M)
SCREENING VINES - 5 GAL. (APPROX. QTY. = 10)

DISTICTIS BUCCINATORIA / BLOOD RED TRUMPET VINE (M)

TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES / STAR JASMINE (M)
SPREADING GROUND COVERS - FLATS @ 12" O.C.

BACCHARIS 'PIGEON POINT' / DWARF COYOTE BUSH (L)

ROSMARINUS 'PROSTRATUS' / PROSTRATE ROSEMARY (L)
CFD GROUNDCOVER 1 GAL. @12" O.C.

LONICERA JAPONICA 'HALLIANA' / HALL'S HONEYSUCKLE (L)

ARTIFICIAL TURF
SLOPE SHRUBS - 1 GAL. / 5 GAL. (APPROX. QTY. = 385)

ACACIA 'DESERT CARPET' / DESERT CARPET ACACIA (L)

BOUGAINVILLEA 'SAN DIEGO RED' / BOUGAINVILLEA (L)

ENCELIA CALIFORNICA / COAST SUNFLOWER (L)

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON (L)

LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA (L)
VERBENA L. 'DE LA MINA' / DE LA MINA VERBENA (L)
SLOPE GROUND COVERS - FLATS @ 12" O.C.

MYOPORUM P. 'PUTAH CREEK / PUTAH CREEK MYOPORUM (L)
BIOFILTRATION SYSTEM BASINS - 1 GAL. @ 18" O.C.

CAREX T. DIVULSA / EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE (L)

JUNCUS PATENS (L)

EXISTING SLOPE PLANTING TO REMAIN
PROTECT IN PLACE. ANY AREA DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, SHALL BE REPLANTED WITH MYOPORUM 'PUTAH CREEK' GROUND COVER AND SLOPE SHRUBS PER THE LEGEND ABOVE.

Schematic Irrigation Legend
V
POC
C
Hydrozone Map Legend
Santa Fe TownhomesWater Conservation & Schematic Irrigation Plan 1951 f o u r t h a v e n u e , s t e. 302 s a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660 l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
E
D O
A
H

C I S S O AT
A W R
S
r l a 2 6 8 1
North
LCP-2
Scale 1" = 30'
30' 15' 0 90'
Water Conservation Notes

1. All irrigation shall include effective and efficient watering methods utilizing Hunter MP rotator low-flow irrigation heads and Sub-surface drip irrigation.

2. All irrigation controllers shall have automatic rain shut-off sensors.

3. All plant material utilized is classified as 'low or moderate water use' by WUCOLS (water use classification of landscape species).

4. All planting areas shall receive regular maintenance and management designed to maximize healthy growth. The project owner shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaped areas.

5. All planting areas shall receive complete and appropriate soil preparation.

6. Only low volume or subsurface irrigation shall be used to irrigate any vegetation within 24" of an impermeable surface.

7. Planting areas shaded by buildings shall be amended to improve drainage and avoid remaining wet between irrigation cycles.

8. All landscaped areas except slopes steeper than 5:1 shall have a 4" layer of bark mulch.

Irrigation Note
All planting areas shall have subsurface drip irrigation or MP Rotators

HYDROZONE MAP
NOVEMBER 20, 2025

EXISTING TREE SURVEY LEGEND

TREE MITIGATION TABLE

EXISTING TREE SURVEY
2101

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

F F F F F

F F F F F F F F F F F F

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W

W W W W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S
S
S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SDSD
SD
SD

W W W W W W

F F F F F F
W

W W W W W W W

F F F F F F F
USPS
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SDSDSD
BUILDING 5
FF=531.00

X X X X X
X X

X X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X

F F F F F F

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

S S S S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
Santa Fe Townhomes Common Useable Open Space Exhibit 1951 f o u r t h a v e n u e , s t e. 302 s a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660 l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
E
D O
A
H

C I S S O AT
A W R
S
r l a 2 6 8 1
North LCP-3Scale 1" = 10'
10' 5' 0 30'
NOVEMBER 20, 2025

OPEN SPACE AREA 'A'
Open Space Area 'B' Play House, and Daisy See-Saw

OPEN SPACE AREA 'B'

OPEN SPACE AREA 'E'

OPEN SPACE AREA 'C'

OPEN SPACE AREA 'D'
Open Space Area 'B' Play Structure
Group Mailbox Structures in
Dark Bronze color to
complement architecture at
Color SW 6075 Garret Gray
BBQ Island
Shade Trellis Structure
Enhanced Concrete
Patio with Table Seating
Gate into Artificial Turf
Pet Relief Area
Artificial Turf Cornhole
Court with Concrete
Game Boards
Concrete Sidewalk
Tot Lot with 800 SF Play Area, including: Play Structure Play House
Daisy See - Saw
BBQ Patio
BBQ Patio
Typical Pedestrian Paseo
Low Wall with Flowering
Accent Trees at Corner
Artificial Turf Open
Area
Accessible Ramps
from R.O.W.

Handicap Parking Space
ADA Path of Travel
ADA Path of Travel
Retaining Wall per Civil
Engineer
Play Structure with
Slides and Climbers
Shade Trellis Structure
Enhanced Concrete
Patio with Table Seating
Gate into Pet
Relief Area
48'' Ht Black
Tubular Steel
Pet Fence
BBQ Island
Gate into Pet
Relief Area
48'' Ht Black Vinyl Chain
Link Pet Fence
Raised Planter
Seat Wall with
Accent Tree
Covered Trash
Enclosure Screened
with Tall Shrubs
Raised Planter
Seat Wall with
Accent Tree
BBQ Island
48'' Ht Black
Vinyl Chain Link
Pet Fence
Gate into Pet
Relief Area
Raised Planter
Seat Wall with
Accent Tree
Pedestrian Paseo
with Flowering
Shade Trees
Seat Wall

COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE TABLE
Open Space Area "A' 2,260 SF
Open Space Area "B' 1,830 SF
Open Space Area "C' 925 SF
Open Space Area "D' 850 SF
Open Space Area "E' 1,280 SF
Additional Pedestrian Paseo Common Walkway Areas 7,650 SF Total 14,795 SF
Total Building First Floor Livable Area 5,155 SF
Total Common Usable Open Space 14,795 SF
48'' Ht Black
Tubular
Steel Pet Fence
Enhanced Concrete
Patio with Table Seating
BUILDING 1
FF= 500.0
BUILDING 2
FF= 500.0
BUILDING 4
FF= 536.0
BUILDING 5
FF= 531.0
BUILDING 6
FF= 526.0
2' Retaining Wall per
Civil Engineer
Retaining Wall Ht. 15.6'
Retaining Wall
Ht. 14.5'
Transformer
BBQ Island
Table Seatings
Artificial Turf Cornhole Court
with Concrete Game Boards
Children's Playhouse
Children's Daisy
See-Saw
Fall- Safe Play
Surfacing Artificial Turf
under Play Features
400 sf Older Kids
400 sf Younger Kids
Fire Directory Sign
4'X6' Concrete Pad
for (2)Bike Rack 4'X6' Concrete Pad
for (2)Bike Rack
4'X6' Concrete Pad
for (2)Bike Rack
Group Mailboxes
2102

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
W W W
W W W

S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD

F F F F

F F F F
F
F F
F F
F F

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

S S S S S S S S

W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S
W
W
W

W W W W

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD
SD
BUILDING 1
FF=499.00
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
BUILDING 6
FF=526.00
BUILDING 5
FF=531.00
BUILDING 7
FF=502.50
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
W W W
F F F
W W W
W W W
W W W
F F F
SD
USPS
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
7 65432
1 16
17 18
20 21
22 23
109
8 19
15'-0"
Landscape
Setback
S
S
12 11
13 14
15 Fencing and Walls Exhibit
Scale 1" = 20'
20' 10' 0 60'00
1951 f o u r t h a v e n u e , s t e. 302
s a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660 l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
E
D O
A
H

C I S S O AT
A W R
S
r l a 2 6 8 1
North
LCP-4
NOVEMBER 20, 2025
E Tan Vinyl Fence
Solid Vinyl Fence, Tan
A 48" Ht. Black Vinyl Coated Chain Link
D Black Tubular Steel View Fence
F Tan Slump Block Wall w/ Tubular Steel Fence
Proposed Tan, Slump Face Block
Retaining Walls per engineering plans.

Screened with tall shrubs and vines
Proposed Underground
Detention System (Typ.)
Proposed Underground
Detention System
Proposed Handicap
Parking Stall Transformer
Proposed Fire Hydrant
(Typ.)
Existing Trees to be protected
in place (Typ.) See LCP-2 for
Existing Tree Survey
Existing Commercial Building
Existing Parking Lot
Existing Sidewalk
Existing CurbLas Flores Drive Sight
Line symbol (Typ.)
Covered Trash
Enclosure screened
with vines
18" Concrete Step Out
at ends of parking
stalls (Typ.)
Proposed 42" ht. Black Tubular Steel
Fence at top of retaining wall
Existing Electrical Utilities
6' Ht. Tan Slump Block
Wall, Partially Retaining
Parking Lot Trees - min. 1 per
7 spaces
· 15 Uncovered Parking
Spaces
· 6 Parking Area Shade Trees
Provided
Concrete Walk (Typ.)
Natural grey with
broom finish
Proposed 6' Tan
Vinyl Screen Fence
Screened with Tall
Shrubs (Typ.)
Artificial Turf Dog Relief Areas
(Typ. at ends of Buildings)

OPEN SPACE AREA 'A'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'B'
SEE SHEET LCP-3Fire Hydrant
Pedestrian Paseo (Typ.) See
Sheet LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'C'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'D'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'E'
SEE SHEET LCP-3
Transformer
Screened with
Shrubs
Transformer
Transformer
Trash Enclosure
Group Mailbox Structure
Fire Directory Sign
30" Ht. Tubular Steel Fence
42" Ht. Tan Vinyl Screen Fence
Stairs with Handrail
Walkway Connection
to Sidewalk
Retaining Wall
Screened with Vines (Typ.)
Colored, Scorned
Concrete Drive
Crossing (Typ.)
4' Wide Concrete
Walk Across
Driveway Entry
Retaining Wall Ht. 6' Retaining Wall Ht. 13.5'
Retaining Wall Ht. 3'
Retaining Wall Ht. 5.2'
Retaining Wall Ht. 17.8'
Retaining Wall Ht. 8.25' Retaining Wall Ht. 6'
Retaining Wall Ht. 15.6'
Retaining Wall Ht. 2.5 '
Retaining Wall Ht. 4.8'
Retaining Wall
Ht. 6'
Retaining Wall
Ht. 5.7'
42"-48" Where Shown
42" Where Shown6' Where Shown
Retaining Wall Ht. 2'
Retaining Wall Ht. 7'
Retaining Wall Ht. 14.5'
Retaining Wall Ht. 2'
Retaining Wall Ht. 5'
Retaining Wall Ht. 2'
Retaining Wall Ht. 1.8'
Retaining Wall Ht. 2.4'
Retaining Wall Ht. 2'
30" Where Shown
Retaining Wall Ht. 2.5'
Retaining Wall Ht. 3.6'
42" Ht. Tubular Steel Fence
B 6' Ht.Tan Slump Block Wall w/ Pilasters
C Tan Slump Block Pilaster
Santa Fe Townhomes
G Ramp/ Stair Handrail H Tan Slump Block Retaining Wall 6'-6" HT. Tan Slump Block
Pilaster
Black Vinyl Coated Chain Link
Dog Park Fence
Tan Slump Block Pilaster
2103

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
W W W
W W W

S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD

F F F F

F F F F
F
F F
F F
F F

F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W

W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

S S S S S S S S

W W W W W W W W W W W

S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S S S S S
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W

W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W W
W W

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S S S
W
W
W

W W W W

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD
SD

SD SD SD SD
SD
BUILDING 1
FF=499.00
BUILDING 2
FF=499.00
BUILDING 6
FF=526.00
BUILDING 5
FF=531.00
BUILDING 7
FF=502.50
BUILDING 4
FF=536.00
BUILDING 3
FF=535.00

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SD SD SD SD
W W W
F F F
W W W
W W W
W W W
F F F
SD
USPS
S. SANTA FE AVENUE

LAS FLORES DRIVE
7 65432
1 16
17 18
20 21
22 23
109
8 19
15'-0"
Landscape
Setback
S
S
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
12 11
13 14
15 Santa Fe Townhomes
Pedestrian Circulation Exhibit
Scale 1" = 20'
20' 10' 0 60'00
1951 f o u r t h a v e n u e , s t e. 302
s a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660 l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
E
D O
A
H

C I S S O AT
A W R
S
r l a 2 6 8 1
North LCP-5
NOVEMBER 20, 2025
Proposed Tan, Slump Face Block
Retaining Walls per engineering plans.

Screened with tall shrubs and vines
Proposed Underground
Detention System (Typ.)
Proposed Underground
Detention System
Proposed Handicap
Parking Stall
Transformer
Proposed Fire Hydrant
(Typ.)
Existing Trees to be protected
in place (Typ.) See LCP-2 for
Existing Tree Survey
Existing Commercial Building
Existing Parking Lot
Existing Sidewalk
Existing CurbLas Flores Drive Sight
Line symbol (Typ.)
Covered Trash
Enclosure screened
with vines
18" Concrete Step Out
at ends of parking
stalls (Typ.)
Proposed 42" ht. Black Tubular Steel
Fence at top of retaining wall
Existing Electrical Utilities
Retaining Wall per
Engineer's plans (Typ.)
with Glass Wall on top.

Parking Lot Trees - min. 1 per
7 spaces
· 15 Uncovered Parking
Spaces
· 6 Parking Area Shade Trees
Provided
Concrete Walk (Typ.)
Natural grey with
broom finish
Proposed 6' Tan
Vinyl Screen Fence
Screened with Tall
Shrubs (Typ.)
Artificial Turf Dog Relief Areas
(Typ. at ends of Buildings)

OPEN SPACE AREA 'A'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'B'
SEE SHEET LCP-3Fire Hydrant
Pedestrian Paseo (Typ.) See
Sheet LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'C'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'D'
SEE SHEET LCP-3

OPEN SPACE AREA 'E'
SEE SHEET LCP-3
Transformer
Screened with
Shrubs
Transformer
Transformer
Trash Enclosure
Group Mailbox Structure
Fire Directory Sign
42" Ht. Tubular Steel Fence
42" Ht. Tan Vinyl Screen Fence
Stairs with Handrail
Walkway Connection
to Sidewalk
Retaining Wall
Screened with Vines (Typ.)
Colored, Scorned
Concrete Drive
Crossing (Typ.)
4' Wide Concrete
Walk Across
Driveway Entry
2104
Santa Fe Townhomes
Pedestrian Circulation Exhibit
Scale 1" = 20'
20' 10' 0 60'00
1951 f o u r t h a v e n u e , s t e. 302
s a n d i e g o c a 9 2 1 01 619 718 9660 l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
E
D O
A
H

C I S S O AT
A W R
S
r l a 2 6 8 1
North LCP-6
NOVEMBER 20, 2025

PLAN VIEW

ELEVATION

SHADE STRUCTURE
A. SIDE ELEVATION
B. BACK ELEVATION
C. FRONT ELEVATION PLAN

GEORGRID WALL PLANTED WITH VINES TYPICAL ILLUSTRATION

TRASH ENCLOSURE
N.T.S N.T.S
C
A
B
22 GAUGE SHEET METAL ROOF

PEDESTRIAN GATE

PEDESTRIAN GATE
(3) GATES
2105

ATTACHMENT F

LAND USE ANALYSIS
2106
Santa Fe Flores Townhomes Land Use, Public Benefit and Infrastructure and Community

Services

Analysis

Santa Fe Flores Townhomes
Land Use Analysis
Project Description
The Santa Fe Flores Townhome project is a proposed 46 unit for sale multi-family project

located

the

northwest

corner

South

Santa

Avenue

and

North

Las

Flores

Road

the

Business-Industrial

neighborhood

within

the

City

San

Marcos.

The

project

sits

3 parcels

totaling

2.6 acres,

two

which

are

currently

zoned

R-3-10

and

one

parcel

zoned

commercial.

The

3 parcels

will

combined

into

one

parcel

and

the

General

Plan

Amendment

requested

have

all

3 parcels

zoned

R-3-6

which

allows

the

46 units

3 stories

height.

There

are

significant

recreational

improvements

the

project

service

the

families

moving

into

the

project

including

young

children’s

play

areas,

dog

walking

and

relief

areas,

barbecue

areas

well

older

children’s

play

areas

and

cornhole

lawn

game

built

into

the

project.

The project is requesting a General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2)

Medium

High

Density

Residential

(MHDR)

for

APN's

217-161-18,19

and

GPA

from

Commercial

(C)

Medium

High

Density

Residential

(MHDR)

for

the

northern

portion

APN

217-161-17

total

0.37 acres)

well

rezone

all

three

the

parcels

R-3-6.

Such

action

would

consistent

with

the

adopted

2021-2029

Housing

Element

Update

the

City

San

Marcos.

This action will lead to a comprehensive package of all three parcels becoming a for sale

medium

high

density

project

(MHDR)

while

being

rezoned

R-3-6.

The

purpose

the

GPA

and

rezone

achieve

balanced

and

compatible

mix

land

uses

the

area

South

Santa

Avenue

meet

the

future

needs

the

residents

San

Marcos

which

will

further

promote

high

quality

development

standards

and

land

use

patterns

that

encourage

long

term

environmental

sustainability.

A R-3-6 zone allows 20-30 units per acre, which for a 2.6 acre site plan could accommodate

between

52-78

units.

infeasible

meet

even

the

lowest

density

(52

units)

this

site

for

number

reasons.

Local

government

policies,

site

topography

constraints,

and

urban

infill

constraints

all

coupled

together

only

allow

for

maximum

density

46 units

this

site

plan.

Even

without

all

the

site

topography

and

urban

infill

constraints,

the

City

has

policy

limiting

any

site

with

single

point

access

than

50 units.

even

the

other

constraints

didn't

limit

the

density

even

further,

which

they

do,

the

maximum

number

units

the

City

would

permit

would

50 units.

Other

constraining

local

governmental

policies

which

limit

the

density

46 units

include

open

space/recreational

amenity

requirements,

landscaping

requirements

well

1 2107
building setbacks. The recently adopted Active Transportation Plan (ATP) for expanded bike

lanes

fronting

the

project

further

limits

the

buildable

area

the

site.

Lastly,

the

R-3-6

zone

also

limits

the

height

the

buildings

3 stories.

Site topography and other site constraints also work to constrain the site to 46 units.

The

property

consists

steep

slope

going

from

grade

along

South

Santa

Avenue

and

rising

the

hill

the

north.

The

existence

North

Las

Flores

Drive

the

eastern

constraint

the

site

and

the

existence

Gourmet

Liquor

limits

the

site

the

west

and

south.

the

north

the

site

constrained

the

location

the

Sprinter

tracks

and

the

Inland

Rail

Trail.

The site is a classic urban infill property where it is completely surrounded by already developed

properties.

This

reduces

the

ability

the

project

place

various

required

development

conditions

(such

storm

water

retention

and

treatment,

recreational

and

open

space

amenities)

different

location

can

happen

with

greenfield

development

sites.

When

you

include

all

these

constraints;

local

government

policies,

site

topography

and

urban

infill

constraints

the

site

left

with

maximum

number

units

46 which

slightly

less

than

the

maximum

50 units

that

would

permitted

the

site,

per

local

government

policy.

The General Plan Amendment/Rezone will comply with and implement General Plan

Goals

and

Policies

include

1 -"

Achieve

balanced

and

compatible

mix

land

uses"

providing

logical

transition

between

existing

and

new

land

uses.

The

project

will

also

implement

2 -"

High

quality

and

sustainable

development"

promoting

land

use

patterns

that

encourage

long-term

environmental

sustainability

and

3 -

"Community

connections"

providing

land

use

pattern

that

compatible

with

and

supports

variety

mobility

opportunities

and

choices.

The

project

provides

new

residents

walkable,

bike

friendly

and

transit

oriented

community

conjunction

with

NCTD's

Bus

Route

305

stop

immediately

front

the

project

along

South

Santa

Avenue,

pedestrian

and

bike

friendly

project

with

immediate

access

the

Inland

Rail

Trail

the

north

the

project

well

traditional

mobility

opportunity

with

fully

functional

and

improved

South

Santa

Avenue

which

provides

access

all

North

County.

The General Plan Amendment/Rezone will also implement LU 7 - “ Growth Management,

Healthy

and

Safe

Community"

providing

urban

infill

work

force

housing

project

that

will

take

advantage

existing

built

out

transportation

infrastructure

(South

Santa

Avenue)

but

adding

the

infrastructure

providing

additional

IOD

8 feet

beyond

the

current

right

way

for

future

multimodal

transportation

improvements

including

expanded

and

improved

bike

lanes.

The General Plan Amendment/Rezone will also assist in implementing LU 9 -"High Value

Community

Facilities"

and

10 -"Fire

Protection,

Emergency

Services

and

Law

2 2108
Enforcement" by participating in police, fire and lighting/landscaping CFD's as well as contributing

required

public

facility

fees

assist

regional

infrastructure

improvements.

The

project

R-3-6

zoned

site

superior

the

existing

zoning

(R-3-10

and

commercial)

and

will

contribute

valuable

new

multi-family

for

sale

units

the

City's

housing

portfolio.

The

site

has

been

dormant

for

40 plus

years

and

suggests

that

new

approach

development

would

responsible

and

timely

approach

move

the

site

into

modern

developable

state

which

will

serve

the

city

well

over

time.

The

proposed

project

provides

number

significant

public

benefits,

described

herein

and

the

project

proposed

with

General

Plan

Amendment/Rezone

should

approved

and

implemented

soon

practicable.

The

proposed

project

provides

number

significant

public

benefits

implementing

number

General

Plan

Goals

including

LU-13

"Water

Supply

and

Services"

utilizing

the

closest

water

provider,

VID

and

including

the

most

modern

technology

reduce

water

usage

and

waste

per

capita

basis

well

14-

"Wastewater"

utilizing

the

closest

sewer

service

provider,

Buena

Sanitation

District,

ensure

safe

and

healthy

wastewater

system.

The Santa Fe Flores Townhome project blends in nicely with the surrounding land uses and

produces

multi-family

project

urban

infill

project

properties

which

have

been

vacant

for

quite

long

time

due

challenging

topography.

The

surrounding

land

uses

are

mix

multi-family,

single

family,

mobile

homes,

industrial,

commercial

and

older

duplex

community

most

which

could

use

new

project

hopefully

stimulate

some

property

owners

update/rehabilitate

their

properties.

Regional Connectivity
Regionally, the project is about 1 mile from connecting to State Highway 78 which feeds both

Interstate

15 and

Interstate

5. The

site

sits

immediately

adjacent

NCTD

bus

stop

(Route

305)

which

runs

along

Mission

Road,

South

Santa

Road

and

other

direct

routes

between

the

Escondido

Transit

Center

and

the

Oceanside

Transit

Center.

The
General

Plan

Amendment/Rezone

will

also

assist

implementing

General

Plan

goal

M-1

"Efficient

local

and

regional

circulation

system"

and

General

Plan

Goal

M-3

"Alternative

modes

travel"

constructing

project

with

immediate

access

NCTD

Bus

Route

305,

the

Inland

Rail

Trail

while

providing

all

46 residential

units

with

charging

capability.

New residents can literally take a bus from their front yard to go east

west

along

Route

305

passing

through

number

transit

centers,

the

closest

being

the

transit/Sprinter

center

Palomar

Community

College.

addition,

the

regional

transportation

network

allows

the

residents

this

project

access

employment,

shopping

and

entertainment

options

within

the

City

San

Marcos

well

other

regional

facilities

such

employment

hubs.

3 2109

Housing
Multi-family for sale residential development within the Santa Fe Flores Townhome project

will

encompass

2.6 acres

and

will

include

maximum

of
46 for sale units which
will

provide

family

focused

workforce

housing

project

with

all

units

being

3 bedroom

units

which

should

attractive

wide

variety

family

buyers. The project is a work
force

related,

urban

infill

product

that

will,

minimum,

provide

the

city

additional

units

meet

their

RHNA

numbers

well

paying

in-lieu

fees

the

city

meet

the

intent

the

City’s

Housing

Element.

The

Santa

Flores

Townhome

project

consistent

with

the

goals

contained

within

the

City

San

Marcos

Housing

Element

the

City’s

General

Plan.

Surrounding Land Uses
The Santa Fe Flores Townhome project is compatible with all of the adjacent land uses.

the

east

across

North

Las

Flores

Drive

affordable

multi-family

project,

the

north,

buffered

the

Sprinter

tracks

single

family

residential

neighborhood

(Rancho

Santa

Lina),

the

northwest

industrial,

the

west

commercial

(Gourmet

Liquor)

and

the

south

across

South

Santa

Avenue

mixture

multi-family

rental

projects,

mobile

home

park,

and

older

neighborhood

consisting

duplexes

and

single

family

homes.

This

property

perfect

transition

between

industrial,

commercial

and

residential

uses

the

neighborhood.

Viability of Site As Commercial or Rental Multi-Family/Land Use Analysis This site has been sitting vacant for more than 40 years due to challenging topography, man-made

improvements

(the

Sprinter

line/railroad

tracks,

North

Las

Flores

Drive

and

South

Santa

Avenue),

and

lack

cohesive

plan

for

development.

The

3 parcels

will

combined

into

single

parcel

generating

attractive

3 story

for

sale

multi-family

project

while

eliminating

commercially

zoned

parcel

that

will

never

develop

commercially

due

topographic

challenges.

The

site

has

never

been

good

commercial

industrial

property,

which

was

its

zoning

and

while

the

current

owners

attempted

develop

rental

multi-family

project

portion

the

site,

they

discovered

the

costs

construction

outweighed

the

ability

the

project

generate

rental

income.

expanding

the

development

.37

acre

commercial

north

Gourmet

Liquor

the

project

makes

financial

sense

for

sale

townhome

project,

eliminates

difficult

decaying

urban

infill

site

and

produces

project

that

will

assist

providing

the

City,

new

growth

area

the

City

that

has

seen

little

the

way

4 2110
new upgraded development. In addition, the site has a bus stop practically in the front yard

the

project

well

fronting

major

arterial

(South

Santa

Avenue)

and

has

immediate

access

the

North

Inland

Rail

Trail

that,

when

completed,

will

run

from

Oceanside

Escondido

allow

pedestrians

and

bicyclists

safe

trail

use

for

wide

variety

purposes.

The development site plan consists of 3 separate parcels. Two parcels are zoned R-3-10

keeping

with

approval

2023,

and

the

third

parcel

(.37

acres)

zoned

commercial

and

being

purchased

from

Gourmet

Liquor

and

will

added

the

overall

site

plan

consisting

total

2.6 acres.

The

proposed

project

will

amend

the

General

Plan

and

Rezone

all

three

parcels

R-3-6

which

permits

the

project

move

forward

comprehensive

development

package

46 for

sale

3 bedroom

multi-family

residences

3 story

configuration.

All

3 parcels

will

modified

through

TSM

and

boundary

adjustment

single

parcel

with

R-3-6

zoning.

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will address the unsuitability of the

current

General

Plan/Zoning

and

allow

for

comprehensive

project

that

provides

high

quality

housing

versus

hodgepodge

commercial

mixes

with

medium

high

density

rental

property

that

can

not

financed

the

current

interest

rate

environment.

The

modified

proposal

will

allow

for

sale

medium

high

density

project

that

improvement

the

current

General

Plan/Zone

designation

and

allows

for

project

that

compatible

with

all

adjacent

land

uses

while

improving

the

neighborhood

through

high

quality

design,

ownership

opportunities

while

providing

the

future

residents

number

mobility

choices.

The current General Plan and Zoning (MDR2 and zoning of R-3-10 and

commercial)

does

not

provide

the

same

comprehensive

land

use

opportunity

the

future

residents

does

the

proposed

General

Plan/Rezone

medium

high

density

(MHDR)

and

R-3-6

zoning.

Therefore as evidenced in Figure 1 (site location with existing General Plan Use), and Figure 2 (site location with Proposed General Plan Use), and Figure 3 (Existing Zoning), and Figure 4 (Proposed Zoning) as well as Table 1 (General Plan Consistency/Compatibility Analysis) this project is a consistent and compatible land use for the location and is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City of San Marcos General Plan Land Use Element.

Public Benefits
A number of public benefits have been identified and are discussed below.

1. A total of 200 temporary construction jobs will be created for the project’s construction.

This

will

exceed

the

number

jobs

created

build

either

5 2111
commercial or industrial facilities. While these jobs are only temporary, they will

add

the

City’s

economy

during

construction.

2. Provide 46 for sale townhomes, all with 3 bedrooms which will provide an in-fill

work

force

housing

project

which

will

help

reduce

the

regional

housing

shortage

and

specifically

help

the

City

San

Marcos

meet

the

RHNA

numbers. 3. Payment of funds toward needed city and region-wide infrastructure. The project’s

PFF

and

CFD

fair

contributions

support

range

city-side

maintenance

and

improvement

programs

including

but

not

limited

circulation

streets,

SR-78

interchanges,

NPDES

programs,

technology

improvements,

parks

and

habitat

conservation

fees.

4. Payment of in-lieu affordable housing fees will assist the city to meet their RHNA

numbers

well

providing

true

affordable

housing

units

throughout

the

City.

5. Environmental benefits include reduced traffic volumes from multi-family residential

versus

commercial

and

industrial

uses.

The

reduction

ADT

translates

into

reduction

air

and

GHG

emissions

and

less

traffic

the

road.

6. Elimination of an urban in-fill visual eyesore with an attractive townhome project

with

continuity

landscape

design,

both

along

South

Santa

Avenue

and

North

Las

Flores

Drive.

The proposed project will provide a high quality project comprehensively zoned as R-3-6

which

will

blend

with

surrounding

land

uses

while

providing

numerous

public

benefits

listed

above.

Adoption

the

General

Plan

Amendment/Rezone

will

assist

providing

this

neighborhood

with

high

quality

project

with

modern

architecture,

recreational

amenities,

and

will

hopefully

stimulate

additional

redevelopment

within

the

immediate

neighborhood

include

opportunities

for

home

ownership

future

residents.

Infrastructure and Community Services
The project will either construct infrastructure or contribute funds to offset previously constructed

infrastructure.

addition,

the

project

will

pay

fees

the

city

offset

impacts

community

services

for

the

following

areas:

1. School fees. 2. Parks, recreation and open space impacts. 3. Fire and Police services. 4. Library services. 5. PFF infrastructure fees for various long- term improvements. 6. Solid Waste Disposal. 6 2112

7. CFD’s for landscaping, traffic signals, and other city maintenance programs.

Water and sewer infrastructure will be constructed by the project and future water and sewer

service

costs

will

borne

the

project.

Library

services

will

collected

via

taxes

collected

the

County

San

Diego

and

solid

waste

services

will

provided

fees

charged

the

residents.

All

infrastructure

required

for

the

project

will

constructed

the

development.

The project will be served by the Buena Sanitation District (BSD) for sewer, Vista Irrigation

District

(VID)

for

water

and

San

Marcos

Unified

School

District

(SMUSD)

for

K-12

education

services

and

will

pay

all

appropriate

fees

required

those

agencies

and

through

the

MND

process.

The

project

not

located

within

the

Buena

Sanitation

District

boundaries

but

BSD

has

accounted

for

the

required

sewer

capacity

caused

this

development

and

will

process

Out

Area

Service

Agreement

through

the

San

Diego

Local

Agency

Formation

Commission

(LAFCO)

has

for

other

west

City

projects.

The

Vista

Irrigation

District

has

previously

provided

will

serve

letter

based

water

service

analysis

provided

2023

and

has

reconfirmed

their

ability

serve

the

project.

Conclusions
Considering all the factors analyzed herein, the proposed project would be superior to the

existing

R-3-10

and

commercial

zoning

currently

the

3 parcels.

The

site’s

proximity

mass

transit,

the

Inland

Rail

Trail,

and

major

arterial,

South

Santa

Avenue

lends

itself

work-force

housing

urban

in-fill

project

that

transit

oriented

and

well

suited

for

residential

growth

near

employment

and

transit

opportunities.

The

project

R-3-6

zoned

site

superior

the

existing

zoning

and

will

contribute

valuable

new

multi-family

for

sale

units

the

city’s

housing

portfolio.

The

fact

that

the

site

has

laid

dormant

for

40 years

more,

suggests

new

approach

would

responsible

and

timely

approach

move

the

site

into

developable

state

which

will

serve

the

city

well

over

time.

The

proposed

project

provides

number

significant

public

benefits,

described

herein

and

the

project

proposed

should

approved

and

implemented

soon

possible.

7 2113

ATTACHMENT G

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
2114

Newport Beach | San Jose | San Francisco | Riverside

w
w
w.F
inance
DTA
.com
Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Development
Economics
Clean Energy Bonds

Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships
Development
Economics
Clean Energy Bonds

Public Finance
Public Private Partnerships

FISCAL IMPACT
S
T
UDY

SANTA FE FLORES

GENERAL PLA
N

AMENDMENT
GPA2
5 -
000
1 SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA
MARCH
17 , 2026

2115

www.FinanceDTA.com 18201 Von Karman Ave. # 200
Irvine, CA 92612

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

FISCAL IMPACT
STUDY

SANTA FE
F
LORES
General P
l
an Amendment
(
GPA2
5 -
000
1 )

Prepared for:

City of San Marcos
1 Civic Center Drive
San Marcos
,
CA
Attention:

Sarah Cluff
,
Senior
Planner

2116
1 City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch
17 , 2026
Fiscal Impact Study

TABLE

OF CONTENT
S

SECTION
I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
................................
...........
2 A
Purpose of the Report
................................
.................
2 B
Types of Fiscal Impacts Evaluated in this
Study
................................
................................
...............
2 C
Fiscal Impact on City General Fund
(Approved Plan vs. Proposed Plan)
..........................
3 D
Market Considerations
................................
................
3 II

INTRODUCTION
................................
.....................
3 A
Scope and Methodology
–
Recurring
Fiscal Impacts
................................
...............................
3 B
Persons Served Calculation
................................
.......
4 C
Case Study Methodology
................................
...........
5 D
Limitations
–
Accuracy of Information
..................
6 III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING FISCAL

REVENUES/COSTS
................................
...........................
7 A
Analysis of Recurring Revenues
-
Case
Study Method
................................
...............................
7 B
Analysis of Recurring Revenues
–
Multiplier Method
................................
......................
10 C
Analysis of Recurring Costs
–
Case Study
Method
................................
................................
.........
11 D
Analysis of Recurring Costs
–
Multiplier
Method
................................
................................
.........
12 IV

FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY
.........................
15 A
Total Recurring Revenues
................................
........
15 B
Total Recurring Costs
................................
...............
15 C
Overall Net Fiscal Impact
................................
.........
16 D
Market Considerations
................................
..............
17 APPENDIX A

FISCAL IMPACT STUDY

2117
2 SECTION
III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch
17 , 2026
Fiscal Impact Study

www.FinanceDTA.com
I

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
A
Purpose of the
Report
The objective of this
Fiscal
Impact Study (the “Study”) is to analyze the
fiscal
impacts to the
City of San Marcos (the “City”)
from the zoning and
land use change proposed for
the
development on
the

2.6 acre
property
(the “Project”).

The
project site is located
on the northwest corner of S
o
uth
Santa Fe Ave. and
North
Los
Flores
Drive and
is
north of the 78 freeway
. The p
r
operty is
comprised of Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (APNs)
217
-
161
-
1 7
-
00,
217
-
161
-
19 -
000 and 217
,161
-
19 -

00. The project consists of
a Multi
-
Family Site Development Plan modification to GPA 21
-
0008 and Tentative
Subdivision Map for construction of 46 residential townhomes on 2. 6 acres. The project
includes a General Plan Amendment and Rezone from Commercial (C) to Multi -
Family
Residential (R
-
3 -
6) to add a 0.37
-
acre portion of the 2966 S. Santa Fe Avenue property. The existing R
-
3 -
10 zoned properties at 2972 & 2982 S. Santa Fe Ave
will also be rezoned to R
-
3 -
6, to be consistent with the other portion of the project site.

The Subject site has grown
from 2.5
0 acres previously slated for Commercial and Multi
-
family
Residential R
-
3 -
10 apartments (the “Original” project) to total 2
.60
acres, planned for a 46
-
unit for
-
sale
residential townhome community (
T
he
“Proposed” project).

All of the planned units are
3 bedrooms.

The
building footprint
is approximately

0.89 acres
with

0.82 acres dedicated to
parking.

In aggregate, the seven buildings will comprise approximately 73,952 square feet.

There will be a total of 107 parking spaces, 92 of which will be covered garages.

In addition,
14,795 square feet
of l
andscape
and
common open space will be provided throughout the
development.

Consequently, the Study estimates the fiscal impacts of the Approved Plan and Proposed Plan (collectively, the “Scenarios”) and provides a side -
by
-
side comparison of both
Scenarios.

B
Types of Fiscal Impacts Evaluated in this Study
The fiscal impacts identified in this Study include recurring municipal revenues and costs to the City General Fund that result from the
Project
. The recurring revenues to the
C
ity
identified in this Study are generated from a variety of sources, including property taxes, sales taxes, licenses and permits, franchise fees, fines ,
and other
revenues
. Although these
revenues vary from year to year, they occur on a regular basis and are part of the City’s
budgeting plans on a yearly basis. The recurring
General
Fund expenditures for
the City are
equally important in this analysis.

These r
ecurring costs are associated with a variety of
2118
3 SECTION
III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch
17 , 2026
Fiscal Impact Study

www.FinanceDTA.com
other services including public safety, public works maintenance ,
and general government
administrative services. Like
the General Fund
revenues, these are costs that the
C
ity must
anticipate and plan for on a yearly basis.

Revenues that are considered non
-
recurring to the
C
ity such as various permitting fees are
excluded from this
Study
.

The reason for excluding them is because new development is generally required to pay specific fees such as grading and building prior to the construction of
a
project. As these are considered one
-
time revenues, there is no expectation that new
development will need to pay these fees a second time. In addition, expenditures
result
ing
from
the Project that are considered to be non
-
recurring
are also excluded from the
Study
.

C
Fiscal Impact on City General Fund (
Approved
Plan
vs. Proposed Plan)
The following table displays the
annual
net fiscal impact to the City under the
Approved
Plan
and the Proposed Plan.

T
able
ES
-
1 :

Annual
Net Fiscal Impact (City General Fund)
Fiscal Impact
Approved
Plan
Proposed Plan
Total Recurring General Fund Revenues
$94,671
$115,754
Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures
($85,199)
($77,751)
Net Fiscal Impact
$9,472
$38,003
Revenue to Expense Ratio

1.11 1.49
As indicated in
Table ES
-
1 above
, under the
Approved
Plan
the overall fiscal impact to the
City General Fund
resulting from revenues generated by development and the recurring costs associated with th
e Project
, is a
n annual
recurring fiscal
surplus
of
$
9 ,
4 7
2 . This total
is based on
$
94 ,
6 7
1 in recurring annual revenue and
$
85,199
in recurring annual costs.

In
this analysis, the total annual
revenue
-
to
-
cost ratio is projected to equal

1. 11
, which
represents a
positive
impact
to the City.

Under the Proposed Plan, the overall fiscal impact to the City General Fund, resulting from revenues generated by the Project and the recurring costs associated with this area is a recurring fiscal
surplus
of
$
38 ,
0 0
3 . This amount is based on
$
1 1
5,7
54 in recurring annual
revenues and
$
77,751
in
r
ecurring
current annual costs (expenditures).

In this analysis, the
total annual
revenue
-
to
-
cost ratio is projected to equal

1. 4
9 , which
represents a positive
impact to the City
.

D
Market Considerations
The primary advantage of the proposed rezone over the original is that the site can provide new for
-
sale product to San Marcos which has strong buyer demand for townhomes coupled with a historical undersupply of new for
-
sale housing. Additionally, t
he site
developed as
p
roposed
t
ownhomes can deliver relatively attainably priced new for -
sale
product to San Marcos, at an average un
it
size which is much larger than the
o
riginal
a
partment unit size.

The proposed project consists of 2 lots with an existing medi um
2119
4 SECTION
III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch
17 , 2026
Fiscal Impact Study

www.FinanceDTA.com
density residential 2 (MDR2) 15.1
–

20.0 du/ac general plan land use designation and a 0.37 -
acre portion of an adjacent parcel with a commercial (C) designation. The proposed project would re
-
designate both the MDR2 sites and the portion of the commercial si te to medium
high density residential (MHDR), 20.1
–

30.0 du/ac, to develop 46 residential townhome
units.

According to
the Zonda market study, d
rive thru commercial retail performance
remains relatively strong in the right areas and should be attractive t o commuters.

However, the changing face of retail is causing high vacancies and putting downward pressure on rents and further rent correction could occur at secondary commercial retail locations. However, the proposed residential R
-
3 -
6 zoning for
-
sale re
sidential would
introduce needed homes at an attractive price point, fulfilling a deep demand pool of homebuyers looking to move to or purchase in San Marcos.

In addition, there is an extreme
market demand and supply shortage of for
-
sale residential townh
omes, and the for
-
sale
scenario has
the
ability
to translate potential City revenue into actual dollars, whereas the approved project does not.

In addition, t
he area immediately east of the proposed project
is an affordable housing development.

An
advantage of the rezone over the existing use is
that the site can provide new for sale product to San Marcos, which currently does not have new multifamily product.
2120
1 SECTION I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
($100,000)
($80,000)
($60,000)
($40,000)
($20,000)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$94,671
($85,199)
$9,472 Total Recurring General Fund
Revenues
Total Recurring General Fund
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
.

Figure
1 :

Net Fiscal Impact (City General Fund)
–
Approved
Plan

2121
2 SECTION I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com

Figure
2 :

Net Fiscal Impact (City General Fund)
–
Proposed Plan

($80,000)
($60,000)
($40,000)
($20,000)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$115,754
($77,751)
$38,003
Total Recurring General Fund
Revenues
Total Recurring General Fund
Expenditures
Net Fiscal Impact
2122
3 SECTION II

INTRODUCTION

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
II

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this
Fiscal
Impact Study (the “Study”) is to analyze the
fiscal
impacts to
the City of
San Marcos (the “City”) from the zoning and land use change proposed for the development on the 2.
6 acre property (the “Project”).

The project site is located on the northwest corner of South Santa Fe Ave. and North Los Flores Drive and is north of the 78 freeway. The property is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 217
-
161
-
17 -
00, 217
-
161
-
19 -
000 and 217,161
-
19 -

The existing R
-
3 -
10 zoned properties at 2972 & 2982 S. Santa Fe Ave will also be rezoned to R
-
3 -
6, to be consistent with the other portion of the project site. The Subject site has
grown from 2.5 acres previously slated for Commercial and Multi -
family Residential R
-
3 -
10 apartments (the “Original” project) to total 2.60 acres, planned for a 46 -
unit for
-
sale
residential townhome community (The “Proposed” project).

Based on the market analysis prepared by Zonda Advisory (the “Zonda Analysis”), the (“Approved Plan”) has been assumed to be a 50 Unit Apartment Development (APN’s:217 -
161
-
18 -
00 & 217
-
161
-
19 -
00) plus a 2,821 Commercial Retail Strip Center, (APN: 217 -
161
-
17 -
00). The (“Proposed Plan”) is a 46 Unit
townhome
Development (APN’s: 217
-
161
-
1800;
217
-
161
-
19 -
00; and a 0.37
-
acre portion of 217
-
161
-
17 -
00). All of the planned units are 3
bedrooms. The building footprint is approximately 0.89 acres with 0.82 acres dedic ated
to parking. In aggregate, the seven buildings will comprise approximately 73,952 square feet. There will be a total of 107 parking spaces, 92 of which will be covered garages. In addition, 14,795 square feet of landscape and common open space will be provided
throughout the development.

Consequently, the Study estimates the
fiscal
impacts of the Approved Plan and Proposed
Plan (collectively, the “Scenarios”) and provides a side -
by
-
side comparison of both
Scenarios.

A
Scope and Methodology
–
Recurring Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal impacts arising from a land development plan can be broadly categorized as one of two types
: one
-
time impacts or recurring impacts. Each of these types may, in turn, be divided into a revenue component and a cost component. In this Study
, it is assumed
that one
-
time revenues would directly offset one
-
time costs; thus, the fiscal impacts
considered focus on ongoing, or recurring, fiscal impacts of the Project on the City General Fund
.

Revenues that are generated outside of the City’s General Fund (e.g., special district revenues) or costs are incurred by the City outside of the General Fund (e.g., costs financed through a special district) are
not
included
in
th
e
fiscal
impact
analysis.
2123
4 SECTION II

INTRODUCTION

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
The fiscal impact analysis presented in this
Study
utilizes two specific methods of
analysis
:

T
he Multiplier
a
pproach
(consisting of three
separate
methodologies,
specifically “Per Capita”, “Per Employee”, and “
Per Capita/Employee
”)
and the Case Study
a
pproach.

Notably, t
he primary Multiplier
approach
used
in this Study
is the
Per
Capita/Employee
m
ethodology, which recognizes the fact that the exact relationship of service demands and revenue generating potential between residents and employees is difficult to quantify. In order to address this challenge, several assumptions are employed.

B
Persons Served Calculation
DTA has determined that utilizing a
Per Capita/Employee
, or Persons Served population,
comprised of all residents and 50% of employees is common fiscal practice in quantifying
the impact of a new development in a given service area.

This number suggests that a
resident generally has twice the fiscal impact of an employee. This methodology involves calculating the average City
-
wide revenues/costs per Persons Served, utilizing the
City’s
Operating Budget for
fiscal year (“FY”)
202
5 -
202
6 (the “City Budget”)
, and applying these
revenue/cost
assumptions
to
the
specific number of Persons Served projected for the
P
roject.

According to information provided by the California Department of Finance Housing and Population Information and the State of California Employees Development Department (EDD), as of
2025
, the City of San Marcos has a resident population of
97,123
and an
employee population base of
45,700
persons. Given the assumptions presented in the
previous paragraph; the City population of
97,123
plus the employee base of (
45,700
x
50%), results in a current Persons Served population of 119,973
for the City of San Marcos.

Table
1 : Persons Served (
Approved
Plan
)
Land Use
1 Residents

Direct
Employees
Persons Served
Commercial Retail
2 1
Apartments
123
123

Total
123
2 124
Notes
:

1. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Both
Approved
and Proposed plans presented in this report will generate a Persons Served total, which will be used to calculate recurring fiscal revenue and expenditures to the City General fund. As indicated earlier, the
Approved
Plan consists of
be a 50 Unit
Apartment Development
and
a 2,
821
Commercial Retail Strip Center
.

As illustrated in
Table 1
above
, this scenario projects
2 direct
employees
in
commercial
development
x (50%)
resulting in
1 persons served
and
123
apartment
residents
. The
2124
5 SECTION II

INTRODUCTION

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
persons served total
s
presented in this table
are
used in the following sections of the
report to generate both revenue and expenditures totals to the City’s General Fund as a result of the implementation of the
Approved
Plan
scenario
.

In contrast, the Proposed Plan scenario consists of
the construction of a
46 -
unit
residential
to
wnhome
buildings
and 107 parking spaces
on the

2. 6
acre
subject
property
and
as indicated
in
Table 2
below,
generating
113 residents and
persons served.

The
persons served total presented in
both of these
table
s
are used in
each of
the following
sections of this report to generate both revenue and expenditures totals to the City’s General Fund due to the implementation of the Proposed Plan scenario.

Table
2 : Persons Served (
Proposed
Plan
)
Land Use
1 Residents
Persons Served
Townhomes
113
113

Total
113
113
Notes
:
1 Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

If necessary, DTA will also use the Per Employee
m
ethodology to project recurring fiscal
factors based on employment only, in areas such as business license revenues.

Similarly,
DTA will use the Per Capita methodology where appropriate to project recurring fiscal factors based on population only. Again,
the Per Employee
m
ethodology
or Per Capita
methodology
involve calculating the average City
-
wide revenues/costs per employee
or
per capita
, utilizing the City Budget, and applying these factors to the specific number of residents or
employees
, respectively,
projected under
each
S
cenario.

Finally, c
ertain revenues and expenditures for which the Multiplier m
ethodology w
as
utilized
,
were not expected to increase one
-
to
-
one with new development
.

Therefore, i
n
order to accurately account for this, DT
A
appl
ied
a series of discount rates to specific
revenues/costs.

Generally,
if needed,
a discount rate
would be
applied to revenues or
expenditures to exclude an administrative/overhead component of the revenue or expenditure that would
likely
not increase one
-
to
-
one with population or employment
g
rowth.

C
Case Study Methodology
While most recurring revenues analyzed in
this Study
are projected using the Multiplier
m
ethodology, some major revenue sources, including Property Taxes and Sales Taxes, were calculated using a Case Study
m
ethodology that involves calculating marginal
revenues to be specifically generated by a particular land use, instead of applying an 2125
6 SECTION II

INTRODUCTION

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
average City
-
wide revenue factor. For purposes of this
Study
, all recurring revenues and
costs are stated in current (un
-
inflated)
20 25
dollars, based on the assumption that the
relative impacts of inflation in future years will be the same for both of these fiscal impact categories.

D
Limitations
–
Accuracy of Information
The fiscal models in this
Study
contain an analysis of revenues, service costs
(expenditures)
,
and impacts to
the
City resulting from the Project. These models are
based on both (i) information provided to DTA by City staff, and (ii) certain DTA assumptions compiled by DTA from various sources including previous fiscal impact studies prepared by the firm. The sources
of information and basis of the estimates
calculated in the
Study
are stated herein. While DTA is confident that the sources of information are reliable, DTA does not exp
ress an opinion or any other form of assurance
on the accuracy of such information.

Furthermore, t
he analysis of fiscal impacts contained in this
Study
is not considered to
be a “financial forecast” or a “financial projection;” as technically defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The word “projection” used within this Study
relates to broad expectations of future events and/or market conditions. Since the analysis contained herein is based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, DTA c annot represent
that such estimates will definitely be achieved. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary over time from the projections stated throughout this
Study
.

2126
7 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS
This section presents recurring revenue and service cost (expenditure) impacts to the City General Fund for both the
Approved
Plan
and the Proposed Plan, along with the
methodology and assumptions utilized to project these impacts. Detailed numerical analyses of anticipated revenue and service cost (expenditure) impacts are contained in Appendix
A
.

A
Analysis of Recurring Revenues
-
Case Study Method

Property
Taxes
–
Secured and Unsecured
Secured p
roperty tax revenues are projected based on the City’s estimated share of the general one percent (1%) property tax levy. Total projected secured property tax revenues to the City from the Project are estimated at

16.541
% of the basic 1%
property tax levy
, for
Tax Rate Area (
“
TRA
”
)
13 203
. Please refer to
Table 1
on the next
page
and
Exhibit 5
of
Appendix A
for details regarding the secured and unsecured
property tax assumptions utilized in the fiscal impact analysis.

Unsecured property taxes collected in the City are levied on tangible personal property that is not secured by real estate. Examples of unsecured property include trade fixtures (e.g., manufacturing equipment and computers), as well as airplanes, boats, a
nd mobile homes on leased land. In generating the fiscal impact models for this
Study
, DTA has assumed that unsecured property values average 2.75% of the secured value for residential land uses and 10.00% of the secured value for non -
residential land use
s.

Unsecured p
roperty tax revenue generated for both the
Approved
Plan
and Proposed Plan are presented in
Exhibit 5
of
Appendix
A
.

Property
Transfer Tax
Per California Revenue & Taxation Code §11901 et seq. and the San Marcos Municipal Code §3.12.0
3 0, sales of real property are taxed by the County of San Diego (the “County”) at a rate of $1.10 per $1,000 of property value. For property located in the City, the property transfer tax is divided equally between the City and the County, with the City re
ceiving $0.55 per $1,000 of transferred property sale or resale value, excluding assumed liens or encumbrances. Per typical baseline assumptions, DTA assumes t
hat residential development changes ownership at an average rate of 10% per year. DTA also assumes that non
-
residential development changes ownership at
an average rate of 5% per year, and that continuing liens and encumbrances are insignificant.

Property Taxes in
-
Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF)
The passage of Proposition 1A in California in 2004 enacted a constitutional amendment that introduced a new methodology to calculate property taxes in -
lieu
of VLF. Per California Revenue and Taxation Code §97.70, the property tax in -
lieu of
VLF amount no
w grows in proportion to the growth rate of gross assessed valuation in a city or county. Property taxes in
-
lieu of VLF revenues are projected to grow with
2127
8 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
the change in the City
-
wide gross assessed valuation of taxable property from the prior fiscal year.

Property tax in
-
lieu of VLF revenues constitute an addition to other property tax apportionments and were calculated for purposes of this Study
at $
0 .67 per $1,000
increase in assessed valuation on a City
-
wide basis.

Table
3 presents
details
regarding the property tax assumptions utilized in the fiscal impact analysis.

Table
3 :

Property Tax Assumptions
Property Tax Assumptions
Approved

Plan
Proposed
P
lan
Assessed Valuation
Residential
$18,196,500
$35,436,744
Non
-
residential
$1,579,486
$0

Unsecured Property Tax
(Assumptions apply to both Scenarios)
(As a Portion of the 1% General Property Tax Levy)
TRA
13203
City of San
Marcos

9.591%

9.591%
TRA
13203
Fire District

6.950%

Unsecured Property Tax
(Assumptions apply to both Scenarios)
Residential

2.75%

2.75%
Non
-
residential

10.0%

Property Transfer Tax
(Assumptions apply to both Scenarios)
Residential Property Turnover Rate

10.0%

10.0%
Non
-
residential Property Turnover Rate

5.0%

5.0%
Transfer Tax as a % of Assessed Value

0.11%

0.11%
Property Transfer Tax Passed through to the City

50.0%

Property Tax in
-
Lieu of Vehicle License Fee (VLF)

(Assumptions apply to both Scenarios)

Total San Marcos Gross Assessed Value (VLF Base year)
$7,756,621,947
$7,756,621,947
Total City Property Tax In
-
Lieu of VLF Revenues
$5,191,930
$5,191,930
Property Tax In
-
Lieu of VLF Increase per $1,000 of AV
$0.67
$0.67

S
ales Taxes
Direct sales tax revenues are generated by retail sales from businesses within City limits, with 1.00% of taxable sales receipts passed through to the City.

Exhibit 6
of
Appendix A
reflects estimated taxable sales per square foot for each on -
site, non
-
residential land use type, based on data from the Urban Land Institute’s Dollars & 2128
9 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
Cents of Shopping Projects
publication and total estimated taxable sales for the
Project, based on development assumptions provided by the City and the
Zonda
Analysis
.

Indirect sales tax revenues, as also summarized in
Exhibit 6
of
Appendix A
, are
projected based on estimated purchases made by residents and employees of the Project within the City. Based on
the methodology
outlined in the International
Council of Shopping Centers’ Office
-
Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age (2012),
DTA assumed that each on
-
site employee spends
approximately
$
7,437
w
ithin the
City
per year
, while l
ocal
Townhome Residential
household
spending is expected to
be
$
21,721 and local Ap
artment spending is expected to be $14,738
w
ithin the City.

The assumed capture rate for employee spending in the
C
ity is 50%.

Sales tax
assumptions
presented in this Study
are summarized in
Table
4 below.

Table
4 :

Sales Tax Assumptions
Sales Tax Assumptions
Approved
Plan
Proposed

Plan
Percentage of Sales Tax Passed through City of San Marcos

1.00%

1.00%
Local Employee Spending
$7,437
$7,437
Local Residential
Spending
(Townhomes)
-
$21,721
Local Residential Spending (
Apartments)
$14,738
-
Capture Rate of Retail Spending (within the City)
50%
50%
Displacement Rate (existing taxable sales within the City) 20%
20 %
Taxable Sales per Square Foot
–
Commercial Retail
$
5 00
NA
Notes
:

1. Residential spending based on
US Census median income levels for San Marcos
.

Community Facilities District
(“CFD”)
Special Tax Revenue
The Project is currently located in five (5) separate Community Facilities Districts (collectively, the “CFDs”) and will be subject to the applicable special tax for each CFD based on the land uses
anticipated
under each Scenario. Notably, revenues
generated from CFD No. 98
-
02 and CFD No. 2011
-
01 will
not
be
deposited in the
City’s General Fund and have therefore been excluded from this analysis.

Table
5 below and
Exhibit 7
of
Appendix A
summarize the CFD assumptions utilized for the
Approved
Plan
and the Proposed Plan.

2129
10 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
Table
5 :

CFD
Assumptions
Community Facilities
Approved
Proposed
Fund
District
Plan
Plan
Designation
CFD 98
-
01 IA 1
General Fund
Commercial (Per Acre)
$1,364.20
Office (Per Acre)
$2,728.40
Industrial (Per Acre)
$1,032.90
Residential (Per Unit)
$194.90
CFD 98
-
02 (Zones A
-
E)
Non
-
General
Fund
Commercial (Per Acre)
$1,196.40
Office (Per Acre)
$1,196.43
Industrial (Per Acre)
$796.63
Residential (Per Unit)
$268.00
CFD 98
-
02 (Zone F)
Non
-
General
Fund
Commercial (Per Acre)
NA
Office (Per Acre)
NA
Industrial (Per Acre)
NA
Residential (Per Unit)
NA
CFD 2001
-
01 General Fund
Commercial (Per Acre)
$1,261.10
Office (Per Acre)
$2,522.25
Industrial (Per Acre)
$954.81
Residential (Per Unit)
$180.01
CFD 2011
-
01 Non
-
General
Fund
Commercial (Per Sq. Ft.)
$0.4
6 8
Office (Per Sq. FT)
$0.4
6 8
Industrial (Per Sq. Ft.)
$

1. 2
0 5
3 Residential (Per Unit)
$354.11

B
Analysis of Recurring Revenues
–
Multiplier Method
Utilizing the
Multiplier methodology discussed in Section II (A) of this Study , the
multipliers presented in this section and
i
llustrated in
Table
6 below
quantify the
marginal increase in revenue
for each
specific revenue category as a result of the
proposed development
S
cenario(s).

Additional details on each revenue category are
also provided below.

2130
11 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
Table
6 :

General Fund Revenues (Multiplier Method)
Revenue Category
Amount
Methodology
Discount
Franchise Fees
$49.26
Persons Served
0%
Licenses and Permits
$2.82
Persons Served
0%
Fines and Forfeitures
$9.37
Persons Served
0%

Franchise Fees
The City receives franchise
fee
revenue from a variety of sources including utility
companies (e.g. electricity, water, trash, etc.), pipelines that run under the C
ity’s
streets, cable TV, taxi, and from companies that operate in the C
ity’s right
-
of
-
way to
provide services for residents (e.g. tow trucks and solid waste haulers). Some franchise taxes (fees) are set dollar amounts that increase each year according to changes in some index, such as the Consumer Price Index. Other franchi se fees are
based on a percentage of utility revenues
.

U
sing the
Per Capita/Employee
Multiplier
approach
,
DTA has projected Franchise
fees at $

49.26 per
p
erson
s served
.

This
number
represents the marginal increase in
revenue per additional persons served in this category
.

Licenses and Permits
Although
Licenses and Permits made up
only
a small portion
of the City’s revenue in
FY
20 2
5 -
20 2
6 , it
is considered an important source of income to the City’s General Fund. In addition to business licenses,
the city imposes fees on a variety of permits
including building, electrical, plumbing, grading, construction ,
and many other
areas.

DTA projects Licenses and Permits at $

2.82 per persons served using the
Per
Capita
/Employee
Multiplier
approach
.

Fines and Forfeitures
To ensure the payment of various licenses and fees, the City’s Municipal Code empowers the City to impose penalties and to collect fines in several areas. Among the significant categories in this section are parking fines, traffic fines, and forfeitures/
penalties for business licenses and franchises. After a careful review of this revenue source, Fines and Forfeiture
have
also
been
projected
using the
Per
Capita/Employee Multiplier
approach,
at $

9.37 per persons served.

C
A
nalysis of
R
ecurring
C
osts
–
Case Study Method

General Government
According to the
City
Budget, the percentage of recurring General Government
overhead (percentage of total recurring General
Fund expenditures) to the City
General Fund non
-
government expenditures
,
is

28.15 %.

This is based on total
general
government expenditures of $
23,2
08,622
and non
-
general
government
2131
12 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
expenditure of $
82 ,432,038
.

General
Government costs are generated from several
areas including City Council, Administration, Economic Development , City Attorney,
City Clerk, Human Resources/Risk Management, Finance/Information Systems,
and
Real Property Services. Non
-
general
government costs include Public Works,
Development Services, Public Safety,
Parks
and Recreation
,
and other Financing
Sources.

D
A
nalysis of
R
ecurring
C
osts
–
Multiplier Method
Table
7 below quantif
ies
the marginal increase in
expenditures
for
specific
expenditure
category as a result of the proposed development
S
cenario(s).

A detailed description of
each category is also provided below.

Table
7 :

General Fund Costs (Multiplier Method)
Categories
Amount
Methodology
Discount
Public Works
$62.26
Persons Served
0%
Development Services
$60.54
Persons Served
0%
Public Safety
$331.72
Persons Served
0%
Parks
and Recreation
$39.12
Persons Served
0%
Other Financing Sources
$0.00
Persons Served
90%

Public Works
The Public Works Department is responsible for the design, construction, maintenance and management of the City’s vital municipal infrastructure system. It is composed of two divisions, Operations and Engineering. The Operations divisions includes adminis
tration, right
-
of
-
way maintenance, facilities maintenance, fleet
maintenance, and parks and
landscape maintenance
,
and is responsible for the
maintenance and repair of City streets, buildings, flood control, storm drains, street lights, traffic signals, pu
blic places, parks, special districts, vehicles and equipment.

The Engineering division administers and coordinates the capital improvement program, traffic engineering, stormwater maintenance,
and
construction inspection
and management.

The Department also overse
e
s the drafting and execution of related contracts and
agreements; coordination with outside agencies; preparation and administration of capital grant funding; management of City
-
owned asset data; and provides
inspection and acceptance services for development and public infrastructure improvements in
the City
.

DTA projects the combined Public Works Department multiplier at $

62.26 per
persons served using the
Per
-
Capita
/Employee
Multiplier
approach
.

Again, t
his
represents the marginal increase in
expenditure
per additional persons served in this
category
.

2132
13 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com

Development Services
The Development Services
Department handles
a wide array of development activity
from project entitlement approvals to grading permits and serves to address violations of City ordinances related to land use and development. The planning division administers the City’s General Plan and various zonin g and environmental
regulations by analyzing and recommending measures to protect existing resources and to ensure the orderly development of the community that will maintain a
balance between the quality of life, the environment and economic stability of the
City.

The engineering divisions administer and coordinate the capital improvement program, land development engineering, traffic engineering, watershed management, construction inspection and management. The geographic information system (GIS) division supports
municipal services including planning,
infrastructure management, and asset control by providing geospatial data and mapping services. The administration division provides general department oversight and support as well as special projects as ne eded.

Notably,
DTA projects the combined Development Services multiplier at $

60.54 per
persons served using the
Per
-
Capita
/Employee
Multiplier
approach
.

Public Safety
The Public Safety
division
discussed in this section is made up of both Law
Enforcement and Fire services. According to the City
B
udget, this
division
accounts
for
the City’s largest
General
Fund
expenditure
(
over 50.0% of the City’s
annual
General Fund
expenditure)
. The City currently has a contract for police services with the San Diego County Sherriff’s Department.

The City contract for law enforcement
services includes patrol, traffic, community
-
oriented policing, gang and narcotics
details, detectives,
and
clerical and supervisory personnel.

In contrast, the City
operates
its
own Fire Department, which provides services to over 100,000 residents in the 33 square mile San Marcos Fire Protection District ( “
SMFPD
”
). The City itself,
comprises 24 square miles of the
SMFPD.

Based on the City Budget,
DTA projects the combined Public Safety multiplier
at
$
331.72
per persons served using the
Per
Capita
/Employee
Multiplier
approach
.

Parks
and Recreation
The
Parks
and Recreation
department
is responsible for providing programs and
services at the City’s parks and recreation facilities.

Among the specific elements of
the
d
epartment
’
s work
,
are pre
-
school and youth programming, holiday
celebrations, special events, cultural and
performing arts activities, parks and trails
planning,
as well as
aquatics and other
programs
.

San Marcos has 44 park
s
spanning
300 acres
,
and more than
72 miles of trails.

Based on the City Budget,
DTA projects
the
Parks
and Recreation multiplier at $

39.12 per persons served using the
Per
Capita
/Employee
Multiplier
approach
.
2133
14 SECTION
III

DESCRIPTION OF RECURRING

FISCAL REVENUES/COSTS

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com

Other Financing Services
The O
ther
F
inancial Services
category is
comprised of Transfers Out, Annual
Replacement
,
and Rehab Transfers
. In
FY
202
5 -
2 6
it
is
projected to have a combined
multiplier of $

0.00 per persons served using the
Per
Capita
/Employee
Multiplier
approach
as no other financing sources were reported
in the
202
5 -
2 02
6 budget
.

However, as explained in the earlier Scope and Methodology section, a discount rate
of 90%
would have been
applied to this expenditure to exclude an
administrative/overhead component of the expenditure that would not increase one
-
to
-
one with population or employment growth.
2134
15 SECTION
III

FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
IV

FISCAL IMPACTS

TO THE CITY
A
T
otal
R
ecurring
R
evenues
U
nder the
Approved
Plan
,
total annual incremental recurring
revenues
are projected to
total
$
9 4
,
6 7
1 Notably
Secured Propert
y
Tax
r
evenue
makes up the largest percentage total
(
3 7
.
3 %).

In addition, a
s shown in the table below,
CFD Revenue,
Property In
-
lieu
of Vehicle
License Fees and Direct and Indirect Sales Tax
also make up significant portions of the
revenue to the City.

U
nder the Proposed Plan,
annual incremental recurring revenues
total
$
115
,
7 5
4 .

As
illustrated below in
Table
8 , the largest percentage of revenue generated
under the
Proposed Plan
is
attributed
to
Secured Property
Tax
revenue (

50. 6
%)
.

Other
areas
making
up a significant portion of the revenue to the City include Property In
-
Lieu of Vehicle
License fee
s
and CFD Revenues
.

Exhibits 1 and 11,
in
Appendix A
provide additional details
regarding
all recurring revenues and the assumptions used in their derivation.

Table
8 :

Recurring Fiscal Revenues (City General Fund)
Revenue Category
Approved
Plan
Proposed Plan
Amount
Percent
Amount
Percent
Secured Property Tax
$35,325

37.3%
$58,617

50.6%
Unsecured Property Tax
$1,089

1.2%
$1,612

1.4%
Property Transfer Tax
$1,044

1.1%
$1,965

1.7%
Property In
-
Lieu of Vehicle
License Fee
$11,811

12.5%
$23,151

20.0%
Direct and Indirect Sales tax
$18,690

19.7%
$6,780

5.9%
Franchise Fees
$6,108

6.5%
$5,574

4.8%
Licenses and Permits
$537

0.6%
$490

0.4%
Fines and Forfeitures
$350

0.4%
$319

0.3%
CFD Revenue
$19,717

20.8%
$17,246

14.9%
Total Revenues
$94,671
100.0%
$115,754
100.0%
B
Total
R
ecurring
C
osts
As illustrated in
Table
9 below
, under
the
Approved
Plan
,
the total annual incremental
recurring costs are projected to be
$
85,199
per year. Public Safety (

48.3 %)
and
General
Government (

28.2 %)
make up the largest cost percentage
s in this category
.

Under the
Proposed Plan, the total annual recurring costs are projected to be $
77,751
per year.

Like
the
Approved
Plan, the largest annual costs are expected to be Public Safety and
General
Government
.

Exhibits 1
and
12 , in
Appendix A
provide additional details about all recurring
costs and the assumptions used in their derivation.
2135
16 SECTION
III

FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
Table
9 :

Recurring Fiscal Costs (City General Fund)
Categories
Approved
Plan
Proposed Plan
Amount
Percent
Amount
Percent
Public Works
$7,720

9.1%
$7,045

9.1%
Development Services
$7,507

8.8%
$6,851

8.8%
Public Safety
$41,133

48.3%
$37,537

48.3%
Parks
and Recreation
$4,851

5.7%
$4,427

5.7%
Other Financing
Sources
$0

0.0%
$0

0.0%
General Government
$23,988

28.2%
$21,891

28.2%
Total
Costs
$85,199
100.0%
$77,751
100.0%
C
O
verall
N
et
F
iscal
I
mpact
Table
10 presented below
,
under the
Approved
Plan
the overall fiscal impact to the City
General Fund, resulting from revenues generated by development is an annual recurring
fiscal surplus of $
9,
47 2
. This total is based on $
94 ,
6 7
1 in recurring annual revenue and
$85,199 in recurring annual costs. In this analysis, the total annual revenue -
to
-
cost ratio is
projected to equal 1.
11 , which represents a positive impact to the City.

Under the Proposed Plan, the overall fiscal impact to the City General Fund, resulting from revenues generated by the Project and the recurring costs associated with this area is a recurring fiscal surplus of $
38 ,
0 03
. This amount is based on $
115
,
7 5
4 in recurring annual
revenues and $77,751 in recurring current annual costs (expenditures). In this analysis, the total annual revenue
-
to
-
cost ratio is projected to equal 1.4
9 , which represents a positive
impact to the City.

Table
10 :

Annual
Net Fiscal Impa
ct (City General Fund)

Fiscal Impact
Approved
Plan
Proposed Plan
Total Recurring General Fund Revenues
$94,671
$115,754
Total Recurring General Fund Expenditures
($85,199)
($77,751)
Net Fiscal Impact
$9,472
$38,003
Revenue to Expense Ratio

1.11 1.49

2136
17 SECTION
III

FISCAL IMPACTS TO THE CITY

City of San Marcos
–
Santa Fe Flores
M
a
rch 1
7 , 2026
Fiscal Impact
Study
www.FinanceDTA.com
D
Market Considerations
The primary advantage of the proposed rezone over the original is that the site can provide new for
-
sale product to San Marcos which has strong buyer demand for townhomes coupled with a historical undersupply of new for
-
sale housing. Additionally, t
he site
developed as
p
roposed
t
ownhomes can deliver relatively attainably priced new for -
sale
product to San Marcos, at an average un
it
size which is much larger than the
o
riginal
a
partment unit size.

The proposed project consists of 2 lots with an existing medium density residential 2 (MDR2) 15.1
–

20.0 du/ac general plan land use designation and a 0.37 -
acre portion of an adjacent parcel with a commercial (C) designation. The proposed project would re
-
d
esignate both the MDR2 sites and the portion of the
c
ommercial site to
m
edium
h
igh
d
en
sity
r
esidential (MHDR), 20.1
–

30.0 du/ac, to develop 46 residential townhome
units.

According to
the Zonda market study, d
rive thru commercial retail performance
remains relatively strong in the right areas and should be attractive to commuters.

However, the changing face of retail is causing high vacancies and putting downward pressure on rents and further rent correction c
ould occur at secondary commercial retail
locations. However, the proposed residential R
-
3 -
6 zoning for
-
sale residential would
intro
duce needed homes at an attractive price point, fulfilling a deep demand pool of homebuyers looking to move to or purchase in San Marcos.

In addition, there is an extreme
market demand and supply shortage of for
-
sale residential townhomes, and the for
-
sale
scenario has
the
ability
to translate potential City revenue into actual dollars, whereas the approved project does not.

In addition, t
he area immediately east of the proposed project
is an affordable housing development.

An
advantage of the rezone ove
r the existing use is
that the site can provide new for sale product to San Marcos, which currently does not have new multifamily product.
2137

APPENDIX A

City of San Marcos
Santa Fe Flores General Plan Amend
ment
Fiscal Impact Report

FISCAL IMPACT
STUDY

2138

CITY BUDGET SUMMARY

DEMOGRAPHICS

CASE STUDY REVENUES

CASE STUDY EXPENDITURES

MULTIPLIER REVENUES

MULTIPLIER EXPENDITURES

PROJECT SUMMARY

CITY OF SAN MARCOS

SANTA FE FLORES TOWNHOMES

FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Page 1 of 17 ends

San Marcos City CouncilMay 26, 2026

San Marcos City Council
May 26, 2026