Agenda packet — Solana Beach City Council, July 13, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

This document is an Initial Study (IS) with supporting environmental studies, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for the Ida Avenue Apartments Project (proposed project).

The Initial Study is a public document to be used by the City of Solana Beach (City), acting as the CEQA lead agency, to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Generally, if the lead agency finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated, the lead agency is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) (Public Resources Code Sections 21080[d] and 21082.2[d]).

If the agency finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant impact on the environment with the incorporation of mitigation, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) shall be prepared with a written statement describing the reasons why the proposed project, which is not exempt from CEQA, would not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
1) The initial study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or 2) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
a) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
b) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15000 et seq.

Per Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility of carrying out or approving a project. To be a CEQA lead agency, the public agency must have discretionary authority over the proposed project.

As the project is located within the City of Solana Beach and the City has sole discretion over project entitlements, the lead agency for the project is the City of Solana Beach. Refer also to Table 2-2, Required Approvals and Permits, below.

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE

1.2 LEAD AGENCY
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Page 1 ends

The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Ida Avenue Apartments Project. This document is divided into the following sections:

This section provides an introduction and describes the purpose and organization of this document.

This section provides a detailed description of the project and the environmental setting, and identifies the various agency approvals required.

This section describes the environmental setting for each of the environmental subject areas; evaluates a range of impacts classified as “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated,” or “potentially significant impact” in response to the environmental checklist; provides mitigation measures, where appropriate, to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels; and provides an environmental determination of the proposed project.

This section identifies staff and consultants responsible for preparation of this document. It also lists the resources used in the preparation of this document.

The appendices to this document include various technical reports, database records, and modeling printouts that were prepared in support of the analysis provided in the Initial Study.

1.3 PURPOSE AND DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Project Description

3.0 Environmental Checklist

4.0 Document Preparers and References
Appendices
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

The City of Solana Beach (City) is located on the northern coast of San Diego County. The City is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north by San Elijo Lagoon and the City of Encinitas, and on the south by the Cities of Del Mar and San Diego. To the east are unincorporated areas of San Diego County, which include the communities of Rancho Santa Fe and Fairbanks Ranch, as well as the San Dieguito Regional Park. Major transportation routes to and through the City include Interstate 5 (I-5), Highway 101, Lomas Santa Fe Drive, and Via De La Valle. Refer to Figure 1, Regional/Local Vicinity Map.

The 1.44-acre (gross) project site is located in the central portion of the City of Solana Beach. The site is currently vacant. Ida Avenue borders the property to the west; I-5 runs parallel to the east of the site. The County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) is 298-162-37. Refer to Figure 2A, Aerial Photograph; Figure 2B, On-site/Off-site Photographs; and Figure 3, Site Plan.

The subject property slopes slightly to the west towards Ida Avenue. There is a chain-link fence that runs north/south and separates the eastern side (off-site) from the western side (on-site) of the property.

The approximate 0.50-acre off-site area includes a 0.17-acre area that is vegetated and runs along the east side of the property along I-5, and an additional 0.33-acre area that runs along the west side of the property that encompasses Ida Avenue and is already paved and developed.

The eastern portion of the subject property immediately adjacent to I-5 is California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way (ROW), which is regularly irrigated and consists of predominantly native vegetation such as California sagebrush and California buckwheat. The western portion, where development is proposed, is composed of disturbed, non-native vegetation and groundcover such as ice plant, Russian thistle, and telegraph weed. A highly disturbed dirt area, generally used for temporary parking of vehicles, is present in the northern portion of the site.

Adjacent properties to the west and south of the project site are occupied by residential uses. The southbound lanes of I-5 parallel the eastern edge of the project site; refer to Figure 2A, Aerial Photograph.

Farther to the north/northwest are several churches, restaurants, a small-scale grocery store, and other retail commercial uses. The La Colonia Park and Skatepark lies to the west. A number of multifamily uses are located farther to the southwest, as well as to the east, across I-5.

Earl Warren Junior High and Skyline Elementary Schools are located approximately 0.8 and 0.9 miles, respectively, northwest of the project site. Santa Fe Christian School is located approximately 0.3 miles to the northwest on Academy Drive and St. Leo’s preschool is located approximately 0.2 miles to the northwest.

The site is designated as “Medium-High Residential” in the City of Solana Beach General Plan. The site is currently zoned as Medium-High Residential. No change to the existing General Plan land use or zoning designations is required to allow for residential use of the site as proposed.

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING
Regional Location and Setting
Local Location and Setting
Surrounding Land Uses
Applicable Land Use Regulations
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

The project site lies within the state-designated Coastal Zone and is therefore subject to the policies identified in the City’s Certified Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) (City of Solana Beach 2013). As the City does not yet have a fully Certified LCP, the project is also subject to the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, and specifically Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.

The project proposes to construct one six-unit apartment building (Building #1) and one two-unit apartment building (Building #2) on the project site. Both buildings would be constructed with two levels above-grade with subterranean (underground) parking garages. A total of 15,888 square feet (SF) (including covered and enclosed patio areas) would be provided with the eight apartments, which would range in size from approximately 1,832 SF to 2,093 SF. The project would also provide approximately 3,044 SF of common open space for use by project residents. Guest parking would be accommodated via surface parking spaces (one guest space per four units).

Table 2-1, Project Summary, identifies the various project components. Refer also to Figure 3, Site Plan; Figure 4A, Renderings; and Figure 4B, Elevations, which illustrate the proposed development.

Table 2-1. Project Summary
Apartment Unit # Square Footage Number of Bedrooms Accessible Unit Parking Building #1
Unit 1 1,832 3 No 2 spaces
Unit 2 2,045 3 No 2 spaces
Unit 3 2,085 3 Yes 2 spaces
Unit 4 1,931 3 Yes 2 spaces
Unit 5 2,093 3 No 2 spaces
Unit 6 1,857 3 No 2 spaces
Entrance Lobby 128 -- -- --
Building #2
Unit 7 1,957 3 No 2 spaces
Unit 8 1,960 3 No 2 spaces
As part of the overall development, Caltrans would acquire approximately 1,055 SF of the project site to support the ultimate buildout width of I-5 adjacent to the eastern side of the property. The project applicant would also be required to dedicate an additional 874 SF to Caltrans for I-5 right-of-way.

Vehicular access to the site would be directly from Ida Avenue via five individual driveways, measuring between 14 feet, 0 inches to 20 feet, 0 inches in width. Refer to Figure 3, Site Plan. One driveway would access two exterior uncovered guest parking spaces in the northern portion of the site; two driveways would access the private garages of the two-unit apartment building in the middle of the site; a one-way access drive would lead through the shared garage of the six-unit apartment building and exit to Ida Avenue in the southern portion of the site.

On-site circulation would be provided via proposed pathways, which would grant access to the apartment units and underground parking and guest surface parking areas, as well as the common open space and playground planned in the northern portion of the property.

Proposed Project
I I I
I I I
Access and Circulation
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

Ornamental landscaping would be planted on-site to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the property.

A variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover is proposed, as shown in Figure 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan.

All proposed ornamental plantings would be a mixture of City-approved native species; the use of nonnative species is not proposed. All plantings would be low-water use; recycled water is not available to serve the site.

Per City requirements for the Medium-High Residential Zone, a total of 18 off-street parking spaces are required, including two on-site parking spaces per unit, and one guest space per every four units. The project proposes two on-site parking spaces per unit (16 spaces) and four guest spaces. One handicap van-accessible space and one regular handicap space are included in the total number of parking spaces proposed.

The six-unit building would include a 9,077 SF shared basement providing underground parking for the six apartment units above. The two-unit building would include two private garages for the two apartment units. Guest parking would be accommodated via surface parking spaces and within the shared parking garage.

The project would install lighting features so as to provide an adequate level of nighttime lighting to ensure public safety and to support movement of vehicles and pedestrians on-site. Minimal lighting would be installed at the access driveways to identify the project entrance and to provide safe ingress and egress, as well as along on-site walkways. Exterior building lighting is also proposed, both as safety lighting and architectural details. Refer to Figure 6, Lighting Plan, which identifies the type and location of the proposed lighting elements.

The project has been designed in conformance with Section 17.60.060, Exterior Lighting Regulations, of the City’s Municipal Code, which requires lighting to be “shielded via horizontal cutoff to eliminate all light directed above the horizontal.” Additionally, the project would be required to demonstrate that spill light onto adjacent properties does not exceed “0.2 foot-candles measured in the horizontal or vertical plane at a point five feet inside the adjacent property.

No signage is proposed to identify the apartment complex. The apartments would be numbered to identify individual units.

It is anticipated that project construction would occur over approximately 11 months beginning in fourth quarter 2022. The general construction phasing and approximate duration are summarized below:
• Site Preparation: 2 days
• Grading: 1 week
• Building Construction: 9 weeks
• Paving: 2 weeks
• Architectural Coating: 2 weeks
Landscaping
Parking
Lighting and Signage
Project Construction
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

Construction worker and vendor trips to and from the site would occur throughout the estimated 11- month project construction phase. Proposed grading totaling approximately 8,945 cubic yards (c.y.) of cut and 235 c.y. of fill is anticipated, which includes grading required within the Caltrans ROW. Additionally, 8,795 c.y. of soil would be exported from the site (largely generated by excavation for the proposed underground parking).

Once construction is completed, the 8 on-site apartment units would be rented and occupied by tenants.

The project is anticipated to generate 48 average daily trips (ADT) to and from the site (LL&G 2020).

Landscape maintenance is expected to be ongoing on-site over the life of the project. Such maintenance activities may include the use of lawn mowers, shredders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chainsaws, hedge trimmers, or similar maintenance equipment.

Project entitlements/discretionary actions and other approvals required for the project are anticipated to include, but may not be limited to, those identified in Table 2-2, Required Approvals and Permits.

Table 2-2. Required Approvals and Permits
Permit/Action Required Approving Agency Lead/Trustee/Responsible Agency Development Review Permit City of Solana Beach City of Solana Beach Structure Development Permit City of Solana Beach City of Solana Beach Coastal Development Permit California Coastal Commission California Coastal Commission Grading Permit City of Solana Beach City of Solana Beach Building Permit City of Solana Beach City of Solana Beach ROW Encroachment Permit(s) Caltrans & City of Solana
Beach Caltrans & City of Solana Beach
Stormwater Quality Management Plan City of Solana Beach Regional Water Quality Control Board
General Construction Permit Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Technical studies were prepared in support of the IS/MND and are included as the following appendices:
• Appendix A: Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report • Appendix B: Biological Resources Assessment
• Appendix C: Cultural Resources Inventory Report
• Appendix D-1: Preliminary Drainage Report
• Appendix D-2: Water Quality Technical Report
• Appendix E: Noise Technical Report
• Appendix F: Trip Generation Assessment
• Appendix G: AB 52 Consultation Documentation
Operational Characteristics

2.2 ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS

2.3 TECHNICAL STUDIES
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Regional/Local Vicinity Map
Figure 1 Source: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Del Mar Quadrangle, Dudek 2021 SOURCE: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Del Mar Quadrangle
0 1,000 2,000
San Clemente
Temecula
Murrieta
Chula Vista
Solana Beach
Encinitas
San
Diego
Carlsbad
Oceanside
La Mesa
El Cajon
Santee
Poway
San Marcos
Escondido
Vista
Imperial
Beach
National
City
Del Mar
Coronado
R i ve r s i d e
C oun t y
M ex i c o 905
209
75 52
94 163
282
188 125
195
54 274
56 74
86 67
76 79
78 805
8 15 5
215

S AN D I E G O

C O UN T Y
Project
Site
Project Site
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL 0
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Project Location Map
Figure 2A Source: ESRI, Nearmap, SanGIS

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS
Project Location Map
Figure 1
°
0 250 500
Feet
Source: ESRI, Nearmap, SanGIS
Legend
Project Site
!"^$
Castro St
Valley Ave
Ida Ave
Genevieve St
Marine View Ave

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS
Project Location Map
Figure 1
°
0 250 500
Feet
Source: ESRI, Nearmap, SanGIS
Legend
Project Site
!"^$
Castro St
Valley Ave
Ida Ave
Genevieve St
Marine View Ave
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL 0
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Source: Dudek, 2021
On-site/Off-site Photographs
Figure 2B
MMB
3KRWR
View looking southeast from along Ida Avenue.
3KRWR3
View looking south along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property line (within Caltrans right-of-way). 3KRWR
View looking north along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property boundary (within Caltrans right-of-way).

Photo 2: View looking north from within subject property.

Figure
On-Site / Off-Site Photographs
GD$YHQXHApartments 3URMHFW
3KRWR3
View looking south along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property line (within Caltrans right-of-way). 3DWK
==
?3URMHFWV?M

?0$3'2&?'2&80(17?/%9,B6:)/
3KRWR
View looking southeast from along Ida Avenue.
3KRprop
3p
Photo 2: View looking north from within subject property. 3KRWR
View looking southeast from along Ida Avenue.
3KRWR3
View looking south along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property line (within Caltrans right-of-way). 3KRWR
View looking north along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property boundary (within Caltrans right-of-way).

Photo 2: View looking north from within subject property.

Figure
On-Site / Off-Site Photographs
GD$YHQXHApartments 3URMHFW
Photo 1: View looking southeast from along Ida Avenue. Photo 2: View looking north from within subject property.

Photo 4: View looking north along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property boundary (within Caltrans right-of-way).

Photo 3: View looking south along Interstate 5 and adjacent to eastern property line (within Caltrans right-of-way).

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT

ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK

REVISIONS
DATE
DATE:

BY:

ALL DRAWINGS AND

WRITTEN MATERIAL

APPEARING HEREIN

CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL

AND UNPUBLISHED WORK

OF THE ARCHITECT AND

THE SAME MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR

DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
ARCHITECT.

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

DATE
SHEET

DESIGN / PLANNIING / INTER
426 Andrew Ave., California, 92024 760/942-8287 760/

CHERESKIN ARCHITECTU
Ida Avenue Apartments

KNN MANAGEMENT LLC
1280 HOOVER STREET, CARLSBAD, CA 92008
A-1

ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK

REVISIONS
DATE
DATE:

BY:

ALL DRAWINGS AND

WRITTEN MATERIAL

APPEARING HEREIN

CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL

AND UNPUBLISHED WORK

OF THE ARCHITECT AND

THE SAME MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR

DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
ARCHITECT.

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

DATE
SHEET

DESIGN / PLANNIING / INTER
426 Andrew Ave., California, 92024 760/942-8287 760/

CHERESKIN ARCHITECTU
Ida Avenue Apartments

KNN MANAGEMENT LLC
1280 HOOVER STREET, CARLSBAD, CA 92008
A-1
SC
10-28-21
120
120
125
125
125
5'-0"
14'-0"
34'-10 1/2"
20'-1 1/2" 20'-0"
17'-3" 17'-3"
44'-0"
22'-0"
2'-0"
14'-0" 4'-0"
40'-0"
20'-0" 20'-0"
18'-3"
139'-5"
35'-3"
46'-8"
53'-6"
60'-7"
72'-3"
76'-2 1/2"
86'-6 1/2"
88'-11"
92'-1 1/2"
97'-4"
20'-0"
15'-0"
2'-10" CLEAR
3'-9"
20'-0"
15'-0"
20'-0"
18'-0"
2'-3"
PLNTR
20'-0"
22'-0"
4'-0"
20'-0" 20'-0"
2'-0"
22'-0"

PAVEMENT
50'-10"
8A
A11
8A
A11
1 A11
1 A11
2 A11
2 A11
3 A11
3 A11
4 A11
4 A11
8 A11
8 A11
5 A11
5 A11
6 A11
6 A11
7 A11
7 A11
1,055 S.F.

NEW FIRE

HYDRANT
3' CLR.
42" HIGH PATIO WALL
ON GRADE TYP.

EDGE OF SLAB ON GRADE EDGE OF SLAB ON GRADE
42" HIGH PATIO WALL
ON GRADE TYP.

BELOW GRADE EXIT STAIRS FROM

PARKING STRUCTURE
CONC. STEPS ON GRADE CONC. STEPS

ON GRADE

EXISTING EDGE

OF PAVEMENT
RELOCATE EXISTING PP A MIN. OF 18" FROM BACK OF ROLLED CURB.

TRANSITION SIDEWALK TO MAINTIN 4' MIN. UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH.

DEDICATE ADDITIONL ROW FOR SIDEWALK TRANSITION.

EXISTING EDGE OF RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE PAVEMENT HYDRANT TO BACK OF SIDEWALK 3' ROLLED CURB TYP.
3' ROLLED CURB TYP.

CONC. WALK FOR
FIRE DEPT. ACCESS

TO REAR YARD
CONC. STEPS &

WALK ON GRADE

LINE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT
HOSE PULL = 188'

LINE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT
HOSE PULL = 198'
LINE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE PULL = 105'
PROPOSED 8" SEWER
3'-0" CLR. AROUND

HYDRANT
(E) RESIDENCE
6' HIGH FENCE
6' HIGH FENCE
6' HIGH
FENCE
RET. WALL
+6' HIGH MAX.

PLANTER
MAINT. STAIR
CONC. WALK FOR FIRE DEPT.

ACCESS TO REAR YARD
6' HIGH MASONRY WALL 6"

FROM SOUTH PROPERTY LINE
CMU RET. WALL
+3'-6" HIGH MAX.
(2) 6" PROTECTIVE BOLLARDS
6" BOLLARD
BRUSH
TREES
CONC.

CONC.

ASPH.

ASPHALT
CONC.

CONC.

ASPH.

CONC.

94.4 95.4

94.1 95.2

97.7 97.6

98.6 98.5

95.6 96.7

94.5 98.2

99.8 100.2

97.9 100.3
100.5
104.3
104.9
103.8
104.4
104.4
104.3 106.8
106.8
107.7
111.2
110.5
110.8
115.6
115.6
123.7
121.3
121.6
121.6
121.6
120.5
120.5
120.5
119.5
119.5
118.6
118.6
117.6
116.6
121.3
121.3
121.9
109.8
107.6
106.9
115.5

97.5 (E) PP
PP
WV
FH
107.46' N 89°39'11" W

28.35'
N 74°42'06" W
N 01°06'58" E
199.79' S 04°58'43" E
CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAY I-SD-5

75.29'
S 14°37'48" E
PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3
P.M. 19650
PP
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
120
115
110
105
125
120
105
110
130
125
110
115
120
130
125
105
105
110
120
110
CL
109
108
107
110
109
108
102
103
104
106
107
663 IDA

PROPERTY LINE
IDA AVE.
6 UNIT PROPOSED TWO STORY APARTMENT BUILDING

SETBACK
LINES
542.65'
2 UNIT PROPOSED TWO STORY

APARTMENT BUILDING

DRIVEWAY ONE WAY

DRIVEWAY
PP

ONE WAY

DRIVEWAY
TRASH

ENCLOSURE

PLANTER

AREA OF PROPOSED PLAYGROUND DRIVEWAY

EXISTING ROW EXISTING ROW
CL
665 IDA 671 IDA 667 IDA
705 / 709 IDA
715 IDA
717 IDA 735 IDA
NEW 4' CONC. SIDEWALK
NEW 4' CONC. SIDEWALK
NEW 4' CONC. SIDEWALK
CONC. PATIO
CONC. PATIO
CONC. PATIO
CONC. PATIO
CONC. PATIO CONC. PATIO
CONC. PATIO
CONC. PATIO

COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
PATIO
PATIO

PATIO PATIO PATIO
PATIO

PLANTER PLANTER PLANTER

HANDICAP
RAMP
(E) FIRE HYDRANT 83 FEET
WET

STANDPIPE
F.Y. SETBACK
F.Y. SETBACK
F.Y. SETBACK
4'-0" ROW

DEDICATION
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101.0 FG
101.5 TW
104.0 FG
104.5 TW
107.3 FG
107.5 TW
101.1 FG
113.5 FG
114.0 TW
107.0 TG
107.5 TW

PCC V-DITCH

98.2 FG 103.2 FG 105.5 FS
104.0 TG
104.5 TW
RET. WALL / SOUNDWALL

BY DEVELOPER
110
115
120 128 TSW
118.6 FG-CT
117.6 TG-115.6 INV
265.90'

FUTURE EDGE OF TRAVELED WAY

FUTURE EDGE OF SHOULDER

CALTRANS PARTIAL TAKE
SEE SHEET A-13 FOR WALL ELEVATIONS
(E) DRIVEWAY
GUEST

PARKING
GUEST

PARKING

PLANTER

EXISTING ROW

PLANTER

PLANTER PLANTER

AREA OF OFFSITE GRADING

AREA OF OFFSITE GRADING
14'-0"
N

SITE PLAN
SCALE 1"=20'-0"
FRONT YARD SETBACK MAY BE REDUCED FROM 25' TO 20'
IF THE AVERAGE LOT DEPTH IS LESS THAN 100 FEET

FRONT YARD SETBACK
A 35'-3"
B 46'-8"
C 53'-6"
D 60'-7"
E 72'-3"
F 79"-5"
G 86'-6"
H 91'-9"
I 97'-1"
J 102'-3"
TOTAL 725'-3" / 10 = 72'-6" (LESS THAN 100')
20' FRONT YARD SETBACK IS ALLOWED
REAR YARD SETBACK MAY BE REDUCED FROM 25' TO 15'
IF THE AVERAGE LOT DEPTH IS LESS THAN 90 FEET

REAR YARD SETBACK
15' REAR YARD SETBACK IS ALLOWED
APPLICANT: SHANTU PATEL; KNN MANAGEMENT LLC 760-214-8558 W C.Y. 8,710 SITE GRADING A.P.N. 298-162-37 X C.Y. 85 EXCAVATION FOR FOOTINGS
ZONE: MHRd Y C.Y. 2,733 REMOVAL & RECOMPACTION
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 18 Z C.Y. 11,451 TOTAL GRADING (W+X+Y) PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 18
GROSS LOT AREA: 40,833 SQ. FT.

NET LOT AREA: 38,904 SQ. FT. (-874 SQ. FT. FOR R.O.W. DEDICATION & -1,055 SQ. FT. FOR CALTRANS TAKE) FIRST FLOOR LIVING AREA: 8,143 SQ. FT.

SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA: 6,476 SQ. FT.

BASEMENT / GARAGE AREA: 10,887 SQ. FT. (NOT INLUDED IN F.A.R.) EXTERIOR COVERED PATIO: 1,141 SQ. FT. (ENCLOSED 3 SIDES) COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE (PLAYGROUND): 3,044 SQ. FT.

SITE PLAN INFORMATION GRADING INFORMATION

BASE DENSITY
BASE DENSITY ALLOWED: 8-12 UNITS PER NET ACRE
NET SITE AREA: 38,904 SQ. FT = .89 ACRES.

UNITS ALLOWED: 7
UNITS PROPOSED: 8
Not to Scale
Source: Chereskin Architecture, 10-28-21
Site Plan
Figure 3
-==---
" >
____ .!,__ __
-----;:.,---,;---.....
>
\ >
.. " " " < >
>
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
<
"
"
>
>
" " "
..
...
-------..
0 "'
,. .. " .. >
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Source: Chereskin Architecture, 2020
Renderings
Figure 4A

ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK

REVISIONS
DATE
DATE:

BY:

ALL DRAWINGS ANDWRITTEN MATERIALAPPEARING HEREINCONSTITUTE THE ORIGINALAND UNPUBLISHED WORKOF THE ARCHITECT ANDTHE SAME MAY NOT BEDUPLICATED, USED ORDISCLOSED WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF THEARCHITECT.

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

DATESHEET

ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK

REVISIONS
DATE
DATE:

BY:

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

DATESHEET

-2-20
REAR YARD VIEW from SOUTH
STREET VIEW from SOUTH

IDA AVENUE OVERVIEW
STREET VIEW from NORTH

PLAYGROUND VIEW

ROOF VIEW
Michael Baker
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Not to Scale
Source: Chereskin Architecture, 05-26-20
Elevations
Figure 4B

LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BEYOND
121.50 N.G.
115.00 F.G.
117.00 F.G.
115.00 F.G.
128.0 TSW

SOUND WALL
118.50 N.G.
116.00 N.G.
104.33 BASEMENT
121.50 N.G.
115.00 F.G.
117.00 F.G.
115.00 F.G.
128.0 TSW

SOUND WALL
115.00 F.G.
22'-11"
14'-3 1/2"
25'-0"
104.25 F.S.
115.20 N.G. 115.33 F.F.

SUBTERRANEAN PARKING

EXIT DOOR BEYOND
118.50 N.G.
116.00 N.G.

NAT. GRADE
NAT. GRADE
25' MAX. HT. LIMIT
NAT. GRADE FIN. GRADE
FIN. GRADE
FIN. GRADE
UNIT
#2
UNIT
#3
UNIT
#4
UNIT
#5
UNIT
#6
UNIT
#7 UNIT #1
UNIT
#8
25'-0"
4'-0"
25'-0"
WOOD TRELLIS TYP. STUCCO TYP. W.I RAILING TYP.

CLAY BARREL TILE ROOF TYP.

WOOD RAILING TYP.

ARCHITECTURAL WALL SCONCES TYP. TYP.

PL
25' ABOVE NAT. GRD. UNDER ROOF RIDGE
NAT. GRD. UNDER ROOF RIDGE
14'-10"
24'-11"
17'-3"
15'-11"
14'-2"
13'-9"
14'-0 1/2"
23'-5"
23'-5"
25'-0"
24'-2 1/2"
24'-9"

DECORATIVE PRECISION BLOCK
PATIO WALL TYP. EXPOSED WOOD BEAM TYP. CONC. RAMP & STAIR ON GRADE W.I. RAILING TYP. ALUM.CLAD WOOD DRS.& WINDOWS

ROLL-UP GARAGE DOORS
UNIT #1
UNIT
#2
UNIT
#3
UNIT
#4
UNIT
#5
UNIT
#6
UNIT
#7
UNIT
#8
25'-0"
123.00 N.G.
118.40 N.G.
120.00 N.G. 123.10 N.G.
122.20 N.G.
119.25 N.G. 118.20 N.G.
124.20 N.G.
123.83 N.G.
25'-0"
25'-0"
115.00 F.G. 115.00 F.G. 115.00 F.G. 115.00 F.G.
114.50 F.G.
114.00 N.G.
25' MAX. HT. LIMIT
115.20 F.G. BEYOND WALL
116.50 N.G.
120.00
N.G.

LINE OF PARKING STRUCTURE BEYOND
122.20 N.G.
25' MAX. HT. LIMIT
NAT. GRADE
NAT. GRADE
FIN. GRADE

GARAGE OPENING
ALIGN
25' MAX. HT. LIMIT
115.00 F.G. 115.00 F.G.
117.00 F.G.
120.50 F.G.-CT
130.50 TSW
25'-0"
25'-0"
22'-6"
115.33 F.F.
118.50 N.G.
115.50 N.G.
117.00 F.G.
120.8 F.G.-CT
SOUND WALL 130.5 TSW
115.00 F.G.
120.00 N.G. NAT. GRADE
FIN. GRADE 25'-0"

LINE OF BASEMENT BEYOND
115.00 F.G.
25' MAX. HT. LIMIT
105.83 BASEMENT
115.33 F.F.

AS BUILDING STEPS BACK, RIDGES
REMAIN UNDER 25' HT. LIMIT -
SEE SECTION 8-A ON SHEET A-11
115.33 F.F.
17'-8"
25'-0"
25'-0"
109.20 N.G. & F.G.
112.33 F.G.
116.00 N.G.
114.80 F.G.
114.00 N.G.
114.20 F.G.
118.00 F.G.

LINE OF BASEMENT BEYOND 112.67 N.G.

NAT. GRADE
FIN. GRADE
105.83 F.F. BASEMENT
25' MAX. HT. LIMIT
FIN. GRADE

ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK

REVISIONS
DATE
DATE:

BY:

ALL DRAWINGS AND

WRITTEN MATERIAL

APPEARING HEREIN

CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL

AND UNPUBLISHED WORK

OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE

SAME MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR

DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
ARCHITECT.

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

DATE
SHEET

ISSUED FOR PLAN CHECK

REVISIONS
DATE
DATE:

BY:

ALL DRAWINGS AND

WRITTEN MATERIAL

APPEARING HEREIN

CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL

AND UNPUBLISHED WORK

OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE

SAME MAY NOT BE

DUPLICATED, USED OR

DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE

WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE
ARCHITECT.

PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

DATE
SHEET

DESIGN / PLANNIING / INTERIORS
426 Andrew Ave., California, 92024 760/942-8287 760/ 942-1415 FAX CHERESKIN ARCHITECTURE Ida Avenue Apartments KNN MANAGEMENT LLC 1280 HOOVER STREET, CARLSBAD, CA 92008
A-1.3
EG #21 111.51
#21 129.40
#35 138.30
#36 138.69
#22 135.78
#20 135.78
#30 134.76
#31 125.12
#32 125.12
#19 129.40
#38 138.69
#41 139.08
#13 135.78
EG #19 112.08
#42 139.08
#27 134.76
#8 135.78
#9 129.40
#10 129.40
#12 129.40
#28 134.76
#33 125.12 #34 125.12
EG #12 115.16 EG #10 116.12
EG #9 116.27
#122 139.40
#121 137.48
#118 135.07
#117 135.07
#119 129.40
#112 129.40
#111 135.78
#109 140.03 #69 140.03
#70 139.78
#103 132.77
#102 132.77
#104 136.77
#101 135.81 #99 134.70
#146 129.40 #150 129.40
#106 129.40
#60 139.40 #107 136.77
#91 134.70
#90 139.78
#89 129.40
#92 129.40
EG #89 114.74
EG #92 114.33
EG #146 113.92
EG #150 114.86
EG #112 116.75 EG #106 116.34 EG #103 114.94
EG #119 116.80
#115 139.40
#96 139.78
#145 134.55
#141 134.77
#139 134.77 #138 134.77
#137 134.77
#133 134.77
#132 134.77
#46 137.21
#122 139.40
#118 135.07
#43 126.76
#121 137.48
#119 129.40
#45 135.71
#44 135.42
EG #43 121.97
#120 126.76
EG #119 116.80
#123 126.12
#145 134.55
EG #123 123.70
#132 134.77
#90 139.78
#84 136.96
#87 134.70
#85 126.76
EG #85 118.68
#91 134.70
#89 129.40
EG #89 114.74
#9 129.40
#8 135.78
#42 139.03
#7 135.78
EG #9 116.27 EG #7 120.73
#26 126.12
EG #8 117.92
#27 134.76
#8 129.40
EG #42 119.21
#42 139.03
#41 139.03 #38 138.69
#35 138.30
#2 129.40
#1 129.40
EG #1 114.16
EG #6 118.78 EG #2 114.98
EG #7 120.73
#7 135.78 #6 135.78 #2 135.78
EG #26 121.48
EG #25 119.49
#36 138.69
#26 126.12 #25 126.12 #23 126.12
EG #23 116.22
#128 126.12
#147 126.12 #125 126.12
#129 126.12
#124 126.12
#123 126.12
#90 139.78 #122 139.40
#109 140.03 #70 139.78
#84 136.96
#78 135.81
#87 134.70
#51 139.40
#46 137.21
#44 135.42
#49 126.76
#47 135.71
#45 135.71
EG #49 124.04
EG #43 121.97 EG #47 123.20
#55 134.88
EG #56 124.09
#64 126.76
EG #64 122.56
#60 139.40 #69 140.03
#65 135.86
#67 134.65
#68 134.31
#72 134.31
#74 135.17
#82 139.78
#85 126.76
#86 134.70
#83 126.76
EG #83 119.28 EG #129 123.34 EG #128 123.72
EG #125 124.75
EG #147 123.62
EG #68 122.79
EG #124 123.16
EG #45 122.48
#43 126.76
#56 126.76
#57 126.76
EG #126 124.60
#126 126.12
EG #57 124.03
#59 134.88
#61 135.17
#77 126.76
#76 126.76
EG #76 123.05
EG #77 121.17
EG #85 118.68
EG #72 123.10

WEST ELEVATION FROM STREET
3/32" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION-SIX UNIT BUILDING
3/32" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION-SIX UNIT BUILDING
3/32" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION-2 UNIT BUILDING
3/32" = 1'-0"
SC
5-26-20
NORTH ELEVATION-2 UNIT BUILDING
3/32" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
3/32" = 1'-0"
#2 135.78
#22 135.78
#35 138.30
#36 138.69
#1 129.40
EG #1 114.16
#21 129.40
#19 129.40
EG #21 111.51
#20 135.78
#30 134.76
#23 126.12
#31 125.12
#94 134.7
EG #90 116.64
EG #91 115.80
EG #132 115.65 EG #94 115.59
EG #96 117.60
EG #133 114.86
EG #99 116.29
EG #69 118.60
EG #70 119.48
EG #101 117.28
EG #137 116.09
EG #102 114.97
EG #104 117.20
EG #138 115.90
EG #103 114.94
EG #150 114.86
EG #109 120.31
EG #107 118.35
EG #139 116.90
EG #60 120.92
EG #111 118.78
EG #115 120.72
EG #141 117.49
EG #117 119.05
EG #118 118.55
EG #145 117.25
EG #122 120.42
EG #121 119.49
EG #127 116.81
EG #8 117.92
EG #42 119.21
EG #34 115.49 EG #33 114.48
EG #41 117.56
EG #13 116.05
EG #28 115.12
EG #38 116.30
EG #31 111.41 EG #32 113.42 EG #36 113.75
EG #20 112.61
EG #30 111.63
EG #35 113.45
EG #22 112.46
EG #46 122.68
EG #45 122.48
EG #43 121.97
EG #44 121.80 EG #122 120.42
EG #120 119.62
EG #121 119.49
EG #118 118.55
EG #145 117.25
EG #132 115.65
EG #91 115.80
EG #90 116.64
EG #87 118.82
EG #84 118.86
EG #23 116.22 EG #2 114.98
EG #36 113.75
EG #35 113.45 EG #22 112.46
EG #20 112.61
EG #21 111.51
EG #19 112.08
EG #30 111.63
EG #31 111.41
EG #27 116.81 EG #26 121.48
EG #35 113.45
EG #36 113.75
EG #41 117.56 EG #38 116.30 EG #42 119.21
EG #123 122.80
EG #44 121.80
EG #122 120.42
EG #46 122.68
EG #55 123.39 EG #51 121.55
EG #59 122.98
EG #60 120.92
EG #109 120/31
EG #61 122.40 EG #69 118.60 EG #65 121.38 EG #74 122.61 EG #70 119.48 EG #82 117.97
EG #78 119.59
EG #84 118.86 EG #86 119.13 EG #87 118..82
EG #90 116.14
#48 135.71
EG#48 123.71
EG #67 121.91
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
CJ
CJ
CJ
□□ rno CJ ar§
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Source: Stone Grove Landscape Architects, 9/29/2020
Conceptual Landscape Plan
Figure 5
- - --
.=--=F==
1 I
I
~
,___/
'~ .~
---------- - ---- -
·7

PLANT SCHEDULE

TREES BOTANICAL/ COMMON NAME
cilJb a~ DRACAENA DRACO / DRAGON TREE

GEIJERA PARVIFLORA / AUSTRALIAN WILLOW
0 LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS / BRISBANE BOX
0 ZELKOVA SERRATA/ SAWLEAF ZELKOVA

SHRUBS BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME
...........

V AGAVE ATTENUATA / AGAVE
0 HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON
0 PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS MAKI/ SHRUBBY YEW
0 PODOCARPUS X 'ICEE BLUE'/ ICEE BLUE PODOCARPUS
0 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA I COAST ROSEMARY

BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME

FESTUCA MAIREI / ATLAS FESCUE
:.----
\ _____ , __ , ---- 0 ------- D ------- O
i;."{
·~

CONT QTY WUCOLS
36"BOX 10 VERY LOW
36"BOX 8 LOW
24"BOX 24 MODERATE
24"BOX 12 LOW

SIZE QTY WUCOLS
SGAL 12 LOW
SGAL 27 LOW
15GAL 19 MODERATE
15GAL 10 MODERATE
5GAL 155 LOW

CONT SPACING QTY WUCOLS
1 GAL 30Ro_c_ 147 LOW
~ . -----

HEIGHT WIDTH
20' 20'
25' 18'
40' 20'
50' 50'
HEIGHT ~
4' 6'
10' 8'
15' 6'
25' 20'
4' 8'

HEIGHT WIDTH
2' 2'
----- - ~ ___..-: ----- ,.,..---, ----------
~ · '\
-- -
~
------~ -- ~ -

BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING QTY WUCDLS HEIGHT WIDTH BACCHARIS PILULARIS CONSANGUINEA ' POZO SURF' / LOWLY COYOTE BRUSH 1 GAL 30" o.c. 1,307 SF LOW 1' 8' CAREX DIVULSA / BERKELEY SEDGE 4"POT 18" o,c, 3,797 SF LOW ,. 1' CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM / CAPE RUSH 1 GAL 24"o.c. 621 SF LOW 2' 3' LONICERA JAPONICA 'HALLIANA' / HALLS HONEYSUCKLE FLOWERING VINE FLAT 24" o.c. 2,987 SF VERY LOW 2' 2.5' ~ ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS ' PROSTRATus· / DWARF ROSEMARY 1 GAL 24~ o.c. 1,969 SF LOW 2' 6' ~ SENECIO SERPENS ' BLUE CHALK STICKS' / SENECIO 1 GAL 12" o.c. 152 SF LOW 1' 2' ~ I TRACHELOSPERMUM ASIATICUM / ASIAN JASMINE 1 GAL 12" 0.C. 105SF MODERATE 1.5' 10' -.-i
_J
Michael Baker
~ 0 8' 16' 24' 32'
INTERNATIONAL it-~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Not to Scale
Source: Stone Grove Landscape Architects, 04-20-20
Lighting Plan
Figure 6
FXLuminaire. LED Up Lights LED Wall Lights LED Path Lights I
__
[I] I VOLT 300W T c__ __ :__:_~RA:'.N:s:Fo~R~M~E~R~s:s:____ I Michael Bak "''"""'"" 10

LANDSCAPE LIGHTING

DESCRIPTION LEGEND
LANDSCAPE FX LUMINAR:~TH M-ZD-3LED LIGHT
DIRECTED LIG -18RA-SB

FX LUMINARE HT
WALL LIGHT NP-ZD-6LED-SB
NOTES:
• ALLOW 3' OF E FOR PATH LIGH~RA WIRE FOR FIEL - ALL WORK TO AND UP LIGHTS D ADJUSTMENTS

BE PER LO
- ALL 11 o OUT CAL CODES
AND SET 6" ~FJ.~~No~•'tDSCAPING TO
: ;~~:~~~ER TO TIE 1:T::~~;;EfE0~1[~g/;iCTED
- FIXTURES TO HHAVE GROUND SPIKES SYSTEM

AVE FRO - FIXTURES NO STED GLASS T TO BE DIRECTED TON EIGHBORS LOTS MO-ZD-3LED~/D LUMINARE -AB W/ FROSTED GLASS
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Source: Chereskin Architecture 2019; SANGIS 2017; Dudek 2021 Biological Resources - Impacts
Figure 7
DH
DEV
dDCSS
DH
DEV
dDCSS DH
DH DH

IDA AVE
§¨¦5
Biological Resources - Impacts
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
SOURCE: Chereskin Architecture 2019; SANGIS 2017
Date: 10/2/2020 - Last saved by: cbattle - Path: Z:\Projects\j1105101\MAPDOC\BTR\Figure3-BiologicalResourceImpacts.mxd 06 30 0 nFeet
Project Parcel Boundary Caltrans Right-of-Way Boundary On-Site Limits of GradingOff-Site Impact Area Site PlanVegetation Communities and Land CoversDEV, Urban/DevelopedDH, Disturbed HabitatdDCSS, disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub FIGURE 5
DH
DEV
dDCSS
DH
DEV
dDCSS DH
DH DH

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
File: 178164Figures.indd

IDA AVENUE APARTMENTS PROJECT
Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations
Figure 8 Source: DUDEK; SANGIS 2017

IDA AVE
5 ST1
ST3
ST2
M1
M2/3
M4
M5/6
M7
M8/9
M10
M11/12
M13
Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations
Noise Technical Report for the Ida Avenue Project
SOURCE: SANGIS 2017
Date: 2/4/2020 - Last saved by: mmcGinnis - Path: Z:\Projects\j1105101\MAPDOC\Noise\Figure3_Noise.mxd 07 37.5 5
Feet
Project Site BoundaryNoise Measurement LocationsNoise Modeling Locations FIGURE 3

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Page 2 ends

This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 3_0 ENVIRONMENT AL CHECKLIST
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST This page left blank intentionally.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this Project involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Air Quality ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

3.2 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

May 20, 2022
Signature Date
Katie Benson Senior Planner
Printed Name Title
□
□
□
□
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources cited. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards. 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) A “Less than Significant Impact” applies when the proposed project would not result in a substantial and adverse change in the environment. This impact level does not require mitigation measures. 4) “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
5) “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The initial study must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
3-3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACTS
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

1. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Important Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, or other agricultural
resources, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST - SUMMARY
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ ~ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or a public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or offsite; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff; or,
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an existing community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
general plan or noise ordinance, or of applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public
airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

15. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?

16. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

17. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register if Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?; or,
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 3024.1. In applying the criteria set for in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native
American tribe?

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or reconstruction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
c) Result in determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

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

20. WILDFIRE. If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

1. Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact.

The project site is a disturbed vacant lot adjacent to I-5. The site is designated Medium-High Residential in the City of Solana Beach General Plan and is zoned for medium-high residential uses. The site lies within an established neighborhood, with adjacent properties to the west and south occupied by residential uses.

The project site is not located within the boundaries of the City’s Scenic Area Overlay Zone. Based on Exhibit 4, Scenic Viewpoints and Roadways, of the City of Solana Beach General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, there are no designated scenic view corridors or scenic roadways within proximity to the project site (City of Solana Beach 2014). The project site is located approximately 0.3 miles northeast of the nearest designated scenic view corridor, which is located along Highland Drive (City of Solana Beach 2014). However, as the views afforded along this corridor are those looking to the southwest (opposite of the direction of the project site), development of the subject property would neither disrupt nor alter existing views from this corridor.

For the reasons above, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact.

The site does not support any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. No such resources would be removed with development of the property.

I-5 is identified by Caltrans as an eligible state scenic highway from its intersection with Highway 1 in Orange County south to its intersection with State Route 75 (SR 75) near the Coronado Bridge in San Diego County (Caltrans 2019). However, there are no officially designated state scenic highways within the vicinity of the project site.

Exhibit 4, Scenic Viewpoints and Roadways, of the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element identifies Highway 101, located approximately 0.85 miles west of the project site, as a scenic roadway. The project site is not visible from Highway 101, due to distance and intervening development. As such, the project would not adversely affect or alter views from this roadway.

The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact.

The City’s LUP and the California Coastal Act mandate consideration of aesthetic impacts. The Coastal Act requires that development in the coastal zone be located and designed to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, as well as requiring that “scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance.” Additionally, “permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views ... along the ocean, to minimize the alteration of land forms, [and] to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas” (Public Resources Code Section 30251).

The project site is located approximately one mile inland (to the east) of the coastline. Due to the distance from the ocean, combined with intervening development, no views of the Pacific Ocean are afforded from the property. Therefore, no such views would be affected by the project.

As part of the discretionary process, the project applicant was required to install a series of story poles on-site to replicate the location of the proposed buildings and building heights. Installation of the poles was intended to support evaluation of how the project as designed may affect existing views in the area. The story poles were installed on-site in July 2021; a final story pole certification dated October 6, 2021, verified that the maximum building height of the proposed on-site structures would be approximately 24.94 feet above the proposed grade, with the highest pole being 140.03 feet above mean sea level.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

As designed, the project proposes to construct in excess of 16 feet in height and therefore requires City approval of a structure development permit. Chapter 17.63 of the City of Solana Beach Municipal Code requires building permit applicants requesting modifications exceeding 16 feet, but not more than 25 feet above existing grade, to notify all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject site. Any person who owns or has lawful possession of a residence from which a view may be impaired by the proposed structures may, within 30 days of the date of notice, file a request for a formal view assessment with the City of Solana Beach.

The City provided formal notification of the discretionary application on March 1, 2022, to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site to invite public comment. The 30-day comment period concluded on March 31, 2022. The project application and plans were also made available at the City of Solana Beach Planning Department for public viewing. As a result, one resident located on the east side of I-5 responded by contacting City staff and cited concerns with the project related to view impairment. However, no official applications requesting a formal view assessment were received by the City during the 30-day comment period, and therefore no such evaluation was required or performed for the project.

Although the project would change the site from an undeveloped to a developed condition, it is not anticipated that views to the site would be adversely affected or degraded. Under the existing Medium-High Residential zone for the site, a maximum of 10 multifamily units are allowed; the project only proposes 8 units, thereby reducing the amount of development that would otherwise be visible on-site, and allowing for approximately 0.7 acres of on-site, undeveloped, common usable open space. Additionally, resident parking would be accommodated on-site via subterranean parking garages, thereby reducing potential views of such activity. The project has also been designed consistent with other requirements of the Municipal Code and with respect for the existing visual character of the surrounding residential neighborhood to further reduce the potential for the project to impair or otherwise affect existing views to the site; refer also to Figure 2B, On-site/Off-site Photographs; Figure 3, Site Plan; Figure 4A, Renderings; and Figure 4B, Elevations, which illustrate the existing setting and the proposed improvements.

Based on the above discussion, development of the site as proposed is not anticipated to conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact.

Section 17.60.060, Exterior Lighting Regulations (Dark Sky Overlay), of the City’s Municipal Code provides exterior lighting regulations aimed at controlling excessive or unnecessary outdoor light emissions that produce unwanted illumination of adjacent premises within the City. The zone also prescribes standards for the maintenance or “dark sky” neighborhoods as identified in the City’s General Plan.

The project site is not located within an area designated as a “dark sky” neighborhood. Under current conditions, lighting and glare sources in the project area are surrounding residential uses, as well as vehicles traveling along I-5, which runs adjacent to the east of the property.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

A lighting plan (see Figure 6, Lighting Plan) was prepared for the project to ensure consistency with the City’s Municipal Code regulations pertaining to light and glare. The project proposes incorporation of exterior lighting fixtures to ensure resident safety, as well as to aid in access and on-site circulation. All project lighting would be low voltage, shielded, and directed downward to minimize potential glare or lighting effects on adjacent properties, consistent with the City’s Exterior Lighting Regulations (Section 17.60.060 of the Municipal Code). Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation (DOC) as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forestland, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Important Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, or other agricultural resources, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)).
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact.

Pursuant to the current California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Important Farmland Map for San Diego County, the project site is identified as urban land and built-up land, which is land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres and is intended for uses including, but not limited to, residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, and other developed purposes (DOC 2020). No lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance are present on-site. Therefore, the project would not impact designated farmland or result in farmland conversion to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Level of Significance: No impact.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact.

The project would not conflict with existing designations or zoning for agricultural uses in the City of Solana Beach General Plan. The project site is currently zoned Medium-High Residential.

Adjacent lands to the south and northwest are similarly zoned Medium-High Residential; lands to the west are zoned Medium Residential. As such, neither the project site nor surrounding properties are intended for agricultural use, nor do they support designated farmland. Refer also to Figure 2A, Aerial Photograph. Additionally, neither the project site nor any adjacent lands are subject to a Williamson Act agricultural preserve. No such lands would be affected by the proposed development.

The project would not have an impact with regard to zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? No Impact.

As indicated in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan, the City does not contain any land suitable for timber production and does not contain any parcels of real property zoned for timberland production (City of Solana Beach 2014). The project site is zoned for Medium-High Residential development; no lands designated as forestland or timberland are present on-site or adjacent to the property. Project implementation would therefore not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, any forestland or timberland. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact.

The vacant site is zoned for Medium-High Residential development and is currently undeveloped; no designated forestland is present on-site. Project implementation would therefore not result in the conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures:None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact.

The subject property is not identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the most recent maps of the DOC’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Program. The project site is not located in an area designated as forestland or timberland and is not currently in active agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract, nor are any such conditions present on lands in the project vicinity.

The project proposes future development of the site with multifamily uses (apartments), generally similar to the (single-family) residential use types that currently surround the site to the west and south. Development of the site as proposed would therefore not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forestland to non-forest use. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

3. Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The following evaluation is based upon the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report prepared by Dudek (2021a; see Appendix A).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact.

The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) and San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) are responsible for developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in the San Diego air basin - specifically, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS).1The federal O3 (ozone) maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in 2012; the most recent O3 attainment plan was adopted in 2016. The SIP includes a demonstration that current strategies will maintain acceptable air quality in the basin based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2016).

The RAQS outlines SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for O3. The SIP and RAQS rely on information from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and SANDAG, including mobile and area source emissions as well as information regarding projected growth in San Diego County as a whole and cities within the County to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the County and cities within the County in developing their general plans. If a project involves development that is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project may 1 The relevant federal air quality plan is the ozone maintenance plan (Dudek 2021a). The RAQS is the applicable plan for purposes of state air quality planning. Both plans reflect growth projections in the basin. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

potentially conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact on air quality.

The project site is designated as Medium-High Residential 8–12 dwelling units per acre in the City’s General Plan and is zoned for Medium-High Residential use. The project proposes development of 8 multi-family residential dwelling units on 0.94 acres (project grading would total

1.44 acres, which includes 0.94 acres on-site and 0.5 acres off-site). Thus, the project would be in conformance with the existing zoning and land use designations and no changes are required to allow for the development as proposed. The development is therefore considered consistent with future growth as anticipated by the General Plan and SANDAG growth projections. Further, SANDAG’s Regional Plan population, employee population, and housing estimates for the years 2020 and 2035 were compared to the estimated increase in population, employees, and housing generated by the project. The project is considered to be consistent with such estimates (Dudek 2021a).

The project would therefore not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
Project construction would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (e.g., off-road construction equipment, rock crushing, soil disturbance, and off-gassing) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Therefore, such emission levels were approximately estimated for the project with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts.

Criteria air pollutant emissions associated with temporary construction activity were quantified using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Project construction emissions were calculated for the estimated worst-case day over the construction period associated with each phase and reported as the maximum daily emissions estimated during each year of construction.

Default values provided in CalEEMod were used where detailed project information was not available (Dudek 2021a).

The project would generate air pollutant emissions from entrained dust, off-road equipment, vehicle emissions, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. Entrained dust results from the exposure of earth surfaces to wind from the direct disturbance and movement of soil, resulting in particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) 2 emissions. The project would implement
various dust control strategies and would be required to comply with San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule 55 to control dust emissions generated during, but not limited to, 2 PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

project ground disturbing activities. Construction practices that would be employed to reduce fugitive dust emissions include watering of the active sites and unpaved roads at least two times per day depending on weather conditions; restricting vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; halting grading and excavation operations when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour; clean-up and disposal of dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on adjacent roadways at the end of each workday; and, covering all haul trucks to and from the construction site and/or maintaining a minimum two feet of freeboard. Such measures would be made Conditions of Approval for the project.

Internal combustion engines used by construction equipment, vendor trucks (i.e., delivery trucks), and worker vehicles would result in emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), PM10, and PM2.5. The application of architectural coatings, such as exterior application/interior paint and other finishes, and application of asphalt pavement would also produce VOC emissions. The contractor would be required to use low-VOC paints for the interior and exterior of the residential buildings to meet the VOC limits specified (content of 5 grams per liter or less for interior and 50 grams per liter or less for exterior). To ensure that emissions are minimized during the construction period, such measures would be made Conditions of Approval for the project.

Table 3-1 presents the estimated maximum daily construction emissions generated during project construction. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A of Appendix A.

Table 3-1. Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
2021 3.42 85.45 24.86 0.23 7.08 3.05
2022 2.40 12.72 13.00 0.02 0.66 0.59
Maximum 3.42 85.45 24.86 0.23 7.08 3.05
SDAPCD Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Dudek 2021a;See Appendix A.

Notes: VOC = volatile organic compound; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; SDAPCD = San Diego Air Pollution Control District.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. These emissions reflect CalEEMod “mitigated” output, which accounts for compliance with low-VOC paints and implementation of the project’s fugitive dust control strategies, including watering of the project site and unpaved roads two times per day, restricting vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, and removing dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on adjacent roadways.

As shown in Table 3-1, daily construction emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 during construction in all construction years. As stated above, to ensure that project construction emissions remain below the adopted thresholds, standard measures would be implemented. Further, project construction-generated emissions would be temporary and would not represent a long-term source of criteria air pollutant emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.

I I I I I
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Operational Emissions
Operation of the proposed residential land use would generate VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from mobile sources, area sources, consumer products, architectural coatings for repainting, landscape maintenance equipment, and energy sources, including combustion of fuels used for space and water heating and cooking appliances.

Pollutant emissions associated with long-term project operations were quantified using CalEEMod. Project-generated mobile source emissions were estimated in CalEEMod based on project-specific trip rates. CalEEMod default values were used to estimate emissions from the project area and energy sources (Dudek 2021a).

Table 3-2 presents the maximum daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions associated with project operation. The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod and are compared to the SDAPCD thresholds of significance. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix A of Appendix A.

Table 3-2. Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds per day
Area 0.20 <0.01 0.66 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Energy <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Mobile 0.08 0.30 0.95 <0.01 0.32 0.09
Total 0.28 0.32 1.62 <0.01 0.32 0.09
SDAPCD Threshold 75 250 550 250 100 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Dudek 2021a; see Appendix A.

Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Residential units were not equipped with fireplaces or woodstoves. Low-VOC paints were assumed for re-application.

The values shown are the maximum summer or winter daily emissions results from CalEEMod. These emissions reflect operational year 2023.

As shown in Table 3-2, the combined daily area, energy, and mobile source emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD operational thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Thus, impacts associated with project-generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant.

Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is a result of past and present development, and SDAPCD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. Based on these considerations, project-level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are relevant in the determination of whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. As described above, the project would have a less than significant impact for short-term construction and long-term operations.

The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) is a nonattainment area for O3 under the NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Poor air quality in the SDAB is the result of cumulative emissions from motor vehicles, off-road equipment, commercial and industrial facilities, and

I I I I I
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

other emission sources. Projects that emit these pollutants or their precursors (e.g., VOCs and NOx for O3) potentially contribute to poor air quality.

In analyzing cumulative impacts from a project, the analysis must specifically evaluate the project’s contribution to the cumulative increase in pollutants for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS. If the project does not exceed thresholds and is determined to have less than significant project-related impacts, it may still contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality if the emissions, in combination with the emissions from other proposed or reasonably foreseeable future projects, are in excess of established thresholds. However, a project would only be considered to have a significant cumulative impact if the project’s contribution accounts for a significant proportion of the cumulative total emissions (e.g., it represents a “cumulatively considerable contribution” to the cumulative air quality impact).

Additionally, for the basin, the RAQS serves as the long-term regional air quality planning document for the purpose of assessing cumulative operational emissions in the basin to ensure the SDAB continues to make progress toward NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status. As such, cumulative projects located in the San Diego region would have the potential to result in a cumulative impact to air quality if, in combination, they would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS. Similarly, individual projects that are inconsistent with the regional planning documents upon which the RAQS is based would have the potential to result in cumulative operational impacts if they represent development and population increases beyond regional projections.

The SDAB has been designated as a federal nonattainment area for O3 and a state nonattainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The nonattainment status is the result of cumulative emissions from all sources of these air pollutants and their precursors within the SDAB. As discussed under Response 3a), above, the project would not exceed significance thresholds during construction or operation. As such, the project would result in a less than significant air quality impact relative to operational emissions.

Regarding long-term cumulative operational emissions in relation to consistency with local air quality plans, the SIP and RAQS serve as the primary air quality planning documents for the state and SDAB, respectively. The SIP and RAQS rely on SANDAG growth projections based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the cities and the County as part of the development of their general plans. Therefore, projects that involve development consistent with the growth anticipated by local plans would be consistent with the SIP and RAQS and would not be considered to result in cumulatively considerable impacts from operational emissions. The project would be consistent with the current General Plan and zoning designations that apply to the site and would not result in significant regional growth that is not accounted for within the RAQS. As a result, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional O3 concentrations or other criteria pollutant emissions. Cumulative impacts in this regard would be less than significant during operation.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact.

Air quality varies as a direct function of the amount of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological conditions. Air quality problems arise when the rate of pollutant emissions exceeds the rate of dispersion. Reduced visibility, eye irritation, and adverse health impacts upon those persons termed sensitive receptors are the most serious hazards of existing air quality conditions in the area. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, child-care centers, athletic facilities, long-term health-care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The closest sensitive receptors (residences) are located adjacent to the south boundary and across Ida Avenue to the west of the project site.

Health Impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)
“Incremental cancer risk” is the net increased likelihood that a person continuously exposed to concentrations of TACs resulting from a project over a 9-, 30-, and 70-year exposure period would contract cancer based on the use of standard Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment risk-assessment methodology (Dudek 2021a). In addition, some TACs have noncarcinogenic effects. TACs that would potentially be emitted during project construction activities would be diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted from heavy-duty construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks. The project would not require the extensive use of heavy-duty construction equipment, which is subject to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measures to reduce DPM emissions. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments should be based on a 30-year exposure duration based on typical residency period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (Dudek 2021a). Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (approximately 11 months) would only constitute a small percentage of the total longterm exposure period and would not result in exposure of proximate sensitive receptors to substantial TACs.

After construction is completed, there would be no long-term source of TAC emissions during project operations. No residual TAC emissions and corresponding cancer risk are anticipated after construction, and no long-term sources of TAC emissions are anticipated during operation of the project. Project implementation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

Valley Fever
Valley fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is not highly endemic to San Diego County and incident rates for the County within the project area are below the County average, as well as the statewide average (Dudek 2021a). The project would be consistent with SDAPCD Rule 55 which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction and would control the release of the Coccidioides immitis fungus from construction activities by watering exposed areas (i.e., during grading) twice per day and limiting speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

The closest sensitive receptors (residential uses) are located adjacent to the western and southern site boundaries. Based on the low incidence rate of Coccidioidomycosis in the project area and in greater San Diego County, and the project’s implementation of dust control strategies, it is not anticipated that earth-moving activities during project construction would result in exposure of Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

nearby sensitive receptors to valley fever. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with respect exposure of sensitive receptors to valley fever.

Health Impacts of Carbon Monoxide
The trip generation analysis (LL&G 2021) determined that the project would generate fewer than 1,000 average daily trips (ADT) or fewer than 100 peak hour trips; thus, a traffic impact study was not required. Furthermore, the project would generate 48 ADT (6 trips per unit), which is not anticipated to generate significant daily or peak hour traffic. Project operation would therefore not exceed the screening threshold, would not result in a CO hotspot or have the potential to result in CO emissions that when totaled with the ambient concentrations would exceed a 1-hour concentration of 20 parts per million or an 8-hour average of 9 parts per million. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Health Effects of Other Criteria Air Pollutants
Project construction and operation would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. Table 3-3 presents a list of the criteria pollutants and other related pollutants of concern, emission sources, associated health effects, and current SDAB attainment status.

Table 3-3. Pollutants, Sources, Health Effects, and Attainment Status Pollutant Sources Health Effects
Attainment Status

NAAQS CAAQS
O3
Formed when VOCs and
NOx react in the presence of
sunlight. VOC sources
include any source that
burns fuels (e.g., gasoline,
natural gas, wood, oil);
solvents; petroleum
processing and storage.

Breathing difficulties, lung
tissue damage, vegetation
damage, damage to rubber
and some plastics.

Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10
Road dust, windblown dust,
agriculture and
construction, fireplaces.

Also formed from other
pollutants (NOx, SOx,
organics). Incomplete
combustion.

Increased respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer,
premature death, reduced
visibility, surface soiling.

Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Nonattainment
PM2.5
Fuel combustion in motor
vehicles, equipment, and
industrial sources;
residential and agricultural
burning. Also formed from
reaction of other pollutants
(NOx, SOx, organics, and
NH3).

Increases respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer, and
premature death, reduced
visibility, surface soiling.

Particles can aggravate heart
diseases such as congestive
heart failure and coronary
artery disease.

Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Nonattainment
CO
Any source that burns fuel
such as automobiles, trucks,
heavy construction and
farming equipment,
residential heating.

Chest pain in heart patients,
headaches, reduced mental
alertness.

Attainment Attainment
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Table 3-3, continued

Page 3 ends

Pollutant Sources Health Effects
Attainment Status

NAAQS CAAQS
NO2 See carbon monoxide.

Lung irritation and damage.

Reacts in the atmosphere to
form ozone and acid rain.

Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Attainment
Lead
Metal smelters, resource
recovery, leaded gasoline,
deterioration of lead paint.

Learning disabilities, brain and
kidney damage.

Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Attainment
SO2
Coal or oil burning power
plants and industries,
refineries, diesel engines.

Increases lung disease and
breathing problems for
asthmatics. Reacts in the
atmosphere to form acid rain.

Unclassifiable/
Attainment
Attainment
Sulfates
Produced by reaction in the
air of SO2, (see SO2
sources), a component of
acid rain.

Breathing difficulties
aggravates asthma, reduced
visibility.
(no federal
standard) Attainment
Hydrogen
Sulfide
Geothermal power plants,
petroleum production and
refining, sewer gas.

Nuisance odor (rotten egg
smell), headache and
breathing difficulties (higher
concentrations).
(no federal
standard) Unclassified
Visibly
Reducing
Particles
See PM2.5
Reduced visibility (e.g.,
obscures mountains and other
scenery), reduced airport
safety.
(no federal
standard) Unclassified
Vinyl
Chloride
Exhaust gases from
factories that manufacture
or process vinyl chloride
(construction, packaging,
and transportation
industries)
Central nervous system effects
(e.g., dizziness, drowsiness,
headaches), kidney irritation,
liver damage, liver cancer.

N/A N/A
Source: Dudek 2021a: see Appendix A.

Notes: O3 = ozone; PM10 = coarse particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide.

VOCs and NOx are precursors to O3, for which the SDAB is designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS. The health effects associated with O3 are generally associated with reduced lung function. The contribution of VOCs and NOx to regional ambient O3 concentrations is the result of complex photochemistry. The increases in O3 concentrations in the SDAB due to O3 precursor emissions tend to be found downwind from the source location to allow time for the photochemical reactions to occur. However, the potential for exacerbating excessive O3 concentrations would also depend on the time of year that the VOC emissions would occur because exceedances of the O3 CAAQS/NAAQS tend to occur between April and October when solar radiation is highest. Due to the lack of quantitative methods to assess this complex photochemistry, the holistic effect of a single project’s emissions of O3 precursors is speculative.

Construction and operation of the project would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds for VOC and NOx; thus, project implementation would not contribute significant health effects associated with O3.

SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 restricts the VOC content of coatings for both construction and operational applications. Furthermore, the project would utilize low-VOC paints.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Health effects associated with NOx include lung irritation and enhanced allergic responses (Dudek 2021a). Construction of the project would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for NO2. Health effects that result from NO2 and NOx include respiratory irritation, which could be experienced by nearby receptors during the periods of heaviest use of off-road construction equipment. Project construction would be relatively short-term, and off-road construction equipment would be operating at various portions of the site and would not be concentrated in one portion of the site at any one time. In addition, existing NO2 concentrations in the area are well below the NAAQS and CAAQS standards. Operation of the project would not require use of any stationary sources (e.g., diesel generators and boilers) that would create substantial, localized NOx impacts.

Health effects associated with CO include chest pain in patients with heart disease, headache, light-headedness, and reduced mental alertness (Dudek 2021a). CO tends to be a localized impact associated with congested intersections. The associated potential for CO hotspots was discussed previously and is determined to be a less-than-significant impact. Thus, the project’s CO emissions would not contribute to significant health effects associated with this pollutant.

Health effects associated with PM10 include premature death and hospitalization, primarily for worsening of respiratory disease (Dudek 2021a). Construction and operation of the project would also not exceed thresholds for PM10 or PM2.5 and would not contribute to exceedances of the NAAQS and CAAQS for particulate matter or obstruct the SDAB from coming into attainment for these pollutants. The project would also not result in substantial DPM emissions during construction and operation, and therefore would not result in significant health effects related to DPM exposure. Additionally, the project would implement dust control strategies and be required to comply with SDAPCD Rule 55, which limits the amount of fugitive dust generated during construction. The incorporation of wood burning stoves or natural gas fireplaces would also be prohibited to avoid such sources of PM10 and PM2.5. Adherence to such strategies and restrictions would be ensured as part of the Conditions of Approval for the project. Due to the minimal contribution of particulate matter during construction and operation, the project is not anticipated to result in health effects associated with PM10 or PM2.5.

The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact.

The State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 41700 SDAPCD Rule 51 prohibits emissions from any source in such quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public health or damage to property. Projects required to obtain permits from SDAPCD are evaluated by SDAPCD for potential odor nuisance, and conditions may be applied (or control equipment required) where necessary to prevent the occurrence of public nuisance. SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) also prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person (Dudek 2021a). A project that involves Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

a use that would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off-site receptors.

The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts is influenced by various factors such as the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and sensitivity of the receiver. Odor issues are subjective by the nature of odors themselves and due to the fact that measurement is difficult to quantify.

During project construction, odors could be potentially generated from vehicles and equipment exhaust emissions. Such odors would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, architectural coatings, and asphalt pavement application. However, any such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and generally occur at a level that would not affect substantial numbers of people.

Land uses and industrial operations typically associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food-processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project proposes residential development which is not commonly associated with odors. Therefore, project operations would not result in odor emissions that would affect a substantial number of people.

The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

4. Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US
Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation
plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following evaluation is based upon the Assessment of Biological Resources for the Ida Avenue Project (Dudek 2021b), included as Appendix B of the IS/MND.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact.

The project site was reviewed for applicability of the City’s Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) policies. Because the site is located in the coastal zone, the California Coastal Commission requires compliance with the California Coastal Act through the City’s approved LCP/LUP (City of Solana Beach 2013). ESHAs are identified and defined by the City of Solana Beach LCP as any plant or animal species, including their associated habitats, that are considered rare or □ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ ~ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

especially valuable (City of Solana Beach 2014). Sensitive vegetation communities within the City of Solana Beach, as identified in the City’s LCP, include southern coastal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, southern willow scrub, mulefat scrub, open water/estuarine, beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, southern maritime chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern mixed chaparral, coastal sage-chaparral scrub, and non-native grassland (Dudek 2021b). Based on the results of the biological survey and habitat mapping conducted, vegetation within the off-site Caltrans ROW (disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub) does not meet ESHA criteria. Furthermore, the City of Solana Beach’s LCP did not map any of the disturbed habitat on the project site as ESHA. As such, the project site was determined not to be subject to the ESHA protection policies, and no buffers are required (Dudek 2021b).

Under current conditions, lands classified as developed land occur in the small parking area immediately adjacent to Ida Avenue in the northern portion of the site. Disturbed habitat is present throughout the majority of the site, but predominantly west of the chain-link fence that runs through the eastern portion of the property. The most common non-native vegetation species on-site include ice plant, Russian thistle, and Acacia sp (Dudek 2021b).

The on-site vegetation/land cover is highly disturbed and does not qualify as ESHA; the site is not identified as ESHA in the LCP/LUP. The subject site is small, contains no native vegetation, and does not contain special-status species. No observable biological resources, including perennial plants commonly accepted as regionally sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the City, were identified during the site visit (Dudek 2021b).

On-site, approximately 0.92 acres of disturbed habitat and 0.02 acres of urban/developed landcover would be cleared and graded for the construction of the apartment complex building in the southern portion of the site and associated landscaping in the northern portion. Off-site, approximately 0.15 acres of manufactured, hydroseeded, disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub within the Caltrans ROW would be graded, cleared, and brought up to finished grade. Such impacts would be temporary as the area would be restored/hydroseeded with a native seed mix to pre-project conditions at project completion. Other off-site impacts would occur to 0.01 acres of disturbed habitat, as well as to an additional 0.01 acres of disturbed habitat within the Caltrans ROW. There would also be temporary impacts to 0.33 acres of urban/developed land (Dudek 2021b). All off-site impact areas would be restored to original condition upon completion of project construction. Refer also to Figure 7, Biological Resources - Impacts. The project would therefore not result in impacts to sensitive resources that require mitigation.

Due to existing conditions, the project as proposed would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact.

Sensitive habitats include those that are of special concern to resource agencies and those that are protected under CEQA, Fish and Game Code Section 1600, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No waters of the state or waters of the United States occur within the project site.

Refer to Response 4(a), above. Based on the results of the biological survey and habitat mapping conducted, vegetation affected by the proposed improvements does not meet the City’s ESHA criteria. The project site was therefore determined not to be subject to the ESHA protection policies. The site is highly disturbed and habitat is characterized as disturbed and/or developed, with limited disturbed Diegan coastal sage scrub occurring within the Caltrans ROW. Such habitats have limited ecological value. Therefore, the project would not adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact.

Project implementation would not result in the loss of jurisdictional waters of the state or of the United States as no such resources are present within the project boundaries. As stated, the site supports habitat classified as developed and disturbed habitat. As a result, no impact to state or federally protected wetlands would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Native bird species and their nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 United States Code 703-712). The MBTA implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised to protect migratory birds, their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC).

All raptors and their nests are protected from take or disturbance under the MBTA (16 USC Section 703 et seq.) and California statute (FGC Section 3503.5).

No native wildlife nursery sites are present on or near the property, and no established migratory routes, wildlife corridors, or linkages were identified on-site or in the vicinity. Additionally, I-5 borders the site to the east and supports substantial daily traffic volumes and associated vehicle noise that may discourage wildlife species from traveling through the area. Although some wildlife may move locally through the area, the site is generally restricted by surrounding development and the I-5 freeway. As the proposed improvements are of a limited scale and would occur Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

adjacent to developed lands, the project would not introduce a new barrier that would restrict or adversely affect wildlife movement.

Potential nesting habitat within the project area is limited to birds that nest on the ground and in open, sparsely vegetated habitat. The project area provides limited foraging habitat for migratory bird species and raptors. Lands buffering the project site to the west and south support ornamental, landscaped trees and shrubs that could potentially provide nesting habitat for migratory bird species and, in some locations, for raptors; however, they are situated adjacent to highly trafficked areas (i.e., roads and structures). Therefore, raptor species are not expected to use these trees for nesting, nor anticipated to be directly affected by project construction activities. Disturbed areas within lands buffering the project site to the east (Caltrans ROW) appear to be consistently maintained or contain limited vegetation; therefore, foraging habitat is of low quality for raptors. Additionally, no nests were observed within the survey area during the field survey (Dudek 2021b).

Although no nesting birds were identified during the field survey, conditions could change by the time project construction activities begin. Vegetation could grow on-site or on adjacent lands to the east and, if not maintained, could provide nesting habitat for ground dwelling/sparse shrub nesting birds. Direct and/or indirect impacts may occur during project construction if a nest is physically disturbed or destroyed, or if breeding or nesting activities are disrupted or cease due to noise or increased human activity. Mitigation measure BIO-1 is therefore proposed to ensure that direct and indirect impacts to migratory species would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

BIO-1 Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If construction activities (e.g., staging, site preparation, grading) commence during the breeding season (January 1 through July 31 for raptors and March 1 through September 15 for songbirds), a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey shall be performed within three days prior to the commencement of construction activities. Surveys shall include the construction area plus a 500-foot buffer. Survey findings would be documented prior to initiating any construction activities.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, implementation of project activities may begin.

If nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are found to be present, avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken. Measures shall include establishment of an avoidance buffer until nesting has been completed. The width of the buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommendations. The qualified biologist shall determine the appropriate buffer size and level of nest monitoring necessary for species not listed under the federal or California Endangered Species Acts based on the species’ life history, the species’ sensitivity to disturbances (e.g., noise, vibration, human activity), individual behavior, status of nest, location of nest and site conditions, presence of screening vegetation, anticipated project activities, ambient noise levels compared to project-related noise levels, existing nonproject-related disturbances in the vicinity, and ambient levels of human activity.

Buffers shall be marked (flagged or fenced with environmentally sensitive area fencing) around any active nests and periodic monitoring by the qualified biologist will occur to ensure the project does not result in the failure of the nest. The buffer(s) shall be maintained around each nest until the nest becomes inactive as determined by the qualified biologist. At the discretion of the Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

qualified biologist, if a nesting bird appears to be stressed as a result of project activities and the buffer does not appear to provide adequate protection, additional minimization measures may need to be implemented.

Construction may continue outside of the no-work buffers. The qualified biologist shall ensure that restricted activities occur outside of the delineated buffers, check nesting birds for any potential indications of stress, and ensure that installed fencing or flagging is properly maintained during nest monitoring and any additional site visits. Buffer sizes may be adjusted (either increased or reduced), or the extent of nest monitoring may be adjusted, at the discretion of the qualified biologist based on the conditions of the surrounding area and/or the behavior of the nesting bird.

Any changes to buffer sizes and/or nest monitoring frequency shall be documented. If listed species are found to be nesting in the survey area, construction activity shall not occur without coordination with regulating agencies and may require an agency-approved bird management plan.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to commencement of and during project construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Solana Beach Community Development Department Level of Significance: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact.

The proposed improvements would occur in conformance with requirements of the California Coastal Act and land use policies identified in the City of Solana Beach LCP/LUP. Policies 3.51 through 3.53 of the LCP/LUP address preservation of native trees. The project site supports disturbed/developed habitat and no native trees are present on-site; the project would not remove any such resources and would not conflict with LCP/LUP policies 3.51 through 3.53.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact.

The City of Solana Beach is located within the boundaries of the San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The MHCP, adopted on March 2003, is the subregional plan for the northwest portion of San Diego County and encompasses the Cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, Solana Beach, San Marcos, and Vista. The plan encompasses 111,908 acres and will conserve over 20,000 acres of natural habitat within the boundaries of participating cities for 77 species (SANDAG 2003). The City of Solana Beach is designated as Developed/Disturbed Land and is therefore exempt from the requirements to prepare a MHCP subarea plan. No other conservation plans apply to the subject site.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

As stated above, no sensitive species have been documented on the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat and current level of disturbance, and no wetlands or riparian habitat are present on the property. Therefore, development of the site as proposed would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

5. Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
The following evaluation is based upon the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Ida Avenue Apartments Project (Dudek 2021c), included as Appendix C of the IS/MND.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

According to the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, nearly all of the earliest structures constructed in the City of Solana Beach have been removed to allow for new development in the years since the City’s original subdivision map was filed. The oldest remaining structure is located within the 700 block of Ida Avenue, and is considered an important local historic resource (City of Solana Beach 2014).

Dudek prepared a cultural resources assessment for the project which considered the area of potential effect (APE). The APE includes the 0.94-acre residential lot (APN 298-162-37) and 0.5 acres of temporary construction impacts that would occur within the Caltrans ROW, totaling approximately 1.44 acres.

Dudek reviewed available historical aerial images to understand historical development patterns and land use within the project APE. The historical aerial imagery indicated that the APE has remained unaltered with the exception of surrounding development since 1953 (Dudek 2021c).

As such, the site under current conditions remains in an undeveloped, yet disturbed state; no structures are present on the subject property.

Additionally, a records search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File and a pedestrian site survey were conducted for the APE and resulted in a negative finding for cultural or historical resources. Refer to the discussion below under Response 5(b) for additional details.

Although no known historic resources have been identified on-site, the potential for undiscovered historical resources to occur on-site does exist, largely due to the undeveloped nature of the site and consideration for other known historical resources located in the City. Therefore, mitigation measures CUL-1 to CUL-3 are proposed to ensure that if such resources are uncovered during □ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
□ ~ □ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

project-related ground-disturbing activities, construction would be halted and such resources evaluated to determine the significance of the resource; refer to the discussion below under Response 5(b) for a more detailed discussion. With incorporation of such measures, potential impacts on undiscovered historical resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implement mitigation measures CUL-1 to CUL-3.

Level of Significance: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

As stated above, a cultural resources assessment was prepared for the project site and APE to evaluate the potential for cultural resources to occur on-site (Dudek 2021c). A records search was performed at the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University on January 28, 2020. The records search identified 33 cultural resources within 1 mile of the APE; however, no resources are located within the APE. One resource, P-37-013484/CA-SDI-13484, is located immediately south of the APE. The records search identified 81 studies that have been previously conducted within 1 mile of the project site, 10 of which intersect the APE. One of these studies describes the archaeological evaluation of P-37-013484/CA-SDI-13484 as a light marine shell scatter with trace amounts of ground stone and flaked lithic debitage (Dudek 2021c).

As stated above, available historical aerial images of the project APE were reviewed by Dudek.

The aerial imagery indicated that the APE has remained unaltered with the exception of surrounding development since 1953 (Dudek 2021c). Therefore, no historic (or other) structures are present on the project site.

A search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was requested on January 16, 2020, for review of the presence of Native American sites. Results of the search were negative for the project APE.

Outreach letters to all Native American representatives included on the tribal contact list provided by the NAHC were mailed by Dudek on February 3, 2020. Responses from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians and San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians were subsequently received. Neither tribe indicated the presence of known resources within the project APE; however, the Viejas Band requested that a Kumeyaay cultural monitor be present during project ground disturbance activities. No other responses have been received to date (Dudek 2021c; see Appendix C).

A professional archaeologist and a Red Tail Native American monitor conducted a pedestrian survey of the project APE in January 2020. Although the site is presently undeveloped, the APE was covered by vegetation resulting in poor ground visibility. The pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural or built-environment resources within the project APE, including the project site and the adjacent Caltrans ROW (Dudek 2021c).

Although the records search and pedestrian survey were negative for cultural resources, the undeveloped nature of the APE and poor ground visibility increase the cultural sensitivity of the project APE. As such, the potential for unknown cultural resources does exist. It is therefore recommended that an archaeological and Kumeyaay Native American monitor be present on-site during initial ground disturbance activities to ensure proper treatment of inadvertent cultural discoveries. In the unlikely event that archaeological materials are discovered, mitigation is proposed to reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels (mitigation measure CUL1).

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Additionally, the City of Solana Beach General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy

6.b states: “The city shall require that sites proposed for future development are to be evaluated by certified archaeologists and/or paleontologists in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Where potentially significant adverse impacts are identified, the city shall require appropriate mitigation measures such as in site preservation or professional retrieval” (City of Solana Beach 2014).

As such, mitigation measures CUL-1 to CUL-3 would be implemented to allow for the contractor to halt construction activities on-site in the event that unknown cultural resources are unearthed, until a qualified archeologist could determine the significance of the find. With implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 to CUL-3, impacts on archaeological resources would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

CUL-1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program. A Cultural Resource Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be conducted to provide for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources that are affected by or may be discovered during the construction of the proposed project. The monitoring shall consist of the full-time presence of a qualified archaeologist and a traditionally and culturally affiliated (TCA) Native American monitor (Kumeyaay) shall be retained to monitor ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction, including vegetation removal, clearing, grading, trenching, excavation, or other activities that may disturb original (pre-project) ground, including the placement of fill materials. • The requirement for cultural resource mitigation monitoring shall be noted on all applicable construction documents, including grading plans. • The qualified archaeologist and TCA Native American monitor shall attend all applicable preconstruction meetings with the contractor and/or associated subcontractors. • The qualified archaeologist shall maintain ongoing collaborative consultation with the TCA Native American monitor during all ground-disturbing or altering activities, as identified above.
• The qualified archaeologist and/or TCA Native American monitor may halt grounddisturbing activities if archaeological artifact deposits or cultural features are discovered.

In general, ground-disturbing activities shall be directed away from these deposits for a short time to allow a determination of potential significance, the subject of which shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist and the TCA Native American monitor, in consultation with the Kumeyaay affiliated tribes. Ground-disturbing activities shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the TCA Native American monitor, deems that the cultural resource or feature has been appropriately documented and/or protected. At the qualified archaeologist’s discretion, the location of grounddisturbing activities may be relocated elsewhere on the project site to avoid further disturbance of cultural resources.
• The avoidance and protection of discovered unknown and significant cultural resources and/or unique archaeological resources is the preferable mitigation for the proposed project. If avoidance is not feasible, a Data Recovery Plan may be authorized by the City as the lead agency under CEQA. If a data recovery is required, then the Kumeyaay Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

affiliated tribes shall be notified and consulted in drafting and finalizing any such recovery plan.
• The qualified archaeologist and/or TCA Native American monitor may also halt grounddisturbing activities around known archaeological artifact deposits or cultural features if, in their respective opinions, there is the possibility that they could be damaged or destroyed.
• The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all tribal cultural resources collected during the cultural resource mitigation monitoring conducted during all ground-disturbing activities, and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site, to the Kumeyaay affiliated tribes for respectful and dignified treatment and disposition, including reburial, in accordance with the tribe’s cultural and spiritual traditions. All cultural materials that are associated with burial and/or funerary goods will be repatriated to the most likely descendant as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission per California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

CUL-2 Prepare Monitoring Report and/or Evaluation Report. Prior to the release of the grading bond, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, which describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the cultural resource mitigation monitoring efforts (such as, but not limited to, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program), shall be submitted by the qualified archaeologist, along with the TCA Native American monitor’s notes and comments, to the City’s Community Development Director for approval.

CUL-3 Identification of Human Remains. As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Coroner’s office by telephone. No further excavation or disturbance of the discovery or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains (as determined by the qualified archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor) shall occur until the coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097.98. If such a discovery occurs, a temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected (as determined by the qualified archaeologist and/or the TCA Native American monitor), and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. As further defined by state law, the coroner would determine within two working days of being notified if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the coroner recognizes the remains to be Native American, he or she shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC would make a determination as to the most likely descendent. If Native American remains are discovered, the remains shall be kept in situ (“in place”), or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and the analysis of the remains shall only occur on-site in the presence of the TCA Native American monitor.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

No known cemeteries are located on-site and no such resources were identified during the records searches, consultation efforts, or field survey. Although no known human remains have been identified on-site, the potential for project ground-disturbing activities to result in impacts to unknown resources does exist, particularly
The project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements for treatment of Native American human remains contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097. Additionally, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-3 would reduce project impacts on unknown human remains to less than significant. Potential construction impacts on human remains would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures: Implement mitigation measures CUL-1 to CUL-3.

Level of Significance: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

6. Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

6. ENERGY. Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The following discussion is based in part on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report prepared by Dudek (Dudek 2021a; see Appendix A). Additional information pertaining to anticipated energy use for the City of Solana Beach was obtained from the City’s General Plan.

According to the City of Solana Beach General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) provides natural gas and electricity to the City. The City’s electrical needs are served by SDG&E’s substations located in Del Mar, Encinitas, and Rancho Santa Fe. SDG&E provides electrical power flow via an integrated mix of primary energy resources including oil, natural gas, hydropower, coal, geothermal, co-generation, and nuclear. SDG&E purchases a substantial portion of its electrical supply from other utilities, and its entire natural gas supply is purchased from the Southern California Gas Company (City of Solana Beach 2014).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact.

Within Solana Beach, it is estimated that multi-family residential uses consume an estimated 3,918 cubic feet per unit of natural gas and 6,081 kilowatt hours per dwelling unit annually for electricity on average (City of Solana Beach 2014). Based on assumed energy consumption factors and the maximum General Plan buildout scenario, ultimate natural gas consumption for the City is estimated to be approximately 442.8 million cubic feet annually while electrical consumption is projected at approximately 84,657.2 megawatt hours annually. These consumption levels represent increases of approximately 9.0 percent for natural gas and 7.5 percent for electricity; however, as indicated in the General Plan, such increases are not considered to be significant and are within the parameters of SDG&E’s projected future load growth for the Solana Beach area (City of Solana Beach 2014).

As indicated in the City’s General Plan, as new development occurs and/or older existing structures within the City are renovated, energy conservation measures can be incorporated to reduce the City’s future energy demands. Integrating relevant planning and building design measures would help to reduce overall demand for non-renewable resources as well as the City’s susceptibility to potential future energy supply shortages. Such measures would also contribute to regional and national goals to reduce dependency on non-renewable energy supplies. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

The four sources of energy relative to the proposed project include electricity, natural gas, the equipment-fuel necessary for project construction, and the automotive fuel necessary for project operations. Addressing energy impacts requires an agency to make a determination as to what constitutes a significant impact. There are no established thresholds of significance, statewide or locally, for what constitutes a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy for a land use project.

Title 24 of the California Administrative Code contains building code provisions pertaining to energy conservation measures that are intended to be incorporated into building designs. Such measures include technologies such as building insulation, weatherstripping, insulation of water heaters and pipes, water flow restrictors, and energy-efficient lighting systems. By incorporating Title 24 considerations into the design review process, the City can contribute to the goal of minimizing increased energy consumption levels. As such, the proposed project would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and the version of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) in effect at the time when building permits are obtained. Conformance with relevant measures identified in Title 24 would ensure that project energy demands are reduced, helping the City to meet identified energy efficiency goals over the long-term.

The amount of electricity and natural gas anticipated to be consumed by the project for lighting, space and water heating, and landscape maintenance during construction and operations, as compared to that consumed by all residential land uses in Solana Beach and/or San Diego County, would be de minimis. As the project would be limited to construction and operation of 8 new multi-family residential units, any resulting increase in electricity and natural gas consumption over existing conditions would be limited and inconsequential as compared to that which presently occurs on a local or regional scale. The use of such resources for the project would not be considered wasteful or unnecessary, and would be further reduced by project deign conformance with CalGreen and Title 24 requirements.

Fuel necessary for project construction would be required for the operation and maintenance of construction equipment and the transportation of materials to the project site. The fuel expenditure necessary to construct the physical buildings and infrastructure would be temporary, lasting only as long as project construction. No unusual project characteristics would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or the state. Construction contractors would purchase their own gasoline and diesel fuel from local suppliers and would use fuel supplies to minimize costs due to waste and subsequently maximize profits. Additionally, construction equipment fleet turnover and increasingly stringent state and federal regulations on engine efficiency, combined with state regulations limiting engine idling times and requiring recycling of construction debris, would further reduce the amount of transportation fuel demand during project construction. It is therefore anticipated that construction fuel consumption associated with the project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other development projects of a similar nature.

The 8-unit multi-family residential project would generate an estimated 48 daily vehicle trips, or 6 daily trips per unit (LL&G 2021). As such, project-related vehicle trips would not represent a substantial increase in the demand for or use of fuels for the purpose of travel, as compared to trips generated within the City of Solana Beach or the County of San Diego under current conditions. As such, the project is not anticipated to result in vehicle-related fuel consumption Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

that would be uniquely inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.

Based on the discussion above, the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact.

The project has been designed in a manner that is consistent with relevant energy conservation plans aimed at encouraging development that results in the efficient use of energy resources. The project would be built to the Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24). Title 24 was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years. The most recent update to the Energy Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings.

Additionally, the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen, amended 2013) establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers 5 categories:
planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. The project would be designed consistent with such measures to ensure that energy efficiency is achieved as required.

Furthermore, the project would be consistent with relevant goals and policies of the City’s General Plan pertaining to energy conservation. Policy 7.a. of the Conservation and Open Space Element requires that new development incorporate energy conservation measures and promote alternative energy systems. Additionally, the Housing Element identifies Policy H-6.2 which encourages the use of building placement, design, and construction techniques that minimize energy consumption. Housing Element Policy H-6.4 also requires that, consistent with the California Public Utilities Commission’s California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategy Plan, the City should strive to achieve zero net energy use for new residential development by 2020 and zero net energy use for new commercial development by 2030.

The City has also adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) which identifies measures relative to renewable energy and building design, with the ultimate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A key measure in the CAP is Measure E-1 which is aimed at implementing a Community Choice Aggregation program, subject to City Council approval, to achieve the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 (City of Solana Beach 2013). This program allows for local governments to aggregate electricity demand within their respective jurisdictions in order to obtain alternative energy supplies, while still maintaining their existing electricity provider for purposes of transmission and distribution to the service population. As such, City participation in the program would also allow the proposed project to further contribute to state and local energy reduction goals.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

For the reasons above, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

7. Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
projects, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landside, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
The following analysis is based upon available soils and geotechnical data from various sources, including databases, soils maps, and the City of Solana Beach General Plan. Relevant information has been reviewed and incorporated herein where appropriate relative to the proposed project. □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ ~ □ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? Less than Significant Impact.

Southern California, including the project site, is subject to the effects of seismic activity because of the active faults that traverse the region. Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or are in a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

Key regional faults potentially affecting the City include the San Andreas, Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Clemente Faults. Additionally, an offshore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault lies approximately 2 miles west of the City and is considered to be potentially active and could therefore produce severe ground shaking within the City (City of Solana Beach 2014). The project site is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Special Publication 42, Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazards Zones in California; no such zones have been designated in or near the City of Solana Beach, and therefore, the potential for fault rupture to affect the project site is considered low (DOC 2018).

Although no active faults traverse the site, all new development would be required to comply with the requirements of the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act and the California Building Code (CBC). CBC requirements address structural seismic safety; include design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards, including for geologically induced loading that governs sizing of structural members, building supports, and materials; and provide calculation methods to assist in the design process. The CBC includes provisions for buildings to structurally survive an earthquake without collapsing and includes measures such as anchoring to the foundation and structural frame design.

Due to the distance to the nearest fault and the magnitude of past seismic activity in the area, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact.

Southern California has numerous active seismic faults potentially subjecting people to earthquake- and seismic-related hazards. Seismic activity poses two types of potential hazards for people and structures, categorized as either primary or secondary hazards. Primary hazards include ground rupture, ground shaking, ground displacement, subsidence, and uplift from earth movement. Secondary hazards include ground failure (lurch cracking, lateral spreading, and slope failure), liquefaction, water waves (seiches), movement on nearby faults (sympathetic fault movement), dam failure, and fires.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

The project site is in a seismically active region and could experience ground shaking associated with an earthquake along nearby faults, including the Rose Canyon fault zone. The project site is likely to be subjected to strong ground motion from seismic activity, similar to that of the rest of San Diego County and Southern California, due to seismic activity in the region as a whole.

Regardless of the seismic activity anticipated to occur on-site, the project would be designed in accordance with CBC requirements that address structural seismic safety.

All new development would be required to comply with the CBC, which includes design criteria intended to maximize structural stability in the event of an earthquake. Thus, while shaking impacts would be potentially damaging, they would also tend to be reduced in their structural effects due to CBC criteria that recognize this potential.

Project conformance with CBC and local requirements relative to grading and construction would ensure that the project does not result in exposure of people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact.

Liquefaction is the phenomenon whereby soils lose shear strength and exhibit fluid-like flow behavior. Loose granular soils are most susceptible to these effects, with liquefaction generally restricted to saturated or near-saturated soils at depths of less than 50 feet. Liquefaction normally occurs in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely friction. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by a seismic event.

In the Solana Beach area, the potential for liquefaction is limited to the area located generally between Stevens Avenue and Valley Avenue, and north of Via de la Valle between Del Mar Downs and Stevens Avenue. These are the only areas in the City underlain by poorly consolidated alluvium and slope wash that could liquefy during an earthquake depending upon groundwater conditions (City of Solana Beach 2014). As the project site is not located in proximity to either of these areas, the potential for liquefaction to occur on-site is considered low.

Groundwater levels in the project vicinity are anticipated to be greater than 20 feet below ground surface (Armstrong & Brooks 2018). However, groundwater levels may fluctuate with precipitation, irrigation of adjacent lands, drainage, and site grading.

Project design and construction would incorporate standard design measures, including similar types of measures from the CBC, to address potential seismic-related liquefaction and related effects such as settlement and lateral spreading. Preparation of a comprehensive design-level geotechnical evaluation would be required, prior to final design and construction. Completion of this evaluation and adherence to the current CBC and local codes regulating construction would ensure that the project is designed to withstand seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. With site-specific engineering design, impacts due to liquefaction would be reduced less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

iv) Landslides? Less than Significant Impact.

The topography of the City of Solana Beach is generally flat. The principal area of concern regarding slope stability is along the City’s coastal bluffs. Therefore, landslides are not considered to represent a major safety hazard (City of Solana Beach 2014).

Topography of the project site is also generally flat; average elevation is approximately 110 feet above mean sea level (Dudek 2021c). Slopes over 25 percent are limited to approximately 7 percent of the property and are generally limited to the westernmost portion of the site, within proximity to Ida Avenue. Further, signs of landslides are not present on-site.

All project components would be designed in accordance with applicable standards and specifications for seismic safety identified in the CBC and City of Solana Beach regulations.

Therefore, no significant impact from exposure of people or structures to potential adverse effects from landslides would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact.

Soil erosion is most prevalent in unconsolidated alluvium and surficial soils and in areas that have slopes. Erosive soils are generally found in areas of steep slope where runoff velocity is greater and vegetative cover is low. According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey website, two soil types are located within the project area:

Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes, classified as moderately well-drained with a low potential for runoff, and Corralitos loamy sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes, classified as somewhat excessively drained with a very low potential for runoff (USDA n.d.).

Grading and trenching during project construction would displace soils and temporarily increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion. In addition, the project would increase impervious surface areas on-site, which would potentially contribute to increased stormwater runoff.

The project applicant would be required to meet City grading standards and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements for approval by the City prior to grading. The SWPPP would identify specific best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented by the project applicant to prevent erosion, minimize siltation from impacting downstream water bodies, and protect water quality. Water quality features intended to reduce construction-related erosion impacts would be clearly noted on the project grading plans for implementation by the construction contractor. Additionally, the City implements its Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program, which governs the activities and programs implemented to comply with the NPDES permit. With conformance to the above standards, project impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the projects, and potentially result in on- or off-site landside, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant Impact.

On- or Off-Site Landslide
Refer to Response 7(a)iv, above. Landslides are not considered to represent a major safety hazard for the City of Solana Beach (City of Solana Beach 2014). The project site is generally level and does not support steep slopes or hillsides, with the exception of limited slopes in the westernmost portion, adjacent to Ida Avenue. Therefore, the site is not considered to be susceptible to landslides. Furthermore, the project as designed would be required to comply with structural standards set forth by both the City and the state. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move down slope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable soil zone must be unconstrained laterally and free to move along sloping ground.

The project site is generally flat and does not support slopes that may be subject to the potential for lateral spread. The risk of lateral spreading can be further reduced through appropriate land use planning, development engineering, and building construction practices. As such, the project would comply with the most recent CBC, as adopted by the City of Solana Beach, which contains requirements for existing and new buildings designed to ensure structural integrity during seismic events and to prevent injury, loss of life, and substantial property damage due to liquefaction.

Conformance with such regulations would ensure that project impacts relative to lateral spreading remain less than significant.

Subsidence
Subsidence refers to the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may be induced by a variety of human and natural activities, including from fluid withdrawal (e.g., oil or groundwater extraction) or seismic events (e.g., earthquakes).

There are no areas in or near Solana Beach where these types of subsidence hazards have been identified (City of Solana Beach 2014). Therefore, the project is not considered to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site subsidence. Impacts would be less than significant.

Liquefaction
Refer to Response 7(a)iii, above. The risk of liquefaction to occur on-site is considered to be low based on existing geologic conditions. However, the potential for liquefaction would be further reduced through appropriate land use planning, development engineering, and building construction practices. As such, the project would comply with the most recent CBC, as adopted by the City of Solana Beach, which contains structural requirements for existing and new buildings designed to ensure structural integrity during seismic events and to prevent injury, loss of life, and substantial property damage. Conformance with such requirements would reduce potential impacts relative to liquefaction to less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Collapse
Neither natural nor man-made subsurface features that encourage collapse, including mines, aggregate extraction operations, or karst topography, are known to underlie or occur adjacent to the project site. Therefore, mandatory compliance with applicable state and local codes would ensure that impacts related to unstable or collapsible soils would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact.

Soils that include clay materials have the potential to swell when their moisture content increases and shrink when moisture decreases. The resultant shrinking and swelling (expansion) of these soils has the potential to result in extensive structural damage to buildings and infrastructure.

The project is not located within an expansive soil area, which is characterized by clay soils. As indicated in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, expansive soils are not considered to represent a substantial issue within the City (City of Solana Beach 2014). Soils present on the project site include Carlsbad gravelly loamy sands and Corralitos loamy sands (USDA n.d.), which are not considered to be highly expansive soils. Furthermore, the project would be constructed pursuant to the CBC and the City of Solana Beach regulations intended to protect against structural damage due to expansive soils. Project compliance with both state and local building codes would ensure that development of the project as proposed would not create a substantial risk to life or property due to expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact.

The project would be served by the public sewer system operated by the City. The project would connect to a proposed 8-inch sewer line to be constructed in Ida Avenue, with connection to an existing 8-inch sewer line located within Ida Avenue, approximately 70 feet south of the southern project boundary.

Therefore, the project would not utilize septic tanks or leach fields for purposes of wastewater disposal. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

There are no known paleontological resources located on the subject site. However, grounddisturbing activity associated with project construction would have the potential to encounter undiscovered paleontological resources buried within the site.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

According to the City of Solana Beach General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, the geologic formations in Solana Beach consist of marine sedimentary deposits and are therefore expected to contain fossils. No significant fossil localities have been identified within the City; however, fossil site locations have been identified along the coastline between the cities of Del Mar and La Jolla. Such resources included fossil mollusk localities, fossil calcereous nannoplankton localities, and fossil mammal localities. Aquatic shell fossils have also been found in the northwest portion of the City of Solana Beach (City of Solana Beach 2014).

The project site is generally disturbed; however, the site remains undeveloped. Although it is not anticipated that significant paleontological resources are present on-site, the possibility for discovery of unknown resources does exist. To ensure protection of such resources, the City generally requires a paleontological survey in conjunction with any future ground-disturbing construction activities. Should any such resources be unearthed, a paleontologist shall be empowered to halt grading activities until the resources are sufficiently retrieved, as set forth in mitigation measure GEO-1. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce project impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure:

GEO-1 During project excavation/grading operations, if paleontological resources are encountered, all work shall be halted or redirected and the City of Solana Community Development Department shall be notified in writing within 24 hours of identification. Said work shall be halted or redirected until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the discovery. If the project paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, proper measures shall be identified for the documentation, recovery, and/or preservation of such resources, as appropriate.

Timing/Implementation: During project excavation and grading Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Solana Beach Community Development Department Level of Significance: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant Impact
With Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The following evaluation is based upon the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Technical Report, prepared by Dudek (Dudek 2021a); refer to Appendix A.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Human caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. Refer to Appendix A for additional discussion of global warming and climate change.

In evaluating potential impacts relative to GHG emissions, the Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act Review states that “public agencies are encouraged but not required to adopt thresholds of significance for environmental impacts. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, the law requires that such emissions from CEQA projects must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact.” Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice” (Dudek 2021a).

City of Solana Beach
No bright-line threshold has been formally adopted by an air district or other lead agencies for use in the San Diego region. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) recommended an interim 900 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) screening level as a theoretical approach to identify projects that require further analysis and potential mitigation (Dudek 2021a). The 900 MT CO2e per year screening threshold was developed by CAPCOA based on data collection on various development applications submitted among four diverse cities, namely, the Cities of Los Angeles, Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore. Following the review of numerous pending applications within these four cities, an analysis was conducted to determine the threshold that would capture 90 percent or more of applications that would be required to conduct a full GHG analysis and implement GHG emission reduction measures as part of final project design. Following CAPCOA’s analysis of development applications in various cities, it □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

was determined that the threshold of 900 MT CO2E per year would achieve the objective of 90 percent capture and ensure that new development projects would keep the State of California on track to meet the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32.

The 900 MT CO2e screening level threshold is considered appropriate for small redevelopment projects.

Consequently, the interim screening level recommended by the CAPCOA would be appropriate for the proposed project. The 900 MT CO2e threshold is applied to evaluate whether a project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

The analysis for compliance with regulatory programs only applies to the individual area addressed by the regulatory program. If the project is determined to have GHG emissions less than 900 MT CO2e per year, then the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be considered less than significant.

Conversely, if the project is determined to exceed the 900 MT CO2E per year threshold, then the project’s cumulative contribution of GHG emissions would be considered significant and feasible mitigation measures would be required.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 also specifies that the project’s CEQA analysis “must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project.” The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in July 2017, with the aim of mitigating citywide GHG emissions while meeting the goals of AB 32. The CAP includes emission reduction targets of 15 percent below baseline conditions (2010) by 2020 and 50 percent below baseline conditions by 2035 (Dudek 2021a). However, the CAP was not prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, the CAP is not considered a qualified GHG emission reduction plan and cannot be used to tier from for CEQA. Additionally, the CAP does not direct private actions. Instead, it informs the development of City ordinances that the project is required to adhere to. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would result in GHG emissions, which are primarily associated with the use of off-road construction equipment, on-road vendor trucks, and worker vehicles.

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to calculate the annual GHG emissions based on the construction scenario described in Section 3, Air Quality; refer to Appendix A for discussion of construction assumptions used in the model. Project construction is anticipated to take approximately 11 months. Table 8-1, Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions, identifies project-generated emissions from construction-related sources.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Table 8-1. Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Metric Tons
2021 167.69 0.03 0.00 168.33
2022 79.01 0.01 0.00 79.36
Total 246.70 0.04 0.00 247.69
30-year Amortized Construction Emissions (MT CO2e per year) 8.26 Source: Dudek 2021a; see Appendix A.

Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; MT = metric tons.

See Appendix A of Appendix A for complete results.

Totals may not add due to rounding.

As shown in Table 8-1, total GHG construction emissions are estimated to be approximately 248 MT CO2e over the construction period. Estimated project-generated construction emissions amortized over 30 years would be approximately 8 MT CO2e per year. As with project-generated construction criteria air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions generated during project construction would be short term in nature, lasting only for the duration of the construction period (11 months) and would not represent a long-term source of GHG emissions. As there is no separate GHG threshold for construction, the evaluation of significance is discussed in the operational emissions analysis below.

Operational Emissions
CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate potential project-generated operational GHG emissions from area sources; refer to Appendix A for discussion of operational assumptions used in the model. Project operation would generate GHG emissions through motor vehicle trips to and from the project site; operation of landscape maintenance equipment; energy use (natural gas and generation of electricity consumed by the project); solid waste disposal; and generation of electricity associated with water supply, treatment, and distribution and wastewater treatment.

The estimated operational (year 2023) project-generated GHG emissions from area sources, energy usage, motor vehicles, solid waste generation, water usage, and wastewater generation are shown in Table 8-2, Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

I I I
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Table 8-2. Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
metric tons per year
Area 0.10 <0.01 0.00 0.10
Energy 13.05 <0.01 <0.01 13.11
Mobile 51.95 <0.01 0.00 52.02
Solid waste 0.75 0.04 0.00 1.85
Water supply and wastewater 2.53 <0.01 <0.01 2.67
Operational Emissions 69.75
30-Year Amortized Construction Emissions 8.26
Operation plus Amortized Construction Total 78.01
Source: Dudek 2021a; see Appendix A.

Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; <0.01 = reported emissions are less than 0.01.

The values shown are the annual emissions for operational year 2023.

Totals may not add due to rounding.

As shown in Table 8-2, estimated annual project-generated GHG emissions would total approximately 70 MT CO2e per year as a result of project operations only. Estimated annual project-generated operational emissions in 2023 plus amortized project construction emissions would be approximately 78 MT CO2e per year. Thus, the project’s estimated GHG emissions would not exceed the 900 MT CO2e per year significance threshold.

The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact.

The City adopted a CAP in July 2017, with the aim of mitigating citywide GHG emissions while meeting the goals of AB 32. The CAP includes emission reduction targets of 15 percent below baseline conditions (2010) by 2020 and 50 percent below baseline conditions by 2035 (City of Solana Beach 2017). However, the CAP was not prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. Therefore, the CAP is not considered a qualified GHG emission reduction plan and cannot be used to tier from for CEQA. Additionally, the CAP does not direct private actions. Instead, it informs the development of City ordinances that the project is required to adhere to. In this regard, the project as proposed would not conflict with the goals, policies, and emission reduction targets set forth in the CAP, nor would the project impede the state’s ability to achieve these reduction goals.

Consistency with SANDAG’S 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan Regarding consistency with SANDAG’s 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Program (RTP), the project would be developed to support the policy objectives of the RTP and Senate Bill (SB) 375.

Table 8-3, 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan Consistency Analysis, illustrates the project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies of the 2019 Federal RTP (Dudek 2021a).

I I I
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Table 8-3. 2019 Federal Regional Transportation Plan Consistency Analysis Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis Habitat and
Open Space
Preservation
Focus growth in areas that are
already urbanized, allowing the
region to set aside and restore more
open space in our less developed
areas.

Consistent. The project would not impact open
space lands.

Habitat and
Open Space
Preservation
Protect and restore our region’s
urban canyons, coastlines, beaches,
and water resources.

Consistent. The project would not impact open
space lands.

Regional
Economic
Prosperity
Invest in transportation projects that
provide access for all communities to
a variety of jobs with competitive
wages.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to invest in transportation
projects available to all members of the
community.

Regional
Economic
Prosperity
Build infrastructure that makes the
movement of freight in our
community more efficient and
environmentally friendly.

Not Applicable. The project does not propose
regional freight movement, nor would it impair
SANDAG’s ability to preserve and expand options
for regional freight movement.

Environmental
Stewardship
Make transportation investments
that result in cleaner air,
environmental protection,
conservation, efficiency, and
sustainable living.

Consistent. The project would promote walkability
and alternative transportation by creating
neighborhoods that are linked by a series of
interconnected sidewalks that would connect
residents to existing transit. Thus, the project
would help to reduce local air quality and GHG
emissions.

Environmental
Stewardship
Support energy programs that
promote sustainability.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to support energy programs to
promote sustainability.

Mobility Choices Provide safe, secure, healthy,
affordable, and convenient travel
choices between the places where
people live, work, and play.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to provide additional
transportation choices within the region.

Mobility Choices Take advantage of new technologies
to make the transportation system
more efficient and environmentally
friendly.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to implement new technologies
in the transportation system within the region.

Healthy and
Complete
Communities
Create great places for everyone to
live, work, and play.

Consistent. The project would interconnect
sidewalks, which would provide residents the
opportunity to access nearby neighborhoods.

Healthy and
Complete
Communities
Connect communities through a
variety of transportation choices that
promote healthy lifestyles, including
walking and biking.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability for SANDAG to create additional
transportation opportunities to promote a healthy
lifestyle.

Healthy and
Complete
Communities
Increase the supply and variety of
housing types – affordable for people
of all ages and income levels in areas
with frequent transit service and with
access to a variety of services.

Consistent. The project would develop eight
residential apartment units.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Table 8-3, continued

Page 3 ends

Category Policy Objective or Strategy Consistency Analysis Sustainability Focus Housing and job growth in
urbanized areas where there is
existing and planned transportation
infrastructure, including transit.

Consistent. The project would be located near
major urban and employment centers.

Sustainability Protect the environment by
preserving sensitive habitat, open
space, and farmland.

Consistent. The project would not impact any open
space.

Sustainability Invest in a transportation network
that gives people transportation
options and reduces greenhouse gas
emissions.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to invest in transportation
projects available to all members of the
community.

Sustainability Address the housing needs of all
economic segments of the
population.

Consistent. The project would develop eight
residential apartment units.

Sustainability Implement the 2019 Federal RTP
through incentives and collaboration.

Not Applicable. The project would not impair the
ability of SANDAG to implement the RTP through
incentives and collaborations.

Source: Dudek 2021a; see Appendix A.

As shown in Table 8-3, the project would be consistent with applicable policy objectives and strategies from the 2019 Federal RTP.

Consistency with Executive Order S-3-05 and Senate Bill 32  Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. This EO establishes the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
 SB 32. This bill establishes a statewide GHG emissions reduction target whereby CARB, in adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective GHG emissions reductions, shall ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by December 31, 2030.

CARB has expressed optimism with regard to both the 2030 and 2050 goals. It states in its First Update that “California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG emissions limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32” (Dudek 2021a). With regard to the 2050 target for reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels, the First Update states the following:

This level of reduction is achievable in California. In fact, if California realizes the expected benefits of existing policy goals (such as 12,000 megawatts of renewable distributed generation by 2020, net zero energy homes after 2020, existing building retrofits under AB 758, and others) it could reduce emissions by 2030 to levels squarely in line with those needed in the developed world and to stay on track to reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Additional measures, including locally driven measures and those necessary to meet federal air quality standards in 2032, could lead to even greater emission reductions.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

CARB believes that the state is on a trajectory to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction targets set forth in AB 32, EO B-30-15, and EO S-3-05. This is confirmed in the 2030 Scoping Plan, which states:

The Proposed Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the Initial Scoping Plan and First Update, while also identifying new, technologically feasibility and cost-effective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The Proposed Plan is developed to be consistent with requirements set forth in AB 32, SB 32, and AB 197.

The project as proposed would not interfere with implementation of any of the above-described GHG reduction goals for 2030 or 2050 because the project would result in emissions below the 900 MT CO2e per year significance threshold. Therefore, the project would be consistent with EO S-3-05 and SB 32.

The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use
airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Where relevant, the following evaluation is based upon available regulatory databases relative to hazards and hazardous materials, as well as the City of Solana Beach General Plan (2014).

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact.

The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials can result in potential hazards to the public through accidental release. Such hazards are typically associated with certain types of land uses, such as chemical manufacturing facilities, industrial processes, waste disposal, and storage and distribution facilities.

None of these uses are proposed by the project; rather, the project would consist of eight multifamily residential units and associated amenities, the construction of which would not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials aside from those normally □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

associated with construction and routine maintenance activities. Limited amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction activities (equipment maintenance, vehicle fuels, solvents, etc.). Similarly, limited amounts of hazardous materials may be used for landscape and building maintenance over the long term.

Any use of hazardous materials would occur in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local standards associated with the use, handling, and/or disposal of hazardous materials. As such, the project would not create a hazard to the public or to the environment. Impacts are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction
Project construction activities could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline fuels, asphalt, lubricants, paint, and solvents. Although care would be taken to transport, use, and dispose of small quantities of these materials by licensed professionals, there is a possibility that upset or accidental conditions may arise which could release hazardous materials into the environment. Accidental releases of hazardous materials are those releases that are unforeseen or that result from unforeseen circumstances, while reasonably foreseeable upset conditions are those release or exposure events that can be anticipated and planned for.

Project construction activities would occur in accordance with all applicable local standards adopted by the City of Solana Beach, as well as state and federal health and safety requirements intended to minimize hazardous materials risk to the public, such as California Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, the California Accidental Release Protection Program, and the California Health and Safety Code.

Stormwater runoff from the site, under both construction and post-construction development conditions, would be avoided through compliance with NPDES regulations administered by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project is required to prepare and implement a Construction General Storm Water Permit and SWPPP (refer to Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality). The contractor would be required to implement such regulations relative to the transport, handling, and disposal of any hazardous materials, including the use of standard construction controls and safety procedures that would avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the environment. Standard construction practices would be observed such that any materials released are appropriately contained and remediated as required by local and state laws.

Operation
The project proposes multifamily residential uses, passive and active recreational uses, sewer/water connections, and access improvements typical of residential development. Due to their nature, these uses are not generally expected to involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in substantial quantities.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Once the project is operational, hazardous material use associated with the residences, recreational uses, landscaping, and maintenance would be limited to private use of commercially available cleaning products, landscaping pesticides and fertilizers, and use of various other commercially available substances. Development of the project site is therefore anticipated to result in use of commercially available potentially hazardous materials or chemicals. The use of these substances is expected to occur in relatively small quantities and to be typical of that for residential uses and associated landscape maintenance and would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local health and safety laws and regulations intended to minimize health risk to the public. Project conformance with existing local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes would ensure that potential adverse effects are minimized and that such substances are handled appropriately in the event of accidental release.

For the reasons above, the project is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less than Significant Impact.

Refer to Responses 9(a) and 9(b), above. Santa Fe Christian School is located approximately 0.3 miles to the northwest on Academy Drive and St. Leo’s Head Start (school) is located approximately 0.2 miles northwest of the project site at Genevieve Street. The types of uses proposed with the project include residential apartments and associated utility and landscaping improvements. Operation of residential land uses would not typically generate substantial hazardous emissions or constitute an incompatible land use within proximity to a school.

The project is therefore not anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact.

Records searches of the EnviroStor (California Department of Toxic Substances Control) and GeoTracker (State Water Resources Control Board) databases determined that the project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site (DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2022). The project site is not identified as containing any above- or belowground storage tanks, known contamination, or other types of potential hazards to the public. The nearest listed hazardous site is identified as a contaminated soil occurring at 533 Stevens Avenue (Kaypro, Inc.) in Solana Beach, approximately 0.4 miles northwest of the site (SWRCB 2022). Cleanup of the site has been completed and the case has been closed.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment in this regard. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact.

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest airports to the site are the Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar located approximately 10 miles to the southeast, and the McClellan-Palomar Airport, located approximately 10 miles to the northwest. Given the distance from both airports, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people working or residing in the project area.

No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Solana Beach’s Fire Chief is responsible for overseeing the City’s disaster preparedness program. Solana Beach’s program for local emergency management is currently being prepared by the Fire Department and is anticipated to designate appropriate evacuation routes and emergency shelters. The program is also expected to identify appropriate management procedures for emergency personnel (City of Solana Beach 2014).

Emergency response is handled according to the nature of the emergency with a combination of vehicles and equipment housed at the Solana Beach fire stations and from surrounding agencies through mutual aid and automatic aid agreements, with the communities of Rancho Santa Fe, Del Mar, Encinitas, and San Diego, as well as Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, and Escondido (City of Solana Beach n.d.-e).

Emergency response actions on a regional scale are coordinated by the County of San Diego; on a statewide basis by the California Office of Emergency Services; and on a federal basis by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The City of Solana Beach’s Fire Chief is responsible for coordinating the City’s emergency response actions with these agencies (City of Solana Beach n.d.-e).

The City participates in implementation of the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which is intended to provide guidance for responding to emergency situations through a coordinated system of emergency service providers and facilities. The MJHMP addresses planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The plan focuses on potential large-scale disasters that represent unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses. Such threats addressed by the plan include major earthquakes, dam failure, flood events, extreme heat and drought, man-made hazards, landslides, climate change, sea level rise, tsunami, and coastal storms, and other such hazards. Participants in the MJHMP include 18 cities, Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

the County of San Diego, 2 fire departments, and 1 municipal water district (County of San Diego 2018).

Additionally, the City participates in the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program.

The CERT program provides education to interested residents about disaster preparedness for hazards that may impact their area and trains them in basic disaster response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, team organization, and disaster medical operations. CERT members can assist others in their neighborhood or workplace following an event when professional responders are not immediately available to help (City of Solana Beach n.d.-d).

During project construction, materials would be placed within the project boundaries to avoid any access conflicts in case of emergency evacuation. Direct access to the project site would be from Ida Avenue. Any improvements needed to provide adequate ingress/egress to/from the site would be subject to City review for the potential to interfere with emergency evacuation routes to ensure that access and circulation are maintained during the construction phase.

The project does not propose any improvements that are anticipated to obstruct or conflict with emergency response or evacuation during project operations. Additionally, the project would be subject to site plan review by City emergency services personnel (e.g., fire department) to ensure that it would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation procedures.

No revisions to emergency response operations or evacuation plans would be required as a result of the project. The provision of emergency services to the site and surrounding properties would not be impacted as primary access to all major roads would be maintained with project implementation.

Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Less than Significant Impact.

Refer also to Section 20, Wildfire. The project site is located in a developed urbanized area generally supporting single-family residential development. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s (CalFire) Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone within a State Responsibility Area (CalFire n.d.).

The site is also not identified as being located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone for a Local Responsibility Area (CalFire 2009). Similarly, all surrounding lands within the vicinity of the site are designated as having a very low risk for wildfire hazard (CalFire n.d.). Additionally, as shown on Exhibit 2, Brush Fire Hazard Areas, of the City of Solana Beach General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not identified as having the potential for brush fire risk, nor is it located within the vicinity of other lands designated as such (City of Solana Beach 2014).

Similar to existing conditions, the project would be served by the City of Solana Beach Fire Department. The nearest fire station is located at 500 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, approximately 0.83 miles northwest of the site. Existing fire protection services are adequate to serve the project as Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

proposed with applicant payment of the required development impact fees; no new facilities or personnel would be required as the direct result of project implementation.

Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving hazardous wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or
off-site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or,
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Where relevant, the following evaluation is based on the Preliminary Drainage Report (2021; see Appendix D-1) and the Water Quality Technical Report (2018; see Appendix D-2) both prepared by Armstrong & Brooks Consulting Engineers.

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Less than Significant Impact.

Stormwater runoff (both dry and wet weather) generally discharges into storm drains and/or flows directly to creeks, rivers, lakes, and the ocean. Polluted runoff can have harmful effects on drinking water, recreational water, and wildlife. Stormwater characteristics depend on site □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

conditions, e.g., land use, impervious cover, pollution prevention, types and amounts of best management practices (BMPs), rain events (duration, amount of rainfall, intensity, time between events), soil type and particle sizes, multiple chemical conditions, the amount of vehicular traffic, and atmospheric deposition. Major pollutants typically found in runoff include sediments, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pathogens, and bacteria.

The majority of the stormwater discharges are considered nonpoint sources and are regulated by the NPDES Municipal General Permit or Construction General Permit NPDES Permit Order No. R9- 2013-0001 issued by the San Diego RWQCB. As mandated by the NPDES Order No. R9-2013-0001, the City is required to prevent and eliminate non-storm water discharges into the City's storm drain system. Construction activities disturbing one acre or more of land are subject to the permitting requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity. As the project as proposed would result in disturbance to more than one acre due to grading and other infrastructure improvements, the City, as the lead agency, is required to submit a Notice of Intent to the RWQCB that covers the Construction General Permit prior to commencement of construction.

The Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a water quality management plan and a SWPPP, both of which must be prepared before construction can begin.

The water quality management plan outlines the project site design, source control, and treatment control of BMPs utilized throughout the life of the project. The SWPPP outlines all activities to prevent stormwater contamination, control sedimentation and erosion, and comply with Clean Water Act requirements during construction. Implementation of the SWPPP starts with the commencement of construction and continues through to the completion of the project. The SWPPP would identify site-specific construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater and non-stormwater runoff from the project area. Potential construction BMPs may include the following:
 Minimization of disturbed areas to the portion of the project site necessary for construction
 Stabilization of exposed or stockpiled soils and cleared or graded slopes  Establishment of permanent landscaping as early as feasible  Removal of sediment from surface runoff before it leaves the project site by silt fences or other similar devices around the site perimeter
 Protection of all storm drain inlets on-site or downstream of the project site to eliminate entry of sediment
 Prevention of tracking of soil through use of a gravel strip or wash facilities at exits from the project area
 Proper storage, use, and disposal of construction materials  Continual inspection and maintenance of all specified BMPs through the duration of construction
Additionally, the project would implement BMPs in conformance with Chapter 13.10, Storm Water Management, of the City’s Municipal Code. Such storm water management regulations are intended to ensure City compliance with the NPDES Permit and with applicable federal and state Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

law. The City also implements its Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) which governs activities and programs implemented to comply with the NPDES Permit. The JRMP provides guidelines and requirements to which the City must adhere in order to comply with the NPDES Permit.

With conformance to such measures and adherence to state and local regulations, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact.

The City of Solana Beach does not utilize groundwater for consumption. Water service for the project would be supplied from the City’s public water supply system rather than from groundwater, which would therefore not result in a net deficit of aquifer volume or lowering of the groundwater table. Additionally, although the project would increase the amount of Impervious surface on-site with development as proposed, such an increase would not substantially interfere with infiltration. The project also proposes installation of a perforated underground storage chamber to detain the post-development 10-year storm water runoff volumes. These flows would be detained and infiltrated into the ground.

Therefore, the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c)i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Less than Significant Impact.

Refer to Response 10(a), above. No rivers or streams are present on the project site, and therefore, no such features would be altered with the proposed development. The project would have the potential to result in additional sources of polluted runoff, including through construction and operational activities associated with the proposed residential development and access drives, as well as other on-site improvements.

Drainage improvements for the project would include installation of sump pumps in the proposed underground parking garages to capture runoff from a filtered trench storm drain inlet before conveying flows towards Ida Avenue. Drop inlet catch basins and high density polyethylene pipe (HDPE) pipe would be installed to convey flow generated on-site onto Ida Avenue. Two Filterra catch basins would be constructed on Ida Avenue to treat stormwater generated on-site. The onsite flows would then be conveyed to perforated underground storage chambers to detain the post-development 10-year volumes. These flows would be detained and infiltrated into the Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

ground. For storms higher than the 10-year, flows would be bypassed via overflow lines and would continue along Ida Avenue to perpetuate pre-development flow patterns and quantities. Off-site flows generated upstream of the site would be conveyed on-site via proposed v-ditches and HDPE pipe to prevent comingling with on-site flows. The proposed improvements would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or surrounding area.

Of the 1.17-acre area to be disturbed by project improvements, approximately 0.51 acre would be impervious following project implementation. Although development of the subject property would result in the addition of impervious surfaces on-site, the project would not substantially change existing drainage patterns, nor increase the rate or volume of stormwater runoff from the subject property.

The project would prepare a SWPPP to identify relevant construction BMPs prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits. The BMPs would be implemented during the construction phase in conformance with NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and the City’s BMP Design Manual to regulate storm water flows and reduce erosion. Following completion of the construction phase, all slopes modified by project improvements would be landscaped to reduce the potential for erosion to occur. Additionally, all proposed stormwater infrastructure improvements and site grading would be subject to City discretionary review and approval of a grading permit application.

With conformance to such requirements, it is not anticipated that the project would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Project impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c)ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact.

See Response 10(c)i., above, for project-specific discussion. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and is therefore not susceptible to flooding (FEMA 2019).

Development of the site would not substantially change drainage patterns on-site or off-site, and no increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff would occur with the project. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c)iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact.

See Responses 10(a) and 10(c)i., above. The project has the potential to increase stormwater runoff with development of the site, as impervious surface area would increase as compared to the current undeveloped condition. However, as noted above, stormwater runoff from the Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

project site would be routed to several proposed catch basins and an underground storage chamber designed to adequately accommodate stormwater runoff resulting with future development.

Additionally, the project would be required to implement a SWPPP and BMPs to ensure that stormwater quality is properly managed during the construction and operational phases. Project conformance with relevant state and local regulations would prevent substantial stormwater pollutant discharge from entering the City’s existing storm drain system. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c)iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact.

Refer to Responses 10(c)i and 10(c)ii, above. The project site is not in an area subject to flooding, and stormwater runoff would be accommodated by proposed on-site and off-site improvements.

The project would not impede or redirect flood flows such that any off-site properties would be adversely affected by stormwater runoff from the subject site. With compliance with applicable state and local drainage regulations and standards, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact.

As shown on Exhibit 1, Flood Zones, of the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain (City of Solana Beach 2014). The project site is not located near an existing dam or within a dam failure inundation zone, and is not anticipated to be susceptible to flooding events due to its location within the City.

The only areas of Solana Beach where seiches are subject to the potential for seiche occurrence are in proximity to the San Elijo Lagoon and the San Dieguito Lagoon (City of Solana Beach 2014). located approximately 2 miles north and one-half a mile south of the project site, respectively.

Therefore, the project site is not considered susceptible to release of pollutants due to inundation from such an event.

The principle area of concern in Solana Beach for mudflows and tsunamis is the coastal bluff region, including City beaches (City of Solana Beach 2014). As the project site is located approximately 1 mile inland at an approximate elevation of 120 feet above mean sea level, the potential risk posed by a mudflow or tsunami event is considered to be low.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation as the result of being located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact.

Refer to Responses 10(a), 10(c)i, and 10(c)iii, above. As described, the project applicant would prepare and implement an SWPPP to manage stormwater runoff during construction activities.

The SWPPP would include site design and source control BMPs to ensure that stormwater runoff from impervious areas are minimized.

The project would comply with relevant state and local water quality management requirements to ensure proper treatment and management of stormwater runoff generated on the project site.

Infiltration would be maintained through proposed design improvements and would implement appropriate management practices, control techniques, system design and engineering methods, and other measures as appropriate. The use of catch basins and underground storage chambers is anticipated to meet the treatment and flow control requirements for post-construction BMPs.

As designed, the project would not decrease the quality or increase the quantity or runoff discharging from the project site compared to existing conditions, consistent with applicable stormwater management regulations.

Water for the project would be supplied by the City’s public water system. The project would connect to an existing 8-inch water line in Ida Avenue and does not include the use of groundwater wells. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a groundwater management program.

With compliance with relevant state and local water quality and groundwater requirements, as applicable, the project would not conflict with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

11. Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an existing community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Physically divide an existing community? No Impact.

The project site is an urban infill site that is surrounded by existing development on all sides and is adjacent on its eastern boundary to the southbound lanes of I-5. The site is disturbed and vacant and the project as proposed would be consistent with the underlying land use classification of Medium-High Residential in the City’s adopted General Plan and Medium-High Residential zone, which would allow for potential development of 8-12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multifamily development would therefore be consistent with existing residential uses in the area and would not result in a land use that would conflict with or disrupt surrounding development patterns.

The project does not require or propose the construction of new streets or the closure or redesign of any existing area roadways, nor would it have an adverse effect on area circulation patterns or access. Additionally, utility lines (i.e., water, sewer) would be extended into the site from existing lines currently located in the adjacent street. All utility lines serving the site would be undergrounded and would therefore not create a barrier or obstruction on-site or in the surrounding area.

For these reasons, it is not anticipated that the project would physically divide an existing community. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact.

The project includes a request for a structure development permit and development review permit to develop eight new multifamily residential units. As stated above, the proposed use would be consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations that apply to the site and allow for multifamily residential development. Although City approvals would be required to □ □ □ ~
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

allow for the project as proposed, with such approvals, the project would not conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation applicable to the project site relative to land use and zoning.

Refer also to Section 4, Biological Resources, above. The City of Solana Beach’s LCP/LUP does not map any of the disturbed habitat on the project site as ESHAs. As such, the project site was determined not to be subject to the ESHA protection policies, and no buffers are required as there are no ESHAs on- or off-site (Dudek 2021b). Impacts to sensitive habitat or species that would require mitigation would not occur with project implementation.

The City of Solana Beach is located within the boundaries of the San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP). The MHCP designates the City as Developed/Disturbed Land; the City is therefore exempt from the requirements to prepare a MHCP subarea plan. No other conservation plans apply to the subject site.

The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan. No potential hazards due to land use conflicts or operations would therefore occur.

The project as proposed is consistent with applicable local and regional land use plans and policies, and as such, no significant impact would occur. Mitigation measures for potential project impacts on biological, cultural, and tribal cultural resources; geology and soils; and noise have been incorporated into this Initial Study to reduce potential environmental effects of the project to less than significant.

Therefore, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

12. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

12. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact.

The City of Solana Beach is generally built out with urban uses that are typically incompatible with surface mining and mineral extraction activities. The project site is not currently, nor has it historically been, operated as a mineral resource site. The DOC Division of Mines and Geology does not identify the project site as a site with high potential for aggregate or mineral resources (DOC 2015). As a result, project implementation would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or residents of the state. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? No Impact.

Refer to Response 12(a), above. The project site is not delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The City of Solana Beach General Plan land use map does not identify any lands within the City as being intended for purposes of mineral extraction. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

13. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

13. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or of applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan area or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a
public airport or a public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
The following evaluation is based upon the Noise Technical Report prepared by Dudek (2021d). Refer to Appendix E for additional discussion.

Existing Conditions
Sound pressure level (SPL) measurements were conducted near the project site on January 10, 2020, to quantify and characterize the existing outdoor noise levels. Three short-term noise level measurement locations (ST1–ST3) representing existing sensitive receivers were selected and are shown as ST1–ST3 on Figure 8, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations. Primary noise sources at the sites identified in the table below consisted of freeway traffic along adjacent I-5, the sounds of leaves rustling, and birdsong.

Noise measurement data is also included in Appendix A, Baseline Noise Measurement Field Data, of Appendix E of this Initial Study. These samples of daytime Leq measured at the three receptor positions shown in the table below represent the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) as evening SPL would likely be 5 A-weighted decibels (dBA) less, and nighttime SPL would be 10 dBA less than the daytime values (Dudek 2021d).3
3 CNEL is average A-weighted sound level as measured in decibels during a 24-hour period; dBA is the A-weighted decibel as adjusted to discriminate against low and very high frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. . □ ~ □ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Measured Baseline Outdoor Noise Levels
Receptor Location/Address
Date
(dd.mm.yy) Time (hh:mm)
Leq
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST1 Southwestern project boundary 01.10.20 11:23 a.m. – 11:33 a.m.

59.1 73.2
ST2 Northwestern project boundary 01.10.20 11:55 a.m. – 12:05 p.m.

63.3 69.2
ST3 Eastern project boundary approximately
50 feet from I-5

01.10.20 11:45 a.m. –
11:55 a.m.

71.2 76.6
Source: Dudek 2021d; see Appendix E.

Notes: Leq = equivalent continuous sound level (time-averaged sound level); Lmax = maximum sound level during the measurement interval; dBA = A-weighted decibels; ST = short-term noise measurement locations; dd.mm.yy = date, month, year.

Thresholds of Significance
The following standards were considered in evaluating potential noise and vibration impacts resulting with construction and operation of the proposed project. • Construction noise: The City’s noise ordinance states noise from construction equipment operation shall not exceed 75 dBA for more than eight hours during any 24 hour period when measured at or within property lines of any property which is developed and used either in part or in whole for residential purposes. Construction shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and after 8:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m. on Saturday.

There shall be no construction activities on Sundays, New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, and/or Christmas Day.
• Off-site project-attributed transportation noise: A direct roadway noise impact would be considered significant if increases in roadway traffic noise levels attributed to the project were greater than 3 dBA CNEL at an existing noise-sensitive land use. • Off-site project-attributed stationary noise: A noise impact would be considered significant if noise from typical operation of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and other electromechanical systems associated with a project exceeded 55 dBA hourly Leq at the property line from 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m., and 45 dBA hourly Leq from 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. • Construction vibration: Guidance from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) indicates that a vibration velocity level of 0.2 inches per second (ips) peak particle velocity (PPV) received at a structure would be considered annoying by occupants (Dudek 2021d). For the receiving structure, Caltrans guidance recommends that a vibration level of 0.3 ips PPV represents the threshold for building damage risk.

Although not required by CEQA, on-site traffic noise exposure levels were evaluated against the City of Solana Beach exterior and interior noise standards of 65 dBA CNEL and 45 dBA CNEL, respectively.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or of applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

Short-Term Construction Noise
Construction noise and vibration are temporary in nature. Construction noise and vibration levels typically vary from hour to hour and day to day, depending on the type of equipment in use, activities performed, and distance between the source (e.g., equipment) and receptor (e.g., nearby residents).

Construction equipment used for the project is anticipated to include graders, backhoes, rubbertired dozers, loaders, cranes, forklifts, cement mixers, pavers, rollers, and air compressors. Typical maximum noise levels for construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet are shown in Table 13-

1. Construction equipment typically operates in alternating cycles of full power and low power, producing average noise levels over time that are less than the listed maximum noise level. The average sound level of construction activity also depends on the amount of time that the equipment operates and the intensity of construction activities during that time.

Table 13-1. Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels Equipment Type Typical Equipment (Lmax, dBA at 50 Feet) Air compressor 78
Backhoe 78
Concrete pump truck 81
Grader 85
Crane 81
Dump Truck 76
Dozer 82
Generator 72
Front End Loader 79
Paver 77
Pneumatic tools 85
Water pump 77
Source: Dudek 2021d; see Appendix E.

Note: Lmax = maximum sound level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.

Aggregate noise emissions from project construction activities was predicted at two distances to the nearest existing noise-sensitive receptor: 1) from the nearest position of the construction site boundary and 2) from the geographic center of the construction site, which serves as the timeaveraged location or geographic acoustical centroid of active construction equipment for the construction phase considered. The intent of the former distance is to help evaluate anticipated construction noise from a limited quantity of equipment or vehicle activity expected to be at the boundary for some period of time, which would be most appropriate for phases such as site preparation, grading, and paving. The latter distance is used in a manner similar to the general assessment technique as described in the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) guidance for Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

construction noise assessment, when the location of individual equipment for a given construction phase is uncertain over some extent of (or the entirety of) the construction site area.

Because of this uncertainty, all equipment for a construction phase is assumed to operate—on average—from the acoustical centroid.

Table 13-2 summarizes these two distances to the apparent closest noise-sensitive receptor for each of the five sequential construction phases. At the site boundary, it is assumed that up to only 1 piece of equipment of each listed type per phase would be operating for a limited portion of the 8-hour period/workday. In other words, at such proximity, the operating equipment cannot “stack” or crowd the vicinity and still operate. For the acoustical centroid case, which intends to be a geographic average position for all equipment during the indicated phase, it is assumed that the equipment may be operating up to eight hours per day.

Table 13-2. Estimated Distances between Construction Activities and Nearest Noise-sensitive Receptors
Construction Phase
(and Equipment Types Involved)
Distance from Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to
Construction Site Boundary
(Feet)*
Distance from Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to
Acoustical Centroid of Site
(Feet)*
Site preparation (dozer, backhoe, grader) 15 300
Grading (grader, dozer, backhoe, scraper) 15 300
Building construction (crane, man-lift,
generator, backhoe, scraper, welder/torch)
30 300
Architectural finishes (air compressor) 30 300
Paving (paver, roller, other equipment) 15 300
Source: Dudek 2021d; see Appendix E.
* Distances are in reference to sensitive receiver to the south.

Construction noise levels at the nearest occupied noise-sensitive land use were modeled using reference data from the Federal Highway Administration Roadway Construction Noise Model (Dudek 2021d). Input variables considered include the equipment type and number of each; the duty cycle for each piece of equipment (e.g., percentage of time within a specific time period, such as an hour, when the equipment is expected to operate at full power or capacity); and the distance from the noise-sensitive receiver, as well as how many hours such equipment may be on-site and operating (or idling) within an established work shift. No topographical or structural shielding was assumed in the modeling. Refer to Appendix B, Construction Noise Modeling Input and Output, of Appendix E for detailed data pertaining to project noise modeling. The predicted results are provided in Table 13-3 below.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Table 13-3. Predicted Construction Noise Levels per Activity Phase Construction Phase
(and Equipment Types Involved)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to
Construction Site Boundary
(dBA)
8-Hour Leq at Nearest NoiseSensitive Receptor to
Acoustical Centroid of Site
(dBA)
Site preparation (dozer, backhoe, grader) 84.9 75.9
Grading (grader, dozer, backhoe) 84.9 75.9
Building construction (crane, man-lift,
generator, backhoe, scraper welder/torch)

78.0 71.3
Architectural finishes (air compressor) 77.2 65.5
Paving (paver, roller, other equipment) 82.1 73.3
Source: Dudek 2021d; see Appendix E.

Notes: Leq = equivalent noise level; dBA = A-weighted decibels.

As shown in Table 13-3, estimated construction noise levels are predicted to be as high as 85 dBA Leq over an 8-hour period at the nearest existing residences (as close as 15 feet away) when site preparation activities occur near the southern project boundary. However, such estimated noise levels at a source-to-receiver distance of 15 feet would only occur when noted pieces of heavy equipment would each operate for a cumulative period from 1 to 3 hours a day. For instances when operation of construction equipment and processes could potentially cause construction noise levels to exceed 75 dBA Leq (City’s daytime threshold for construction noise exposure over an 8-hour period at a residential receptor), methods identified in mitigation measure NOI-1 would be implemented to reduce such noise levels below the 75 dBA threshold.

Although nearby off-site residences would be exposed to elevated construction noise levels, the increase in noise levels would be relatively short term. It is anticipated that project construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Saturdays, in compliance with the City’s noise ordinance.

Construction noise during allowable daytime hours would therefore have the potential to exceed the 75 dBA Leq 8-hour threshold at the nearest residential receiver on occasion. Thus, temporary construction-related noise impacts would be considered potentially significant unless mitigated.

With implementation of mitigation measure NOI-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

Long-Term Operational Noise
Off-Site Roadway Traffic Noise
The project would generate an estimated 48 average daily vehicle trips (ADT) on local arterial roadways (i.e., Ida Avenue) that could result in increased traffic noise levels at adjacent noisesensitive land uses. Refer also to Appendix C, Traffic Noise Modeling Input and Output, of Appendix E for traffic volume data.

The City’s Noise Element establishes a 65 dBA CNEL for outdoor areas and a 45 dBA CNEL for interior areas as acceptable noise levels. Roadway traffic noise impacts are generally considered significant when they result in an increase of 3 dB above existing noise levels. An increase or decrease in noise level of at least 3 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected (Dudek 2021d).

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Traffic noise levels were modeled at representative noise-sensitive receivers ST1 through ST3, as shown in Figure 8, Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations. The receivers were modeled to be 5 feet above the local ground elevation. The traffic noise model results are summarized in Table 13-4, and represented by CNEL values.

Table 13-4. Off-site Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling Results Modeled Receiver Tag
(Location Description)
Existing (2020)
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Existing (2020) Plus
Project Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Maximum ProjectRelated Noise Level
Increase (dB)
ST1
(Southwestern project boundary) 61.3 59.6 -1.7
ST2
(Northwestern project boundary) 64.2 61.5 -2.7
ST3
(Eastern project boundary
approximately 50 feet from I-5)

69.7 64.5 -5.2
Source: Dudek 2021d; see Appendix E.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibel; CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = decibel.

As shown in Table 13-4, for all three listed representative receivers, the addition of project traffic to the roadway network would result in a CNEL increase of less than 3 dB, which is below the discernible level of change for the average healthy human ear. Additionally, construction of the buildings on-site would create sound barriers between the measurement locations and I-5 (the source of dominant acoustical contribution to the outdoor ambient sound environment), thereby resulting in a decrease in measured sound levels, as shown in the table above. As such, potential impacts from project-related off-site traffic noise increases are considered to be less than significant.

Stationary Operations Noise
Residential Unit Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning Noise Each of the new occupied residential units is anticipated to feature a split-system type air conditioning unit, with an air-cooled refrigeration (4-ton capacity) condenser unit in the patio area as currently depicted on the Site Plan; refer to Figure 3, Site Plan. Assuming each condenser unit has an SPL of 66 dBA at 3 feet based on available data from a likely manufacturer (Dudek 2021d), the condenser units would generally be installed near the patio wall in the highway-facing open space area (i.e., apparent “backyard”). As such, the closest existing noise-sensitive residential receptor to the south of the southernmost unit proposed would be as close as 40 horizontal feet to the nearest of these condenser units. However, due to the proposed privacy walls separating the residential unit patio areas, as well as the 6-foot high wall proposed along the southern property boundary, the predicted sound emission level from the combination of all 8 operating condenser units at the off-site single-family receptor would be 44 dBA Leq. Therefore, noise levels would be compliant with the City’s nighttime threshold of 45 dBA hourly Leq. Under such conditions, operation of the air conditioning units would result in a less than significant noise impact. Refer also to Appendix E for additional discussion.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Mitigation Measures:

NOI-1 Prior to and during project grading or construction, the following measures shall be implemented to demonstrate that noise levels do not exceed a 75 dBA level:
• Administrative controls (e.g., reduce operating time of equipment and/or prohibit usage of equipment type[s] within certain distances).
• Engineering controls (upgrade noise controls, such as install better engine exhaust mufflers).
• Install noise abatement on the site boundary fencing (or within, as practical and appropriate) in the form of sound blankets or comparable temporary barriers to occlude construction noise emission between the site (or specific equipment operation as the situation may define) and the noise-sensitive receptor(s) of concern. • At the commencement of and during project grading, a noise monitor shall be on-site to ensure that noise levels at adjacent sensitive receptors are in conformance with the 75 dBA threshold.

Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during project grading or construction Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Solana Beach Community Development Department Level of Significance: Less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact.

Construction activities can generate varying degrees of vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the type of construction equipment used. High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings. However, vibrations rarely affect human health.

Instead, construction-related vibration impacts are typically associated with building damage. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish with distance from the source. Unless heavy construction activities are conducted extremely close (within a few feet) to the neighboring structures, vibrations from construction activities rarely reach the levels that damage structures. Vibration impacts to buildings are generally discussed in terms of inches per second (ips) peak particle velocity (PPV). The maximum vibration level standard used by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the prevention of structural damage to typical residential buildings is 0.3 ips PPV.

Vibration can also be annoying and thereby impact occupants of structures. Groundborne vibration generated by construction projects is usually highest during pile driving, rock blasting, soil compacting, jack hammering, and demolition-related activities where sudden releases of subterranean energy or powerful impacts of tools on hard materials occur. Depending on the distance to a sensitive receptor, operation of large bulldozers, graders, loaded dump trucks, or other heavy construction equipment and vehicles on a construction site also have the potential to cause high vibration amplitudes. Caltrans indicates that continuous vibrations with a PPV of approximately 0.2 ips is considered annoying (Dudek 2021d).

Groundborne vibration attenuates (or lessens) rapidly, even over short distances. The attenuation of groundborne vibration as it propagates from source to receptor through intervening soils and rock strata can be estimated using Federal Transportation Authority and Caltrans guidance. For Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

example, for a bulldozer operating on-site and as close as the western project boundary (e.g., 15 feet from the nearest receiving sensitive land use), the estimated vibration velocity level would be 0.19 ips per the equation below (Dudek 2021d):

PPVrcvr = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5 = 0.19 = 0.089 * (25/15)^1.5 In the above equation, PPVrcvr is the predicted vibration velocity at the receiver position, PPVref is the reference value at 25 feet from the vibration source (the bulldozer), and D is the horizontal distance to the receiver. Therefore, at this predicted PPV, impacts resulting from vibrationinduced annoyance to occupants of homes located in the project vicinity would be less than significant.

As stated, construction vibration occurring at higher levels can also cause structural damage. As shown, construction vibration associated with the proposed project is anticipated to yield levels of 0.19 ips, which do not exceed the guidance limit of 0.2 to 0.3 ips PPV for preventing damage to residential structures (Dudek 2021d). As the predicted vibration level at 15 feet would be less than the guidance limit, the potential for damage to nearby structures due to vibration is considered less than significant.

Regarding project operations, mechanical systems such as heating, ventilation, and airconditioning units are typically designed to feature rotating (fans, motors) and reciprocating (compressors) components that are well-balanced with isolated vibration within or external to the equipment casings. Therefore, as a limited-scale residential use, project operations are not anticipated to generate high levels of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels from operation of on-site mechanical systems. No other substantial source of groundborne vibration or noise is anticipated with project operations.

Based on the above, the project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact.

The project site is not located within 2 miles of an active private airstrip. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The nearest airports to the site are the Naval Air Station (NAS) Miramar located approximately 10 miles to the southeast, and the McClellan-Palomar Airport, located approximately 10 miles to the northwest.

Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to airport operations. No impact would occur in this regard.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

14. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact.

The City is currently in the process of preparing its 6th Cycle Housing Element Update for the 2021‐ 2029 planning period. The draft Housing Element indicates that the City of Solana Beach is allocated a total of 875 housing units, including 316 units affordable to very low‐income households, 159 units affordable to low‐income, 160 units affordable to moderate‐income, and 240 units affordable to above‐moderate income (City of Solana Beach 2021).

The project is an infill development project consisting of eight multifamily residential apartments.

No affordable housing units are proposed.

SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Growth Forecast anticipated that the City would grow an estimated 13 percent between 2020 and 2050 (City of Solana Beach 2013). In 2020, the estimated population of the City was 13,838 residents; the average number of persons per household in the City is 2.33 (SANDAG 2021). Using this factor, the proposed development of eight multifamily units would generate an additional 19 residents. As this represents an estimated 0.14 percent of the current population (19 divided by 13,838), the project would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City or surrounding area.

The project site is located within an established, urbanized neighborhood in the City and is currently served by the existing roadway system. Direct access to the site would be from Ida Avenue with minor construction required to provide the proposed driveways into the site. All other critical infrastructure and utilities can readily be extended onto the project site from existing facilities. The project would therefore not result in the extension of new roads or other infrastructure to areas of the City not currently served by such facilities, thereby avoiding the potential to indirectly induce population growth.

Project implementation would not induce substantial unplanned population growth, either directly or indirectly. No significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □ ~
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Level of Significance: No impact.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact.

The project would construct eight new residential rental apartment units on the subject site, which is currently in a vacant and disturbed condition. Therefore, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing within the neighborhood. Further, because no existing homes would be displaced with project implementation, no persons would be displaced by the project, and no significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: No impact.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

15. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact.

The project would be served by the City of Solana Beach Fire Department (SBFD), located at 500 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, approximately 0.9 miles northwest of the site. The SBFD provides emergency and disaster response to mitigate fire, emergency medical, hazardous materials, and other incidents within its boundaries as well as to other jurisdictions via a mutual aid agreement.

The SBFD operates three shifts with six fire department personnel per shift staffing two pieces of fire apparatus (one engine and one truck). Each apparatus is staffed with a certified fire officer, driver/operator, and firefighter (City of Solana Beach n.d.-c).

In 2009, the SBFD joined a cost-saving Cooperative Fire Management Services Agreement with the Cities of Encinitas and Del Mar. Through this agreement, Encinitas and Solana Beach senior fire staff provide oversight for the Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach fire departments. Duties include supervising fire suppression operations and emergency medical services; emergency management; fire prevention activities; purchasing of materials, supplies, and fire equipment; management of service contracts; and administrative functions. In addition, the SBFD has automatic aid agreements with the City of San Diego and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire District. The SBFD provides mutual aid to the Northern San Diego Zone, San Diego County, and as needed □ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
□ □ ~ □
Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

throughout the State of California. In 2018, Solana Beach was recognized as an Insurance Services Organization (ISO) Class 1 Fire Department, which represents the provision of superior fire protection services (City of Solana Beach n.d.-c).

Although the project would not substantially alter the SBFD’s ability to provide fire protection services to the project site, constructing eight new multifamily residences on the site would incrementally increase the demand on SBFD services, personnel, and equipment, adding new demand for emergency and non-emergency service responses. As such, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees in proportion to the development proposed to help fund fire protection services in the City. With the payment of such fees, the project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable fire protection service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact.

The San Diego County Sheriff's Department provides law enforcement and other related services to the City of Solana Beach via contract (City of Solana Beach 2014). The North Coastal Sheriff's Station located at 175 N. Camino Real in the City of Encinitas, approximately 4.2 miles north of the project site, provides law enforcement services through contract for the Cities of Del Mar, Encinitas, and Solana Beach (City of Solana Beach n.d.-g). The Sheriff’s Department offers uniformed patrol, detective follow-up, traffic enforcement, accident investigation, aviation support, and administrative and supervisory functions.

The Sheriff’s Department currently uses a minimum service guideline of one 24-hour patrol unit for every 13,275 residents (not including traffic enforcement) (City of Solana Beach 2014).

According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, response time to priority calls to areas within the City is approximately 8.4 minutes (mean average) or 7.0 minutes (median average). Nonpriority call response time is approximately 14.3 minutes (mean) or 8.0 minutes (median) (City of Solana Beach 2014).

As new development occurs over time, the Sheriff’s Department maintains adequate law enforcement services by assigning additional deputies to an area in direct proportion to its increase in population. The need for augmented law enforcement services resulting from new population is therefore accommodated by increasing the number of deputies available to the City commensurate with the City’s ability to pay for such services. However, the needs for increased law enforcement services can be somewhat reduced by improving the City’s traffic circulation systems and by requiring new development to incorporate certain measures such as adequate lighting of exterior areas.

To compensate for costs resulting from increased demand for law enforcement services generated by the project, the applicant would be required to pay development impact fees. With the payment of such fees, the project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable law enforcement service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
c) Schools? Less than Significant Impact.

The Solana Beach School District and the San Dieguito Union High School District serve the City of Solana Beach. The Solana Beach School District has a total enrollment of approximately 3,000 students in kindergarten through sixth grade (K-6). It operates six elementary schools and a Child Development Center with programs for toddlers: Solana Vista (K-3); Skyline (4-6 and the K-6 Global Education Program); Solana Santa Fe (K-6); Carmel Creek (K-4); Solana Highlands (K-4); and Solana Pacific (5-6) schools (City of Solana Beach 2014). Two schools in the San Dieguito Union High School District serve the City: Earl Warren Middle School located at 155 Stevens Avenue in Solana Beach and Torrey Pines High located at 3710 Del Mar Heights Road in San Diego. A number of private schools also serve students in the City.

School-aged children residing in the proposed development would enroll in Skyline Elementary School (K-6) and Earl Warren Middle School (7-8), located approximately 0.9 miles and 0.8 miles (respectively) to the north of the project site, and Torrey Pines High School (9-12). Additionally, St. Leo’s preschool is located 0.2 miles to the north and Santa Fe Christian School (grades PK to 12) is located 0.3 miles to the northwest of the site.

The eight multifamily residential units proposed with the project would not generate a substantial number of new school-aged children that would require educational services, nor would the need for a new school facility be triggered. To offset potential costs associated with increased enrollment in the affected school districts, the project applicant would be required to pay statemandated school impact fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant would provide funding to the affected school districts in accordance with Government Code Section 65996 and Senate Bill 50. Government Code Section 65996 states that payment of development fees is deemed to be full and complete school facilities mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
d) Parks? Less than Significant Impact.

The project would result in construction of eight multifamily residential units that would place incremental demands on the City’s existing park and recreation facilities. The City General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element identifies the goal of providing a minimum of 3 acres of public park and recreational facilities per every 1,000 residents (City of Solana Beach 2014).

Therefore, the project would result in new demand for an additional 0.001 acres of parkland.

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

population (19 divided by 13,838), project implementation would not result in a substantial increase in demand on the City’s parks and recreation system.

The project design includes a common open space area and playground for use by residents of the apartment community. The proposed recreation/open space area is located at the northern end of the project site and is shown in Figure 3, Site Plan, and Figure 5, Conceptual Landscape Plan. The provision of such on-site facilities would further reduce potential demands on the City to provide recreational resources for use by project residents.

As future residents of the project would use existing parks and recreational facilities in the City, the project applicant would be required to pay associated development impact fees, in compliance with Section 17.72.020 of the City’s Municipal Code, which would be used toward the ongoing provision and maintenance of such facilities. Project compliance with Section 17.72.020 of the Municipal Code would ensure that the project does not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable park service ratios or other performance objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.
e) Other public facilities? Less than Significant Impact.

The nearest City library to the subject site is the County of San Diego Public Library, located approximately 0.6 miles northwest at 57 Stevens Avenue. Services provided by the library include circulation of library materials such as books, magazines, and video and audio recordings; reference service; internet access; word processing stations; copy machines; children’s reading programs; and workshops for children and adults, among other services.

The project would construct eight multifamily residential units whose estimated 19 residents would not be anticipated to place substantial new demands on existing City library facilities.

However, the City would require that the project applicant pay development impact fees to ensure that library services remain adequate to serve the City’s population over the long term.

With the payment of such fees, the project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None required.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Michael Baker

INTERNATIONAL
Ida Avenue Apartments Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Page 3 ends

Solana Beach City CouncilJuly 13, 2022

Solana Beach City Council
July 13, 2022