FINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment for Rancho Coronado. City of San Marcos, California

Transcription

1 FINAL Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment for Rancho Coronado, California April 2014

2 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM List of Tables Table 3-1. Comment Letters Table 4-1. Mitigation Measures Table 4-2. Design Considerations for the Project Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado i Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

3 Table of Contents THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado ii Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

4 1.0 Introduction and Summary 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code Section et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section et seq.). CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b) and (d) state: (b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. (d) When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. In accordance with this requirement, the Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) IS/MND is comprised of the following: Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration February 2014 (SCH No ); This Final IS/MND document, April 2014, that incorporates the information required by (included in this document); and A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (included in this document). Format of the Final IS/MND This document is organized as follows: Section 1.0 Introduction and Summary This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this Final IS/MND. Section 2.0 Corrections and Additions This section provides a list of those revisions made to the Draft IS/MND text as a result of comments received and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the Draft IS/MND for public review. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 1-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

5 1.0 Introduction and Summary Section 3.0 Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft IS/MND This section provides copies of the comment letters received and individual responses to written comments. Section 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This section provides a program of monitoring or reporting to ensure that the provisions or revisions are complied with during implementation of the project. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 1-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

6 2.0 Corrections and Additions 2.0 CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS This section contains revisions to information included in the Draft IS/MND (February 2014) based upon additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment. Please see copies of the letters and responses in Section 3.0, Responses and Comments of this Final IS/MND, as applicable. 2.1 REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTAL TEXT The following table summarizes the changes to the Draft IS/MND. These changes were based upon public comments on the Draft IS/MND, incorporation of the Water and Sewer Study (Vallecitos Water District 2014) and the Least Bell s Vireo (LBV) Survey (Helix 2012) into the Final IS/MND, as well as additional clean up items due to project refinements. The complete Water and Sewer Study is included as Appendix N of the Final IS/MND and the LBV survey is included as Appendix O. None of the analysis conclusions for water and sewer changed. Impacts remain less than significant. Pages IS/MND Section Summary of Change 3 1.F Project Entitlements Discretionary actions with associated reference numbers updated in the document. Ministerial approval also identified. 8 II. Project Descriptions Information regarding boundary adjustment for sewer service. 11 Table 2 Clarified the requirements for pipeline improvements for the project. 40/41 IV-c Cultural Resources Revisions to text and Table 7a to note mitigation requirement for detention basin (0.2 acres). 51 V.b Cultural Resources Added information on what tribes provided correspondence for the project V.b Cultural Resources Minor modification to cultural resources mitigation measures based upon input from the Tribes and the San Diego County Archaeological Society. 113 XVI.b Traffic Added statement about assumptions for ramp meter flow rates. 120/121 XVI.b Traffic Ramp meter delay analysis refined. Based upon the new analysis, the project would not have a significant impact at the Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound On-Ramp in the Horizon Year 2030 condition. Mitigation measures TR-3 would no longer be required. 124/125 XVII.b Utilities and Service Systems 125 XVII.b Utilities and Service Systems 126 XVII.b Utilities and Service Systems 128 XVII.d Utilities and Service Systems Updated water demand calculation on Table 41 and associated text. Modified water storage conclusion to note the project decreases demand compared to what was assumed for the project site in the 2008 VWD Master Plan and no further storage upgrades are needed. Added Table 42, which shows the wastewater flows for the project site for the 2008 VWD Master Plan and the proposed project. Refined wastewater collection system analysis text to note the pipeline improvements required for the project. Updated the water supply analysis to note the water demand for the project and that the expected demand is less than what was Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 2-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

7 2.0 Corrections and Additions Pages IS/MND Section Summary of Change 138 VIII Mitigated Negative Declaration VIII Mitigated Negative Declaration 144 A VIII Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix N Appendices Appendix O Appendices anticipated per the VWD 2008 Master Plan. Updated mitigation measures MM-BIO-1A to reflect the increase of mitigation from 1.07 to 1.27 acres to reflect detention basin mitigation requirements. Updated cultural resources mitigation measures to reflect input from the Tribes and San Diego County Archaeological Society. Mitigation measures MM-TR-3 no longer required due to refinement of analysis. Added Water and Sewer Study (VWD 2014) to the Technical Appendices. Added Least Bell s Vireo report (Helix 2012) to the Technical Appendices. Ramp Meter Analysis Refinement Based upon a refinement in the ramp meter assumptions and analysis, the project is no longer identified as having an impact in Horizon Year 2030 at the Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound On- Ramp and mitigation measure MM-TR-3 is no longer required. The ramp meter analysis has been refined in the CEQA document and reads as follows (strike out for removed text/ underline for added text). Revised text pages 120 and 121: The results of the ramp metering analysis show that under Horizon Year conditions, the addition of project-related traffic to the Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound On-Ramp during the p.m. peak hour is forecast to result in a ramp meter delay that exceeds the policy threshold of 15 minutes. The increase in ramp meter delay associated with project-related traffic is forecast to result in an increase in delay that exceeds the significant impact threshold of 2 minutes according to the SANTEC/ITE TIS Guidelines. As previously discussed, the existing ramp meter flow rates were used for all future analysis scenarios. This assumption provided a conservative analysis because there are planned capacity improvements on eastbound SR-78 through the study area that would likely allow for adjustments in the future ramp meter rate at the Twin Oaks Valley Road Eastbound On-Ramp. The planned freeway improvements for eastbound SR-78 through the study area are listed below: One new auxiliary lane will be provided, extending from immediately upstream of the San Marcos Boulevard On-Ramp and connecting with the existing auxiliary lane that is currently provided from the San Marcos Boulevard eastbound on-ramp to the Twin Oaks Valley Road eastbound off-ramp. A second eastbound auxiliary lane will be provided that will begin at the San Marcos Boulevard eastbound on-ramp and will terminate at the Twin Oaks Valley Road eastbound off-ramp. The Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 2-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

8 2.0 Corrections and Additions first auxiliary lane will be extended east though the Twin Oaks Valley Road interchange and will terminate at the Woodland Parkway/Barham Drive eastbound off-ramp. The lengths of the San Marcos Boulevard and Twin Oaks Valley Road eastbound on-ramps would be increased to provide longer acceleration and merging distances from the ramp meters to the freeway ramp gore points. A new eastbound auxiliary lane will be provided from the reconfigured Barham Drive/Woodland Parkway interchange that will extend east to connect with the existing auxiliary lane that currently begins immediately east of the SPRINTER overcrossing. The improvements listed above are planned to be completed prior to the year 2030 and are included in the Horizon Year 2030 conditions analysis. The existing ramp meter flow rate of 570 vehicles per hour during the p.m. peak period equates to approximately 9.5 cycles per minute at the Twin Oaks Valley Road Eastbound On-Ramp. Based on the existing p.m. ramp meter rate, the forecast ramp meter delay is 17 minutes under Horizon Year 2030 conditions with the proposed project. If the p.m. ramp meter flow rate were adjusted slightly to 600 vehicles per hour, the forecast ramp meter delay under 2030 conditions with the project would decrease to 13 minutes, which is equivalent to the forecast p.m. ramp meter delay without the project. The adjustment to 600 vehicles per hour is equivalent to 10 cycles per minute, a difference of only one-half cycle per minute. This adjustment in the p.m. ramp meter rate should be feasible based on the expected improvement in freeway operations when the planned improvements are completed. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the planned improvements along eastbound SR-78 would reduce the identified ramp meter impact to a level that is less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. deficient ramp meter delay under Horizon Year 2030 conditions. Therefore, the project results in a significant impact at the Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound On-Ramp and mitigation measures are required (Impact TR-3). There are two options to reduce this impact to below a level of significance: MM-TR-3 One of the following options shall be implemented at the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 EB On-Ramp: Adjusting the ramp meter rate to accommodate the increase in demand at the on-ramp; or Converting the existing HOV lane to a third SOV lane on the on-ramp to increase on-ramp capacity. Implementation of mitigation measure MM-TR-3, which will be required as a condition of project approval will reduce the deficient ramp meter delay under the Horizon Year 2030 conditions at the Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound On-Ramp during the p.m. peak hour to below a level of significance. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 2-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

9 3.0 RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS 3.0 Response to Written Comments Section 3.0 contains responses to all comment letters received on the February 2014 Draft IS/MND. A total of seven comment letters were received during the comment period, which closed March 7, 2014 (Table 3-1). Table 3-1. Comment Letters Number Letter Preparer Date 1 Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 3/7/14 2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game 3/7/14 3 Native American Heritage Commission 3/4/14 4 Vallecitos Water District 2/25/14 5 San Diego Archeological Society 3/5/14 6 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 3/5/14 7 U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA 3/11/14 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

10 3.0 Response to Written Comments 1-1 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

11 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

12 3.0 Response to Written Comments 1-2 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

13 3.0 Response to Written Comments 1-2 Cont. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

14 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 1 Office of Planning and Research / State Clearinghouse 1-1 This comment states that the State Clearinghouse submitted the MND to select state agencies for review. The letter also confirms that the City complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. In closing, this comment does not raise any environmental issues so no further response is warranted. 1-2 This attachment to the letter from OPR/State Clearinghouse is comments from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC submitted these same comments directly to the city. Please see comment letter Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

15 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

16 3.0 Response to Written Comments 2-6 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-8 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

17 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 2 United States Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-1 This comment provides introductory remarks. This comment does not raise any specific issues on the environmental document and no additional response is warranted. 2-2 This comment request tables showing changes to the habitat types within the HLP. The following tables are provided based upon this comment: Vegetation Type Proposed Hardline Vegetation Changes Removed from Adopted Hardline Area (acres) Added to Adopted Hardline Area (acres) Total Difference (acres) Sensitive Southern riparian forest Coastal sage scrub Southern mixed chaparral Subtotal Sensitive Non-Sensitive Eucalyptus woodland Disturbed Subtotal Non-sensitive TOTAL Comparison of Vegetation Communities in the Approved HLP Preserve vs. Proposed HLP Preserve Vegetation Community Existing Preserve (acres) Proposed Preserve (acres) Change (acres) Southern riparian forest (61300) Diegan coastal sage scrub (32500) Southern mixed chaparral (37120) Eucalyptus woodland (79000) Disturbed habitat (11300) (0.2) Total Does not include acres that will also be restored within the riparian mitigation area within the HLP Preserve. 2 Does not include 2.4 acres of sage scrub restoration required by the HLP acres will be restored to sage scrub as required by the HLP. 4 Does not include additional acres conserved as part of wetland restoration onsite outside of the HLP Preserve. 2-3 The 2012 Least Bell s Vireo (LBV) survey report is included as Appendix O of the Final IS/MND. The results of the LBV survey were included in the Draft IS/MND in the Biological Resources section. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-9 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

18 3.0 Response to Written Comments 2-4 The City does not see the need for a specific drought contingency plan. If the project has not met success criteria as a result of drought conditions, the applicant would need to continue the restoration effort unless otherwise agreed to by the resource agencies. If success criteria have been met at the end of five years, the restoration would have been off of irrigation for a minimum of two years, and any affects of a drought would already be accounted for in meeting (or not meeting) success criteria. No changes were made to the Final IS/MND based upon this comment. 2-5 This comment provides closing remarks and does not raise any additional comments on the environmental document. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-10 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

19 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-11 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

20 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-12 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

21 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-13 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

22 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 3 Native American Heritage Commission 3-1 This comment notes the project subject to SB-18. The City sent out letters to the Native American community to and has been consulting with interested Tribes and their input has been incorporated into the cultural resources mitigation measures. 3-2 Based upon the cultural resources study prepared for the project (ASM 2014), there are no cultural resources on the project site. 3-3 In order to account for the potential for encountering unidentified cultural resources, mitigation was included in the MND requiring an archaeological and Native American monitor. Please see mitigation measures. These measures are also provided here: MM-CR-1 MM CR-2 MM-CR-3 MM-CR-4 An archeological monitor and a Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities to assure that any potential cultural resources, including tribal, found during project grading be protected. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a San Diego County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to cultural resources evaluation which shall include archaeological documentation, analysis and report generation. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall enter into a Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (also known as a pre-excavation agreement) with a Luiseño Tribe. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on site. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation, which will be determined in consultation with the Luiseño Tribe referenced in MM-CR-3.. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM-CR-3, the archaeological monitor s authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Luiseño Native American monitor in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-14 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

23 3.0 Response to Written Comments be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. MM-CR-5 MM-CR-6 MM-CR-7 MM-CR-8 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement referenced in MM-CR-3. All cultural materials that are deemed by the Tribe to be 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 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must them immediately notify the most likely descendant(s) of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendants(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Luiseño Tribe under agreement with the landowner described in MM-CR-3 shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance of mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make a determination based upon the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-15 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

24 3.0 Response to Written Comments 3-4 There is no federal nexus with the project thus the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 3-5 A cultural resources report was prepared for the project and no resources were identified on the project site. Thus no site forms were prepared. 3-6 As part of the cultural resources report preparation, letters were sent to the appropriate Native American contact for the project. Additionally, the City reached out the local Tribes as part of the SB18 process. 3-7 Implementation of mitigation measures identified for the project (MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-8) will be required as a condition of project approval. Additionally, a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be adopted for the project. The mitigation requires coordination with the culturally affiliated Native Americans if resources are identified during project grading. 3-8 Mitigation Measure MM-CR-8 identifies the steps that shall be implemented in the event of accidental discovery of any human remains on the site. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-16 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

25 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-17 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

26 3.0 Response to Written Comments 4-2 Cont Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-18 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

27 3.0 Response to Written Comments 4-5 Cont Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-19 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

28 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-20 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

29 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 4 Vallecitos Water District 4-1 This comment states that the conclusion regarding wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board is acceptable. This comment does not raise any additional issues with the environmental document; therefore, no additional response is warranted. 4-2 The wastewater flow generation quantities have been updated in the Final IS/MND. Please see Table 42. As note by this comment, this results in deficiencies in the District s infrastructure. The project will pay Wastewater Facility Fees per Ordinance No. 177 as well as Wastewater Capital Facility Fees per Ordinance No These fee payments are identified in Table 1 as design features for the project. Additionally, as noted in Table 1 of the Final IS/MND, the project will upsize approximately 2,700 feet of an existing 8-inch wastewater collection pipe in Craven Road. The improvement includes 700 feet of 10-inch pipeline and 2,000 feet of 12-inch pipeline. This meets the recommendations indentified in VWD s letter. 4-3 This comment addresses threshold c under the Utilities and Services Systems analysis section of the IS/MND. It addresses stormwater facilities and is not applicable to VWD, as noted in this comment. This comment does not raise any additional issues with the environmental document; therefore no additional response is warranted. 4-4 Water demand quantities have been updated in Table 41 of the Final IS/MND to reflect the Water and Sewer Study prepared by VWD (2014). The project will install a new 14-inch diameter water main loop from the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road and South Village Drive to the existing 14-inch water main, approximately 1,100 feet north of South Lake Pump Station. This is also noted as a project design feature in Table 1 of the Final IS/MND. The project will also relocate a 14-inch water main that traverses the development, as requested by this comment. 4-5 Please see response 4-2. The project will pay the fees identified in this comment (Wastewater Impact Fees and Capital Facility Fees) as well as upsize the segments within Craven Road, as identified in this comment. 4-6 The City recognizes that the project is within VWD s district boundary for water service but will need to be annexed in to VWD s service boundary for sewer service. This is an intra-district annexation and will not require LAFCO approval or process. This requirement has been identified in the project description of the Final IS/MND. Please see page 8 of the Final IS/MND. 4-7 This comment address VWD s existing access and pipeline easements. As a condition of project approval the project applicant will be required to dedicate new easements that are acceptable to VWD. 4-8 As a condition of project approval, the project applicant will be required to coordinate with VWD to ensure that relocation and construction of physical access to South Lake Pump Station, South Lake, and the dam will be provided. The access shall be approved by VWD. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-21 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

30 3.0 Response to Written Comments 4-9 Design and construction of the ultimate VWD spillway will be required as a condition of project approval. The following language is included as a condition of approval for the project and a note shall be placed on the final map reflecting this condition: Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant, Aggregate Pacific Southwest, Inc. shall post a security for the design, permitting, construction, and inspection of the ultimate South Lake spillway. The applicant, Hanson Aggregate Pacific Southwest, Inc, shall obtain State Division of Safety of Dam (DSOD) and Vallecitos Water District (VWD) approval of the South Lake Dam ultimate spillway construction documents prior to 25% of residential building permit issuance. No additional building permits will be issued without said spillway approval. Furthermore, the applicant, Hanson Aggregate Pacific Southwest, Inc., shall construct the South Lake Dam ultimate spillway prior to 75% of residential building permit issuance. No additional building permits will be issued without said spillway construction. Security will be returned to the applicant once the ultimate spillway construction has been accepted by the jurisdictional agencies. In addition, the applicant, Hanson Aggregate Pacific Southwest, Inc., shall process a boundary adjustment with APN (VWD) which results in the spillway being located on VWD property. Said boundary adjustment shall be recorded prior to construction of the ultimate spillway The City understands that VWD will not approve proposed grading on their access, easements and spillway area until certain requirements are met to VWD s satisfaction. The City is including VWD s requirement as conditions of project approval for the applicant. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-22 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

31 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-23 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

32 3.0 Response to Written Comments 5-5 Cont. 5-6 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-24 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

33 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 5 San Diego County Archeological Society 5-1 This comment provides introductory remarks and notes that the SDCAS reviewed the cultural resources report and concurs with the recommendation for an archaeological and Native American monitor. 5-2 This comment states that the SDCAS concurs with mitigation measures MM-CR-1, MM-CR-4, MM-CR-6, MM-CR-7, and MM-CR-8 as written. It should be noted that based upon input from local Tribes, there were some refinements to some of the mitigation measures. Tracked changed version of the mitigation measures are included in the Final IS/MND. The final version of the mitigation measures is presented here: MM-CR-1 MM CR-2 MM-CR-3 MM-CR-4 An archeological monitor and a Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities to assure that any potential cultural resources, including tribal, found during project grading be protected. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a San Diego County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to cultural resources evaluation, which shall include archaeological documentation, analysis and report generation. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall enter into a Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (also known as a pre-excavation agreement) with a Luiseño Tribe. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on site. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation, which will be determined in consultation with the Luiseño Tribe referenced in MM-CR-3.. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM-CR-3, the archaeological monitor s authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Luiseño Native American monitor in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-25 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

34 3.0 Response to Written Comments be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. MM-CR-5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement referenced in MM-CR-3. All cultural materials that are deemed by the Tribe to be 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 In the event that curation of cultural resources is required, curation shall be conducted by an approved facility and the curation shall be guided by California State Historic Resource Commissions Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The shall provide the developer final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the grading permit, if applicable, during project construction. MM-CR-6 MM-CR-7 MM-CR-8 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must them immediately notify the most likely descendant(s) of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendants(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code ,.3. If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Luiseño Tribe under agreement with the landowner described in MM-CR-3 shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance of mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-26 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

35 3.0 Response to Written Comments Director shall make a determination based upon the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 5-3 Mitigation measure MM-CR-2 was revised to reflect this comment. The measure concludes by stating Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to cultural resources evaluation, which shall include archaeological documentation, analysis and report generation. 5-4 The SDCAS did not have any comments on mitigation measure MM-CR-3. This comment does not raise any environmental issues; therefore no additional response is provided. 5-5 The City has coordinated closely with local Tribes to generated mitigation language that was acceptable to their group. The resulting mitigation measures, MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-8 reflect the requests of the Tribes. Mitigation measures CR-5 has been revised to note that In the event that curation of cultural resources is required, curation shall be conducted by an approved facility and the curation shall be guided by California State Historic Resource Commissions Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The shall provide the developer final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the grading permit, if applicable, during project construction. 5-6 This comment provides closing remarks and does not raise any issues on the environmental document, therefore no additional response is provided. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-27 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

36 3.0 Response to Written Comments 6-1 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-28 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

37 3.0 Response to Written Comments 6-1 Cont. 6-2 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-29 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

38 3.0 Response to Written Comments 6-2 Cont. 6-3 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-30 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

39 3.0 Response to Written Comments 6-3 Cont Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-31 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

40 3.0 Response to Written Comments 6-5 Cont Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-32 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

41 3.0 Response to Written Comments Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-33 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

42 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 6 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians 6-1 This comment provides opening remarks and indicates that requests that revisions to the cultural resource mitigation measures be made in the Final CEQA document. The specific requests are detailed in subsequent comments. Please see responses, below. 6-2 The City recognizes that the Native American monitor and the archeological monitor will have join authority to divert or halt ground disturbing operations should a cultural resource be identified. Mitigation measure MM-CR-3 addresses the participation of a Native American Tribal monitor during project construction. Implementation of mitigation measures MM-CR-3 will be required as a condition of project approval. 6-3 This comment addresses repatriation of cultural resources to the Tribe. Mitigation measure MM-CR-5 addresses repatriation. 6-4 Mitigation measures MM-CR-6 addresses sacred sites. Specifically, All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. 6-5 This comment addresses Tribal notification in the event that cultural resources are found during project grading. Per mitigation measure MM-CR-3, a Native American Tribal monitor will be required for the project. 6-6 No fill will be brought onto the project site. As noted in the project description for the project, earthwork quantities will balance on site. 6-7 This comment provides closing remarks and does not raise any additional environmental issues. Therefore, no further response is warranted. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-34 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

43 3.0 Response to Written Comments 7-1 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-35 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

44 3.0 Response to Written Comments 7-1 Cont. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-36 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

45 3.0 Response to Written Comments Letter 7 U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA 7-1 The project site is not in a FEMA mapped floodplain or floodway. In fact, the panel for the site has not even been printed. Therefore, the comments in this letter do not apply to the project or project site and no additional responses are warranted. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 3-37 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

46 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Pursuant to Section of the Public Resources Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097, public agencies are required to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to assure that mitigation measures and revisions identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are implemented. As stated in Section of the Public Resources Code: the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, findings must be adopted by the decision makers coincidental to certification of the MND. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) must be adopted when making the findings (at the time of approval of the project). As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, reporting is suited to projects that have readily measureable or quantitative measures or which already involve regular review. Monitoring is suited to projects with complex mitigation measures, such as wetland restoration or archaeological protection, which may exceed the expertise of the local agency to oversee, are expected to be implemented over a period of time, or require careful implementation to assure compliance. Both reporting and monitoring would be applicable to the proposed project. The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) (SCH No ) provided an analysis of the environmental effects resulting from construction and operation of the project. 4.2 MITIGATION MATRIX To sufficiently track and document the status of mitigation measures, a mitigation matrix has been prepared and includes the following components: Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility The mitigation matrix is included in Table 4-1. Additionally, the project will be required to adhere to the design features presented in Table 4-2. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-1 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration March 2014

47 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 4-1. Mitigation Measures Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. MM-BIO-A The clearing and grubbing of sensitive habitats shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 31), unless a qualified biologist demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City and the Wildlife Agencies that all nesting is complete. The qualified biologist would need to be federally permitted for coastal California gnatcatcher if the habitat being cleared has potential to support these species. MM-BIO-B Temporary perimeter fencing shall be installed to separate the proposed development and the fuel management zones from any CSS areas to the preserved under the HLP. The removal of temporary fencing is only to occur after all clearing and construction has been completed. MM-BIO-C Lots adjacent to biological open space will have permanent fencing and no gates between the development and the open space; (a) landscaping will be restricted to native and/or non-invasive plant species; and (b) Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction in accordance with Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems General Construction Permit requirements will be implemented. Avoid clearing or grubbing activities during the avian breeding season or perform a preconstruction survey to ensure no nests are present. Results of the survey shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies and the Planning Director. Installation of temporary fencing Installation of permanent fencing between development and open space. Implementation of BMPs for water quality during project construction. Avoidance covers the period of February 15 to August 31. Preconstruction surveys would be within three days of propose clearing and grubbing. Prior to project grading Installation of permanent fencing prior to project occupancy. BMP implementation is during project construction. Applicant, Project Biologist Applicant, Project Biologist Applicant, Contractor. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-2 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

48 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. MM-BIO-D A biological monitor will be on-site when habitat is being cleared, and/or construction activities are occurring within 100 feet of a Biological Open Space Easement boundary. Permanent signs must be placed every 100 feet along the fence bordering the preserve. The signs must be corrosion resistant, no less than three feet above the ground surface, have minimum dimensions of 6 x 9, and must state the following: Sensitive Environmental Resources Disturbance Beyond this point is Restricted By Easement Information: Contact (Name of Conservancy) MM-BIO-E A conservation easement shall be placed over all on-site mitigation. Additionally, the applicant shall insure that the biological open space is deeded to a nature conservancy acceptable to the planning Division Director for maintenance and monitoring purposes. MM-BIO-F Manufactured slopes will be revegetated with appropriate native species in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. The landscape plan and construction documents will be approved by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. Monitoring during construction activities and placement of permanent signage along boundary of conservation area. Recordation of a conservation easement over onsite mitigation areas and deeding of open space to a nature conservancy. Revegetation of manufactured slopes with native species. Signage shall be placed prior to project construction. Monitoring shall occur during project construction. Prior to issuance of grading permit. Prior to issuance of building permit. Applicant, Project Biologist Owner/Applicant and City. Applicant, City Engineer, Planning Director and Fire Marshal and Wildlife Agencies. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-3 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

49 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility The following project design measure shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of this mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. Development of the project will result in impact to riparian habitats. This represents a significant impact. Impact to riparian habitats. MM-BIO-1B MM-BIO-G Any lands providing mitigation/ preservation for the project shall be held in perpetuity in accordance with a habitat management plan to be approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. Preservation of land in perpetuity. MM-BIO-1A Impacts to 0.23 acre southern riparian Habitat creation both on forest, 0.15 acre riparian woodland, 1.43 acres southern and offsite to meet the willow scrub, 0.90 acre freshwater marsh, 0.33 acre mule fat required mitigation scrub, and 0.09 SWS/FWM habitat will be mitigated at a 3:1 amounts. ratio. Impacts to 0.85 acres disturbed wetland will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Impact to 0.02 acre streambed will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as detailed in Table 7a for a total of 8.89 acres of mitigation. Mitigation includes a combination of onsite and offsite creation and enhancement with 6.47 acres of creation and 0.30 acres of enhancement occurring onsite and 1.27 acre creation mitigation credit equivalents and 1.05 acres enhancement credits at the North County Habitat Bank (NCHB). The preparation of a riparian restoration plan will be required as a condition of the mitigation for impacts to riparian vegetation communities. The plan will be require review and approval by the City and include the following. All final specifications and topographic-based grading, planting, and irrigation plans (0.5-foot contours and typical cross-sections) for the creation/restoration sites. All wetland mitigation areas shall be graded to the same elevation as The preparation of a riparian restoration plan will be required as a condition of the mitigation for impacts to riparian vegetation communities. Prior to issuance of grading permit. Prior to project construction Restoration plan shall be prepared and approved prior to impact to riparian habitats. Owner/Applicant, City and Wildlife Agencies Applicant, Project Biologist Applicant, Project Biologist, City of San Marcos Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-4 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

50 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility adjacent existing jurisdictional wetlands areas, and/or to within 1 foot of the groundwater table, and shall be left in a rough grade state with micro topographic relief (including channels for wetlands) that mimics natural topography, as directed by the City and Resource Agencies. All plantings shall be installed in a way that mimics natural plant distribution, and not in rows; Planting palettes (plant species, size, and number/acre) and seed mix (plant species and pounds/acre). Unless otherwise approved by the City and Resource Agencies, only locally native species (no cultivars) obtained from as close to the project area as possible shall be used. The source and proof of local nativeness of all plant material and seed shall be provided; Container plant survival shall be 80 percent of the initial plantings for the first year; A final implementation schedule that indicates when all riparian/wetland impacts, as well as riparian/wetland creation/restoration grading, planting, and irrigation, will begin and end. Necessary site preparation and planting shall be completed during the concurrent or next planting season (i.e., late fall to early spring). Any temporal loss of habitat caused by delays in riparian/wetland habitat creation/restoration shall be offset through like habitat creation/restoration at a 0.5:1 ratio for every 6 months of delay (i.e., 1:1 for 12 months delay, 1.5:1 for 18 months delay, etc.). In the event that the project applicant is wholly or partly prevented from performing obligations under the final plans (causing temporal losses due to delays) because of unforeseeable circumstances or causes beyond the reasonable control, and without the fault of negligence of the project applicant, Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-5 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

51 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility including but not limited to natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, etc.), labor disputes, sudden actions of the elements (e.g., further landslide activity), or actions or inaction by federal or state agencies, or other governments, the project applicant will be excused by such unforeseeable cause(s); Five years of success criteria for wetland/riparian creation/restoration areas, including separate percent cover criteria for herbaceous understory, shrub midstory, and tree overstory, and a total percent absolute cover for all 3 layers at the end of 5 years; evidence of natural recruitment of multiple species for all habitat types; 0 percent coverage for Cal-IPC s Invasive Plant Inventory species, and no more than 10 percent coverage for other exotic/weed species; A minimum of 5 years of maintenance and monitoring of riparian/wetland creation/restoration areas, unless success criteria are met earlier and all artificial water supply has been off for at least 2 years A qualitative and quantitative vegetation monitoring plan with a map of proposed sampling locations. Photo points shall be used for qualitative monitoring and stratified-random sampling shall be used for all quantitative monitoring; Contingency measures in the event of creation/restoration failure; Annual mitigation maintenance and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City and Resource Agencies no later than December 1 of each year; A wetland delineation shall be done to confirm that USACE and CDFW jurisdictional wetlands have been successfully created/restored prior to final approval of creation/restoration sites. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-6 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

52 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility Potential for impact to species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act due to project construction. Potential for edge effects from human activity adjacent to biological open space lots. Potential for impact to California gnatcatcher and nesting raptors if grading or clearing occurs during the nesting season. MM-BIO-2 Potential direct impacts to bird species covered under the MBTA will be mitigated by restricting brushing and grading to outside of the breeding season of most bird species (general breeding season is February 15 to August 31). Grubbing, grading, or clearing during the breeding season of MBTA covered species could occur if it is determined via a pre-construction survey that no nesting birds (or birds displaying breeding or nesting behavior) are present immediately prior to grubbing, grading, or clearing and will require approval of the City that no breeding or nesting avian species are present in the vicinity of the grubbing, grading, or clearing. The City shall be notified of any sensitive bird species identified during the preconstruction surveys. MM-BIO-3 To reduce edge effects, on-site human activity, and potential impacts related to the introduction of exotic and domestic animals, the biological open space lots shall be actively managed and monitored. The required habitat management plan (as detailed in MM-BIO-1B) shall ensure that access be restricted to developed areas. Permanent fencing shall be provided for all backyards abutting proposed project open space. In addition, preserved habitat shall be posted with signs precluding access due to habitat sensitivity and prohibiting dumping. Residents shall be educated in access restrictions, control of domestic animals, prevention of irrigation runoff, and sensitivity of habitats on site. MM-BIO-4 If project grading (other than clearing and grubbing of sensitive habitats) is necessary and adjacent to preserved on-site habitat during the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys in the adjacent habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher\ and nesting raptors. The survey shall begin not more than three days prior to the beginning of grading activities. The Wildlife Agencies shall Avoidance of grubbing, grading or clearing during breeding season or conduct a preconstruction survey to ensure there are no breeding birds on site. Installation of permanent fencing to restrict access to developed areas. Avoidance of grubbing, grading or clearing during breeding season or conduct a preconstruction survey to ensure there are no breeding birds on site. Avoidance of grubbing, grading or clearing between the period of February 15 to August 31, or conduct a preconstruction survey prior to construction. Permanent fencing prior to project occupancy. Residents shall be notified of restrictions upon purchase of home. Avoidance of grubbing, grading or clearing between the period of February 15 to August 31, or conduct a preconstruction survey Applicant, Project Biologist, City of San Marcos Applicant, Project Biologist Applicant, Project Biologist, City of San Marcos Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-7 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

53 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential to encounter unidentified cultural resources during project grading activities. be notified if the gnatcatcher is observed nesting within 300 feet of proposed grading or if raptors are observed nesting within 500 feet of proposed grading activities. No activities which would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dba hourly L eq within this buffer shall be allowed. If grading activities are not initiated prior to the breeding season, and any of these species are present, and noise levels exceed this threshold, noise barriers shall be erected to reduce noise impacts to occupied habitat to below 60 dba hourly L eq and/or the activities shall be suspended. Impacts resulting from noise for non-listed species other than raptors are not considered significant, and mitigation is not warranted. MM-CR-1 An archeological monitor and a Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities to assure that any potential cultural resources, including tribal, found during project grading be protected. MM CR-2 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a San Diego County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all grounddisturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to cultural resources evaluation, which shall include archaeological documentation, analysis and report generation. If birds are found on site, noise levels shall be curtailed to the level noted in this mitigation measures Monitoring of earthmoving and grading activities. Retention of an archaeological monitor to monitor ground disturbing activities. MM-CR-3 At least 30 days prior to beginning project Development of a construction, the Project Applicant shall enter into a Cultural Cultural Resources Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (also known Treatment and as a pre-excavation agreement) with a Luiseño Tribe. The Monitoring Agreement. Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project prior to construction. Noise monitoring during construction if besting raptors or CAGN are found during the preconstruction surveys. During grading and earthmoving activity At least 30 days prior to grading the applicant shall execute a Cultural Resources and Treatment agreement with the At least 30 days prior to grading the applicant shall execute a Cultural Resources and Treatment agreement with the Applicant, Archaeological Monitor, and Tribal Monitor Applicant Applicant and Rincon Band Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-8 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

54 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on site. MM-CR-4 Prior to beginning project construction, Filing of a pre-grading the Project Archaeologist shall file a pre-grading report with report with the City. the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation, which will be determined in consultation with the Luiseño Tribe referenced in MM-CR-3.. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM-CR-3, the archaeological monitor s authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Luiseño Native American monitor in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. MM-CR-5 The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement referenced in MM-CR-3. All cultural materials that are deemed by the Tribe to be 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 In the event that curation of cultural resources is required, curation shall be conducted by an approved facility and the Landowner shall relinquish any cultural resources found on the site to the appropriate Tribe. Prior to project construction. At the time resources are found. Applicant Applicant Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-9 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

55 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility curation shall be guided by California State Historic Resource Commissions Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The shall provide the developer final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the grading permit, if applicable, during project construction. MM-CR-6 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. MM-CR-7 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must them immediately notify the most likely descendant(s) of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendants(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code , MM-CR-8 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Luiseño Tribe under agreement with the landowner described in MM-CR-3 shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) avoidance is the Avoidance and preservation (if feasible) of sacred sites Halting of construction and contact NAHC. Halt construction and assess significance or resources. At the time of encounter At the time human remains are encountered At the time inadvertent discoveries are encountered Applicant Applicant Applicant Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-10 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

56 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Potential for impact due to naturally-occurring arsenic on the project site. The project proposes development adjacent to natural areas which will be preserved as open space. This creates and areas where development will be adjacent to wildland areas that have a high fire risk. This represents a significant impact. preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance of mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make a determination based upon the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council MM-HAZ-1 Prior to grading activities, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a soils management plan that addresses handling of soils containing naturally-occurring arsenic during grading. The management plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. MM-HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, a fire protection plan shall be prepared for the project and submitted to the Planning Director and Fire Marshal for review and approval. The fire protection plan shall include fire fuel clearing and fire fuel management zones to provide a minimum 150-foot buffer between proposed structures and natural habitat. The fire protection plan shall identify the responsible parties for the ongoing fire fuel maintenance and the mechanism to ensure compliance with fire clearing requirements. Implementation of the fire protection plan shall be required prior project occupancy. Prepare a Soils Management Plan and submit to the City. Preparation of fire protection plan. Prior to grading Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant and City. Applicant and City (Planning Director and Fire Marshal) Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-11 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

57 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program NOISE Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility Onsite noise impacts due to traffic for select homes. Potential for elevated interior sound levels for select homes. Potential for elevated exterior noise levels on the non-residential mixed use portion of the project site. Potential for noise impacts during rock crushing. MM-N-1 Sound barriers ranging from five to ten feet shall be constructed to reduce future onsite noise levels to be consistent with the Noise Element of the San Marcos General Plan (60 dba CNEL for single family and 65 dba for multifamily). Locations and heights of the proposed barriers are presented in Figure 7, Noise Mitigation Measures. Barriers could include berms, wall, glass or a combination of these to meet the required noise attenuation. MM-N-2 A final noise assessment shall be prepared prior to the issuance of the first building permit. This final report would identify the interior noise requirements based upon architectural and building plans to meet the City s established interior noise limit of 45 dba CNEL. MM-N-3 If outdoor usable areas are proposed in the non-residential mixed use areas of the project, the design shall consider shielding form the buildings, increased setbacks from the roadways or conduct a site specific noise study to determine compliance. An interior noise assessment is required to mitigate the exterior noise levels to an interior level of 50 dba CNEL. This report should be conducted prior to the issuance of building permits and would finalize the noise requirements based upon actual building design specifications. MM-N-4 If rock crushing is proposed, upon starting of crushing operations, noise measurements of the rock crushing facility shall be required to ensure compliance with the City s thresholds. If noise levels are found to be above the established thresholds of 60 dba at any existing single family residential use, 65 dba for any multifamily use or 70 dba at a commercial use then additional mitigation in the form of berms or temporary walls will need to be incorporated into the rock crusher design to reduce the noise levels to below the City s thresholds. Construction of noise attenuation features Conduct final noise assessment and mitigate noise conditions to acceptable levels if an exceedance is identified Conduct final noise assessment and mitigate noise conditions to acceptable levels if an exceedance is identified Take noise measurements if two crushers will be operated simultaneously. If noise levels exceed thresholds, implement noise reduction measure to meet noise standards. Prior to occupancy of homes along the west side of Las Posas Road within the project area. Prior to issuance of first building permit. Prior to issuance of first building permit. During rock crushing phase. Applicant Applicant Applicant Applicant Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-12 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

58 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Action Timing Responsibility TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The addition of projectrelated traffic results in a significant impact at the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound Ramps Grand Avenue/ SR-78 EB Ramps Via Vera Cruz in the Horizon Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Condition. This represents a significant impact. The addition of projectrelated traffic results in a significant impact at the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road/Discover Street- Barham Drive in the Horizon Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Condition. This represents a significant impact. MM-TR-1 The project applicant shall make a fair share contribution towards the following improvements at the Twin Oaks Valley Road/SR-78 Eastbound Ramps: Construct an additional dedicated right-turn lane at eastbound (off-ramp) approach of intersection. Restripe eastbound approach to include one leftturn lane, one shared left-turn/through/right-turn lane, and two right-turn lanes. MM-TR-2 The project applicant shall make a fair share contribution towards the widening of the northbound approach of the Twin Oaks Valley Road/Discover Street- Barham Drive intersection to construct a dedicated rightturn lane. Payment of a fair share contribution for future improvements at this intersection. Payment of a fair share contribution for future improvements at the northbound approach of the Twin Oaks Valley Road/Discover Street- Barham Drive intersection Prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to issuance of building permits. Applicant Applicant Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-13 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

59 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 4-2. Design Considerations for the Project Air Quality The project shall implement dust control measures. These measures include watering of active grading sites and unpaved roads a minimum of twice daily, replacement of ground cover as quickly as possible, reducing speeds on unpaved roads/surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less, and reducing dust during unloading and loading operations. Low-VOC coatings shall be used for all buildings, as required under SDAPCD Rule Biological Resources No invasive plant species shall be in the landscaping plans, and no species on the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory list shall be included in the erosion control plan. All exterior lighting adjacent to preserved habitat including street lighting for Street A shall be limited to low pressure sodium sources of the lowest illumination allowed for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from preserved habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Inspection of all plant material for Argentine ants prior to use on the site. The monitoring biologist shall periodically monitor adjacent habitats for excessive amounts of dust, and recommend remedial measures to address dust control if necessary. Geology/Soils The project shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize sedimentation or other soil impacts during project construction. BMPs could includes some or all of these strategies: erosion bale, silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, outlet protection, stabilized construction entrance, brush barrier, sandbag barrier, waste disposal and proper siting of equipment fueling. Noise Grading/Construction All equipment construction equipment shall be properly fitted with mufflers. All equipment staging and maintenance shall be conducted as far away from existing residences as possible. All construction equipment staging and maintenance should be conducted as far away for the existing residence as possible. Haul truck speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted along the on-site haul route and include signage limiting the use of engine jake brakes. Noise Blasting The general contractor or property owner/developer shall give reasonable notice in writing at the time of issuance of a building permit, grading permit or encroachment license to all residences or businesses within 600 feet of any potential blast location. The notice shall be in a form approved by the Building Director. Any resident or business receiving such notice may request of the Building Director that a notice of impending blasting be given by the blaster at the time of the 12 hour advance notice given to the Building Director. The general contractor or property owner/developer shall make all reasonable efforts to contact any and all parties requesting the second notice. The blaster shall file a written certification with the Building Director certifying that the general notice required by Section (b) has been given. The certificate shall include addresses and date(s) of notification. A copy shall be retained on file at the Building Division. Inspections of all structures within 300 feet of the blast site shall be made before blasting operations. The persons inspecting shall obtain the permission of the building owner to conduct an inspection. The inspections shall be done by a registered structural engineer employed by the blaster or project Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-14 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

60 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contractor. The inspection shall be only for the purpose of determining the existence of any visible or reasonably recognizable pre-existing defects or damages in any structure. Inspection refusal shall be at the discretion of the property owner. Blasting shall only be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. during any weekday, Monday through Friday, exclusive of City recognized holidays unless special circumstances warrant another time or day and special approval is granted by the Building Director and Fire Chief. Public Services Fire Roadways serving the project shall have a minimum improved paved width of 24 feet with an additional 8 feet to each side for parking. Any deviations from this or any other roadway features such as cul-desacs and gates must meet the design criteria of the San Marcos Fire Department. Any automatic gates are required to have a Knox rapid entry system and emergency vehicle strobe detector. Fire hydrants with an adequate water supply must be installed at locations approved by the San Marcos Fire Department. Hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet apart. Residential structures shall be fire sprinklered per California Building Code 2010 edition and city ordinance. Homes and mixed use buildings will be required to be designed using state fire marshal standards for fire resistive construction features using the California Building Code 2013 edition Chapter 7, design to be reviewed by City Building Department. A 150-foot wildland fuel modification is required from all sides of all structures. Utilities and Service Systems Upsize 2,700 feet of existing 8-inch wastewater collection pipe in Craven Road. This segment is located between Santa Barbara Drive and a point approximately 575 feet south of Discovery Street. The improvement includes 700 feet of 10-inch pipeline and 2,000 feet of 12-inch pipeline. Installation of a new 14-inch diameter water main loop from the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road and South Village Drive to the existing 14-inch water main, approximately 1,100 feet north of South Lake Pump Station. Payment of Water Capital Facility Fees per Vallecitos Water District Ordinance No Payment of Wastewater Capital Facility Fees per Vallecitos Water District Ordinance No Payment of Wastewater Density Impact Fees per Vallecitos Water District Ordinance No Water Quality During construction, measures would be implemented as part of the project to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollution that could impact water resources on and off site. Prior to the commencement of grading, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Board for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit. Specific permit requirements include implementation of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which requires best management practices for erosion and sediment control related to construction activities. Standard measures that may apply to the proposed project include: Surface drainage will be designed to collect and move runoff into adequately sized drainage structures before being discharged into natural stream channels. Erosion control measures associated with the project will include techniques for both long- and shortterm erosion hazards. These include such measures as the short-term use of gravel bags, matting, mulches, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all pertinent graded areas to minimize sediment transport. Native vegetation will be preserved whenever feasible, and all disturbed areas will be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-15 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

61 4.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Use of energy dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap, or drop structures) will be used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings, and/or downstream of all culverts, pipe outlets, and brow ditches to reduce velocity and prevent erosion. A maintenance plan for temporary erosion control facilities will be established. This typically involves inspection, cleaning, and repair operations being conducted after runoff-producing rainfall. Removal and disposal of ground water (if any) encountered during construction activities will be coordinated with the RWQCB to ensure proper disposal methods and locations under a General Dewatering Permit if required. This may involve specific measures such as removing excess sediment (through the use of desilting basins, etc.) and limiting discharge velocity. Specified fueling and maintenance procedures will be designated to preclude the discharge of hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents). Such designations will include specific measures to preclude spill including proper handling and disposal techniques. Per the project s Water Quality Improvement Plan, the following Source Control BMPs are proposed: Mark all inlets with the words No Dumping! Flows to Bay or similar language. Landscaping is designed to minimize irrigation and runoff and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution Landscaping in the bio-retention areas shall use California drought tolerant native grasses Plaza, sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. The project is required to comply with the latest NPDES permit (Order No. R ) and latest City of San Marcos Storm Water Standards Manual guidelines. The WQIP shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any grading permit and shall address Low Impact Development standards and hydromodification. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment-Rancho Coronado 4-16 Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2014

62 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 4 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED C. DETERMINATION IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I. AESTHETICS II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES III. AIR QUALITY IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES V. CULTURAL RESOURCES VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY XI. MINERAL RESOURCES XII. NOISE XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES XV. RECREATION XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS V MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED VII. REFERENCES VIII. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IX. FINDINGS Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) i

63 LIST OF APPENDICES (Appendices included on CD in back of document) Appendix A.1 Tentative Map Appendix A.2 Amended Heart of the City Specific Plan Appendix A.3 Draft Rancho Coronado Residential Design Guidelines Appendix B Air Quality Report Appendix C Biological Technical Report Appendix D Cultural Resources Report Appendix E Geotechnical Report Appendix F Global Climate Change Report Appendix G Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix H Additional Soil Characterization Report Appendix I Water Quality Improvement Plans Appendix J Breach Study and Inundation Map Appendix K Noise Report Appendix L Police, Fire and School Letters Appendix M Traffic Analysis Appendix N Water and Sewer Study Appendix O Least Bell s Vireo Survey Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity... 5 Figure 2. Proposed Project... 6 Figure 3. Rancho Coronado Residential Development Areas... 7 Figure 4. Proposed Spillway Channel Cross Section... 8 Figure 5. Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations Figure 6. Modeled Receptor Locations Figure 7. Noise Mitigation Measures Barrier Height and Locations Figure 8. Rock Crusher Noise Contour Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) ii

64 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Rancho Coronado Residential Development Standards... 7 Table 2. Design Considerations for the Project Table 3. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in San Diego Air Basin Table 4. Screening-Level Criteria for Air Quality Impacts Table 5a. Construction Emissions Proposed Project Table 5b. Operational Emissions Proposed Project Table 6. CO Hot Spot Evaluation Predicted CO Concentrations, ppm Table 7a. Mitigation Requirements for Rancho Coronado (acres) Table 7b. Summary of Impact to Vegetation Communities Table 8. USACE and CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts Table 9a. Summary of Estimated Operational GHG Emission Business as Usual Scenario Table 9b. Summary of Estimated Operational GHG Emission With GHG Reduction Measures Scenario Table 10. Measured Ambient Noise Levels Table 11. Future Traffic Parameters Table 12. Future Exterior Noise Levels Table 13. Vibration Levels from Construction Activities (Residential Receptors) Table 14. Existing Roadway Noise Levels Table 15. Existing + Project Roadway Noise Levels Table 16. Existing vs. Existing + Project Roadway Noise Levels Table 17. Existing + Project Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels Table 18. Existing vs. Existing + Project Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels Table 19. Construction Noise Levels Table 20. Rock Crushing Noise Levels Table 21. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Table 22. Existing Daily Roadway Segment Conditions Table 23. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table 24. Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Table 25. Existing Plus Project Daily Roadway Segment Conditions Table 26. Table 27. Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Year 2016 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Conditions - Without and With Project Year 2016 Cumulative Daily Roadway Segment Conditions - Without and With Project Year 2020 Cumulative Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Without and With Project Year 2020 Cumulative Daily Roadway Segment Conditions - Without and With Project Horizon Year 2030 Peak Hour Intersection Conditions - Without and With Project Horizon Year 2030 Daily Roadway Segment Conditions - Without and With Project Table 32. Caltrans ILV Analysis Table 33. Peak Hour Freeway Segment Analysis Existing / Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 34. Peak Hour Freeway Segment Analysis Year 2016 Cumulative Conditions Table 35. Peak Hour Freeway Segment Analysis Year 2020 Cumulative Conditions Table 36. Peak Hour Freeway Segment Analysis Horizon Year 2030 Conditions Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) iii

65 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table 37. Peak Hour Freeway Ramp Metering Analysis Table 38. Peak Hour Intersection Queuing Analysis Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound Ramps (Existing/ Existing Plus Project Conditions) Table 39. Peak Hour Intersection Queuing Analysis Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound Ramps (Year 2016 / Year 2020 Cumulative Conditions) Table 40. Peak Hour Intersection Queuing Analysis Twin Oaks Valley Road / SR-78 Eastbound Ramps (Horizon Year 2030 Conditions) Table 41. Rancho Coronado Estimated Water Demand Table 42. Rancho Coronado Estimated Wastewater Flows Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) iv

66 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE This document is an Initial Study (IS) for preliminary evaluation of environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment for the Rancho Coronado project. For the purposes of this document, this proposed development as described in Section II, Project Description, will be called the proposed project. B. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENTS As defined by Section of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, an IS is prepared to provide the Lead Agency with information to use in deciding to prepare either an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration (ND) as the most appropriate environmental documentation for the proposed discretionary action. The (City) is designated the Lead Agency, in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving a project that may have significant effects upon the environment. Through this IS, the City has determined that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, mitigation has been included to bring all potential impacts to less than significant levels. This determination was made based upon technical analysis, factual data, and other supporting documentation. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is being proposed. The IS/MND will be circulated for a period of 30 days for public and agency review. Comments received on the document will be considered by the City before it acts on the proposed project. This IS has been prepared in conformance with CEQA of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section et. seq.) and Section of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA of 1970, as amended (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.). C. INTENDED USES OF INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This IS, along with the attached MND, is an informational document intended to inform City decisionmakers, other responsible or interested agencies, and the public of potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The environmental review process has been established to enable public agencies to evaluate environmental consequences and to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing any potentially adverse impacts. D. CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT This IS/MND is organized to facilitate a basic understanding of the existing setting and environmental implications of the proposed project as follows: I. INTRODUCTION identifies the City contact persons involved in the process, scope of environmental review, environmental procedures, and incorporation by reference documents. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 1

67 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION describes the proposed project. A description of proposed discretionary approvals and permits required for project implementation is also included. III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM presents the results of the environmental evaluation for the proposed project and those issue areas that would have a significant impact, potentially significant impact, a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporation, or no impact. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS evaluates each response provided in the environmental checklist form. Each response checked is discussed and supported with sufficient data and analysis. As appropriate, each response discussion describes and identifies specific impacts anticipated with project implementation. In this section, mitigation measures are also recommended, as appropriate, to reduce adverse impacts to levels of less than significant where possible. V. MANDATORY FINDINGS presents Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. VI. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED identifies those persons consulted and involved in preparation of this IS. VII. REFERENCES lists bibliographical materials used in preparation of this document. VII. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION E. SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS For evaluation of environmental impacts, each question from the Environmental Checklist Form is stated and responses are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. All responses take into account the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Project impacts and effects will be evaluated and quantified, when appropriate. To each question, there are four possible responses, including: 1. No Impact: A No Impact response is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project. 2. Less Than Significant Impact: Development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment. These impacts, however, will be less than the levels of thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required. 3. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: This applies where incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact. The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures and explain how the measures reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4. Potentially Significant Impact: Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant and additional analysis and possibly an EIR are required to identify mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 2

68 F. PERMITS AND ENTITLEMENTS FOR PROJECT APPROVAL Agency Discretionary Action Adoption of Specific Plan (SP ) California Department of Fish and Game Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM ) Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND ) Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Project Approval Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement Section 401 Water Quality Certification Section 404 Permit Additionally, the following ministerial approvals will be required for the project: Grading Permit, Landscaping Permit, and Building Permit. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 3

69 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING The project is located within the southwestern portion of the Heart of the City Specific Plan (HOCSP). The 248-acre project site property is bounded by Twin Oaks Valley Road on the east, the Discovery Hills residential community on the north, and undeveloped land on the west and south in the Barham/Discovery Hills neighborhood (Figure 1). The project site sits within the boundaries of the former Hanson mining site. The eastern and northern portions of the former Hanson mining site are disturbed from past aggregate mining activities and the remainder of the site contains undeveloped native habitat. All upland habitat impacts associated with the mining and the current residential project have been previously analyzed within the approved Habitat Loss Permit (HLP; HLP 03-08) approved by the City on December 23, 2003 and approved by the Wildlife Agencies on January 23, The project development is proposed in areas that are disturbed from previous mining and cleared following the initial HLP approval. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) to the HOCSP. The project area covers 248 acres within the HOCSP. The project would develop residential, non-residential mixed use, and active park uses consistent with the General Plan. The project also preserves open space. Figure 2 shows the planning areas of the HOCSP that are part of the proposed project (circled in red). The proposed Tentative Map, Specific Plan Amendment, and Rancho Coronado Residential Design Guidelines are included as Appendices A.1, A.2, and A.3. Residential The project would allow for up to 346 high-efficiency single family homes on approximately 58 acres. Product types include front-loaded and alley-loaded single family detached, as well as alley-loaded paired (duplex) and alley-loaded courtyard homes. Residential development is proposed four areas (Area A, B, C and D), as detailed in Figure 3. The developments standards for each of the residential areas are presented in Table 1. Mixed Use (Non-Residential) The project includes acres of MU-4 (non residential mixed use) in the southern portion of the project site, adjacent to Twin Oaks Valley Road. Allowable uses under this designation include commercial, office professional, and office and business park uses. These uses may be mixed vertically (on separate floors of a building) or horizontally (on a single site or adjacent parcel). While specific development is not proposed within this area at this time, the environmental analysis assume 90 percent of the MU-4 area would be developed with business park uses and the remaining 10 percent would be retail with a total of 240,000 s.f. developed on the acres. Park Grading of acres is proposed as a future active use City park. Anticipated uses include active park uses, lighted ball fields, and associated parking. 1 1 A park plan is not analyzed at this time, however, traffic generated by a future park, as well as air quality and noise associated with the traffic, is considered in this analysis. At the time a park plan is proposed in the future, the project would be subject to additional CEQA review. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 4

70 Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 5

71 Figure 2. Proposed Project Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 6

72 Figure 3. Rancho Coronado Residential Development Areas Table 1. Rancho Coronado Residential Development Standards Residential Area A B C D Configuration Front-loaded Single Family Dwelling Alley-loaded Single Family Dwelling Alley-loaded Paired Alley-loaded Courtyard Max. Dwelling Units 72 units 54 units 72 units 148 units Minimum Lot Area (1) 3,910 SF 2,880 SF 2,440 SF 1,840 SF Minimum Front Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet from Sidewalk Minimum Front Setback N/A N/A 10 feet (3) 7.5 feet (4) from Paseo Minimum Side Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet from Sidewalks Minimum Side Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet from Property Line Minimum Front Garage 16 feet/18 feet (2) N/A N/A N/A Setback from Sidewalk Minimum Rear Setback 16 feet/18 feet (2) N/A N/A N/A from Property Line Minimum Rear Setback 15 feet 3 feet 3 feet 3 feet from Back of Alley Curb Height Limit 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Notes: (1) The Lot Area is measured from back of sidewalk and from back of private alley curb, where applicable. (2) The front yard setback is 16 feet for the garage façade and 18 feet for the garage door (3) Setback measured from edge of Paseo (4) Setback measured from centerline of Paseo Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 7

73 Preserved Open Space The project includes approximately acres of preserved open space. This includes preserved upland habitat in accordance with the approved Habitat Loss Permit, as well as riparian areas that will be created and/or enhanced and then added to the open space easement. Spillway Conveyance Channel The project includes the construction of a temporary channel extension in the southern portion of the project site to convey the spillway drainage. See Figure 4 for a cross section of the channel and the general location within the project site. The channel would be 5 feet wide and 5 feet deep with a 2:1 bank. The channel would be lined with half-ton rip rap on one inch of gravel over a sand filter bank. The channel would be approximately 900 feet in length. At the time the nonresidential mixed use portion of the site is developed, a refined design to handle spillway overflow will be developed. That final design would be subject to additional CEQA review. Figure 4. Proposed Spillway Channel Cross Section Roadway and Pedestrian Improvements The proposed project includes the extension of North Village Drive Street B (600 lineal feet) west of Twin Oaks Valley and Street A (Backbone Road, 4,400 lineal feet) which will connect Santa Barbara Drive to the north with Twin Oaks Valley Road to the east. These two public streets will be constructed with curb, gutter, sidewalk-trail, and landscaping. Curb to curb widths will vary from 30 to 38 feet. The proposed private roadways range from 38 to 25 feet in paved width, with additional width for curb, gutter, sidewalks or walking paths. A trail linkage from South Lake Park to the project site will also be included. Utilities The project site is within the Vallecitos Water District (VWD) boundary and is eligible for water service. The project site is not within VWD s sewer district boundaries and the entire project site must be annexed to be eligible for sewer service. This is an intra-district annexation and does not require Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approval or process. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 8

74 The project includes the necessary utility improvements to support the proposed development and includes approximately 15,360 linear feet of water lines and 14,000 linear feet of sewer lines. The project would connect to existing Vallecitos Water District (VWD) infrastructure for water and sewer services. Offsite sewer extensions within Santa Barbara Drive and Twin Oaks Valley Road would also be required. The project will also be required to upsize approximately 2,700 feet of an existing 8-inch wastewater collection pipe in Craven Road. This segment is located between Santa Barbara Drive and a spot approximately 575 feet south of Discovery Street. The improvement includes 700 feet of 10-inch pipeline and 2,000 feet of 12-inch pipeline. The project will also relocate an existing 14-inch Vallecitos Water District water main. Finally, any existing gas, electric, or communication lines (dry utilities) will be abandoned or relocated. New dry utility lines will be constructed to serve the project. An existing VWD access road to South Lake Dam and the existing VWD pump station in the southern portion of the project will be relocated within the project site in a manner that is acceptable to VWD. Water Quality Management The project includes a comprehensive water quality management approach. The project proposes self-treating areas, nine bio retention basins covering over 2.5 acres and additional best management practices (BMPs) for onsite public roads. The use of construction-related and source control BMPs which will further minimize the addition of pollutants and debris into the drainage system. The project includes approximately 11,198 linear feet of storm drains. Grading Grading for the project includes 2,608,200 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 2,853,800 cy of fill and will balance onsite assuming a 15 to 18 percent bulking factor. This includes the 1,800 cy needed to excavate for the spillway conveyance. No offsite export or import will be required for the project. Due to underlying bedrock conditions blasting will be required as part of the project construction. Additionally a rock crusher may be required for the project as well. Project Phasing - Project phasing will include an overall grading phase commencing in The grading phase would include blasting and rock crushing. Phase 1 construction will start in 2015 and is anticipated to be completed by late 2016 or early Phase 1 includes Residential Areas A and B (126 dwelling units), Backbone Road (Street A ) from Santa Barbara Drive to North Village Drive, and North Village Drive (Street B ) extended west to the Backbone Road. Phase 2 construction is anticipated to start in 2017 and be complete by Phase 2 includes construction of 220 dwelling units in Residential Areas C and D; construction of the non-residential mixed-use portion of the project, which will include 90 percent business park and 10 percent retail; construction of a acre active park; construction of Backbone Road from North Village Drive to South Village Drive; construction of South Village Drive extended west to Backbone Road; installation of a new signal for access to the mixed use site, and construction of the access road for the mixed use site. Finally, the project includes design considerations and will adhere to applicable regulatory requirements, as identified in Table 2. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 9

75 Table 2. Design Considerations for the Project Air Quality The project shall implement dust control measures. These measures include watering of active grading sites and unpaved roads a minimum of twice daily, replacement of ground cover as quickly as possible, reducing speeds on unpaved roads/surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less, and reducing dust during unloading and loading operations. Low-VOC coatings shall be used for all buildings, as required under SDAPCD Rule Biological Resources No invasive plant species shall be in the landscaping plans, and no species on the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory list shall be included in the erosion control plan. All exterior lighting adjacent to preserved habitat including street lighting for Street A shall be limited to low pressure sodium sources of the lowest illumination allowed for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from preserved habitat to the maximum extent practicable. Inspection of all plant material for Argentine ants prior to use on the site. The monitoring biologist shall periodically monitor adjacent habitats for excessive amounts of dust, and recommend remedial measures to address dust control if necessary. Geology/Soils The project shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize sedimentation or other soil impacts during project construction. BMPs could includes some or all of these strategies: erosion bale, silt fencing, storm drain inlet protection, outlet protection, stabilized construction entrance, brush barrier, sandbag barrier, waste disposal and proper siting of equipment fueling. Noise Grading/Construction All equipment construction equipment shall be properly fitted with mufflers. All equipment staging and maintenance shall be conducted as far away from existing residences as possible. All construction equipment staging and maintenance should be conducted as far away for the existing residence as possible. Haul truck speed limit of 15 miles per hour shall be posted along the on-site haul route and include signage limiting the use of engine jake brakes. Noise Blasting The general contractor or property owner/developer shall give reasonable notice in writing at the time of issuance of a building permit, grading permit or encroachment license to all residences or businesses within 600 feet of any potential blast location. The notice shall be in a form approved by the Building Director. Any resident or business receiving such notice may request of the Building Director that a notice of impending blasting be given by the blaster at the time of the 12 hour advance notice given to the Building Director. The general contractor or property owner/developer shall make all reasonable efforts to contact any and all parties requesting the second notice. The blaster shall file a written certification with the Building Director certifying that the general notice required by Section (b) has been given. The certificate shall include addresses and date(s) of notification. A copy shall be retained on file at the Building Division. Inspections of all structures within 300 feet of the blast site shall be made before blasting operations. The persons inspecting shall obtain the permission of the building owner to conduct an inspection. The inspections shall be done by a registered structural engineer employed by the blaster or project contractor. The inspection shall be only for the purpose of determining the existence of any visible or reasonably recognizable pre-existing defects or damages in any structure. Inspection refusal shall be at the discretion of the property owner. Blasting shall only be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. during any weekday, Monday through Friday, exclusive of City recognized holidays unless special circumstances warrant another time or day and special approval is granted by the Building Director and Fire Chief. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 10

76 Public Services Fire Roadways serving the project shall have a minimum improved paved width of 24 feet with an additional 8 feet to each side for parking. Any deviations from this or any other roadway features such as cul-desacs and gates must meet the design criteria of the San Marcos Fire Department. Any automatic gates are required to have a Knox rapid entry system and emergency vehicle strobe detector. Fire hydrants with an adequate water supply must be installed at locations approved by the San Marcos Fire Department. Hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet apart. Residential structures shall be fire sprinklered per California Building Code 2010 edition and city ordinance. Homes and mixed use buildings will be required to be designed using state fire marshal standards for fire resistive construction features using the California Building Code 2013 edition Chapter 7, design to be reviewed by City Building Department. A 150-foot wildland fuel modification is required from all sides of all structures. Utilities and Service Systems Upsize an existing 2,700 feet of existing 8-inch wastewater collection pipe in Craven Road. This segment is located between Santa Barbara Drive and a point approximately 575 feet south of Discovery Street. The improvement includes 700 feet of 10-inch pipeline and 2,000 feet of 12-inch pipeline. Installation of a new 14-inch diameter water main loop from the intersection of Twin Oaks Valley Road and South Village Drive to the existing 14-inch water main, approximately 1,100 feet north of South Lake Pump Station. Payment of Water Capital Facility Fees per Vallecitos Water District Ordinance No Payment of Wastewater Capital Facility Fees per Vallecitos Water District Ordinance No Payment of Wastewater Density Impact Fees per Vallecitos Water District Ordinance No Water Quality During construction, measures would be implemented as part of the project to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollution that could impact water resources on and off site. Prior to the commencement of grading, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the Regional Water Quality Board for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit. Specific permit requirements include implementation of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which requires best management practices for erosion and sediment control related to construction activities. Standard measures that may apply to the proposed project include: Surface drainage will be designed to collect and move runoff into adequately sized drainage structures before being discharged into natural stream channels. Erosion control measures associated with the project will include techniques for both long- and shortterm erosion hazards. These include such measures as the short-term use of gravel bags, matting, mulches, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all pertinent graded areas to minimize sediment transport. Native vegetation will be preserved whenever feasible, and all disturbed areas will be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. Use of energy dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap, or drop structures) will be used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings, and/or downstream of all culverts, pipe outlets, and brow ditches to reduce velocity and prevent erosion. A maintenance plan for temporary erosion control facilities will be established. This typically involves inspection, cleaning, and repair operations being conducted after runoff-producing rainfall. Removal and disposal of ground water (if any) encountered during construction activities will be coordinated with the RWQCB to ensure proper disposal methods and locations under a General Dewatering Permit if required. This may involve specific measures such as removing excess sediment (through the use of desilting basins, etc.) and limiting discharge velocity. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 11

77 Specified fueling and maintenance procedures will be designated to preclude the discharge of hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents). Such designations will include specific measures to preclude spill including proper handling and disposal techniques. Per the project s Water Quality Improvement Plan, the following Source Control BMPs are proposed: Mark all inlets with the words No Dumping! Flows to Bay or similar language. Landscaping is designed to minimize irrigation and runoff and to minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to stormwater pollution Landscaping in the bio-retention areas shall use California drought tolerant native grasses Plaza, sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. The project is required to comply with the latest NPDES permit (Order No. R ) and latest City of San Marcos Storm Water Standards Manual guidelines. The WQIP shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any grading permit and shall address Low Impact Development standards and hydromodification. C. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The proposed project requires the following discretionary action by the : Amendment to the Specific Plan (SP ) An amendment of the Heart of the City Specific Plan required to reflect the proposed project. Approval of Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM ) Approval of the Tentative Subdivision map to create the individual residential lots. D. PRIOR LAND USE PERMITTING This section provides a background of past land use permitting on the project site. The Hanson Operation in the Heart of the City (HOC) Specific Plan (GPA 87-09; SP 87-29) was adopted by the City Council on January 12, 1988 and encompasses approximately 1,570 acres for the development of California State University San Marcos (CSUSM), residential and commercial uses. The City also approved a modification to CUP (87 Mod), which expressly authorized mining on 835 acres within the HOC Specific Plan and required that the permittee submit a reclamation plan, tentative subdivision map, and grading plan prior to each quarry phase. Following approval of the modified CUP, the City entered into a Development Agreement with Hanson s predecessors for an approximately 960 acre area within the HOC Specific Plan identified as Rancho Coronado Specific Plan. The Rancho Coronado Specific Plan encompassed the 835 acre area covered by CUP (87 Mod) and stated that the excavation of rock was a condition precedent to development of the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan. In 1992, consistent with the requirements of the prior approvals, Hanson s predecessors submitted a reclamation plan covering approximately 544 acres of the originally approved mining site and describing the overall mining activities anticipated to occur in the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan. Hanson has Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 12

78 conducted its operations consistent with the submitted reclamation plan, however, actual mining and reclamation has been limited to 109 acres of the approved 544-acre Reclamation area. On June 8, 1993, the City adopted a resolution, which expressly acknowledged that mining operations on the Project Site were in compliance with CUP (87 Mod) including the approval of a Reclamation Plan for the Project Site. On August 20, 2001, the City approved a Tentative Subdivision Map and Grading Plan covering approximately 186 acres of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. These tentative maps, which were identified as phases M2 and M3, were in accordance with CUP (87 Mod) and the 1992 Reclamation Plan acknowledged by the City in Resolution On December 23, 2003 as part of the obligations under TSM 418 covering Villages l, M1, M2 and M3, Hanson obtained approval of a Habitat Loss Permit (HLP 03-08), which permits impacts to 40.5 acres of coastal sage scrub pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. On December 2, 2011, the Reclamation Plan submitted by Hanson was approved for construction and a grading permit was issued on December 7, The grading work took place between February and April 2012 and resulted in the establishment of stabilized 2:1 slopes or less. E. PREVIOUS CEQA REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING In 1987 a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND ) was prepared in conjunction with the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP ) covering the project site. Then, in 1988 a comprehensive Final EIR (EIR 09-87) was certified by the City Council addressing the Heart of the City Specific Plan and an associated amendment to the site s original Conditional Use Permit CUP (87 Mod). Most recently, in 2001, Negative Declaration (ND ) was certified by the City in conjunction with its approval of TSM 418. A Negative Declaration for the South Lake Park Master Plan (ND ), south of the project site, was certified by the City Council on April 14, 2009, and addressed impacts associated with the South Lake Park Master Plan including a spillway realignment. A General Industrial Permit (GIP) was issued by the State Water Resources Control Board on April 22, 1992 for the Hanson Operation closed in However, the coverage under the GIP is still valid during the implementation of the Reclamation Closure Plan. Prior to construction of any new project activities, a separate General Construction Permit (GCP) will be required to ensure State Water Resources Control Board compliance for any potential project stormwater discharge. These environmental documents are referenced as a basis for analysis and are public documents available for reference at the City Development Services Department. An EIR was certified as part of the General Plan Update that changed the land uses of the subject site. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 13

79 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:, 1 Civic Center Drive, San Marcos, CA Contact Person and Phone Number: Garth Koller, Project Planner, (760) ext. 3231, GKoller@san-marcos.net 4. Project Location: The project site sits within the boundaries of the former Hanson mining site. The eastern and northern portions of the former Hanson mining site are disturbed from past aggregate mining activities and the remainder of the site contains undeveloped native habitat. The project is proposed in areas that are disturbed from previous mining. 5. Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Lehigh Hanson West Region PO Box San Diego, CA General Plan and Zoning Designations: The project site is currently zoned Specific Plan, as it falls under the western portion of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Under the current Specific Plan, development within the project area could include low/medium density residential, a variety of commercial/office professional/business park uses, open space and a park. The project will still retain a Specific Plan designation after approval of the project. 7. Description of Project: Please see Section II for project description. 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site property is bounded by Twin Oaks Valley Road on the east, the Discovery Hills residential community on the north, and undeveloped land on the west and south in the Barham/Discovery Hills neighborhood. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1602 Permit) Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401 Certification) U.S.Army Corp of Engineers (Section 404 Permit) SWRCB (General Construction Permit, General Industrial Permit) Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 14

80 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. All impacts identified for the project will be mitigated to below a level of significance. Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/ Services Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance C. 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. Date: March 19, 2014 Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 15

81 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? No Impact II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest Legacy Assessment Project and the carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public X Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of X forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 16

82 Issues c) 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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. 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, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated X X X X Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X No Impact X X X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 17

83 Issues d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to 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 project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial 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? VII. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X X X X X No Impact X X VIII. 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 reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 18

84 Issues 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 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 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or offsite? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated X Less Than Significant Impact X X X No Impact X X X X X X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 19

85 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Issues e) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates X or volumes? f) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or offsite? g) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm X water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? h) Result in increased impervious surfaces and X associated increased runoff? i) Result in significant alteration of receiving water X quality during or following construction? j) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy X metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash). k) Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, X can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? l) Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Significance, X etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? m) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or X wetland waters? n) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X o) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact p) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? q) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including X flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? r) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 20

86 Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, X specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan X or natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the X residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X X X X X X X X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 21

87 Issues c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational X facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county X congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X X X X Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 22

88 Issues XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated X X X Less Than Significant Impact X X X X X X X No Impact Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 23

89 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the Environmental Checklist. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located between Mount Whitney and Double Peak Mountain in a valley of land with disturbed habitat and soil disturbed by the closed Hanson Operation as well as natural open space areas. The project site is located within the Barham/Discovery community plan area in the City of San Marcos. Portions of these community plan areas contain scenic corridors are listed in the San Marcos General Plan. Topographically, the site consists of cut slope and fill areas resulting from previous site grading activities as well as natural open space areas. The project site is located within an overall hillside and valley terrain. Existing elevations range from a high of approximately 875 feet above mean sea level (msl) in the southeastern portion of the site to a low of approximately 720 feet msl in the northern portion of the project site. Proposed development would occur within in areas that have already been disturbed from past mining activities. Proposed residential development in Areas A, B, C and D and the future nonresidential mixed-use development (business park) would appear as an extension of existing development north and east of the project site. The project will preserve approximately 129 acres of open space areas which provides a visual amenity from both onsite and offsite. These habitat preservation areas include large areas of coastal sage scrub which will connect to existing preserve areas to the south of the project site. The preservation of over half of the project site as open space areas will contribute to scenic vistas in the area. Project impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? No Impact The project site is located approximately 1.2 miles south of State Route 78 (SR-78). A portion of SR-78 is recognized as a Scenic Highway by Caltrans; however, that portion is not in the project vicinity. The portion identified as a Scenic Highway is approximately 50 miles east of the project site near Anza Borrego (Caltrans 2013). Thus the project would not impact a State scenic highway. At a local level, SR-78 is designated by the City as a view corridor. The highway corridor provides view of the Merriam Mountains, Mount Whitney, Double Peak, CSUSM and Palomar Community College. The proposed development would not impact views to these peaks from SR-78 since it is situated at a lower elevation. The City has a Ridgeline Protection and Management Overlay Zone (RPMOZ) which is designed to protect natural viewsheds and unique natural resources, and to minimize physical impacts to select primary and secondary ridgelines. These protected primary and secondary ridgelines are shown on Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 24

90 Figure 4-5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City s General Plan. Development is not proposed on areas identified as primary or secondary ridgeline. The project site is vacant and does not support any historic buildings. Cultural resources reports for the project have not identified any historic buildings on the project site. Therefore the project would not damage any historic buildings. In addition, the project site does not support any significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings as identified or protected by the City s General Plan. Therefore no impact is identified. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact The existing visual character of the area is that of single-family homes to the north, multi-family homes to the east, and South Lake to the south, location of a future park. The site has varying topography, with steep slopes in several areas. Natural vegetation on the project site includes a combination of upland and wetland habitats. Portion of the project site currently supports stabilized slopes created as a function of the Hanson Operation closure plan and natural habitat that has grown on areas previously disturbed by the mining operations. Northwest views to the City and the SR-78 corridor are an existing visual amenity from the project site. Visual changes to the site would include grading activities to provide access to the project site, as well as development of a single-family residential, non-residential mixed use (business park), and an active recreation park. The originally approved tentative map for the subject site would have allowed for the construction of residential units in the area where the non-residential mixed use and public amenities are now proposed. The visual character of this area of Heart of the City is residential with single-family homes to the north and multi-family residential homes to the east. The development of residential, non-residential mixed use (business park/retail), and an active park is consistent with the residential character of this area which is defined by other slopes in the area with heights up to 80 feet as permitted through the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Future residential development on the project site (Areas A, B, C and D) will be guided by the Rancho Coronado Residential Design Guidelines (Appendix A.3 of this document) which detail the requirements for architecture and landscaping for the future residential areas. A multi-theme Mediterranean style is proposed for the future residences with a requirement for articulation of massing to make the homes appear smaller, convey a sense of human scale, and to avoid a monotonous appearance. A comprehensive landscape plan will further add to the visual interest of the project and also provide screening from offsite areas. Future development within the non-residential mixed use development area will be guided by the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan which requires the smooth masonry, brick, tile, and tinted or lightly reflective glass. Highly reflective dark glass is not permitted. Finally, the project will preserve approximately 129 acres of open space areas which provides a visual amenity from both onsite and offsite. These habitat preservation areas include large areas of coastal sage scrub which will connect to existing preserve areas to the south of the project site. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 25

91 As such, the proposed project would not significantly change the visual character or quality of the site and surroundings, and therefore impacts are determined to be 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 Development of the proposed project would add lighting to an area that is currently undeveloped and does not have lighting. Lighting proposed under the project would be guided by standards set by the, which requires downward-directed LED lighting, with the exception of specialized streetscape lighting or architectural detail lighting. These requirements aid in the preservation of dark-sky conditions, which are needed by the local observatories. Development under the project would also be required to comply with the City s lighting standards, and the location, type, and direction of the lighting would be reviewed during Improvement Plan review to ensure compliance with City requirements. Thus impacts related to substantial light pollution are determined to be less than significant. The active park will have sports fields that may include lighting. At this time there is not a specific development plan for the park area. It is anticipated that the use of lighting for night games would be limited and would be subject to timing limits so as to not disturb adjacent residential uses. At the time a park plan is developed, the park plan would be subject to additional environmental review, which would include a review of the proposed lighting to determine any impacts related to night lighting. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. The project does not propose features that would be characterized as creating a new source of glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Chapter 3 of the Rancho Coronado Residential Design Guidelines (Appendix A.3 of this document) details the materials and colors to be used in the future residential development areas. The homes would incorporate earth-toned roof tiles and stucco surface that will be in soft earth tones. These roof and wall colors and materials are not significant sources of glare. Section of the Heart of the City Specific Plan (Appendix A.2 of this document) details the required materials for future business park development. Required materials include smooth masonry, brick, tile, and tinted or lightly reflective glass. Highly reflective dark glass is not permitted. Since project will use lighting in an unobtrusive manner and will be required to comply with the lighting standards set for by the City and the proposed materials to be used in the homes and future mixed-use non-residential area are not glare-inducing, impacts related to lighting and glare would be less than significant. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact The project site does not fall under areas mapped as prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as determined by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, as Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 26

92 shown in San Marcos General Plan (Figure 4-4, Agricultural Areas). Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of such lands and no impact is identified for this issue area. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is not located within a Williamson Act contract area, as shown in the San Marcos General Plan (Figure 4-4, Agricultural Areas). Further, the project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The project site is currently zoned Specific Plan, and that zoning designation will be retained with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact The proposed project is not located in an area that is zoned for forest land, timber land or for timber production. The project site is zoned Specific Plan and will retain that designation with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact is identified. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact The project site does not support forests, nor is there any forest land adjacent to the project site. The project development will be adjacent to existing residential development on the north, Twin Oaks Valley Road to the east and future park space and preserved open space (which is not forestland) to the west and south. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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 project does 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 forest land to non-forest use. The project site does not support any agricultural or timber uses, nor is it adjacent to such uses. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. III. AIR QUALITY An air conformity analysis was prepared for the project by Scientific Resources Associates (2014a) and is included as Appendix B. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact Projects that are consistent with existing General Plan documents, which are used to develop air emissions budgets for the purpose of air quality planning and attainment demonstrations, would be consistent with the San Diego Air Basin s (SDAB) air quality plans, including the Regional Air Quality Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 27

93 Strategy (RAQS) and the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Both of these air quality plans contain strategies for the region to attain and maintain the ambient air quality standards. Provided a project proposes the same or less development as accounted for in the General Plan document, and provided the project is in compliance with applicable Rules and Regulations adopted by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) through their air quality planning process, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS or SIP. The project involves construction of 346 single- and paired single-family residential units in four residential areas, along with development of a 24.1-acre mixed-use development. While specific development is not proposed within this area at this time, the environmental analysis assume 90 percent of the non-residential mixed use area would be developed with business park uses and the remaining 10 percent would be retail with a total of 240,000 s.f. developed on the 24.1 acres. The project will serve existing and future housing needs within the, and is consistent with the City s Heart of the City Specific Plan. The project will comply with all applicable rules and regulations that have been adopted as part of the SIP. Because the project is consistent with the goals of the RAQS and SIP, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the RAQS and SIP, and impacts would be less than significant. In summary, implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans and a less than significant impact is identified. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact Table 3 shows the state and federal attainment status for criteria pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). As shown in Table 3, the SDAB is a nonattainment area for the state and federal O 3 standards, and for the state PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards. Table 3. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in San Diego Air Basin Pollutant State Federal 1-hour Ozone (O 3 ) Serious Nonattainment Revoked June hour O 3 Nonattainment Marginal Nonattainment Particulate Matter 10 microns (PM 10 ) Nonattainment Unclassified Particulate Matter 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ) Nonattainment Unclassified/Attainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Maintenance Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment All others Unclassified/Attainment N/A Source: California Air Resources Board: April The SCAQMD establishes significance criteria for air quality emissions. The aggregate project-related maximum levels are shown in Table 4. Any project with daily construction- or operation-related emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 28

94 Table 4. Screening-Level Criteria for Air Quality Impacts Pollutant Total Emissions Construction Emissions Lb. per Day Respirable Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) 100 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) 100 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 250 Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) 250 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Operational Emissions Lb. Per Hour Lb. per Day Tons per Year Respirable Particulate Matter (PM 10 ) Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Lead and Lead Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) To determine whether a project would result in emissions that would violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; project emissions may be evaluated based on the quantitative emission thresholds established by the San Diego APCD. As part of its air quality permitting process, the APCD has established thresholds in Rule 20.2 for the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments (AQIA). For CEQA purposes, these screening criteria can be used as numeric methods to demonstrate that a project s total emissions would not result in a significant impact to air quality. Since APCD does not have AQIA thresholds for emissions of VOCs, the use of the threshold for VOCs from the City of San Diego s Significance Thresholds (City of San Diego 2007) is appropriate. The screening thresholds are presented in Table 4. The thresholds listed in Table 4 represent screening-level thresholds that can be used to evaluate whether project-related emissions could cause a significant impact on air quality. Emissions below the screening-level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. In the event that emissions exceed these thresholds, modeling would be required to demonstrate that the project s total air quality impacts result in ground-level concentrations that are below the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, including appropriate background levels. For nonattainment pollutants (ozone, with ozone precursors NOx and VOCs, and PM10), if emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 4, the project could have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants and thus could have a significant impact on the ambient air quality. Construction Emissions Construction activities, including soil disturbance dust emissions and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment and from off-site trucks hauling dirt, cement or building materials, will create a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed. The proposed project will involve grading activities. Grading for the project includes 2,608,200 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 2,853,800 of fill and will balance onsite. The grading quantities assume a 15 to 18 percent bulking factor. No Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 29

95 offsite export or import will be required for the project. Due to underlying bedrock conditions, blasting will be required as part of the project construction. The following equipment will be used on site for construction: Tractor/backhoe Dozer-D9 Hydraulic Crane Loader/Grader Side Boom Water Truck Rock Crusher (potential) Concrete Truck Concrete Pump Dump/Haul Trucks Paver/Blade Roller/Compactor Scraper Drill Rig (for borings in rock prior to blasting) Project phasing will include an overall grading phase commencing in The grading phase would include blasting and rock crushing. Phase 1 construction will start in 2015 and is anticipated to be completed by late 2016 or early Phase 1 includes Residential Area A and B (126 dwelling units), Backbone Road from Santa Barbara Drive to North Village Drive, and North Village Drive extended west to Backbone Road. Phase 2 construction is anticipated to start in 2017 and be complete by Phase 2 includes construction of 220 dwelling units in Residential Areas C and D; construction of the 24.1-acre mixeduse portion of the project, which will include 90 percent business park and 10 percent retail; construction of a 38-acre active park; construction of Backbone Road from North Village Drive to South Village Drive; construction of South Village Drive extended west to Backbone Road; installation of a new signal for access to the mixed use site, and construction of the access road for the mixed use site. Fugitive dust emissions associated with blasting were estimated based on the U.S. EPA s emission factor for blasting for coal mining to remove overburden, which is a similar process. Table 5a presents the model results for the construction of the project. Construction projects within the would be required to implement fugitive dust control measures during grading, which would include watering the site a minimum of twice daily to control dust, as well as reducing speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 mph or less, replacing ground cover in disturbed areas quickly, and reducing dust during loading/unloading of dirt and other materials. Also, projects would utilize low-voc paints that would not exceed 100 grams of VOC per liter for interior surface and 150 grams of VOC per liter for exterior surfaces, in accordance with the requirements of APCD Rule 67.0 for architectural coatings. These two requirements have been identified as project design features for the project in Table 2. Thus Table 5a presents an estimate of the maximum daily construction emissions, assuming that these construction project design features will be employed. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 30

96 Table 5a. Construction Emissions Proposed Project Construction Project/Phase VOC NOx CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 Site Grading Grading Area C & D Fugitive Dust Blasting Explosives Emissions Fugitive Dust - Rock Crushing Fugitive Dust - Earthmoving Off-Road Diesel Hauling Truck Trips Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Grading Area B Fugitive Dust - Earthmoving Off-Road Diesel Hauling Truck Trips Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Grading Area A Fugitive Dust - Earthmoving Off-Road Diesel Hauling Truck Trips Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Grading Area M-3 Fugitive Dust Blasting Explosives Emissions Fugitive Dust - Rock Crushing Fugitive Dust - Earthmoving Off-Road Diesel Hauling Truck Trips Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold No No No No No No Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 31

97 Construction Project/Phase VOC NOx CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 Grading Backbone Roadway Fugitive Dust Blasting Explosives Emissions Fugitive Dust - Rock Crushing Fugitive Dust - Earthmoving Off-Road Diesel Hauling Truck Trips Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold No No No No No No Grading - Channel Fugitive Dust Blasting Explosives Emissions Fugitive Dust - Rock Crushing Fugitive Dust - Earthmoving Off-Road Diesel Hauling Truck Trips Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold No No No No No No Maximum Simultaneous Construction Emissions, Grading Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Phase 1 Construction Building Construction Building Construction Off-Road Diesel Building Construction Vendor Trips Building Construction Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Paving Asphalt Offgassing Paving Off-Road Diesel Paving On-Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 32

98 Construction Project/Phase VOC NOx CO SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 Architectural Coatings Use Architectural Coating Offgassing Off-Road Diesel Architectural Coatings Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Maximum Simultaneous Construction Emissions, Phase Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Phase 2 Construction Building Construction Building Construction Off-Road Diesel Building Construction Vendor Trips Building Construction Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Paving Asphalt Offgassing Paving Off-Road Diesel Paving On-Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Architectural Coatings Use Architectural Coating Offgassing Off-Road Diesel Architectural Coatings Worker Trips Total Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Maximum Simultaneous Construction Emissions, Phase Significance Threshold Above Threshold? No No No No No No Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 33

99 As shown in Table 5a, maximum daily emissions of all criteria pollutants would be below the significance thresholds for all criteria pollutants. The mitigation measures assumed are as follows: Operational Emissions Operational impacts associated with the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan would include emissions associated with vehicular traffic, as well as area sources such as energy use, consumer products use, and architectural coatings use for maintenance purposes. Emissions associated with project operations were estimated using the CalEEMod Model, based on the project s overall trip generation of 8,926 ADT (RBF Consulting 2014). For the purpose of estimating emissions, it was assumed that each residence would have a fireplace, and that the fireplaces would be natural gasfired only. Table 5b provides a summary of the estimated operational emissions for the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan project. Table 5b. Operational Emissions Proposed Project VOC NOx CO SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Summer Day, Lbs/day Area Sources Energy Use Vehicular Emissions TOTAL Significance Screening Criteria Above Screening Criteria? No No No No No No Winter Day, Lbs/day Area Sources Energy Use Vehicular Emissions TOTAL Significance Screening Criteria Above Screening Criteria? No No No No No No Operational emissions associated with the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan would be below the significance criteria for operations. Air quality impacts would therefore be less than significant. CO Hot Spot Analysis Operational emissions associated with the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan would be below the significance criteria for operations. Air quality impacts would therefore be less than significant. Projects that involve traffic impacts may have the potential for CO hot spots to occur (i.e., high concentrations of CO at intersections). The Traffic Impact Analysis Report (RBF Consulting 2014) indicated that project-related traffic would result in a significant impact at the following intersections: Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 34

100 2016 Conditions Twin Oaks Valley Road and SR-78 Eastbound Ramps 2020 Conditions Twin Oaks Valley Road and SR-78 Eastbound Ramps 2030 Conditions Twin Oaks Valley Road and SR-78 Eastbound Ramps Twin Oaks Valley Road and Discovery Street/Barham Drive To verify that the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of the CO standard, a screening evaluation of the potential for CO hot spots was conducted. The Traffic Impact Analysis evaluated whether or not there would be a decrease in the level of service at the roadways and/or intersections affected by the Project. The potential for CO hot spots was evaluated based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis. The Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans 1998) should be followed to determine whether a CO hot spot is likely to form due to Project-generated traffic. In accordance with the Protocol, CO hot spots are typically evaluated when (a) the level of service (LOS) of an intersection or roadway decreases to a LOS E or worse; (b) signalization and/or channelization is added to an intersection; and (c) sensitive receptors such as residences, commercial developments, schools, hospitals, etc. are located in the vicinity of the affected intersection or roadway segment. To evaluate the potential for CO hot spots, the procedures in the Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol were used. As recommended in the Protocol, CALINE4 modeling was conducted for the intersections identified above for the scenario without Project traffic, and the Project scenarios. Modeling was conducted based on the guidance in Appendix B of the Protocol to calculate maximum predicted 1-hour CO concentrations. Predicted 1-hour CO concentrations were then scaled to evaluate maximum predicted 8-hour CO concentrations using the recommended scaling factor of 0.7 for urban locations. Inputs to the CALINE4 model were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan (RBF Consulting 2014). As recommended in the Protocol, receptors were located at locations that were approximately 3 meters from the mixing zone, and at a height of 1.8 meters. Average approach and departure speeds were assumed to be 1 mph to account for congestion at the intersection and provide a worst case estimate of emissions. Emission factors for those speeds were estimated from the EMFAC2007 emissions model (ARB 2007) for 2011 for Existing plus Project conditions, 2020 for Phase II implementation, and 2030 for Phase III implementation. In accordance with the Caltrans ITS Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, it is also necessary to estimate future background CO concentrations in the project vicinity to determine the potential impact plus background and evaluate the potential for CO hot spots due to the project. As a conservative estimate of background CO concentrations, the existing maximum 1-hour background concentration of CO that was measured at the Escondido monitoring station for the period to 2012 of 4.4 ppm was used to represent future maximum background 1-hour CO Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 35

101 concentrations. This is a conservative assumption, as the monitoring station is located in a congested area in Escondido. The existing maximum 8-hour background concentration of CO that was measured at the Escondido monitoring station during the period from 2010 to 2012 of 3.61 ppm was also used to provide a conservative estimate of the maximum 8-hour background concentrations in the project vicinity. CO concentrations in the future may be lower as inspection and maintenance programs and more stringent emission controls are placed on vehicles. The CALINE4 model outputs are provided in Appendix A of the air quality report (Appendix B of this document). Table 6 presents a summary of the predicted CO concentrations (impact plus background) for the intersections evaluated. As shown in Table 6, the predicted CO concentrations would be substantially below the 1-hour and 8-hour NAAQS and CAAQS for CO. Therefore, no exceedances of the CO standard are predicted, and the project would not cause or contribute to a violation of this air quality standard. Table 6. CO Hot Spot Evaluation Predicted CO Concentrations, ppm Near Term Intersection Existing plus Project Maximum 1-hour Concentration Plus Background, ppm CAAQS = 20 ppm; NAAQS = 35 ppm; Background 4.4 ppm am pm Twin Oaks Valley Rd./SR-78 EB Ramps Maximum 8-hour Concentration Plus Background, ppm CAAQS = 9.0 ppm; NAAQS = 9 ppm; Background 3.24 ppm Twin Oaks Valley Rd./SR-78 EB Ramps Maximum 1-hour Concentration Plus Background, ppm CAAQS = 20 ppm; NAAQS = 35 ppm; Background 4.6 ppm am pm Twin Oaks Valley Rd./SR-78 EB Ramps Maximum 8-hour Concentration Plus Background, ppm CAAQS = 9.0 ppm; NAAQS = 9 ppm; Background 3.54 ppm Twin Oaks Valley Rd./SR-78 EB Ramps Maximum 1-hour Concentration Plus Background, ppm CAAQS = 20 ppm; NAAQS = 35 ppm; Background 4.4 ppm am pm Twin Oaks Valley Rd./SR-78 EB Ramps Twin Oaks Valley Rd./Barham Dr./Discovery St Maximum 8-hour Concentration Plus Background, ppm CAAQS = 9.0 ppm; NAAQS = 9 ppm; Background 3.24 ppm Twin Oaks Valley Rd./SR-78 EB Ramps 3.96 Twin Oaks Valley Rd./Barham Dr./Discovery St Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 36

102 c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact The San Diego Air Basin is a nonattainment area for the state and federal O 3 standards, and for the state PM 10 and PM 2.5 standards. Evaluating whether the project could result in a cumulatively considerable impact on air quality relies on both the project s consistency with the RAQS and SIP, which address attainment of the O 3 standards, and the potential for the project to result in a cumulatively considerable impact due to particulate emissions. As part of the RAQS and SIP planning process, the SDAPCD develops an emission inventory, based on projections from the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), of growth in the region as well as on information maintained by the SDAPCD on stationary source emissions within the SDAB. The SDAPCD then uses the emission inventory to conduct airshed modeling, which provides a demonstration that the SDAB will attain and maintain the O 3 standards. Provided a project s emissions are consistent with the projections within the RAQS and SIP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on O 3 within the SDAB. With regard to emissions of O 3 precursors NOx and VOCs during construction, the SIP includes emissions associated with construction in its emissions budget and therefore within its attainment demonstration. The O 3 precursor emissions associated with project construction are well below the screening level thresholds and are well within the construction emissions budget contained in the SIP, which includes a demonstration that the SDAB will attain and maintain the O 3 standards. Thus because the project will be consistent with the SIP and therefore consistent with the attainment demonstration for O 3 attainment contained within the SIP, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact that would cause or contribute to a violation of the O 3 standard. Because the Proposed Project would result in emissions below the significance thresholds for all nonattainment pollutants, the project would not result in additional emissions of O 3 precursors above that projected in the attainment demonstration for O 3. The project will therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on O 3 levels within the SDAB. No simultaneous major construction projects are anticipated within 100 meters of the project site. Furthermore, particulate emissions for both construction and operations are below the significance thresholds. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable PM 10 impact would result from construction or operation of the project. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact Sensitive receptors are defined as schools, hospitals, resident care facilities, or day-care centers, as well as residential receptors in the project vicinity. The threshold concerns whether the project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, either of criteria pollutants, or of toxic air contaminants (TACs). If a project has the potential to result in emissions of any TAC which result in a cancer risk of greater than 10 in 1 million or substantial non-cancer risk, the project would be deemed to have a Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 37

103 potentially significant impact. Residential uses are not land uses that would emit substantial amounts of toxic air contaminants. The truck traffic that would be associated with the construction activities would be confined to onsite trips to redistribute excavated material and minor on-road trips to deliver construction materials. Toxic air contaminant impacts would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact Project construction could result in minor amounts of odor compounds associated with diesel heavy equipment exhaust. These compounds would be emitted in various amounts and at various locations during construction. Odors are highest near the source and would quickly dissipate offsite; any odors associated with construction would be temporary. Due to the temporary nature of construction odors and the anticipated dissipation of odors offsite, impacts during construction would be less than significant. The project proposes residential and non-residential mixed use development (e.g., office, business park, retail) and would not include land uses that would be sources of nuisance odors. Thus the potential for odor impacts associated with the project is less than significant. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A Biological Technical Report was prepared for the project by Helix Environmental (2014). The complete report is included as Appendix C of this document. The report provides a description of biological surveys performed to date, summarizes biological resources present, assesses proposed impacts to sensitive biological resources, and proposes compensatory mitigation measures for project impacts. Biological Resources Background/Habitat Loss Permit The project site sits within the boundaries of the former Hanson mining site. The eastern and northern portions of the former Hanson mining site are disturbed from past aggregate mining activities and the remainder of the site contains undeveloped native habitat. All upland habitat impacts associated with the mining and the current residential project have been previously analyzed within the approved Habitat Loss Permit (HLP; HLP 03-08) approved by the City on December 23, 2003 and approved by the Wildlife Agencies on January 23, The project development is proposed in areas that are disturbed from previous mining and cleared following the initial HLP approval, although some natural jurisdictional areas still remain and will be impacted. This is analyzed under the biological resources thresholds, below. The project will be relocating the primary drainage to the west of the existing location, creating a widened channel bottom and manufactured earthen slopes along both sides that will be restored to riparian and sage scrub habitat. Overall riparian habitat will be increased over the long term following restoration. Any impacts to jurisdictional areas will be reviewed and permitted separately though agency wetland permits. The HLP authorizes loss of 40.5 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) including 0.7 acres of offsite impacts, 4.5 acres of native grassland (NG), 11.5 acres of eucalyptus woodland, 23.9 acres of Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 38

104 disturbed habitat, 0.6 acre of ornamental, and 49.5 acres of developed land. Under the HLP the project was conditioned to preserve 81.0 acres of CSS onsite. The following project design measures shall be carried forward from the HLP conditions to minimize impacts to biological resources and are identified as mitigation measures for the project. Implementation of these mitigation measures will be required as a condition of project approval. MM-BIO-A MM-BIO-B MM-BIO-C MM-BIO-D The clearing and grubbing of sensitive habitats shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 31), unless a qualified biologist demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City and the Wildlife Agencies that all nesting is complete. The qualified biologist would need to be federally permitted for coastal California gnatcatcher if the habitat being cleared has potential to support these species. Temporary perimeter fencing shall be installed to separate the proposed development and the fuel management zones from any CSS areas to the preserved under the HLP. The removal of temporary fencing is only to occur after all clearing and construction has been completed. Lots adjacent to biological open space will have permanent fencing and no gates between the development and the open space; (a) landscaping will be restricted to native and/or non-invasive plant species; and (b) Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction in accordance with Nation Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems General Construction Permit requirements will be implemented. A biological monitor will be on-site when habitat is being cleared, and/or construction activities are occurring within 100 feet of a Biological Open Space Easement boundary. Permanent signs must be placed every 100 feet along the fence bordering the preserve. The signs must be corrosion resistant, no less than three feet above the ground surface, have minimum dimensions of 6 x 9, and must state the following: Sensitive Environmental Resources Disturbance Beyond this point is Restricted By Easement Information: Contact (Name of Conservancy) MM-BIO-E MM-BIO-F A conservation easement shall be placed over all on-site mitigation. Additionally, the applicant shall insure that the biological open space is deeded to a nature conservancy acceptable to the planning Division Director for maintenance and monitoring purposes. Manufactured slopes will be revegetated with appropriate native species in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. The landscape plan and construction documents will be approved by the City Engineer, Planning Director, and Fire Marshal prior to issuance of building permits. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 39

105 MM-BIO-G Any lands providing mitigation/preservation for the project shall be held in perpetuity in accordance with a habitat management plan to be approved by the City and the Wildlife Agencies. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Sensitive Plant Species Observed on the Project Site Focused surveys for sensitive plants within the study area were performed RECON in 2001 and were verified as part of the HLP process. Sensitive plant surveys were conducted on foot and focused on those areas supporting native vegetation communities rather than the highly disturbed mining areas, which supported little vegetation of any kind. Any rare plants that were observed were mapped on aerial photographs. Two sensitive plant, Wart-stemmed ceanothus and summer holly was observed during surveys conducted in See Figure 5 of the Biological Technical Report (Appendix C of this document) for the location of sensitive species. Sensitive Animal Species Observed on the Project Site A total of 34 animal species (including one listed species) were observed/detected within the project boundaries and include: 46 birds, and 1 mammal species. The only listed species observed is the coastal California gnatcatcher. Three animal species observed on site are considered sensitive: coastal California gnatcatcher, yellow warbler, and yellow-breasted chat. The results of most recent focused surveys for the least Bell s vireo were negative. See Figure 5 of the Biological Technical Report (Appendix C of this document) for the location of sensitive species. Analysis of Direct Impacts to Sensitive Species No direct take of habitat occupied by the California gnatcatcher will result from project implementation. Additionally, no impacts to wart-stemmed ceanothus and summer holly would occur. Impacts would occur to riparian habitat occupied by the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat. These impacts are considered significant (Impact BIO-1). Implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1A and BIO-1B, which will be required as condition of project approval would reduce this impact to below a level of significance, as it would creation, enhance and preserve riparian habitats both on and offsite, which would provide habitat for the yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat. MM-BIO-1A Impacts to 0.23 acre southern riparian forest, 0.15 acre riparian woodland, 1.43 acres southern willow scrub, 0.90 acre freshwater marsh, 0.33 acre mule fat scrub, and 0.09 SWS/FWM habitat will be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. Impacts to 0.85 acres disturbed wetland will be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio. Impact to 0.02 acre streambed will be mitigated at a 1:1 ratio as detailed in Table 7a for a total of 8.89 acres of mitigation. Mitigation includes a combination of onsite and offsite creation and enhancement with 6.47 acres of creation and 0.30 acres of enhancement occurring onsite and acres creation mitigation credit equivalents and 1.05 acres enhancement credits at the North County Habitat Bank. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 40

106 Table 7a. Mitigation Requirements for Rancho Coronado (acres) Required Mitigation Vegetation Community Existing Impacts Ratio Area Riparian woodland (62000) : Southern riparian forest (61300) : Southern willow scrub (63320) : Southern willow scrub/ Freshwater Marsh (63320/52400) : Mule fat scrub (63310) : Freshwater marsh (52400) : Disturbed wetland (11200) : Open water (13100) N/A 0 Streambed : Detention basin (12000) : Onsite Mitigation 6.47 Creation 0.30 Enhancement Offsite Mitigation Creation Enhancement Total Creation 1.35 Enhancement Notes: *All areas are presented in acre(s) rounded to the nearest 0.01 ** Riparian habitat creation will be comprised of one or more of the other riparian vegetation communities present on site creation credits which is equivalent to acres of mitigation credit Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 41

107 MM-BIO-1B The preparation of a riparian restoration plan will be required as a condition of the mitigation for impacts to riparian vegetation communities. The plan will be require review and approval by the City and include the following. All final specifications and topographic-based grading, planting, and irrigation plans (0.5-foot contours and typical cross-sections) for the creation/restoration sites. All wetland mitigation areas shall be graded to the same elevation as adjacent existing jurisdictional wetlands areas, and/or to within 1 foot of the groundwater table, and shall be left in a rough grade state with micro topographic relief (including channels for wetlands) that mimics natural topography, as directed by the City and Resource Agencies. All plantings shall be installed in a way that mimics natural plant distribution, and not in rows; Planting palettes (plant species, size, and number/acre) and seed mix (plant species and pounds/acre). Unless otherwise approved by the City and Resource Agencies, only locally native species (no cultivars) obtained from as close to the project area as possible shall be used. The source and proof of local nativeness of all plant material and seed shall be provided; Container plant survival shall be 80 percent of the initial plantings for the first year; A final implementation schedule that indicates when all riparian/wetland impacts, as well as riparian/wetland creation/restoration grading, planting, and irrigation, will begin and end. Necessary site preparation and planting shall be completed during the concurrent or next planting season (i.e., late fall to early spring). Any temporal loss of habitat caused by delays in riparian/wetland habitat creation/restoration shall be offset through like habitat creation/restoration at a 0.5:1 ratio for every 6 months of delay (i.e., 1:1 for 12 months delay, 1.5:1 for 18 months delay, etc.). In the event that the project applicant is wholly or partly prevented from performing obligations under the final plans (causing temporal losses due to delays) because of unforeseeable circumstances or causes beyond the reasonable control, and without the fault of negligence of the project applicant, including but not limited to natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, etc.), labor disputes, sudden actions of the elements (e.g., further landslide activity), or actions or inaction by federal or state agencies, or other governments, the project applicant will be excused by such unforeseeable cause(s); Five years of success criteria for wetland/riparian creation/restoration areas, including separate percent cover criteria for herbaceous understory, shrub midstory, and tree overstory, and a total percent absolute cover for all 3 layers at the end of 5 years; evidence of natural recruitment of multiple species for all habitat types; 0 percent coverage for Cal-IPC s Invasive Plant Inventory species, and no more than 10 percent coverage for other exotic/weed species; Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 42

108 A minimum of 5 years of maintenance and monitoring of riparian/wetland creation/restoration areas, unless success criteria are met earlier and all artificial water supply has been off for at least 2 years A qualitative and quantitative vegetation monitoring plan with a map of proposed sampling locations. Photo points shall be used for qualitative monitoring and stratified-random sampling shall be used for all quantitative monitoring; Contingency measures in the event of creation/restoration failure; Annual mitigation maintenance and monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City and Resource Agencies no later than December 1 of each year; A wetland delineation shall be done to confirm that USACE and CDFW jurisdictional wetlands have been successfully created/restored prior to final approval of creation/restoration sites. Implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1A and MM-BIO-1B will reduce impacts to sensitive riparian habitats to below a level of significance. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) Species Additionally the project has the potential to impact avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) if habitat clearing occurs during the breeding season. This represents a significant impact (Impact BIO-2). Implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-2, which will be required as a condition of project approval, will reduce this impact to below a level of significance. MM-BIO-2 Potential direct impacts to bird species covered under the MBTA will be mitigated by restricting brushing and grading to outside of the breeding season of most bird species (general breeding season is February 15 to August 31). Grubbing, grading, or clearing during the breeding season of MBTA covered species could occur if it is determined via a pre-construction survey that no nesting birds (or birds displaying breeding or nesting behavior) are present immediately prior to grubbing, grading, or clearing and will require approval of the City that no breeding or nesting avian species are present in the vicinity of the grubbing, grading, or clearing. The City shall be notified of any sensitive bird species identified during the pre-construction surveys. Analysis of Indirect Impacts to Sensitive Species Indirect impacts that may be caused by implementation of the proposed project are associated with edge effects. Edge effects occur when disturbance, development, or grading traverse an undeveloped area with substantial native lands surrounding the impact area. Edge effects include human activity, invasive plant species, nuisance animal species, animal behavioral changes, night lighting, and roadkill. Additionally, the proposed project has potential to cause temporary indirect impacts due to noise. Human Activity Increases in human activity in an area often result in degradation of sensitive vegetation by further fragmenting habitat through creation of trails, removal of existing vegetation, Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 43

109 and illegal dumping (landscape debris, trash, and other refuse). Human activity in the adjacent habitat is proposed to be controlled by project fencing and monitoring and management requirements. Still, these impacts would be considered significant (Impact BIO-3). Implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-3, which would be required as a condition of project approval, would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. MM-BIO-3 To reduce edge effects, on-site human activity, and potential impacts related to the introduction of exotic and domestic animals, the biological open space lots shall be actively managed and monitored. The required habitat management plan (as detailed in MM-BIO-1B) shall ensure that access be restricted to developed areas. Permanent fencing shall be provided for all backyards abutting proposed project open space. In addition, preserved habitat shall be posted with signs precluding access due to habitat sensitivity and prohibiting dumping. Residents shall be educated in access restrictions, control of domestic animals, prevention of irrigation runoff, and sensitivity of habitats on site. Invasive Plants Invasive plants have potential to spread from developed or disturbed areas to adjacent native habitats. Such invasive species can displace native vegetation reducing the diversity of native habitats and potentially increasing flammability, changing ground and surface water levels, and adversely affecting native wildlife. As a project design feature, no invasive plant species would be utilized in the landscaping plans, and no species on the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory list shall be included in the erosion control plan. These design features are included in Table 2. Therefore impacts would be less than significant. Nuisance Animal Species Domesticated animals, particularly cats, are known to impact native wildlife in the habitat areas immediately adjacent to development. The proposed project has the potential to result in introduction of domestic animals to the surrounding habitat. Project fencing and the maintenance of healthy predator populations (coyote and bobcat) will minimize introduction of domestic animals. Brown-headed cowbirds are an invasive nest parasite that can greatly reduce the breeding success of native birds. This species has been reported on site and on the adjacent property to the west in low numbers, and the proposed project is not expected to significantly increase the number of brown-headed cowbirds in the surrounding habitat. In addition, residential uses may introduce Argentine ants to local habitats, which could have significant consequences for native ant species and animals that feed on them. Impacts from Argentine ants will be avoided by requiring the inspection of all plant material prior to use on the site. This requirement is identified as a project design features (Table 2). Therefore, impacts associated with nuisance animal species are expected to be adverse but less than significant. Night Lighting Night lighting exposes wildlife species to an unnatural light regime and may alter their behavior patterns, causing them to have lower reproductive success, and thus reducing species diversity. All exterior lighting adjacent to preserved habitat including street lighting for Street A shall be limited to low pressure sodium sources of the lowest illumination allowed for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and directed away from preserved habitat to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement is identified as a project design features (Table 2). Therefore, impacts due to night lighting would be considered less than significant. Roadkill Roadkill impacts would be considered significant if they resulted in adverse effects to federally or state listed species. Roadkill could occur as vehicles travel on the internal roads Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 44

110 associated with the project. The primary drainage through the site may currently provide minimal local wildlife movement through the project site, though the site is highly disturbed with mining activities. The preserve over the southern portion of the site is completely avoided and connects with offsite preserve areas, and the restored channel will include an arch culvert under the access road to the proposed park to facilitate wildlife movement. Therefore, on-site roadkill impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Noise Noise from grading, grubbing, and vehicular traffic would be a temporary impact to local wildlife. Noise impacts would be considered significant if sensitive species, such as the coastal California gnatcatcher or raptor species were displaced and failed to breed. Breeding mammals and birds may temporarily leave the project vicinity during construction activities; however, they would be expected to return afterward once the noise impact has been eliminated because the habitat will remain in place and viable for reoccupation by the displaced species. Noise levels during grading at the grading/open space interface throughout the site would be in excess of 60 dba L eq. Such noise impacts to nesting coastal California gnatcatchers would be considered significant (Impact BIO-4). Implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-4, which will be required as a condition of project approval will reduce this potential impact to below a level of significance. MM-BIO-4 If project grading (other than clearing and grubbing of sensitive habitats) is necessary and adjacent to preserved on-site habitat during the bird breeding season (February 15 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys in the adjacent habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher\ and nesting raptors. The survey shall begin not more than three days prior to the beginning of grading activities. The Wildlife Agencies shall be notified if the gnatcatcher is observed nesting within 300 feet of proposed grading or if raptors are observed nesting within 500 feet of proposed grading activities. No activities which would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dba hourly L eq within this buffer shall be allowed. If grading activities are not initiated prior to the breeding season, and any of these species are present, and noise levels exceed this threshold, noise barriers shall be erected to reduce noise impacts to occupied habitat to below 60 dba hourly L eq and/or the activities shall be suspended. Impacts resulting from noise for non-listed species other than raptors are not considered significant, and mitigation is not warranted. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Direct Impact to Riparian Habitats Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to wetland resources, including 0.23 acre of southern riparian forest, 0.15 acre of riparian woodland, 1.43 acre of southern willow scrub, 0.16 acre of freshwater marsh (SWS/FWM), 0.33 acre of mule fat scrub, and 0.09 acre of southern willow scrub/freshwater marsh habitat, 0.85 acre of disturbed wetland, as well as 0.02 acre of streambed, and 0.19 acre detention basin (Table 7b). These impacts are considered significant (Impact BIO-5). Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 45

111 Table 7b. Summary of Impact to Vegetation Communities Vegetation Community Existing (acres) Impacts (acres) Proposed HLP Preserve (acres) Southern riparian woodland (62000) Southern riparian forest (61300) (1) Southern willow scrub (63320) Southern willow scrub/freshwater Marsh (63320/52400) Mule fat scrub (63310) Freshwater marsh (52400) Disturbed wetland (11200) Open water (13100) Streambed Diegan coastal sage scrub (32500) Southern mixed chaparral (37120) Eucalyptus woodland (79000) Disturbed habitat (11300) Detention basin (12000) Total (2) Notes: (1) Does not include 1.0 acres that will also be preserved within the riparian mitigation area. (2) Does not include additional acres conserved as part of wetland restoration onsite. Implementation of mitigation measures MM-BIO-1A and MM-BIO-1B would reduce impact to riparian habitats to below a level of significance since it would create and enhance riparian habitats both on and offsite. Direct Impact to Upland Habitat No sensitive upland habitat impacts are anticipated. All sensitive upland habitats are located within the existing HLP preserve area. Minor adjustments to the HLP preserve are proposed but there are no impacts associated with the adjustment other than to disturbed habitat. These impacts are not considered significant. Indirect Impact to Sensitive Habitats Indirect impacts that may be caused by implementation of the proposed project are associated with edge effects. Edge effects occur when disturbance, development, or grading traverse an undeveloped area with substantial native lands surrounding the impact area. Edge effects for sensitive habitats include decreased water quality and temporary indirect impacts due to noise and fugitive dust. Water Quality Landscaping often results in increased runoff, which could in turn reduce water quality in riparian areas. The use of petroleum products (i.e., fuels, oils, lubricants) and erosion of land cleared during mine reclamation could potentially contaminate surface water, adversely affecting vegetation, aquatic animals, and terrestrial wildlife. However, implementation of BMPs per the City s grading permitting requirements, as well as installation of drainage and desiltation Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 46

112 basins outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan would reduce potential short-term water quality impacts to below a level of significance. These requirements are included as project design features (Table 2). During construction, measures would be implemented as part of the project to control erosion, sedimentation, and pollution that could impact water resources on and off site. Prior to the commencement of grading, a Notice of Intent must be filed with the RWQCB for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Storm Water Permit. Specific permit requirements include implementation of an approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, which requires best management practices for erosion and sediment control related to construction activities. Standard measures that may apply to the proposed project include: Surface drainage will be designed to collect and move runoff into adequately sized drainage structures before being discharged into natural stream channels. Erosion control measures associated with the project will include techniques for both longand short-term erosion hazards. These include such measures as the short-term use of gravel bags, matting, mulches, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all pertinent graded areas to minimize sediment transport. Native vegetation will be preserved whenever feasible, and all disturbed areas will be stabilized as soon as possible after completion of grading. Use of energy dissipating structures (e.g., detention ponds, riprap, or drop structures) will be used at storm drain outlets, drainage crossings, and/or downstream of all culverts, pipe outlets, and brow ditches to reduce velocity and prevent erosion. A maintenance plan for temporary erosion control facilities will be established. This typically involves inspection, cleaning, and repair operations being conducted after runoffproducing rainfall. Removal and disposal of ground water (if any) encountered during construction activities will be coordinated with the RWQCB to ensure proper disposal methods and locations under a General Dewatering Permit if required. This may involve specific measures such as removing excess sediment (through the use of desilting basins, etc.) and limiting discharge velocity. Specified fueling and maintenance procedures will be designated to preclude the discharge of hazardous materials used during construction (e.g., fuels, lubricants, and solvents). Such designations will include specific measures to preclude spill including proper handling and disposal techniques. Further, the project shall comply with the latest NPDES permit (Order No. R ) as well as the latest Storm Water Standards Manual Guidelines. A WQIP shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of any grading permit and shall address how the pollutants of concern will be treated, how low impact development standards will be satisfied and how hydromodification requirements will be achieved.. Fugitive Dust Dust released during grading activities could cover vegetation in adjacent habitat areas. The resulting dust-induced shading could reduce native plant productivity, in turn displacing native vegetation, reducing diversity, encouraging weed invasion, adversely affecting wildlife, and Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 47

113 increasing fire susceptibility. One of the project design measures requires that the monitoring biologist periodically monitor adjacent habitats for excessive amounts of dust, and recommend remedial measures to address dust control if necessary. This requirement is included as a project design feature (Table 2). As a result, the effects of dust on surrounding vegetation are considered less than significant. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated A delineation of on-site jurisdictional areas was performed by HELIX in All areas with depressions, drainage channels, or wetland vegetation were evaluated for the presence of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdictional wetlands, as well as Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and CDFW streambeds in accordance with applicable guidelines. Within the study area, USACE jurisdictional areas occur along the primary drainage along the eastern boundary and in the northern portion of the site. Additional jurisdictional areas occur in the south-central portion of the site. Federal (USACE) jurisdictional areas on the project site include 1.39 acres of wetland and 0.46 acre of non-wetland WUS. See Figure 6 in Biological Technical Report (Appendix C of this document) for the location of the USACE jurisdictional areas. State (CDFW) jurisdictional areas on the project site include 4.83 acres of wetland and 0.07 acre of non-wetland See Figure 7 in Biological Technical Report (Appendix C of this document) for the location of the CDFW jurisdictional areas. The project would cause permanent and temporary impacts to both USACE and CDFW jurisdictional areas. The project would permanently impacts to 1.32 acre of USACE jurisdictional areas and 3.45 acres of CDFW jurisdictional areas (Table 8). See Figures 10 and 11 in Biological Technical Report (Appendix C of this document) for the location of the impact areas. This represents a significant impact (Impact BIO-6). Impacts to all on-site WUS (including wetlands) are regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and would require a USACE permit. Implementation of the project will result in impacts greater than 0.5 acre and an Individual Permit would be necessary. Individual permits require a biological assessment, a detailed Section 404(b) alternatives analysis, an environmental assessment, and preparation of a mitigation and monitoring plan. A State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) permit (401 Certification) is required under the Clean Water Act in association with the 404 Permit. The CDFW is also responsible for issuing permits for impacts to streambeds and wetlands under its jurisdiction. Any impacts to CDFW jurisdictional areas are regulated under California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 and will require a Streambed/Lake Alteration Agreement. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 48

114 Table 8. USACE and CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts Vegetated Habitat 1 Habitat USACE 2 CDFW 2 Southern riparian woodland Southern riparian forest Southern willow scrub Southern willow scrub/freshwater marsh Freshwater marsh Mule fat scrub Disturbed wetland Subtotal Unvegetated Habitat Habitat USACE CDFW Streambed Detention Basin Subtotal TOTAL Notes: 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest hundredth. 2 All impacts are permanent. There are no temporary impacts. The USACE and CDFW all require no net loss of wetlands, a policy under which mitigation occurs at a minimum ratio of 1:1 with a combination of creation and restoration. The project includes relocating the primary drainage to the west of the existing location, creating a widened channel bottom and manufactured earthen slopes along both sides. Riparian vegetation is to be installed in the channel bottom; the riparian edge will be planted with coast live oak woodland and the slopes are to be planted with Diegan coastal sage scrub vegetation. Implementation of mitigation measures MM- BIO-1A and MM-BIO-1B would reduce impact to jurisdictional habitat and unvegetated waters to below a level of significance since it would create and enhance riparian habitats both on and offsite and offset impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waters. 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 The northern and eastern portions of the site are highly disturbed by previous mining activities and do not function as local wildlife corridors. The native habitat in the southwestern portion of the site provides live in habitat for wildlife and may also serve as a local corridor along the drainage in the south-central portion of the site. The primary drainage is within the eastern and north-central portion of the site, and originates from runoff from South Twin Oaks Valley Road, as well as recent development east of Twin Oaks Valley Road. The runoff flows westerly through the property and into Discovery Lake, which is situated immediately off site to the west. The onsite drainage has been heavily degraded by the quarry operation over the years. Wildlife movement is most likely to occur to and from the western portion of the site to the undeveloped lands to the west, east and south. There are no regional corridors that traverse the site and the project lies outside of the Biological Resource Conservation Area for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. Regional connectivity occurs to the south of the project. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 49

115 The proposed open space occurs in the southwestern portion of the site and abuts existing open space to the southwest and South Lake to the south. The small block of open space in the southern corner of the site also is adjacent to existing open space located on the other side of Twin Oaks Valley Road. Proposed restoration of the creek through the project will connect preserve lands in the southwestern portion of the site with Discovery Lake immediately northwest of the site. The drainage will maintain wildlife connectivity through these areas by providing a restored creek channel with riparian habitat and upland buffer habitat, and by providing an arch culvert for wildlife movement under the access road to the proposed park. Because the site is currently heavily disturbed, wildlife movement may actually be enhanced along the creek channel. The approximately 11 acres of open space along the restored creek channel will add to the regional preserve in this area. Therefore impacts to regional conservation or wildlife movement are anticipated and impact would be less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protection biological resources, such as a tree preservation policies or ordinance. The project meets the requirements of the existing HLP for the project site and includes habitat conservation as well as habitat creation and enhancement. No impact is identified for this issue area. 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 project site is located outside of the Biological Resource Conservation Area for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore the project 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 and no impact is identified. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES A Cultural Resources Report was prepared for the project by ASM Affiliates (2013) and is included in Appendix D. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? No Impact A cultural resources report has been prepared for the project site by ASM Affiliates (2013) and is included in Appendix D. The report presents the results of a cultural and historical resources inventory conducted within the Area of Potential Effect for the proposed project. Site records on file at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), San Diego State University, indicate 21 previous archaeological surveys have been conducted within the one-mile search radius of the proposed project. The report concluded that no cultural resources had been previously recorded within the APE, and no new resources were recorded during the survey. No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the search radius. Additionally, the pedestrian survey conducted by ASM did not identify any historical resources on the site. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 50

116 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Based upon the cultural resources reports prepared for the project (ASM Affiliates 2013), no archeological resources are known to occur on the project site. ASM s research included a records research and site reconnaissance. Site records on file at the SCIC indicated 21 previous archaeological surveys have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the proposed project. None of the previous surveys identified or recorded archaeological resources within the current project boundary. Additionally, the pedestrian survey conducted by ASM did not identify any historical resources on the site. A Sacred Lands File Search was conducted by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and did not identify any sacred sites in the project area). Although ASM did not identify the potential for archeological or Native American resources, one of the tribes (Rincon Band) consulted during the preparation of the Cultural Resources Analysis for the proposed project, did note the potential to encounter unidentified resources during the grading activities and requested that monitoring be conducted during the grading operation (Impact CR-1). Correspondence from the Pala Band was received but noted that the project site was outside their Traditional Use Area. Correspondence from the San Luis Rey Band requested a copy of the cultural resources report once it was completed. As the City does not have access to all tribal sacred land site records, the City will include as a component of the project activities the presence of an Archeological monitor and a Native American monitor during the earth moving grading activities to assure that any resources found during project grading would be protected as directed by the Most Likely Decedent (MLD). Therefore, impacts are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure MM-CR-1 through MR-CR-8. Implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-8 shall be required as a condition of project approval and will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. MM-CR-1 MM CR-2 MM-CR-3 An archeological monitor and a Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present during the all earth moving and grading activities to assure that any potential cultural resources, including tribal, found during project grading be protected. Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall retain a San Diego County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground-disturbing activities in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. Any newly discovered cultural resource deposits shall be subject to cultural resources evaluation, which shall include archaeological documentation, analysis and report generation. At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction, the Project Applicant shall enter into a Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (also known as a pre-excavation agreement) with a Luiseño Tribe. contact the Rincon Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program and to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 51

117 excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on site. MM-CR-4 MM-CR-5 Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a pregrading report with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation, which will be determined in consultation with the Luiseño Tribe referenced in MM-CR-3. the Rincon Tribe. Said methodology shall include the requirement for a qualified archaeological monitor to be present and to have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. In accordance with the agreement required in MM-CR-3, the archaeological monitor s authority to stop and redirect grading will be exercised in consultation with the Luiseño Native American monitor the Rincon Tribe in order to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Tribal and archaeological monitors shall be allowed to monitor all grading, excavation, and groundbreaking activities, and shall also have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition per the Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement referenced in MM-CR-3. All cultural materials that are deemed by the Tribe to be 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 In the event that curation of cultural resources is required, curation shall be conducted by an approved facility and the curation shalll be guided by California State Historic Resource Commissions Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections. The shall provide the developer final curation language and guidance on the project grading plans prior to issuance of the grading permit, if applicable, during project construction. collected during the grading monitoring program and from any previous archaeological studies or excavations on the project site, with the exception of sacred items, burial goods, and human remains which will be addressed in the Treatment Agreement required in MM-CR-3, shall be tribally curated according to the current professional repository standards by the Rincon Tribe. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to the Rincon Tribe. MM-CR-6 MM-CR-7 All sacred sites, should they be encountered within the project area, shall be avoided and preserved as the preferred mitigation, if feasible. If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section states that no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 52

118 Public Resources Code Section (b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. Suspected Native American remains shall be examined in the field and kept in a secure location at the site If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must them immediately notify the most likely descendant(s) of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendants(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultation concerning treatment of remains as provided in Public Resources Code , and the Treatment Agreement described in MM-CR-.3. MM-CR-8 If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Luiseño Tribe under agreement with the landowner described in MM-CR-3 shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance of mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the Planning Director for decision. The Planning Director shall make a determination based upon the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under law, the decision of the Planning Director shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact The project area is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, underlain by Santiago Peak Volcanics. In general, the molten origin of the Santiago Peak Volcanics precludes the discovery of fossil remains. Therefore, due to the limited availability of fossil-producing geologic formations, impacts due to this issue area are considered less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated The cultural resource assessment prepared by ASM Affiliates (2013) did not indicate the likelihood of human remains on the site. Additionally, existing regulations, through California Health and Safety Code Section state that if human remains are discovered during project construction, no further disturbance shall occur until the San Diego County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section (b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the San Diego County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within a reasonable timeframe. Subsequently, the Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the most likely descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 53

119 So, while the cultural resources assessment concluded that there is no evidence of human remains on the project site, a Sacred Lands monitor shall be present during the earth moving grading activities to assure that any resources found during project grading would be protected as directed by the MLD. Therefore, impacts are less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-8. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a) Expose people or structures to 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. No Impact The project site is located within a seismically active region, as is all of Southern California. However, the project site is not adjacent to any known active faults. The project site is not located on a fault, as delineated by the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (Department of Conservation, 2008). The closest major active faults are the Elsinore fault, located 15 miles to the northeast, and the Coronado Banks fault located offshore approximately 25 miles to the southwest. The Rose Canyon fault, which is potentially active, is located approximately 11 miles southwest of the project site. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project is located in seismically-active Southern California and is considered likely to be subjected to strong ground motion from regional seismic activity. As identified in Section VI.a.i, the nearest identified potentially active fault is located approximately 11 miles from the project area. All structures on the site would be designed in accordance with seismic parameters of the California Building Code (2007). Therefore, the impact for this issue area would be considered less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? No Impact The project site is located within the coastal sub-province of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, and is underlain by metavolcanic rock of the Cretaceous to Jurassic-aged Santiago Peak Volcanics. Leighton Consulting (2012) (Appendix E) conducted a limited geotechnical exploration for the proposed San Marcos Elementary School at Rancho Coronado project located in San Marcos, California. Based on the results of this exploration, the report concluded that the proposed site improvements are feasible provided the geotechnical recommendations contained in this report are implemented during design and construction (Impact GS-1). Therefore, the impacts due to ground failure and liquefaction are considered less that significant. iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact Land sliding and slope instability in San Marcos is associated with bedding plane faults, weak Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 54

120 claystone and siltstone beds associated with Eocene sedimentary rocks. The community plan areas of Barham/Discovery and Questhaven/La Costa Meadows have scattered sites known for slope instability in hillside areas, however the project area consists of Exchequer series of soils. These soils are formed in material weathered from hard metabasic rock, consisting of shallow to very shallow, well-drained silt loams, located on mountainous uplands, and are not conducive to landslides. In addition, on December 2, 2011, the reclamation plan submitted by Hanson was approved for construction and a grading permit was issued on December 7, The grading work took place between February and April 2012 on the proposed school site has resulted in the establishment of stabilized 2:1 slopes or less. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact On December 2, 2011, the reclamation plan submitted by Hanson was approved for construction and a grading permit was issued on December 7, The General Construction Permit (GCP) that will be required of the project and the existing General Industrial Permit (GIP) for the project site require BMPs for sediment control and erosion during construction activities or activities conducted under the SWPPP. These BMPs are required and will mitigate soil loss and erosion. The grading work took place between February and April 2012 and resulted in the establishment of stabilized 2:1 slopes or less. The project would be required to be under the GCP which requires the preparation of a SWPPP and development of BMPs for all phases of construction. The GCP would result in stabilization of all graded areas prior to the completion of the graded portions of the project. The project would grade portions of the site and prepare the site for development of the residential, mixed-use non-residential and active park uses as well as supporting roadways and infrastructure. Grading operations could have the potential to expose bare slopes which could result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. However, the project would be required by the SWRCB GCP to obtaining stabilization and incorporate erosion and sediment control measures during and after grading operations. See Table 2 for a list of project design feature BMPs related to this topic. These BMPs will be included in the SWPPP and in the construction plans and specifications which and shall be implemented during construction. The GCP prohibits sediment or pollutant release from the project site. Further all slopes will be required to be stabilized with permanent vegetation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than Significant Impact See comments VI.a.1 and VI.a.2. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact The Preliminary Geotechnical Report and Addendum prepared by Leighton Consulting (2012) found that the onsite soils are expected to have a low to moderate expansion potential, but concluded Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 55

121 that the project is feasible. A final geotechnical analysis would be performed to determine the actual expansion potential of finish grade soils and recommendations in light of proposed building designs. The final geotechnical analysis would ensure that the site soils are properly prepared so that any potential expansion issues would be remedied. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact The project does not propose any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS A global climate change assessment was prepared for the project by Scientific Resources Associated (2014b). The complete report is included as Appendix F of this document. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact Existing Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) The site has historically been used for extraction of aggregate materials. The project is located within the southwestern portion of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The project site property is bounded by Twin Oaks Valley Road on the east, the Discovery Hills residential community on the north, and undeveloped land on the west and south, in the Barham/Discovery Hills neighborhood. In its past use for extraction of aggregate materials, the site was a source of GHG emissions from the use of equipment to extract materials and truck traffic to transport materials from the site. GHG emissions associated with the Rancho Coronado Specific Plan were estimated separately for four categories of emissions: (1) construction; (2) energy use, including electricity and natural gas usage; (3) water consumption; and (4) transportation. The analysis includes a baseline estimate assuming Title 24-compliant buildings, which is considered business as usual for the proposed Project. Emissions were estimated based on emission factors from the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (CCAP 2008). This inventory presents emissions based on business as usual assumptions. Construction GHG Emissions Construction GHG emissions include emissions from heavy construction equipment, truck traffic, and worker trips. Emissions were calculated based on the CalEEMod Model (ENVIRON 2011). Total GHG emissions associated with construction are estimated at 7,245 metric tons of CO 2 e. To evaluate construction projects contribution to overall annual GHG emissions, the SCAQMD recommends in their interim guidance for evaluating GHGs under CEQA (SCAQMD 2008). For construction emissions, the interim guidance recommends that the emissions be amortized over 30 years and added to operational emissions, as appropriate. Amortized over 30 years, construction would contribute 240 metric tons per year of CO 2 emissions. Operational GHG Emissions Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 56

122 The proposed project includes 346 residential units, 24 acres of non-residential mixed use, approximately 38 acres of active park and the necessary infrastructure to support the proposed development. Total electricity, natural gas, and water usage rates for the residences and commercial development under business as usual conditions were estimated as discussed in the sections below. Energy Use Emissions As discussed above, energy use generates GHG through emissions from power plants that generate electricity, as well as emissions from natural gas usage at the facility itself. Business as usual electricity use was estimated based on construction of the proposed Project to meet the requirements of Title 24 as of As stated in Section 3.0, based on the latest guidelines and baseline emission calculations for energy efficiency, business as usual is considered to be the equivalent of Title 24 as of 2005 because the ARB s baseline inventory and its definition of business as usual is based on compliance with Title 24 as of The ARB prepared its inventory to evaluate the required reduction from business as usual, which is defined as the baseline with no measures implemented to reduce emissions of GHGs. For building standards, the goal of reducing emissions below business as usual within the ARB s Scoping Plan is based on Title 24 as of the ARB s inventory. Thus, the baseline used in this analysis is consistent with the ARB s analysis and goals. The use of Title 24 as of 2005 is consistent with the Scoping Plan. The Scoping Plan is the original basis for the County s approach to evaluating significance of impacts for GHG emissions. The County based its goals for reduction of emissions from business as usual levels on the Scoping Plan. It is therefore appropriate to use the baseline energy use contained in the Scoping Plan as the baseline for evaluating emissions for individual projects within the County. As stated above, Title 24 as of 2005 was the baseline used in the ARB s Scoping Plan. Emissions were calculated based on emission factors in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1 (CCAR 2009). Natural gas use was also estimated based on construction of the proposed Project to meet the requirements of Title 24 as of Emissions were calculated based on emission factors in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1 (CCAR 2009). Residential electricity use was estimated based on average performance for southern California residences, according to the California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (CEC 2004). The energy use figures in this report represent current state-wide average uses, including those that are compliant with 2005 Title 24 standards. The California Statewide Residential Appliance Saturation Survey provided estimated energy use of 7,605 kwh annually within California. In the California Statewide Residential Applicant Saturation Survey, natural gas usage rate were reported at 421 therms per year. Water Water use and energy use are often closely linked. The provision of potable water to commercial users consumes large amounts of energy associated with five stages: source and conveyance, treatment, distribution, end use, and wastewater treatment. This inventory estimated that delivered water for the proposed Project will have an embodied energy of kwh/gallon. Water usage was estimated based on the CalEEMod model annual estimates of 22,543,300 gallons of indoor water use and 14,212,100 gallons of outdoor water use for the residences. The model estimates 38,390,490 gallons of indoor water use and 23,529,655 gallons of outdoor water use for Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 57

123 the business park, and 1,777,741 gallons of indoor water use and 1,089,583 gallons of outdoor water use for the retail uses. The embodied energy demand associated with this water use was converted to GHG emissions with the same emission factors used in the CCAP as for purchased electricity. Transportation Several regulatory initiatives have been passed to reduce emissions from on-road vehicles, as discussed in Section 1.3. For the purpose of calculating business as usual emissions associated with vehicles, no credit was taken for implementation of the CAFE standards, Pavley standards, or the LCFS. Vehicle emissions were calculated based on the average daily trips (ADT) for the project from the Traffic Impact Analysis (RBF Consulting 2014). The analysis estimated the total number of trips for the project to be 8,926. It was assumed that the average trip length would be 5.8 miles, based on the SANDAG average trip length (SANDAG 2012). GHG emissions under business as usual conditions are summarized in Table 9A. As shown in Table 9A, total CO 2 e emissions would be 14,767 metric tons per year. Table 9A. Summary of Estimated Operational GHG Emission Business as Usual Scenario Emission Source Operational Emissions Annual Emissions (Metric tons/year) CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Electricity Use Emissions 4, Natural Gas Use Emissions Water Consumption Emissions 1, Vehicle Emissions 7, Amortized Construction Emissions Total 14, Global Warming Potential Factor CO 2 Equivalent Emissions 14, Total CO 2 Equivalent Emissions 14,767 A significance threshold of 28.35% from business as usual levels is considered to demonstrate that a project would be consistent with the goals of AB 32. If the proposed project can demonstrate that it would meet these goals, its greenhouse gas emissions, emitted either directly or indirectly, would not have a significant impact on the environment. Not all of the GHG-reducing project design features identified above are quantifiable due to scientific and methodological limitations regarding GHG savings. The CEC (Architectural Energy Corporation 2007) estimates that implementation of the Title 24 standards as of 2008 will result in reductions in electricity use of 22.7% for residential dwellings. The CEC also estimates that implementation of the Title 24 standards as of 2008 will result in reductions in natural gas use of 7.4% for residential dwellings. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 58

124 GHG emissions from water use would also be reduced through the use of on-site groundwater to irrigate the park uses. Because the water used for the park uses would be groundwater, there would be no energy use in the conveyance, treatment, and wastewater disposal from park uses. The embodied energy for local water sources is estimated at 110 kwh/million gallon (Cooley and Wilkinson 2012). It is anticipated that water conservation measures that will be implemented for the development would reduce water consumption by 10 percent. These measures include the use of low-flow fixtures, use of drought-resistance landscaping, and means to reduce water usage such as irrigation systems that conserve water. Implementation of the RPS will affect indirect GHG emissions associated with electricity use for the project because electricity will be purchased from San Diego Gas and Electric. According to the SDCGHGI, implementation of the 33 percent RPS mandate, as established by Senate Bill 107, would reduce GHG emissions by 27 percent from 2005 levels; credit was taken for these GHG savings in this analysis. Implementation of the new Federal CAFE standards will achieve reductions that are equivalent to those proposed in AB 1493, the Pavley bill. Emissions were calculated based on the 2020 emission factors from the EMFAC2011 model (ARB 2011), with credit for the Pavley standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The results of the GHG inventory for emissions with implementation of GHG reduction measures are presented in Table 9B. Table 9B. Summary of Estimated Operational GHG Emission With GHG Reduction Measures Scenario Emission Source Operational Emissions Annual Emissions (Metric tons/year) CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Electricity Use Emissions 2, Natural Gas Use Emissions Water Consumption Emissions Vehicle Emissions 5, Amortized Construction Emissions Total 9, Global Warming Potential Factor CO 2 Equivalent Emissions 9, TOTAL CO 2 Equivalent Emissions 9,719 Business as Usual CO 2 Equivalent Emissions 14,766 Percent Reduction from Business as Usual 34.19% As shown in Table 9B, with implementation of the project design features, project emissions would total 9,719 metric tons per year. This represents a percent reduction in emissions over business as usual levels. Thus, the project will have a less than significant impact with regard to Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 59

125 greenhouse gas emissions. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact As part of the General Plan, the City has adopted a Conservation and Open Space Element, which includes a goal (Goal COS-4) to improve air quality and reduce GHG emissions within the City. As part of the Conservation and Open Space Element, the City has adopted the following General Plan Policies designed to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions: Policy COS-4.3: Participate in regional efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy COS-4.4: Quantify community-wide and municipal greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, set a reduction goal, identify and implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as required by governing legislation. Policy COS-4.5: Encourage energy conservation and the use of alternative energy sources within the community. Policy COS-4.6: Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment. Policy COS-4.7: As City facilities and services are constructed or upgraded, incorporate energy and resource conservation standards and practices by: o Taking a leadership role in implementing programs for energy and water conservation, waste reduction, recycling and reuse and increased reliance on renewable energy. o Upgrading City buildings and infrastructure facilities to comply with State of California green building standards. o Implementing landscaping that reduces demands on potable water; this may include the use of drought tolerant landscaping and/or use of well water for irrigation, favoring recycling and energy-efficient products and practices when issuing City purchase agreements. Policy COS-4.8: Encourage and support the generation, transmission and use of renewable energy. Policy COS-4.9: Encourage use and retrofitting of existing buildings under Title 24 of the California Building Energy Code. As shown in Table 9B, with implementation of the project design features, project emissions would total 9,719 metric tons per year. This represents a percent reduction in emissions over business as usual levels. Thus, the project will have a less than significant impact with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 60

126 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the project (SCS Engineers, 2012) and is included as Appendix G of this document. Additionally, a soil characterization report was prepared for the project site by Geosyntec (2013) and is included as Appendix H of this document. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact Hazardous materials include solids, liquids, or gaseous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, could pose a threat to human health or the environment. Hazards include the risks associated with potential explosions, fires, or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or natural disaster, which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or pose substantial harm to human health or the environment. The proposed project would involve the transport of fuels, lubricants, and various other liquids needed for operation of construction equipment at the site and would be transported to the construction site on an as-needed basis by equipment service trucks. In addition, workers would commute to the project site via private vehicles, and would operate construction vehicles/equipment on both public and private streets. Materials hazardous to humans, wildlife, and sensitive environments would be present during project construction of the pipeline installation. These materials include diesel fuel, gasoline, equipment fluids, concrete, cleaning solutions and solvents, lubricant oils, adhesives, human waste, and chemical toilets. The potential exists for direct impacts to human health and biological resources from accidental spills of small amounts of hazardous materials from construction equipment during construction of the pipeline; however, the proposed project would be required to comply with Federal, State, and City Municipal Code regulations which regulate and control those materials handled onsite. Compliance with these restrictions and laws ensure that potentially significant impacts would not occur. Therefore, a less than significant impact is identified. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Results A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by SCS Engineers (2012). The assessment concluded that there is a low likelihood that a recognized environmental condition exists at the site as a result of the current or historical site land use or from known and reported off-site sources. Soil Characterization Analysis Results Portions of the project site were historically was used for aggregate mining and related activities. Previous soil characterization activities conducted on the Hanson Property identified arsenic in soil samples collected within a portion of the project site at concentrations above established background levels, but the anomalous arsenic concentrations did not appear to be attributable to historical operations on the Property or other anthropogenic activities. This area of the project site Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 61

127 is associated with the portion identified for future non-residential mixed-use development in the southeastern portion of the project site. In May 2012, Tetra Tech conducted an investigation of soil conditions within the area proposed for future non-residential mixed-use development. Tetra Tech collected twenty-five soil samples from seven boring locations (B1 through B7 to evaluate metals concentrations in areas where undocumented fill1 had been identified during a prior Phase I ESA and geotechnical investigation. This undocumented fill is related to grading activities performed during the construction of the Twin Oaks Valley Road just to the east of the site, and overburden material from onsite mining activities. Soil sampling was performed under the direction of Tetra Tech using a direct-push rig. Fill soil was reportedly encountered by Tetra Tech to depths up to approximately 18 feet below ground surface. Each of the 25 soil samples was analyzed for total metals by EPA Method 6010B/7471A. Arsenic concentrations in the soil samples ranged from mg/kg to 72.2 mg/kg. The remaining metals concentrations were within the typical range of background concentrations in San Diego soil. Tetra Tech concluded that arsenic concentrations in soil samples collected at the site are naturallyoccurring and within the ambient range and that the arsenic is not an anomalous detection and does not require further investigation. In August 2012, Geosyntec performed additional soil sampling which confirmed arsenic concentrations in excess of the upper bound California background established by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (12 mg/kg; DTSC, 2008) in soil localized to the vicinity of Tetra Tech borings B-1, B-4, and B-5, and adequately delineated the extent of arsenic in soil in the vicinity of those three borings. In March 2013 Geosyntec prepared a report titled Native Background Arsenic Summary which outlined the occurrence of naturally-occurring arsenic in San Diego County. The Santiago Peak Volcanics Formation has historically been economically mined for arsenic in its mineral form as arsenopyrite. Arsenopyrite, the sulfarsenide of iron, is a principal ore of arsenic. Arsenopyrite is associated with high temperature hydrothermal veins, in pegmatities, and in areas of contact metamorphism. Because the formation is volcanic in nature and that hydrothermal alteration in veins and areas of contact metamorphisim have been identified throughout the formation, arsenopyrite is associated with the formation and at one time an economically viable mineral resource in San Diego County. From researching historical arsenic mining operations in San Diego County located in the Santiago Peak Volcanics Formation, the mines were typically situated in canyons or the saddles of ridges which are areas where preferential erosion is occurring and exposing potentially significant arsenopyrite deposits. Veins, contact metamorphosed, and hydrothermally altered rock tend to be more fractured or have mineralized zones that lead to areas that are more susceptible to erosional forces. Two documented arsenic mines in San Diego County that are located within the Santiago Peak Volcanic Formation are the Black Mountain Mine and Cedar Creek Mine. The Property is underlain by the Santiago Peak Volcanics Formation, and there are no known anthropogenic sources of arsenic on or near the project site. Concentrations of arsenic from the samples collected in 2012 by Geosyntec ranged from 3.86 mg/kg to 159 mg/kg. Geosyntec also collected ten soil samples a hand auger throughout the Hanson property at depths of 0.5 to 3.0 ft. below ground surface to evaluate background concentrations of arsenic in soil. The concentrations of arsenic in soil in the 10 background samples ranged from Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 62

128 4.78 mg/kg to 134 mg/kg. Data from the May and August 2012 soil investigations indicate that arsenic concentrations are generally higher in the eastern portion of the analysis where the Santiago Peak Volcanic formation is exposed at or near the existing ground surface, and in fill material in the north-central portion of the analysis area that was derived from Santiago Peak Volcanics during grading activities in the eastern portion of the area proposed for future non-residential mixed use when Twin Oaks Valley Road was constructed in the period between 2004 and Results from the previous investigation performed by Tetra Tech and recent investigation performed by Geosyntec indicate that the majority of the soil samples which contained elevated concentrations of naturally-occurring arsenic are localized in the area propose for future non-residential mixed use. Statistical evaluations performed on the data demonstrated that the localized areas of naturallyoccurring elevated arsenic in soil can be effectively managed through soil management activities to achieve a site that would be suitable for the proposed development. The requirement for a soils management plan is included as mitigation measure MM-HAZ-1 and implementation of this measure will be required as a condition of project approval. MM-HAZ-1 Prior to grading activities, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a soils management plan that addresses handling of soils containing naturally-occurring arsenic during grading. The management plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Further, the project does not propose uses that would emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials or substances. Therefore no impact is identified for this issue area. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact The project site is not identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to government code Section Therefore no impact is identified for this issue area. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control maintains an online database (EnvirStor) that allows for search of permitted facilities and environmental cleanup activities at a specific location. A review of EnviroStor revealed two entries associated with the project site. The first was associated with the soil boring for background arscenic testing. The second listing was associated with a previous project proposal on the site that included a school. Since the school is no longer proposed, that listing is no longer active. The results of the arscenic testing were addressed in Section VIII(b), above. No other listings were identified within a quarter-mile of the project site and no impact is identified for this issue area. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 63

129 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan area, nor is it within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest is the McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad, which is located approximately six miles west of the project area. The project site is located outside the over-flight notification area, but is located within the Review Area 2 of the airport influence area. The influence area is regulated by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), which regulates land uses in the area to be compatibility with airport-related noise, safety, airspace protection, and over-flight factors. Review Area 2 consists of limits on heights of structures in areas of high terrain. The project site would not be characterized as high terrain, as it is situated south and east of higher terrain areas. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore the project does not have the potential to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact is identified for this issue area. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact The project does not propose any development that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Construction of the project would not result in any complete road closures. The San Marcos Fire Department has reviewed the project and has not raised any concerns on this issue. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The project proposes development adjacent to natural areas which will be preserved as open space. This creates and areas where development will be adjacent to wildland areas that have a high fire risk. This represents a significant impact (Impact HAZ-2). Implementation of mitigation measures MM-HAZ-2, which requires preparation and implementation of a Fire Protection Plan will reduce this impact to below a level of significance. MM-HAZ-2 Prior to issuance of building permits, a fire protection plan shall be prepared for the project and submitted to the Planning Director and Fire Marshal for review and approval. The fire protection plan shall include fire fuel clearing and fire fuel management zones to provide a minimum 150-foot buffer between proposed structures and natural habitat. The fire protection plan shall identify the responsible parties for the ongoing fire fuel maintenance and the mechanism to ensure compliance with fire clearing requirements. Implementation of the fire protection plan shall be required prior project occupancy. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 64

130 Thus implementation of mitigation measures MM-HAZ-2 will reduce the potential impact of exposing people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, would be reduced to below a level of significance. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact The project will comply with all water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Since the project includes disturbance to more than an acre, a Construction General Permit from SWRCB will be require prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed and implemented in accordance with the appropriate Risk Level, as determined by the City Engineer. The SWPPP will identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect storm water runoff. New Regional MS4 Permit On May 8, 2013, the SDRWQCB adopted Order R , the new Regional MS4 Permit. The permit became effective June 27, The City is required to update its SUSMP land development requirements within three months of the SDRWQCB concurrence of the Carlsbad Watershed WQIP which is estimated to be 24 months after the May 8, 2013 adoption of R or approximately December The City will make project-specific determinations on a case-by-case basis as to what constitutes prior lawful approval based on its Municipal Code, Ordinances, and project milestones within the development process to identify the appropriate MS4 permit land development requirements that are applicable to each project. The proposed project has been designed to comply with the land development requirements of Order R and the City SUSMP (as amended January 14, 2011). Long term water quality and HMP requirements are mitigated through appropriate design and mitigation requirements for residential, parking lot, and street land uses. The proposed project is on a development schedule to achieve prior lawful approval under the land development requirements of R in accordance with the City s municipal ordinances and is therefore in compliance with the SDRWQCB MS4 permit at this time. Prior to final issuance of construction permits, the City will evaluate the project s land development milestones and construction schedule and issue a Final Determination of Prior Lawful Approval and determination of applicable MS4 Permit development requirements and MS4. The project will be required to provide a design to mitigate water quality and HMP under the land development requirements deemed to be in effect of either R or R At this time it is anticipated that no substantive changes will occur with project design based on the recent adoption of R and the projects development milestone schedule for construction and implementation. In summary, the proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impact will be less than significant. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 65

131 b) Have a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? No Impact The project does not propose any uses or irrigation with groundwater or wells that would impact ground water quality or cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. The project proposes residential, mixeduse non residential, active park, and habitat conservation. Therefore no impact is identified. c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact The proposed project will not use groundwater, thus the project would not result in the substantial depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Thus no impact is identified for this issue area. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site (e.g. downstream)? Less than Significant Impact This threshold is analyzed in terms of short term project construction impact and long term/project operation impacts. Short Term (Project Construction) The project site is topographically diverse and has hill and valley areas. Existing elevations range from a high of approximately 875 feet msl in the southeastern portion of the site to a low of approximately 720 feet msl in the northern portion of the project site. Grading would occur on the project site to prepare the site roadways, utility infrastructure, residential pads, and future pads for the park and non-residential mixed use area. The project will incorporate construction BMPs in compliance with the General Construction Permit. These BMPs focus on areas such as good site management/housekeeping, non-stormwater management, erosion control, sediment control, run-on and run-off control, inspection/maintenance/repair, rain event action plan, and monitoring/reporting requirements. Implementation of these BMPs will further reduce the potential for erosion and siltation entering waterways. Impact will be less than significant. Long Term (Project Operation) The project will increase the area of impervious surface on the project site. However, based upon the analysis prepared by Fuscoe Engineering (2013), runoff amounts and quantities would be similar in the pre- and post-condition. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 66

132 To provide water quality treatment and hydromodification mitigation of runoff from the project site and tributary areas, the project was divided into drainage management areas (DMA), and one best management practice (BMP) has been provided in each DMA to provide water quality treatment and hydromodification mitigation. The BMPs used for the project are bioretention basins. The following table shows the pre-development runoff in cubic feet per second (cfs) as well as the postdevelopment condition with and without the proposed low impacts development (LID) features. Peak Runoff (CFS) by Recurrence Interval Basin and Flow Condition 0.5Q 2 Q 2 Q 5 Q 10 BMP-3 Pre-Development Post-Development (Unmitigated) Post-Development (Mitigated) BMP-5 Pre-Development Post-Development (Unmitigated) Post-Development (Mitigated) BMP-7 Pre-Development Post-Development (Unmitigated) Post-Development (Mitigated) Source: Fuscoe Engineering (2013) As shown in the table, the post-development (mitigated) condition has runoff values that are below the pre-development conditions. The project incorporates LID features and BMPs which minimize the potential for erosion and siltation. The project conserves natural areas, soils and vegetation. The project detains and retains runoff through the site through the use of bioretention features. Bioretention will be used to achieve compliance with stormwater treatment requirements as well as the LID requirements in the stormwater NPDES permit. Bio-retention was selected the LID to treat the stormwater runoff project the project site. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? Less than Significant Impact The project will increase the area of impervious surface on the project site due to the construction of roads and structures. The WQIP assumed that for those areas proposed for development, approximately 70 percent of the area would be impervious. The project will retain over 129 as preserved open space. Impervious surfaces can increase runoff flow rates and volumes; however the project has been designed to maintain pre-condition runoff amounts and quantities on the project site, as discussed in threshold IX.d, above. Runoff rates and volumes in the post-development condition will be less than the pre-development condition when BMPs and LID requirements are considered. Thus the project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to change in runoff rates or volumes and impacts are less than significant. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 67

133 f) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or 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 The project is still adequately designed such that the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. Runoff rates and volumes in the post-development condition will be less than the pre-development condition when BMPs and LID requirements are considered. Thus the project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to change in runoff rates or volumes and impacts are less than significant. There are no streams or rivers on the project site, though there are wetland/riparian areas that have been created through runoff. These areas will be enhanced and restored as part of the proposed project s mitigation for impacts to biological resources. g) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact The project proposes a comprehensive stormwater management plan that includes stormwater improvements within the project boundary. This includes bio-retention ponds that will detain and retain stormwater flows from the pads and roadways. Construction of these facilities is proposed within the development footprint for the project. An expansion of existing facilities will not be required to serve the project. Thus impacts would be less than significant. h) Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? Less than Significant Impact The project will increase the area of impervious surface on the project site due to the construction of roads and structures. The WQIP assumed that for those areas proposed for development, approximately 70 percent of the area would be impervious. The project will retain over 129 as preserved open space. Impervious surfaces can increase runoff flow rates and volumes; however the project has been designed to maintain pre-condition runoff amounts and quantities on the project site, as discussed in threshold IX.d, above. Runoff rates and volumes in the post-development condition will be less than the pre-development condition when BMPs and LID requirements are considered. Thus the project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact related to an increase in impervious surfaces and impacts are less than significant. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 68

134 i) Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? Less than Significant Impact The analysis of this threshold considers both short term and long term water quality. Potential construction-related impacts associated with receiving water quality would include siltation and erosion, the use of fuels for construction equipment, and the generation of trash and debris from the construction site. Project design feature have been identified that will minimize these potential for construction-related water quality impacts. Short Term The project will incorporate construction-related water quality BMPs to protect water quality. Such measures could include, but are not limited to: Use of sediment trapping devices to control sediment runoff; Proper containment and disposal of trash/debris; Use of erosion control devices to minimize runoff during rain events; and Additional measures to be identified once SWPPP is available prior to the issuance of the grading permit and start of work onsite These measures are designed to minimize the generation of pollutants, including sediment, trash/debris, and erosion. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and construction-related water quality BMPs will ensure that there are no significant alterations to receiving water quality during construction. Impacts would be less than significant. Long Term (Project Operation) With regard to project operation, the project includes a comprehensive water quality management approach. The complete WQIP is included as Appendix I. The project proposes the comprehensive use of bio retention and filtration Additionally, the project will implement a variety of site design, source control, LID, and treatment control BMPs in accordance with Order R to treat to a medium pollutant removal rate or better for the pollutants of concern (nutrients and bacteria) and minimize the potential for pollutants such as sediment, trash, metals, bacteria, oil/grease and organics prior to reaching the storm drain and off-site waterways. The project is required to integrate into its design site design, source control, LID, and treatment control BMPs in accordance to R or R Thus the project will would not result in significant alterations to receiving water quality after construction and impacts are less than significant. j) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity and other typical storm water pollutants (e.g. heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and trash). Less than Significant Impact The project site is located in the Richland (904.52) hydrologic sub-area of the San Marcos (904.5) hydrologic area of the Carlsbad watershed. Impaired waterbodies in this watershed include San Marcos Creek (DDE, phosphorus, sediment toxicity and selenium), Lake San Marcos (ammonia as nitrogen and nutrients) Batiquitos Lagoon (total coliform) and the Pacific Ocean (total coliform). Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 69

135 Anticipated pollutants to be generated by the project include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash/debris, oil/grease and bacteria/viruses. Potential pollutants that could also include oxygen/demanding substances. The project includes a comprehensive water quality management approach to ensure that there will not be an increase in pollutant discharge to receiving waters. The comprehensive use of bio filtration, including bioretention ponds as well as self-treating areas to effectively treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge from the site and to receiving waters. Bioretention basins are landscaped depressions or shallow basins used to slow and treat on-site stormwater runoff. Stormwater is directed to the basin and then percolates through the system where it is treated by a number of physical, chemical and biological processes. The slowed, cleaned water is allowed to infiltrate native soils or directed to nearby stormwater drains or receiving waters. A cross section of a typical bioretention basin is included on Sheet 3 of the WQIP (Appendix I). The City s SUSMP requires that the pollutants of concern for each impaired water body in each watershed be treated by engineered treatment controls to a medium pollutant removal efficiency or better prior to leaving each development site. This requirement results in reductions in pollutants. Bioretention has a high efficiency for removal of sediments, nutrients, trash, metals, oil/grease, organics and oxygen demanding substances and has a medium efficiency for removal of bacteria. The bioretention features will be subject to regular inspection and maintenance. The maintenance requirements are detailed on the last sheet of the WQIP (Appendix I). The property owner is required, pursuant to the City s Municipal Code Section 4.15 and the City s current local SUSMP, to enter into a stormwater management and discharge control maintenance agreement for the installation and maintenance of permanent best management practices prior to issuance of permits. Since the project includes a comprehensive approach to the handling and treatment of stormwater runoff and will achieve a high efficiency for removal of sediments, nutrients, trash, metals, oil/grease, organics and oxygen demanding substances and has a medium efficiency for removal of bacteria, impact to receiving waters would be less than significant. k) Be tributary to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, can it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? Less than Significant Impact The project site is located in the Richland (904.52) hydrologic sub-area of the San Marcos (904.5) hydrologic area of the Carlsbad watershed. Impaired waterbodies in this watershed include San Marcos Creek (DDE, phosphorus, sediment toxicity and selenium), Lake San Marcos (ammonia as nitrogen and nutrients) Batiquitos Lagoon (total coliform) and the Pacific Ocean (total coliform). Anticipated pollutants to be generated by the project include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash/debris, oil/grease and bacteria/viruses. Potential pollutants that could also include oxygen/demanding substances. The project includes a comprehensive water quality management approach to ensure that there will not be an increase in pollutant discharge to receiving waters. The comprehensive use of bio Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 70

136 filtration, including bioretention basins as well as self-treating areas to effectively treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge from the site and to receiving waters. Bioretention basins are landscaped depressions or shallow basins used to slow and treat on-site stormwater runoff. Stormwater is directed to the basin and then percolates through the system where it is treated by a number of physical, chemical and biological processes. The slowed, cleaned water is allowed to infiltrate native soils or directed to nearby stormwater drains or receiving waters. A cross section of a typical bioretention basin is included on Sheet 3 of the WQIP (Appendix I). The City s SUSMP requires that the pollutants of concern for each impaired water body in each watershed be treated by engineered treatment controls to a medium pollutant removal efficiency or better prior to leaving each development site. This requirement results in reductions in pollutants. Bioretention has a high efficiency for removal of sediments, nutrients, trash, metals, oil/grease, organics and oxygen demanding substances and has a medium efficiency for removal of bacteria. The bioretention features will be subject to regular inspection and maintenance. The maintenance requirements are detailed on the last sheet of the WQIP (Appendix I). The property owner is required, pursuant to the City s Municipal Code Section 4.15 and the City s current local SUSMP, to enter into a stormwater management and discharge control maintenance agreement for the installation and maintenance of permanent best management practices prior to issuance of permits. Since the project includes a comprehensive approach to the handling and treatment of stormwater runoff and will achieve a high efficiency for removal of sediments, nutrients, trash, metals, oil/grease, organics and oxygen demanding substances and has a medium efficiency for removal of bacteria, impact to impaired water bodies would be less than significant. l) Be tributary to environmentally sensitive areas (e.g. MSCP, RARE, Areas of Special Biological Significance, etc.)? If so, can it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? Less than Significant Impact The project site is located in the Richland (904.52) hydrologic sub-area of the San Marcos (904.5) hydrologic area of the Carlsbad watershed. Impaired waterbodies in this watershed include San Marcos Creek (DDE, phosphorus, sediment toxicity and selenium), Lake San Marcos (ammonia as nitrogen and nutrients) Batiquitos Lagoon (total coliform) and the Pacific Ocean (total coliform). Anticipated pollutants to be generated by the project include sediment, nutrients, heavy metals, organic compounds, trash/debris, oil/grease and bacteria/viruses. Potential pollutants that could also include oxygen/demanding substances. The project site is located outside of the Biological Resource Conservation area for the MHCP. The project includes areas that are proposed for wetland restoration, creation and enhancement. The project includes a comprehensive water quality management approach to ensure that there will not be an increase in pollutant discharge to receiving waters. The comprehensive use of bio filtration, including bioretention basins as well as self-treating areas to effectively treat stormwater runoff prior to discharge from the site. Thus the project would not exacerbate already sensitive conditions and impacts would be less than significant. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 71

137 m) Have a potentially significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to either marine, fresh or wetland waters? Less than Significant Impact The project site supports wetlands and jurisdictional waters. The project will directly impact wetlands and jurisdictional waters as part of the project development; however, impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance through a comprehensive habitat restoration, creation and preservation effort both on and off-site. The project will implement BMPs during project construction to minimize potential impact to surface water quality. The project also includes a comprehensive water quality approach including biofiltration, to reduce pollutants that would be generated during project operation. Incorporation of these measures would ensure that impacts are less than significant. n) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less than Significant Impact As detailed in IX(j), above, the project includes a comprehensive water quality management approach. The WQIP is included as Appendix I. The comprehensive use of biofiltration, combined with on- and off-site riparian enhancement which will further improve water quality. See IX(k), above. Impacts are less than significant. o) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact The project does not propose any housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, FIRM, or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is identified. p) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact The project does not propose any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, FIRM, or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is identified. q) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less than Significant Impact The project site is located immediately north and adjacent to South Lake, a storage reservoir with a dam height of over 75 feet and storage capacity of approximately 300 acre-free at the spillway crest elevation of feet. The Vallecitos Water District is the owner/operator of the lake and its dam. A Breach Study for South Lake and Development of Inundation Map for Downstream Channel was prepared by Chang Consultants (2007). The complete study is included as Appendix J of this document. The purpose of the study was to determine the flood discharge and its downstream variation as a result of dam failure at South Lake reservoir and to develop an inundation map as a result of dam failure. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 72

138 South Lake outlets through a naturally-lined channel aligned through the proposed project site. The flow continues to Discovery Lake, then along residential areas and a golf course and ultimately confluences with Dan Marcos Creek near Discovery Street, upstream of Lake San Marcos. Based upon the inundation mapping prepared for South Lake under a breach condition, all proposed residences would be located outside of the inundation zone in the event of a breach of the South Lake Dam. Further, the project will be conditioned to update the inundation study and obtain the necessary agency approval in order to reflect the project s current grading concept. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. r) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact The proposed project is not located near a coastline, lake, or mountainous area that would be subject to a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impacts are identified for this issue area. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact The proposed project would not divide an established community. The project site is currently undeveloped and would be constructed adjacent to existing residential uses to the north and in the vicinity of existing multi-family residential uses to the east. The proposed project will provide infrastructure that would connect offsite residential uses with the proposed park and nonresidential mixed use, also proposed as part of this project. Therefore, no impact is identified for this issue area. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less than Significant Impact General Plan The project site is identified as Focus Area 9 in the General Plan and is identified as a mix of LDR (Low Density Residential), LMDR (Low Medium Density Residential), MU4 (Mixed Use 4 Non Residential), OS (Open Space) and P (Park). Per the General Plan, development of 346 single-family residences, 17 acres of Mixed Use 4 (non-residential mixed use), and 75 acres of park/open space. The proposed project is consistent with intensity of development contemplated in the General Plan update. Impacts would be less than significant. Zoning Ordinance The project site is zoned Heart of the City Specific Plan. The project includes an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The amended Specific Plan is included as Appendix A.2 of this document. Implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment, which is one of the discretionary actions for the project, would make the project consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 73

139 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact The project site is located outside of the Biological Resource Conservation Area for the Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore the project 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 and no impact is identified. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact There are no known mineral resources on the site of value to the region or to residents of the state. Hanson Aggregate operated on the project site in the past, however the operation closed in Therefore, the project would not have an impact on any known mineral resource and no impact is identified for this issue area. 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 There are no known mineral resources on the site of value to the region or to residents of the state. Hanson Aggregate operated on the project site in the past, however the operation closed in Therefore, the project would not have an impact on any known mineral resource and no impact is identified for this issue area. XII. NOISE A noise impact analysis was prepared for the project by LdN Consulting (2014). The complete report is included as Appendix K of this document. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Existing Noise Environment Noise measurements were taken in four areas of the project site in November The results of the noise level measurements are presented in Table 10. The measurements were taken on site to establish a baseline of the vehicle noise from adjacent Twin Oaks Valley Road and Village Drive. The measurements were free of obstruction and had a direct line of sight to the roadway. The overall sound levels were found to be between 44.2 and 70.8 dba. Construction was occurring to the east of the project during the measurements. The noise monitoring locations can be seen in Figure 5. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 74

140 Table 10. Measured Ambient Noise Levels Measurement Noise Levels (dba Leq) Identification Description Time Leq Lmax Lmin L10 L50 L90 ML 1 North of the site 12:35-12:53 p.m ML 2 North of the site 12:57-1:19 p.m ML 3 North of the site 1:22-1:42 p.m ML 4 Eastern portion of site 1:52-1:58 p.m Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Future Onsite Noise Analysis Residential To control transportation related noise sources such as arterial roads, freeways, airports and railroads, the City has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels in the Noise Element of the General Plan. For noise sensitive rural and single family residential uses, schools, libraries, parks and recreational areas the City Noise Element requires an exterior noise level of less than 60 dba CNEL for outdoor usable areas. For multi-family developments the standard is 65 dba CNEL and a standard of 70 dba CNEL is typically applied to commercial uses. To determine the future noise environment and impact potentials the Sound32 model was utilized. Table 11 presents the roadway parameters used in the analysis including the peak traffic volumes, vehicle speeds and the hourly traffic flow distribution (vehicle mix). The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks and heavy trucks for input into the Sound32 Model. The Buildout conditions include the future traffic volume forecasts provided in the Project s Traffic Study (RBF Consulting, 2014). Roadway Table 11. Future Traffic Parameters Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 1 Peak Hour Volumes 1 Modeled Speeds (MPH) Auto Vehicle Mix % 2 Medium Trucks Twin Oaks Valley Road 40, North Village Drive 3, Street A 2, Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Heavy Trucks To evaluate the potential noise impacts on the proposed development, outdoor observers were located throughout the site and placed five feet above the finished pad elevation. The modeled observer locations for the potential outdoor use areas for both the residential portion of the site and the mixed-use area are presented in Figure 6. The modeling results are presented in Table 12 for the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 75

141 Figure 5. Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 76

142 Figure 6. Modeled Receptor Locations Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 77

143 Table 12. Future Exterior Noise Levels Receptor Number Receptor Location (Pad#) Unmitigated Noise Level (dba CNEL) Barrier Heights (Feet) Mitigated Noise Level (dba CNEL) Second Floor Noise Level (dba CNEL) Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Notes: - = Not applicable n/a = barrier mitigation not required at this location Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 78

144 Based upon the modeling results, noise mitigation will be required along the top of slope for some residential pads adjacent to Village Drive, Twin Oaks Valley Drive and future internal streets (Impact N-1). Therefore, mitigation measures MM-N-1 and MM-N-2 will be required as a condition of project approval. With implementation of these mitigation measures, onsite noise levels will be consistent with the Noise Element of the City s General Plan and will be reduced to below a level of significance. MM-N-1 MM-N-2 Sound barriers ranging from five to ten feet shall be constructed to reduce future onsite noise levels to be consistent with the Noise Element of the San Marcos General Plan (60 dba CNEL for single family and 65 dba for multifamily). Locations and heights of the proposed barriers are presented in Figure 7, Noise Mitigation Measures. Barriers could include berms, wall, glass or a combination of these to meet the required noise attenuation. A final noise assessment shall be prepared prior to the issuance of the first building permit. This final report would identify the interior noise requirements based upon architectural and building plans to meet the City s established interior noise limit of 45 dba CNEL 2. Future Onsite Noise Analysis Non-Residential Mixed Use No outdoor noise sensitive uses are anticipated on the non-residential mixed-use portion of the project site; therefore no outdoor impacts from the roadways are anticipated. Table 12 provides the future unshielded noise levels that would occur at the building façades for the mixed use pads. As shown in Table 12, mixed-use pads could experience sound level is excess of 70 dba CNEL in an unmitigated condition. If outdoor use areas are proposed at the mixed use area (e.g., employee picnic areas) this would result in a significant impact (Impact N-3). Therefore, mitigation measures N-3 will be required as a condition of project approval. Implementation of mitigation measures MM- N-3 would reduce the potential impact to below a level of significance. MM-N-3 If outdoor usable areas are proposed in the non-residential mixed use areas of the project, the design shall consider shielding form the buildings, increased setbacks from the roadways or conduct a site specific noise study to determine compliance. An interior noise assessment is required to mitigate the exterior noise levels to an interior level of 50 dba CNEL. This report should be conducted prior to the issuance of building permits and would finalize the noise requirements based upon actual building design specifications. 2 Interior noise levels of 45 dba CNEL can easily be obtained with conventional building construction methods and providing a closed window condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 79

145 Figure 7. Noise Mitigation Measures Barrier Height and Locations b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibrations or groundbourne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact Construction Vibration Analysis The nearest vibration-sensitive uses are the residences located to the east, 200 feet or more from the proposed construction. Table 13 lists the average vibration levels that would be experienced at the nearest vibration sensitive land uses to the east from temporary construction activities. Loaded trucks will be traveling along the western portion of the site and were assessed at a minimum distance of 200 feet to be conservative. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 80

146 Table 13. Vibration Levels from Construction Activities (Residential Receptors) Equipment Approximate Velocity Level at 25 Feet (VdB) Approximate RMS Velocity at 25 Feet (in/sec) Approximate Velocity Level at 200 Feet (VdB) Approximate RMS Velocity at 200 Feet (in/sec) Small bulldozer Jackhammer Loaded trucks Large bulldozer FTA Criteria Significant Impact? No No Note: 1 PPV at Distance D = PPVref x (25/D) 1.5 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has determined vibration levels that would cause annoyance to a substantial number of people and potential damage to building structures. The FTA criterion for vibration induced structural damage is 0.20 in/sec for the peak particle velocity (PPV). Project construction activities would result in PPV levels below the FTA s criteria for vibration induced structural damage. Therefore, construction activities would not result in vibration-induced structural damage to residential buildings near the demolition and construction areas. The FTA criterion for infrequent vibration induced annoyance is 80 Vibration Velocity (VdB) for residential uses. Construction activities would generate levels of vibration that would not exceed the FTA criteria for nuisance for nearby residential uses. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant. Blasting Vibration Analysis The Title 17 of the City s Municipal Code states that all blasting operations within the are prohibited unless a Certificate of Authorization is first obtained from the San Marcos Building Director and an Operations Permit issued by the Fire Chief. Additional relevant sections of the City s Code for Blasting are provided below: The general contractor or property owner/developer shall give reasonable notice in writing at the time of issuance of a building permit, grading permit or encroachment license to all residences or businesses within 600 feet of any potential blast location. The notice shall be in a form approved by the Building Director. Any resident or business receiving such notice may request of the Building Director that a notice of impending blasting be given by the blaster at the time of the 12 hour advance notice given to the Building Director. The general contractor or property owner/developer shall make all reasonable efforts to contact any and all parties requesting the second notice. The blaster shall file a written certification with the Building Director certifying that the general notice required by Section (b) has been given. The certificate shall include addresses and date(s) of notification. A copy shall be retained on file at the Building Division. Inspections of all structures within 300 feet of the blast site shall be made before blasting operations. The persons inspecting shall obtain the permission of the building owner to Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 81

147 conduct an inspection. The inspections shall be done by a registered structural engineer employed by the blaster or project contractor. The inspection shall be only for the purpose of determining the existence of any visible or reasonably recognizable pre-existing defects or damages in any structure. Inspection refusal shall be at the discretion of the property owner. Blasting shall only be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. during any weekday, Monday through Friday, exclusive of City recognized holidays unless special circumstances warrant another time or day and special approval is granted by the Building Director and Fire Chief. Blasting for construction projects typically results in an RMS vibration velocity of about 100 VdB at 50 feet from the blast based on FTA findings. This is equivalent to a peak particle velocity of about 0.4 inch per second. As discussed above the smallest distance between an existing residence and the blasting activity was assumed to be 200 feet. Given attenuation of vibration velocities with distance, the RMS vibration velocity and peak particle velocity at the nearest existing residence would be about 82 VdB and 0.05 inch per second, respectively. Based on the construction vibration damage criteria published by the FTA, the threshold vibration levels for damage to "Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings" are 94 VdB and 0.20 inch per second. Therefore, the effect of the blasting activity on nearby residential structures will not be significant. However, it should be noted that the human annoyance criterion of 80 VdB would be slightly exceeded when blasting occurred within about 250 feet of existing residences. If blasting is required within 250 feet of existing residences, the potential annoyance may not be completely avoided but can be minimized by following the City s blasting procedures as stated above, and with proper notice annoyances can be avoided. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Project Related Offsite Transportation Noise Because mobile/traffic noise levels are calculated on a logarithmic scale, a doubling of the traffic noise or acoustical energy results in a noise level increase of 3 dba. Therefore the doubling of the traffic volume, without changing the vehicle speeds or mix ratio, results in a noise increase of 3 dba. Community noise level changes greater than 3 dba are often identified as audible and considered potential significant, while changes less than 1 dba will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 dba, residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. Community noise exposures are typically over a long time period rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely greater than 1 dba and 3 dba appears to be appropriate for most people. For the purposes for this analysis a direct and cumulative roadway noise impacts would be considered significant if the project increases noise levels for a noise sensitive land use by 3 dba CNEL and if the project increases noise levels above an unacceptable noise level per the City s General Plan in the area adjacent to the roadway segment. The projected off-site Project related roadway segment noise levels were calculated using the methods in the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 82

148 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-RD , December, 1978). Project Direct Off-Site Noise Impact Analysis To determine if direct off-site noise level increases associated with the development of the proposed project will create noise impacts. The noise levels for the existing conditions were compared with the noise level increase from the Project. Utilizing traffic assessment prepared for the project (RBF Consulting 2014) noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios: Existing: Current day noise conditions without construction of the project. Existing Plus Project: Current day noise conditions plus the completion of the project. Existing vs. Existing Plus Project: Comparison of the direct project related noise level increases in the vicinity of the project site. The noise levels and reference distances to the 60 dba CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the Project site are given in Table 14 for the Existing Scenario and in Table 15 for the Existing Plus Project Scenario. It should be noted that the values in Tables 14 and 15 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. Table 14. Existing Roadway Noise Levels Roadway Roadway Segment ADT 1 Vehicle Speeds (MPH) 1 Noise 50-Feet (dba CNEL) 60 dba CNEL Contour Distance (Feet) SR-78 Ramps to Barham Dr. 39, ,108 Barham Dr. to Campus Marketplace 28, ,531 Campus Marketplace to Craven Rd. 29, ,602 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Craven Rd. to North Village Dr. 21, ,162 North Village Dr. to South Village Dr. 17, South Village Dr. to School-Park Access 17, South of School-Park Access 17, Twin Oaks Valley Rd. to Rush Dr. 10, Craven Road Rush Dr. to Echo Lane 15, Echo Lane to Santa Barbara Drive 16, Santa Barbara Dr. Craven Rd. to Orchid Avenue 1, Village Drive North Twin Oaks Valley Road to Carnation Ct. 1, Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 83

149 Table 15. Existing + Project Roadway Noise Levels Roadway Roadway Segment ADT 1 Vehicle Speeds (MPH) 1 Noise 50-Feet (dba CNEL) 60 dba CNEL Contour Distance (Feet) SR-78 Ramps to Barham Dr. 43, ,304 Barham Dr. to Campus Marketplace 32, ,743 Campus Marketplace to Craven Rd. 34, ,826 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Craven Rd. to North Village Dr. 26, ,417 North Village Dr. to South Village Dr. 21, ,122 South Village Dr. to Site Access 19, ,032 South of Site Access 18, ,013 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. to Rush Dr. 11, Craven Road Rush Dr. to Echo Lane 16, Echo Lane to Santa Barbara Drive 17, Santa Barbara Dr. Craven Rd. to Orchid Avenue 2, Village Drive North Twin Oaks Valley Road to Carnation Ct. 3, Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Table 16 presents the comparison of the Existing Year with and without Project related noise levels. As shown in Table 16, the overall roadway segment noise levels will increase from 0.0 dba CNEL to 4.9 dba CNEL with the development of the proposed project. Roadway Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Table 16. Existing vs. Existing + Project Roadway Noise Levels Existing Noise 50-Feet (dba CNEL) Existing Plus Project Noise 50-Feet (dba CNEL) Project Related Noise Level Increase (dba CNEL) Roadway Segment SR-78 Ramps to Barham Dr Barham Dr. to Campus Marketplace Campus Marketplace to Craven Rd Craven Rd. to North Village Dr North Village Dr. to South Village Dr South Village Dr. to Site Access South of Site Access Twin Oaks Valley Rd. to Rush Dr Craven Road Rush Dr. to Echo Lane Echo Lane to Santa Barbara Drive Santa Barbara Dr. Craven Rd. to Orchid Avenue Village Drive North Twin Oaks Valley Road to Carnation Ct Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 84

150 The only segment that has an increase of 3dBA CNEL or greater is the segment of Village Drive North between Twin Oaks Valley Road and Carnation Court. The overall noise level is 61.3 dba CNEL with no shielding along this segment. However, the side and rear yards of existing residences along this segment of roadway have a minimum five-foot wall already in place. Barriers of this height typically provide a reduction of 3 to 5 decibels, and those residences that are below the grade of Village Drive North will have further noise reductions due to grade separation. Thus, the existing walls will reduce the noise level below the 60 dba CNEL threshold. Therefore, the Project s direct contribution to off-site roadways is less than significant. Cumulative Off-Site Noise Impact Analysis To determine if cumulative off-site noise level increases associated with the development of the Project and other planned or permitted projects in the vicinity will create noise impacts. The noise levels for the near-term Project Buildout and other planned and permitted projects were compared with the existing conditions. Utilizing the Project s traffic assessment (RBF Consulting, 2012) noise contours were developed for the following traffic scenarios: Existing: Current day noise conditions without construction of the project. Existing Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Project: Current day noise conditions plus the completion of the project and the completion of other permitted, planned projects or approved ambient growth factors. Existing vs. Existing Plus Cumulative Plus Project: Comparison of the existing noise levels and the related noise level increases from the combination of the project and all other planned or permitted projects in the vicinity of the site. The existing noise levels and reference distances to the 60 dba CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Table 14 above for the Existing Scenario. The near-term cumulative noise conditions are provided in Table 17. No noise barriers or topography that may affect noise levels were incorporated in the calculations. Table 17. Existing + Project Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels Roadway Roadway Segment ADT 1 Vehicle Speeds (MPH) 1 Noise 50-Feet (dba CNEL) 60 dba CNEL Contour Distance (Feet) SR-78 Ramps to Barham Dr. 54, ,914 Barham Dr. to Campus Marketplace 39, ,109 Campus Marketplace to Craven Rd. 40, ,175 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Craven Rd. to North Village Dr. 36, ,963 North Village Dr. to South Village Dr. 30, ,649 South Village Dr. to Site Access 29, ,549 South of Site Access 28, ,525 Twin Oaks Valley Rd. to Rush Dr. 15, Craven Road Rush Dr. to Echo Lane 17, Echo Lane to Santa Barbara Drive 17, Santa Barbara Dr. Craven Rd. to Orchid Avenue 2, Village Drive North Twin Oaks Valley Road to Carnation Ct. 3, Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 85

151 Table 18 presents the comparison of the Existing Year and the Near-Term Cumulative noise levels. The overall roadway segment noise levels will increase from 0.3 dba CNEL to 5.3 dba CNEL with the development of the Project. The only segment that has an increase of 3dBA CNEL or greater is the segment of Village Drive North between Twin Oaks Valley Road and Carnation Court. The overall noise level is 61.7 dba CNEL with no shielding. However, the side and rear yards of existing residences along this segment of roadway have a minimum five-foot wall already in place. Barriers of this height typically provide a reduction of 3 to 5 decibels, and those residences that are below the grade of Village Drive North will have further noise reductions due to grade separation. Thus, the existing walls will reduce the noise level below the 60 dba CNEL threshold. Therefore, the Project s direct contribution to off-site roadways is less than significant. Therefore, the Project s direct contributions to off-site roadways is less than significant. Roadway Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Table 18. Existing vs. Existing + Project Cumulative Roadway Noise Levels Existing Noise 50 Feet (dba CNEL) Existing Plus Project Noise 50 Feet (dba CNEL) Project Related Noise Level Increase (dba CNEL) Roadway Segment SR-78 Ramps to Barham Dr Barham Dr. to Campus Marketplace Campus Marketplace to Craven Rd Craven Rd. to North Village Dr North Village Dr. to South Village Dr South Village Dr. to Site Access South of Site Access Twin Oaks Valley Rd. to Rush Dr Craven Road Rush Dr. to Echo Lane Echo Lane to Santa Barbara Drive Santa Barbara Dr. Craven Rd. to Orchid Avenue Village Drive North Twin Oaks Valley Road to Carnation Ct Source: Ldn Consulting (2014) In summary, the proposed project does create a direct and cumulative noise increase of more than 3 dba CNEL on a segment of Village Drive North, however, this increase does not take into consideration existing barriers and walls, which provide shielding/noise attenuation. The overall noise level is 61.7 dba CNEL with no shielding. However, the side and rear yards of existing residences along this segment of roadway have five-foot barriers already in place. Barriers of this height typically provide a reduction of 3 to 5 decibels, thus they will reduce the noise level below the 60 dba CNEL threshold. Therefore, the Project s direct and cumulative contributions to off-site roadway noise increases are less than significant to any existing or future noise sensitive land uses. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact Construction noise represents a short-term impact on the ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment includes haul trucks, water trucks, graders, dozers, loaders and scrapers can Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 86

152 reach relatively high levels. Grading activities typically represent one of the highest potential sources for noise impacts. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours and by limiting the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours. The Municipal Code addresses the limits grading, extraction and construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and no grading, extraction or construction is allowed on the weekends or holidays. The Municipal code does not set noise limits on construction activities. Commonly, the City has utilized the County of San Diego s Noise Ordinance noise limit of 75 dba for other projects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from 60 dba to in excess of 100 dba when measured at 50 feet. However, these noise levels diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dba per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 75 dba measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would be reduced to 69 dba at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduced to 63 dba at 200 feet from the source. Using a point-source noise prediction model, calculations of the expected construction noise impacts were completed. The essential model input data for these performance equations include the source levels of each type of equipment, relative source to receiver horizontal and vertical separations, the amount of time the equipment is operating in a given day, also referred to as the duty-cycle and any transmission loss from topography or barriers. The equipment needed for the development will consist of up to a tractor/backhoe, a hydraulic crane, a loader/grader, a side boom, a water truck, a concrete truck, a concrete pump, haul trucks, a paver, a roller/compactor, a scraper and a drill rig. Based on the EPA noise emissions, empirical data and the amount of equipment needed, worst case noise levels from the construction equipment for site preparation would occur during the grading operations. Additionally, the project will utilize a Terex Pegson XA750 rock crusher. This equipment is utilized separately from the grading equipment and will be analyzed separately. Construction Grading Noise Analysis The grading activities will consist of the preparation of internal roadways, parking and the finished pads. The grading equipment will be spread out over the Project site from distances near the occupied property lines to distances of 350 feet or more away. Based upon the site plan the majority of the grading operations, on average, will occur more than 350 feet from the property lines. This means that most of the time the average distance from all the equipment to the nearest property line is over 350 feet. Table 19 presents the anticipated construction noise levels. As can be seen in Table 19, at an average distance of 350 feet from the construction activities to the nearest property line would result in a noise attenuation of dba. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 87

153 Table 19. Construction Noise Levels Equipment Type Quantity Used 50 Feet (dba) Cumulative Noise 50 Feet (dba) Tractor/Backhoe Dozer D9 Cat Hydraulic Crane Loader/Grader Side Boom Water Trucks Concrete Trucks Concrete Pump Dump Trucks Paver/Blade Roller/Compactor Scraper Drill Rig Haul Trucks Cumulative Level 89.0 Distance to Sensitive Use 350 Noise Reduction due to Distance Property Line Noise Level 72.1 Given this, the noise levels will comply with the 75 dba Leq standard at the property lines. To help control the noise levels from the haul trucks a speed limit of 15 MPH should be posted along the onsite haul route and signage limiting the use of engine jake brakes. Additionally, all equipment should be properly fitted with mufflers and all staging and maintenance should be conducted as far away for the existing residence as possible. These requirements have been identified as design features for the project. Therefore, impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is required during construction of the proposed project. Rock Crusher Analysis Due to bedrock conditions, rock crushing may be required during project construction. Rock crushing would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM. The rock crushing equipment will be located in the northwestern corner of the Mixed-Use site near the access road, more than 1,000 feet from the nearest residence. Based on empirical data collected at a material processing plant in the City of Upland noise levels from a rock crusher ranged between dba at 45 feet (Ldn 2011). A worst-case noise level of 86 dba at 45 feet will be utilized for the analysis. As can be seen in Table 20, in order to achieve the City s 60 dba Leq standard, the rock crusher needs to be 1,000 feet from the nearest residence. The nearest residence to the proposed rock crusher location is over 1,000 feet. Figure 8 shows the noise contour of the rock crushing operations. Given this, the noise levels will comply with the City s 60 dba Leq standard at the property lines. However, should there be a change in rock crusher location or rock crusher type, there is the potential for a significant noise impact (Impact N-4). Thus implementation of mitigation measure MM-N-4 will be required as a condition of project approval. Implementation of MM-N-4 will reduce the potential impact to below a level of significance. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 88

154 Table 20. Rock Crushing Noise Levels Equipment Type Quantity Used 50 Feet (dba) Cumulative Noise 50 Feet (dba) Terex Pegson XA750 Rock Crusher Distance to Sensitive Use 1,000 Noise Reduction due to Distance Property Line Noise Level 60.0 Figure 8. Rock Crusher Noise Contour Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment (Rancho Coronado) 89