City of Escondido Citracado South Project · The project would adhere to the parking requirements and design standards in the Escondido Municipal Code. Section 33-765 of the Code

City of Escondido

Citracado South Project

DraftInitial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

February 2016


Draft Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared by:

City of Escondido 201 North Broadway Escondido, CA 92025

760-839-4880

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue

Ventura, California 93003

February 2016

This report is printed on 50% recycled paper.

Citracado South ProjectInitial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration

City of Escondidoi

Table of Contents

Page Initial Study ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Project Title: ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: ....................................................................................... 1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: ................................................................................... 1 4. Project Location: ..................................................................................................................... 1 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................. 1 6. General Plan Designation: ..................................................................................................... 1 7. Zoning: ..................................................................................................................................... 1 8. Description of Project: ............................................................................................................ 2 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: ................................................................................... 7 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: ...................................................... 4

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...................................................................................... 9 Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................... 13

I. Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 13 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .............................................................................. 15 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 17 IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 20 V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 24 VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 28 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................. 32 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 36 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 39 X. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................... 43 XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 45 XII. Noise .................................................................................................................................. 45 XIII. Paleontological Resources ............................................................................................... 57 XIV. Population and Housing ................................................................................................ 58 XV. Public Services .................................................................................................................. 59 XVI. Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 63 XVII. Transportation/Traffic ..................................................................................................... 67 XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................... 67 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 73

References ............................................................................................................................................. 76 Persons Contacted ........................................................................................................................... 78

List of Tables Table 1 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................................................... 18 Table 2 Operational Emissions (pounds/day) ..................................................................................... 19 Table 3 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ................................................................................ 35 Table 4 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ............................................................. 35


City of Escondidoii

Table 5 City of Escondido Municipal Code 17-229 Sound Level Limits by Zone ........................... 47 Table 6 City of Escondido Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines..................................... 48 Table 7 Noise Monitoring Results ......................................................................................................... 51 Table 8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................................... 51 Table 9 Significance of Changes in Operational Roadway Noise Exposure.................................... 53 Table 10 Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................................. 53 Table 11 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment .......................................... 55 Table 12 School Capacity and Student Generation ............................................................................. 61 Table 13 Project Trip Generation .......................................................................................................... 65 Table 14 Existing + Project Intersection Operations............................................................................ 65 Table 15 San Diego County Water Authority Normal Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AF/YR) ................................................................................................................................... 70 Table 16 San Diego County Water Authority Multiple Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment 2016-2018 (AF/YR) ............................................................................................ 71 Table 17 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ........................................................................................ 73 Attachment Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendices Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results Appendix B Biological Review Letter Appendix C Letter of Reliance for Cultural Resources Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation Appendix E Hydrology Study Appendix F Noise Measurement Data Appendix G Traffic Study


INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title:


2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Escondido 201 N. Broadway Escondido, CA 92025

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Bill Martin Assistant Planning Director (760) 839-4557

4. Project Location:

The project site is located on a 2.29-acre site at 2516 South Escondido Boulevard in the southern portion of the City of Escondido, San Diego County. The site is located south of West Citracado Parkway and Citracado Village, east of South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway, and west of Cranston Drive. The site is currently a vacant lot that was formerly developed with a mobile home park and motel that have been demolished. Some foundational concrete pads remain on the site. Figure 1 shows the location of the site within the region and Figure 2 shows the project site within the local context.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address

ETP, LLC Eddie Kaen 861 Sixth Avenue #310 San Diego, CA 92101

6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial with Mixed-use Overlay

7. Zoning:

Existing: General Commercial (C-G) Proposed: Planned Development Residential (PD-R)

City of Escondido1


8. Description of Project: The proposed project would involve the construction of a 65-unit condominium development on a vacant 2.29-acre site. The project would be a Planned Residential Development and include Master and Precise Development Plans. The development would consist of 11 contemporary buildings with centralized and peripheral common open space. This would include a private dog and pet lawn, community garden with above-ground garden beds available to tenants, private tot-lot playground, putting green, and private BBQ pit and dining area with fire pit. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan. Open space would total 27,716 square feet (sf), including the common open space areas described above (totaling 25,961 sf) and an additional 1,755 sf of private open space (balconies). The project site would be rezoned from General Commercial (C-G) to Planned Development, Residential (PD-R) and an amendment to the South Escondido Boulevard (SEB) Area Plan would also be required to allow residential development without a commercial component.

The project site consists of a vacant lot, with minimal concrete foundation remaining from the former motel and mobile home park. Vegetation within the project site includes various grasses and trees such as the Washington palm, tree of heaven, Peruvian pepper, jacaranda, and oleander. These are present along the southern fence line and scattered throughout the site. The buildings would be three stories tall carriage-style dwelling units, with the living spaces located on the second and third floors and a two-car garage positioned at the bottom of each unit, providing ample parking for residents. Every unit would have three-bedrooms and three-bathrooms, with approximately 1,060 sf of total living space on the second and third level. The units would be 39 feet 1 ¾ inches tall, to the top of the roof structures, (stair shafts, mechanical equipment, etc.) with each story equaling 8 feet 6 inches in height. Building numbers 1, 8, 9, and 11 would have five dwelling units each; Building numbers 3, 5, and 7 would have six dwelling units each; and Buildings 2, 4, and 6 would have seven dwelling units each, for a total of 65 condominiums. In total, the project would add approximately 179 new residents.

Landscaping on-site would consist of plants that require low to moderate water usage as identified by the Wulco Plant Factor Values. Plants will be arranged in their appropriate hydrozone to further conserve water. The 428 sf putting green that is located in the center of the project site is not considered drought tolerant; however it would provide residents with on-site recreational opportunities. The on-site irrigation system would be a high-efficient system, utilizing bubblers, rotors (high efficient rotor heads), and low-volume shrub heads that meets the City of Escondido Municipal Code Requirements, Chapter 33, as well as the Escondido Municipal Code Water Efficient Landscape Requirements. All street trees would be selected from the City of Escondido Approved street tree list and spacing would exceed the required (1) tree per 30 linear feet of frontage. Wood fencing would be situated along the property lines and an eight foot tall wood and wire fence would surround the dog run. The tot-lot play area would also be enclosed, with a wrought iron fence and a self-closing spring latch door.

Site Access, Circulation, and Parking The project would include two access roads to the residential subdivision: one on South Escondido Boulevard and the other at the intersection of Las Palmas Avenue and Cranston

City of Escondido2


Drive (see the site plan in Figure 3). Inbound and outbound movements would be allowed at both roads. Intersections would be controlled with a stop-sign control for the site driveway. On-site improvements associated with the project include:

Construct Escondido Boulevard from the north project boundary to the south project boundary at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. Construct Cranston Drive from the north project boundary to the south project boundary at its ultimate half-section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Sight distance at the project accesses must comply with standard California Department of Transportation and City of Escondido sight distance standards. The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that sight distance standards are met.

The project would adhere to the parking requirements and design standards in the Escondido Municipal Code. Section 33-765 of the Code establishes development and design standards that set basic minimum dimensions and guidelines for design, construction, and maintenance of parking within residential districts. . Driveways providing access to the site would be 24-feet wide and on-site parking would include 65 private two-car garages for residents, nine open parking spaces, and seven on-street parking spaces for guests.

Construction and Grading The site is vacant, relatively flat, and would require minimal grading. Construction is expected to occur over approximately one year. A retaining wall (ranging in height from 5 feet 1 inch to 9 feet 1 inch) would be constructed along the entire southern property line. In addition, there is an existing retaining wall constructed along the northern property boundary of the site that would remain on-site and is included in the project site plans. Site grading is expected to consist of minor cuts and fills to establish proposed grades at the site (GECON, 2006). The condominium developments would be constructed to be three stories, with each level equaling 8 feet 6 inches in height. Utilities and Services The project site would be served by both public and private utilities. Sewer, water, and storm drains would be provided by the City of Escondido, as would police and fire service. Telecommunication services would be provided by AT&T, Cox, Verizon, or others. Gas and electric would be served by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). Two school districts serve the project site. Escondido Union School District provides elementary and middle schools and Escondido Union School District provides high schools. The on-site water system would be installed in accordance with the standards established by the City of Escondido. Stormwater from the site would drain to a large drainage basin via a pump that directs all surface flows to a single treatment facility. The site will utilize localized drains and sheet flow to drain to a single pump system that discharges into a

City of Escondido3


single 1804.87 ft2 biofiltration facility. After treated stormflows for water quality measures the biofiltration facility will collect subsurface waters via a perforated underdrain and discharge via a single subsurface drain line to the existing storm sewer at the southeast corner of the site. Utilities would be underground. The project would include the installation of approved street light standards and fixtures.

9. Environmental Setting:

The 2.29-acre project site is located south of West Citracado Parkway, east of South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway, and west of Cranston Drive. The site is bordered by residential and commercial uses on all sides, including Citracado Village, a multi-family residential use to the north, commercial uses to the south, and single family homes to the east and to the west across South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway (see the site photos in Figure 4). Vegetation within the project site includes various grasses and trees such as the Washington palm, tree of heaven, Peruvian pepper, jacaranda, and oleander. These are present along the southern fence line and scattered throughout the site. Native vegetation does not occur on the project site and no existing plants of note are to be removed, relocated, or saved. The remainder of the site that is not paved or built upon would be planted or covered with inorganic mulches.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:

No approvals from other public agencies are required.

City of Escondido4

_̂

Initial StudyCitracado South Project

Regional Location Figure 1City of Escondido

±

_̂

_̂ Project Location

Imagery provided by ESRI and its licensors © 2015.

0 52.5

Miles

Centre C

ity Pky

Cra

nsto

n D

r

S Escondido Blvd

W Citracado Pky

Tesoro Gln

Site Map Figure 2City of Escondido

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.

0 10050

Feet ±Project Boundary


Source: obrARCHITECTURE, INC., 2015.

Site Map

Figure 3City of Escondido

Citracado South ProjectInitial Study

Scale: 1” = 40’


Site PhotographsCity of Escondido

Photo 1: View from South Escondido Boulevard looking east.

Photo 2: Southwest view of the project site, viewed from eastern boundary of the project site.

Figure 4a


Site PhotographsCity of Escondido

Photo 3: Existing on-site storm drainage and Citracago Village, as viewed from the southern boundary of the project site.

Photo 4: Southeast view of the project site, viewed from the western bondary of the project site.

Figure 4b


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and ForestResources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse GasEmissions

Hazards & HazardousMaterials

Hydrology/WaterQuality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

PaleontologicalResources Population/Housing Public Services

Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/ServiceSystems

Mandatory Findings ofSignificance

City of Escondido11


DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, andan 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 oneeffect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicablelegal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on theearlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT 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 theenvironment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzedadequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicablestandards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR orNEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that areimposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

City of Escondido12


ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

Potentially Significant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than Significant

ImpactNo

Impact

I. AESTHETICS-- Would the Project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ascenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings withina state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visualcharacter or quality of the site and itssurroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area?

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

According to the City’s Resource Conservation Element, visual scenic resources in Escondido include ridgelines, hillsides, and viewsheds (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). Interstate 15 (I-15), extending from the northern Escondido city limits to the Riverside County line, is designated by the City as a scenic corridor and eligible as a state highway within the state scenic highway system (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012; Caltrans, 2013). However, the project site is not visible from this highway because it is located in the southern portion of Escondido, approximately seven miles away from the portion of the interstate that is designated as a scenic corridor. Therefore, the project would not affect scenic views of ridgelines, hillsides, or viewsheds from I-15.

The vacant project site currently affords views of surrounding buildings and roads such as Citracado Village, a multi-family development, to the north, single family residences to the east, and South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway to the west. In addition, commercial uses to the south, including a motel and a restaurant, are partially visible through a tree row (see the site photos in Figure 4). Regional topography is relatively hilly with peaks ranging from 1,055 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in the southeast to 1,150 feet above mean sea level at Bernardo Mountain to the southwest, sloping in the general direction of San Bernardo Valley. The project site does not provide views of scenic ridgelines, hillsides, or viewsheds (Scenic Resources) identified in of the City’s Resource Conservation Element. Views of the scenic ridgeline nearest to the project site, Bernardo Mountain, located approximately two miles to the

City of Escondido13


southwest of Via Rancho Parkway, are obstructed by hills to the immediate southwest of I-15. Furthermore, the project site is located in a valley, ranging from approximately 570 feet MSL to 580 feet MSL (Rincon, 2006) and would involve construction of buildings approximately 39 feet in height that would not substantially alter or obstruct existing views or views of scenic hills and ridgelines from or through the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas and scenic resources. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The project site is located in a mixed-use area of Escondido. The site is a generally flat lot that was formerly occupied by a trailer park and motel that have been demolished; just remnants of the concrete pads and non-native vegetation remain. Development of the proposed project would turn the vacant lot into a townhome development. The project site is bordered by residential and commercial uses on all sides, including a multi-family residential development to the north, commercial uses to the south, and single family homes to the east, and to the west across South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway. The proposed project would meet the requirements set forth in Section 33-252 of the Municipal Code. The maximum height of each of the multi-family residence would not exceed three stories or 35 feet with a minimum floor space of 400 sf, excluding porches, garages, carports, entries, terraces, and patios (Escondido, Municipal Code, 2015). The project would replace the remaining concrete pads, which have low visual quality, with structures that have an updated contemporary aesthetic. The townhome development would be generally compatible in scale with the existing residential buildings located to the north (see Figure 4 for photos of existing site and surrounding buildings). As a result, the proposed project would be visually compatible with surrounding uses. This impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project site is currently a vacant lot. There are no uses on the site that currently generate light or glare. The area surrounding the site is mixed-use, including various residential and commercial developments, with lighting levels typical of suburban residential neighborhoods. The project would adhere to the lighting requirements in the Escondido Municipal Code. Per Section 33-713 of the Municipal Code, light fixtures for walks, parking areas, driveways, and other facilities must be shielded low-pressure sodium, narrow-spectrum amber LEDs, or other energy efficient outdoor light fixtures with a CCT of three thousand Kelvin, with minimal shadows or light leaving the property. The lighting must be directed away from adjacent properties and shielded so that no light or glare is transmitted or reflected in such concentrated quantities or intensities as to be detrimental to the surrounding area. Additionally, all outdoor light fixtures that are not low-pressure sodium or narrow-spectrum amber LEDs, or do not have

City of Escondido14


CCT of three thousand Kelvin or less must be equipped with automatic timing devices so that the lighting is turned off between the hours of 11:00 PM and sunrise, except when in use. With adherence to City Code requirements, light and glare from the proposed residential development would be comparable to that associated with the existing mixed-uses located adjacent to the site. Light and glare impacts would therefore be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRYRESOURCES -- 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 Dept. 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 and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 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?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 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 by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

City of Escondido15



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRYRESOURCES

d) Result in the loss of forest land orconversion of forest land to non-forestuse?

e) Involve other changes in the existingenvironment which, due to their location ornature, could result in conversion ofFarmland, to non-agricultural use?

a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 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? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined inPublic Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location ornature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

According to the City of Escondido Cultural and Agricultural Sites map, found in the Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan, the project site is not located on or adjacent to land designated as Agricultural (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). According to the State of California Department of Conservation, the project site is not located on or adjacent to land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Department of Conservation, 2012). The project site is within a suburban area that lacks agricultural or forest land. As such, the project would not involve changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of farmland or forest land to non-agricultural, non-forest uses. In addition, the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract or adjacent to agricultural land under such a contract. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT

City of Escondido16



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

III. AIR QUALITY-- Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard orcontribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable netincrease of any criteria pollutant for whichthe project region is non-attainment underan applicable federal or state ambient airquality standard (including releasingemissions which exceed quantitativethresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting asubstantial number of people?

The project site is within the San Diego Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that applicable air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.

The SDAPCD has adopted the following thresholds for temporary construction-related and long-term operational emissions of air pollutants:

250 pounds per day reactive organic gases (ROG)250 pounds per day nitric oxide (NOx)550 pounds per day carbon monoxide (CO)250 pounds per day sulfur oxides (SOx)100 pounds per day PM10

100 pounds per day PM2.5

a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Projects that involve development consistent with growth anticipated by applicable general plans are consistent with the Regional Air Quality Strategy Plan and the State Implementation Plan. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District uses the San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG) growth forecast of a population of 154,635 in Escondido by 2020 (SANDAG, 2011). As discussed in Section XIII, Population and Housing, the project would add approximately 179 new residents (2.76 persons per household times 65 units), which would

City of Escondido17


bring the total population to about 147,473 people. As a result, the population growth associated with the project is well within the projected population of the San Diego Air Quality Management Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and no impact would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

b) Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing orprojected air quality violation? c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for whichthe 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)?

Implementation of the proposed project would generate both temporary construction and long-term operational emissions. Emissions associated with the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2. Complete CalEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix A.

Construction Emissions Development of the proposed project would involve site grading and other construction-related activities that have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade air quality. Dust and exhaust emissions associated with construction activities are temporary air quality impacts. Table 1 compares the maximum daily emissions during grading construction to SDAPCD construction emission thresholds. Maximum total emissions generated by construction of the proposed project would not exceed SDAPCD thresholds.

Table 1Construction Emissions (pounds/day)

Pollutant Maximum Daily Emission

Significance Threshold

Significance Impact?

ROG 49.4 250 No

NOx 30.9 250 No

CO 23.5 550 No

SOx <1 250 No

PM10 8.3 100 No

PM2.5 4.9 100 No

See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets.

Operational Emissions Operational emissions were also estimated using CalEEMod. Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project are those that would be generated by vehicle trips (mobile emissions), the use of landscaping maintenance equipment (area source emissions), and the use of electricity (energy emissions). As shown in Table 2, the project would not generate emissions

City of Escondido18


exceeding any SDAPCD thresholds. Therefore, long-term impacts to regional air quality would be less than significant.

Table 2 Operational Emissions (pounds/day)

Pollutant Total Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact?

ROG 4.9 250 No

NOx 4.3 250 No

CO 23.7 550 No

SOx <0.1 250 No

PM10 2.9 100 No

PM2.5 0.8 100 No


Air pollution emissions associated with project construction and operation would be well below SDAPCD thresholds. The proposed project would not violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Sensitive receptors consist of land uses that are more likely to be used by these population groups. Sensitive receptors include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas. The sensitive receptors nearest to the project include Citracado Village, the multi-family residence located adjacent to the project site to the north, and single family residences east of the site. In addition, Escondido Lodge is located to the south.

Grading and construction of the project site would generate fugitive dust emissions from construction and grading equipment. However, these emissions are temporary and would not generate an ongoing, substantial source of emissions that could adversely affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Implementation of standard grading and construction measures for dust control and pollution prevention as required by the SDAPCD (e.g., watering during grading activities, preventing “track out” onto streets, and limitations on idling time) would avoid potential impacts. As discussed above, neither temporary construction emissions nor long-term project emissions would exceed SDAPCD thresholds; therefore, the project would not subject sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant.


e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

City of Escondido19


Residential uses typically do not create objectionable odors. Odors would be generated by the operation of equipment during the construction phases of the proposed project. Odors associated with construction machinery would be those of diesel machinery, which includes the smells of oil or diesel fuels. The odors would be limited to the time that construction equipment is operating. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, eitherdirectly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in localor regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fishand Wildlife or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on anyriparian habitat or other sensitive naturalcommunity identified in local or regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or by theCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlifeor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect onfederally protected wetlands as defined bySection 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through directremoval, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movementof any native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species or with established nativeresident or migratory wildlife corridors, orimpede the use of native wildlife nurserysites?

e) Conflict with any local policies orordinances protecting biologicalresources, such as a tree preservationpolicy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adoptedHabitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or other

City of Escondido20



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-- Would the project:

approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Dudek conducted a site visit on April 14, 2005 to determine the existing biological conditions and constraints at the project site. No biological resources were found on-site and no mitigation for development of the site was required (see Appendix B). Rincon Consultants conducted a follow-up reconnaissance level biological survey for the Citacado South Project on October 1, 2015. The purpose of the survey was to document existing biological conditions within the survey area, including plant and wildlife species, vegetation communities, and the potential for presence of sensitive species and/or habitats to evaluate the potential impacts to special-status biological resources for compliance with the CEQA review process. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Special-status species are those plants and animals 1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESAC); 2) those listed or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); 3) those recognized as Species of Special Concern (SSC) by the CDFW; 4) those afforded protection under Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or California Fish and Game Code (CFGC); and 4) plants occurring on lists 1 and 2 of the CDFW California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) system per the following definitions:

List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California; List 1B.1 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat); List 1B.2 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened); List 1B.3 = Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere, not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known); and List 2 = Rare, threatened or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

In addition, special-status species are ranked globally (G) and subnationally (S) 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodologies:

G1 or S1 - Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 - Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)

City of Escondido21


G3 or S3 - Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4 or S4 - Apparently secure Globally or Subnationally (state) G5 or S5 - Secure Globally or Subnationally (state)

o ? - Inexact Numeric Rank o T - Infraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the

level of species) o Q – Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority

The project site consists of disturbed lands, primarily dominated by non-native/invasive grass, plant, and tree species; however, the site and surrounding areas provide habitat suitable for wildlife species that commonly occur in southern California suburban areas. The non-native grasses on-site are not classified as native grassland because the site is disturbed land that has been previously developed and is mainly inhabited by weedy invasive species. Avian species observed/detected on or adjacent to the property include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria), and Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans). Habitat on-site is not expected to support special-status wildlife species. As described above, the project site is developed and there are no known nests and no native biological habitat on-site. However, the project site contains non-native trees and other non-native landscaping that would be removed as part of the project. Project activities that occur during the avian nesting season, typically February through August, have the potential to directly impact nesting birds if nests are destroyed, or if project activity is sufficiently disruptive that birds abandon active nests. The trees and shrubs within the project site provide potentially suitable nesting habitat for a variety of bird species that are afforded protection under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA – 16 United States Code Section 703-711) and California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 3503. Due to the limited number of existing larger trees and shrubs, the proposed project has minimal potential to impact migratory and other bird species. Nevertheless, construction-related disturbance could result in nest abandonment or premature fledging of the young. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measure

The following mitigation measure, and compliance with MBTA and CFGC requirements, would be required to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.

BIO-1 To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds, including raptorial species protected by the MBTA and CFGC, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 30). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species

City of Escondido22


known to occur in southern California coastal communities. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Plant communities are also considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, have high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" and keeps records of their occurrences in CNDDB. Similar to special-status plant and wildlife species, vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2010) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Plant species observed/detected on the project site include Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), wild oats (Avena sp.), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), white-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), castor bean (Ricinus communis), giant reed (Arundo donax), crab grass (Digitaria sanguinalis), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), everlasting (Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), and purple false brome (Brachypodium distachyon). Trees on-site include Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), jacaranda (Jacaranda sp.), and oleander (Nerium oleander). Habitat on-site is not classified as CDFW wetlands and would not support special-status plant species. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Would the project 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? Six to seven storm drain inlets are present in the eastern edge of the property, some situated in depressions which appear to accumulate standing water after heavy rains. As such, patches of the invasive/non-native giant reed, which is considered a hydric plant species, have accumulated around the drainages along the eastern site boundary. These areas are man-made excavations that appear to be part of the drainage system for the site. No habitat of quality to support native riparian plant/wildlife species is present. Federally protected wetlands or waters as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,

City of Escondido23


vernal pool, coastal, etc.) do not occur on-site. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.


d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish orwildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The project site is within a suburban area that is not within a regional wildlife movement corridor. Furthermore, the project site is constrained by development on all sides. Therefore, project activities would not adversely affect 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. Impacts would be less than significant.


e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such asa tree preservation policy or ordinance?

The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Native vegetation does not occur on the project site. Therefore, the project would not interfere or conflict with the City of San Escondido Resource Conservation Element. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT

f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NaturalCommunity Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The project site is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-- Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change inthe significance of a historical resource asdefined in §15064.5?

City of Escondido24



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES-- Would the project:

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

d) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? The project site is currently vacant so there are no designated historic buildings on the project site. RECON conducted an archival search and field investigation, including review of the archaeological site records and historical maps from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), on June 3, 2005. Additional resources consulted include early aerial photographs, the Pioneer Room of the City of Escondido Public Library, City of Escondido Planning and Buildings Records Departments, Escondido Historic Site Survey, County of San Diego Assessor's records, and consultation with the City of Escondido and the Escondido Historical Society. The records search did not identify any historic addresses within the project area (see Appendix C for Letter of Reliance for Cultural Resources). The proposed project would have no impact with respect to historical resources. NO IMPACT b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? d) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074? No evidence of any prehistoric site was identified during the pedestrian survey or archival search, and the project site is highly disturbed by human activity. Nevertheless, the unearthing of buried cultural material during grading activities is possible. Therefore, impacts on unanticipated tribal cultural material or archaeological resources would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.

City of Escondido25


Additionally, human remains are unlikely to be present on-site. Nevertheless, even with the relatively limited grading activity for construction of the proposed townhome development, the discovery of human remains would be a possibility during ground-disturbing activities; therefore, impacts to human remains would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.

Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

CR-1 The City of Escondido Planning Division (“City”) recommends the applicant enter into a Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (also known as a pre-excavation agreement) with a tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project Location (“TCA Tribe”) prior to issuance of a grading permit. The purposes of the agreement are (1) to provide the applicant with clear expectations regarding tribal cultural resources, and (2) to formalize protocols and procedures between the Applicant/Owner and the TCA Tribe for the protection and treatment of, including but not limited to, Native American human remains, funerary objects, cultural and religious landscapes, ceremonial items, traditional gathering areas and cultural items, located and/or discovered through a monitoring program in conjunction with the construction of the proposed project, including additional archaeological surveys and/or studies, excavations, geotechnical investigations, grading, and all other ground disturbing activities.

CR-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide written verification to the City that a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor associated with a TCA Tribe have been retained to implement the monitoring program. The archaeologist shall be responsible for coordinating with the Native American monitor. This verification shall be presented to the City in a letter from the project archaeologist that confirms the selected Native American monitor is associated with a TCA Tribe. The City, prior to any pre-construction meeting, shall approve all persons involved in the monitoring program.

CR-3 The qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor shall attend the pre-grading meeting with the grading contractors to explain and coordinate the requirements of the monitoring program.

CR-4 During the initial grubbing, site grading, excavation or disturbance of the ground surface, the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor shall be on site full-time. The frequency of inspections shall depend on the rate of excavation, the materials excavated, and any discoveries of tribal cultural resources as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 21074. Archaeological and Native American monitoring will be discontinued when the depth of grading and soil conditions no longer retain the potential to contain cultural deposits. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall be responsible for determining the duration and frequency of monitoring.

CR-5 In the event that previously unidentified tribal cultural resources are discovered, the qualified archaeologist and the Native American monitor, shall have the authority to

City of Escondido26


temporarily divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow for the evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources. Isolates and clearly non-significant deposits shall be minimally documented in the field and collected so the monitored grading can proceed.

CR-6 If a potentially significant tribal cultural resource is discovered, the archaeologist shall notify the City of said discovery. The qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, the TCA Tribe and the Native American monitor, shall determine the significance of the discovered resource. A recommendation for the tribal cultural resource’s treatment and disposition shall be made by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the TCA Tribe and the Native American monitor and be submitted to the City for review and approval.

CR-7 The avoidance and/or preservation of the significant tribal cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource must first be considered and evaluated as required by CEQA. Where any significant tribal cultural resources and/or unique archaeological resources have been discovered and avoidance and/or preservation measures are deemed to be infeasible by the City, then a research design and data recovery program to mitigate impacts shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist (using professional archaeological methods), in consultation with the TCA Tribe and the Native American monitor, and shall be subject to approval by the City. The archaeological monitor, in consultation with the Native American monitor, shall determine the amount of material to be recovered for an adequate artifact sample for analysis. Before construction activities are allowed to resume in the affected area, the research design and data recovery program activities must be concluded to the satisfaction of the City.

CR-8 As specified by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, if human remains are found on the project site during construction or during archaeological work, the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, shall immediately notify the San Diego County Coroner’s office. Determination of whether the remains are human shall be conducted on-site and in situ where they were discovered by a forensic anthropologist, unless the forensic anthropologist and the Native American monitor agree to remove the remains to an off-site location for examination. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition. A temporary construction exclusion zone shall be established surrounding the area of the discovery so that the area would be protected, and consultation and treatment could occur as prescribed by law. In the event that the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains in accordance with California Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The Native American remains shall be kept in-situ, or in a secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and the analysis of the remains shall only occur on-site in the presence of a Native American monitor.

City of Escondido27


CR-9 If the qualified archaeologist elects to collect any tribal cultural resources, the Native American monitor must be present during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Moreover, if the qualified Archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the Native American monitor, may at their discretion, collect said resources and provide them to the TCA Tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe’s cultural and spiritual traditions. Any tribal cultural resources collected by the qualified archaeologist shall be repatriated to the TCA Tribe. Should the TCA Tribe or other traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe decline the collection, the collection shall be curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center. All other resources determined by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American monitor, to not be tribal cultural resources, shall be curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center.

CR-10 Prior to the release of the grading bond, a monitoring report and/or evaluation report, if appropriate, which describes the results, analysis and conclusion of the archaeological monitoring program and any data recovery program on the project site shall be submitted by the qualified archaeologist to the City. The Native American monitor shall be responsible for providing any notes or comments to the qualified archaeologist in a timely manner to be submitted with the report. The report will include California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary and Archaeological Site Forms for any newly discovered resources.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

ImpactVI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

-- Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potentialsubstantial adverse effects, including therisk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake FaultZoning Map issued by the StateGeologist for the area or based onother substantial evidence of a knownfault?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

City of Escondido28



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

ImpactVI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS


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 as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-sitelandslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as definedin Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code,creating substantial risks to life orproperty?

e) Have soils incapable of adequatelysupporting the use of septic tanks oralternative wastewater disposal systemswhere sewers are not available for thedisposal of wastewater?

GEOCON, Inc. prepared a geotechnical investigation of the site to determine the presence of geotechnical hazards and appropriate mitigation. The analysis below is based on these investigations, which are included in Appendix D. a.i) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

The project site is not located within an area that has been identified as having a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (State of California Department of Conservation, 2015). Per the Community Protection Element of the City of Escondido General Plan (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012), the most significant fault system near the City is the Rose Canyon fault zone. This fault zone runs approximately 20 miles west of Escondido. No known fault lines cut through the site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of an earthquake fault. Impacts would be less than significant.


City of Escondido29


a.ii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?

According to the City of Escondido General Plan, the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately 20 miles west of Escondido, could create substantial ground shaking if a seismic event occurred along the fault (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). Similarly, a strong seismic event on any other fault system in Southern California and Northern Baja California area are potential generators of significant ground shaking throughout the City. However, the project site is not subject to unusual levels of ground shaking and all new structures would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code. The California Building Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations) contains seismic safety provisions with the aim of preventing building collapse during a design earthquake, so that occupants would be able to evacuate after the earthquake. A design earthquake is one with a two percent chance of exceedance in 50 years, or an average return period of 2,475 years (California Building Standards Commission, 2015). Adherence to these requirements would reduce the potential of the building from collapsing during an earthquake, thereby minimizing injury and loss of life. Although structures may be damaged during earthquakes, adherence to seismic design requirements would minimize damage to human life and property within the structure because the structure is designed not to collapse. Impacts would be less than significant.


a.iii) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Liquefaction is a process whereby soil is temporarily transformed to a fluid form during intense and prolonged ground shaking or because of a sudden shock or strain. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the groundwater is less than 30 feet from the surface and where the soils are composed of poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. The City of Escondido topography includes a level valley at 650 MSL, surrounded by hills and mountains, ranging up to 2,200 MSL and has the potential for slope instability and liquefaction (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). According to Figure VI-9 in the City’s Community Protection Element, however, the project site is not located in an area with the potential for liquefaction (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). Additionally, the project site is not located in a liquefaction zone in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Department of Conservation, 2015). Construction of the proposed townhome development would be required to follow the California Residential Code standards that address liquefaction hazards, including strengthening the foundation and its footings. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.


a.iv) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

The topography of the site and its immediate built environment is generally flat and devoid of any distinctive landforms. The project site is not located in a landslide zone in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (California Department of Conservation, 2015)

City of Escondido30


and is not located within the landslide hazard zone shown in Figure VI-9 in the City’s Community Protection Element (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). Given this and the relatively flat nature of the site and its surroundings, the potential for landslides is low. Impacts relating to landslides would be less than significant.


b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The project site is generally flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. The proposed project would be required to comply with best management practices (BMPs) for construction activities, which include erosion prevention measures. Additionally, the project would be required to adhere to the grading and erosion control requirements outlined in Sections 33-1050 through 33-1069 (Grading and Erosion Control) of the Escondido Municipal Code, submitted along with grading plans (Escondido, Municipal Code, 2015). Grading and erosion control requirements include rules and regulations to control excavation, grading, earthwork construction including fills and embankments, and establish the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for approval of plans and inspection of grading construction necessary for compliance with stormwater management (Escondido, Municipal Code, 2015). With compliance with Municipal Code requirements, impacts associated with soil erosion and the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.


c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, andpotentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code,creating substantial risks to life or property?

Unstable soils include expansive, compressible, erodible, corrosive, or collapsible soils. According to the Community Protection Element, the most likely locations for collapsible soils are the current and pre-development washes and drainage channels, particularly associated with Escondido Creek, Lake Wohlford, and local streams (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). The project site is not located within the Escondido Creek, Lake Wohlford, or local stream drainage corridors or within an area susceptible to landslides or liquefaction shown in Figures VI-8 and VI-9 in the Community Protection Element (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). Additionally, according to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, which shows fault zones and landslide and liquefaction zones, the project site is not in a landslide or liquefaction zone (State of California Department of Conservation, 2015). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternativewastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

The City of Escondido provides public sewer service in the area so on-site septic systems would not be used. No impact would occur.

City of Escondido31


NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS-- Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly, that may havea significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy,or regulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhousegases?

Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” which is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature.

GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs include the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock; deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased over by 36%, 148%, and 18% respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Energy Commission, 2009).

City of Escondido32


The CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Although the San Diego Air Pollution Control District has not adopted a GHG emissions reduction plan or GHG emissions thresholds, the City of Escondido had adopted a threshold in its Climate Action Plan (December 2012). The proposed project is evaluated based on the City of Escondido threshold, whereby proposed projects are screened to determine whether compliance with the Escondido Climate Action Plan (E-CAP) measures is required. According to the E-CAP, projects that generate less than 2,500 metric tons (MT) of CO2e would have a “less than significant GHG emissions impact” due to the low amount of GHG emissions generated.

The 2,500 MT of CO2e threshold is based on the County of San Diego’s Guidelines for Determining Significance for Climate Change document that was published on February 17, 2012. As stated in the Guidelines, the 2,500 MT CO2e screening level is based on regional data, including the incorporated cities, and is appropriate to be used by lead agencies in the region other than the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use. If GHG emissions associated with a proposed project exceed the 2,500 MT CO2e threshold, the lead agency uses the screening table to demonstrate compliance with the E-CAP. The screening table provides a menu of reduction options. A project that obtains a minimum of 100 points from the E-CAP screening table would implement the project’s fair share portion of pertinent GHG reduction measures and would have a “less than significant” CEQA finding associated with GHG emissions.

Methodology

Project construction and operation would generate GHG emissions through the burning of fossil fuels, electricity consumption, and other emissions of GHGs, thus potentially contributing to cumulative impacts related to global climate change. The analysis focuses on CO2, N2O, and CH4 as these are the GHG emissions that on-site development would generate in the largest quantities. Because the development would only involve residential uses, fluorinated gases such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, were not included in this analysis. Fluorinated gases are primarily associated with industrial processes.

Construction Emissions

Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily due to the operation of construction equipment on-site and worker, vendor, and export truck trips to and from the project site (see discussion in Section II, Air Quality). For this analysis, it was assumed that construction would occur over approximately 12 months. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2013.2.2, based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on-site at one time. Air districts such as the SCAQMD (2011) have suggested amortizing construction-related emissions over a 30-year period in conjunction with the proposed project’s operational emissions. Complete CalEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix A.

City of Escondido33


Operational Emissions

CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Emissions from energy use include emissions from electricity and natural gas use. The emissions factors for natural gas combustion are based on EPA’s AP-42, (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors) and CCAR. Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CalEEMod User Guide, 2013). San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) is the electricity provider for the project site and in 2011, 42% of electricity came from carbon-free resources (SDG&E, 2015). The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the California Energy Commission (CEC) sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies. Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from CARB, U.S. EPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide, 2013).

Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CalEEMod User Guide, 2013). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).

Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for Northern and Southern California.

For mobile sources, CO2 and CH4 emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site were quantified using in CalEEMod. Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were quantified using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (January 2009) direct emissions factors for mobile combustion (see Appendix A for calculations). Emission rates for N2O emissions were based on the vehicle fleet mix output generated by CalEEMod and the emission factors found in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol.

a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have asignificant impact on the environment?

The project’s proposed construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) would generate GHG emissions. CalEEMod was used to calculate emissions resulting from project construction and long-term operation. Project-related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period of time in relation to the overall life of the proposed project. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions were amortized over a 30-year period to determine the annual construction-related GHG emissions over the life of the project. As shown in Table 3, the project construction would result in an average of approximately 12 metric tons of CO2e per year.

City of Escondido34


Table 3 Estimated Construction

GHG Emissions

Year Project EmissionsMT/yr CO2e

Total 366

Total Amortized over 30 years 12


Table 4 combines annual operational and construction-related emissions. The project’s overall CO2e annual emissions would not exceed the threshold of 2,500 metric tons per year. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

Emission Source Annual Emissions(CO2e)

Construction 12 metric tons

OperationalArea

EnergySolid Waste

Water

<1 metric ton142 metric tons14 metric tons36 metric tons

MobileCO2 and CH4

N2O513 metric tons27 metric tons

Total 745 metric tons

See Appendix A for CalEEMod annual output.


b) Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose ofreducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

On October 28, 2011, SANDAG adopted the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SANDAG’s RTP and SCS outline how the region will meet GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Two SCS building blocks apply to the proposed project:

1. A land use pattern that accommodates our region’s future employment and housingneeds, and protects sensitive habitats and resource areas.

2. A transportation network of public transit, Managed Lanes and highways, local streets,bikeways, and walkways built and maintained with reasonably expected funding.

City of Escondido35


The project site is zoned for general commercial use. However, the site would be rezoned for residential use to provide additional dwelling units in the mixed-use overlay portion of the City. The proposed project would provide 65 dwelling units as part of a townhome development, thus helping to meet current and future countywide housing demand. The project is infill and construction and operation would not adversely affect sensitive habitats or wildlife movement (see Section IV, Biological Resources). Thus, the project would not conflict with applicable SCS building blocks.

The proposed project would also have access to a transportation network of public transit, local streets, bikeways, and walkways built and maintained with reasonably expected funding. There are bike paths alongside the project site on Centre City Parkway and South Escondido Boulevard. Additionally, the Escondido Transit Center is located approximately two miles north of the project site, with additional bus stops along the way.

The project would be implement SCS policies and adhere to state reduction targets for transportation, energy, and other emissions associated with land use and development. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS-- Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through the routinetransport, use, or disposal of hazardousmaterials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public orthe environment through reasonablyforeseeable upset and accident conditionsinvolving the release of hazardousmaterials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handlehazardous or acutely hazardousmaterials, substances, or waste within ¼mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included ona list of hazardous material sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section65962.5 and, as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public or theenvironment?

City of Escondido36



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUSMATERIALS-- Would 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 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?

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Residential uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. The proposed project would not involve the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials other than those typically used for maintenance and landscaping. Small quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used during construction of the project. However, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Adherence to these requirements would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Escondido37


c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no existing or proposed schools within ¼ mile of the project site. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The following databases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked by Track Info Services, LLC (2007) for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site:

UST: The UST database contains registered USTs. This database is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board; LUST: LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. This database is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board; RCRA- (TSD, LQG, SQG): RCRAInfo is U.S. EPA’s comprehensive information system providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984; PERMITS: The PERMITS database tracks establishments issued permits and the status of their permits in relation to compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations that the County oversees. It tracks if a site is a hazardous waste generator, a treatment, storage or disposal (TSD) facility, gas station, has underground tanks, violations, or unauthorized releases. This database is maintained by the County of San Diego; and FINDS: Facility Index System. Contains both facility information and pointers to other sources that contain more detail.

Rincon Consultants conducted a follow-up database search for the Citracado South Project on October 16, 2015. The project site is not listed in any of the above environmental databases nor are there any listed sites within 1,000 feet. Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to known hazardous material sites. NO IMPACT e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is located approximately 25 miles north of San Diego International Airport and 12 miles east of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The Airport Influence Area (AIA) is established in the ALUCP based on the airport’s size, current, and future operations. As shown in Figure III-10 of the Community Protection Element, eastern portions of Escondido are within the AIA Review Area 2, which defines airspace protection and overflight notification areas. Height restrictions on structures, particularly in areas of high terrain, are the only restrictions on land uses within Review Area 2; however the project site is located in the southern portion of the

City of Escondido38


City and is not included in the AIA (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). As a result, the proposed project would not impact airport operations, alter air traffic patterns, or in any way conflict with established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight protection zones. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT 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? There are no private airstrips located within two miles of the site. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The proposed project would not involve the development of structures that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The design of new access points would be reviewed and approved by the Escondido Fire Department to ensure that emergency access meets City standards. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT h) Would the project 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? According to the Community Protection Element of the Escondido General Plan Fire Hazard Zone Rating Map (Figure VI-6), the project site is within a high risk zone for wildfires. However, the project site is an infill project, surrounded by suburban development, including Citracado Village to the north, commercial uses to the south, and I-15 to the west. Therefore, the risk of wildland fires is low. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

City of Escondido39



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Would the project:

b) Substantially deplete groundwatersupplies or interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge such that therewould be a net deficit in aquifer volume ora lowering or the local groundwater tablelevel (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a levelwhich would not support existing landuses or planned uses for which permitshave been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, includingthrough the alteration of the course of astream or river, in a manner which wouldresult in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainagepattern of the site or area, including thealteration of the course of a stream orriver, or substantially increase the rate oramount of surface runoff in a mannerwhich would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water whichwould exceed the capacity of existing orplanned stormwater drainage systems orprovide substantial additional sources ofpolluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year floodhazard area as mapped on a federalFlood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazarddelineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard areastructures which would impede or redirectflood flows?

City of Escondido40



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-- Would the project:

i) Expose people or structures to asignificant risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving flooding, including flooding as aresult of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow?

a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing orplanned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

The proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 22 Article 2, of the City of Escondido Municipal Code, which states that stormwater management practices must ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Escondido by controlling non-stormwater discharges to the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) as well as protecting and enhancing the water quality of our watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act (City of Escondido Municipal Code, 2011). The site has a drainage pattern that generally flows from north to south, and minimal off-site run-on is present (Coffey Engineering, Inc., 2015). Drainage would enter the MS4 at the southeastern corner of the site. Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Water Quality Technical Report (Appendix E) would be implemented, and include, but are not limited to: optimizing the site layout to take advantage of the existing terrain, dispersing run-off to adjacent landscaping by directing downspouts to landscaped areas and creating hardscapes that are pitched to landscape when possible, minimizing soil compaction in landscaped areas, and minimizing impervious areas through utilization of permeable pavers and landscaping wherever practical (Coffey Engineering, Inc., 2015). Impervious surfaces would be required for some site features; however, stormwater would drain to permanent BMP devices before being released from the site.

Additionally, all landscape and irrigation must comply with the requirements of the current Escondido municipal stormwater permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board and appropriate stormwater BMPs would be used during the installation of landscape and irrigation projects. Landscape and irrigation BMPs are outlined in Article 62, Water Efficient Landscape Regulations, of Chapter 33 of the City of Escondido Municipal Code (City of Escondido Municipal Code, 2011). Therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of Escondido41



b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially withgroundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or 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)?

Potable water for the proposed development would be supplied by the Escondido Water Division. Further analysis of water supplies that would serve the development on the project site is provided in Section XVIII, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study. The project site is currently bare ground with minimal concrete foundational components remaining from the former uses. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surface area on the project site; however, the proposed project would be required to comply with the San Diego County Regional MS4 permit, which requires that the amount of run-off from the site must be the same before and after construction of the project. Therefore the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.


c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, includingthrough 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) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including thealteration 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?

According to the Water Quality Technical Report completed by Coffey Engineering, Inc., the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern through alteration of the course of a stream or river as there are no streams or rivers present on or around the project site or surrounding parcels. The project would comply with the City’s Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP) to eliminate significant pollutants from the City’s Stormwater Conveyance System. The project would also be required to comply with the BMPs, activities, practices, procedures, or facilities implemented to avoid, prevent, or reduce pollution of the City’s stormwater conveyance system and receiving waters (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012; City of Escondido Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan, 2015). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.


g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal FloodHazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?` h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirectflood flows? i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involvingflooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

City of Escondido42


Dixon Lake and Lake Wohlford are located approximately five and six and a half miles from the project site respectively. The project site is not located on or bordering the 100-year flood zone as delineated in the Escondido Community Protection Element and there is no potential flood hazard that would impact any habitable structures on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or flooding as a result of the failure of a dam.


j) Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The project site is located approximately 13.5 miles inland from the coast. The risk of a tsunami is negligible due to the distance from the Pacific Ocean. According to the Safety Element of the General Plan, mudflows are initiated near the crests steeper than 25% and probably occur as a result of high intensity rainfall or over irrigation. High rainfall, loss of vegetation cover through fire or other causes, and the steepness of the slope appear to be the main causative factors.

The project site is flat and surrounded by residential development away from ridges steeper than 25%. Seiche is not identified in the General Plan, and is not expected to be an impact. Therefore, the project site is located in a low hazard area for tsunami, seiche, and mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant.



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING-- Would the project:

a) Physically divide an establishedcommunity?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including, butnot limited to the general plan, specificplan, local coastal program, or zoningordinance) adopted for the purpose ofavoiding or mitigating an environmentaleffect?

c) Conflict with an applicable habitatconservation plan or natural communityconservation plan?

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

City of Escondido43


The project site is located in a mixed-use area, bordered by residential and commercial uses on all sides, including multi-family residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the south, and single family homes to the east, and to the west across South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway. The project includes two access driveways to the residences: one on South Escondido Boulevard and the other on Cranston Drive. No roads or other improvements that would divide an established community are proposed. The project would continue the established mixed land use pattern. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. NO IMPACT b) Would the project 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? The project site has a General Plan designation of General Commercial with a mixed-use overlay, and a current zoning classification of Commercial General (C-G). The purpose of the C-G zone is to provide for the community’s general commercial needs and accommodate a wide variety of retail, office, and service establishments intended to serve a broad customer base (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). The proposed project would involve re-zoning the entire site to Planned Development, Residential (PDR). Section 33-400 of the Escondido Municipal Code states that the purposes of the planned development zone include the following, “to encourage the planned development of parcels sufficiently large as to permit comprehensive site planning and building design; to provide a more flexible regulatory procedure by which the basic public purposes of the Escondido general plan and the Escondido zoning code may be accomplished; to encourage creative approaches to the use of land through variation in siting of buildings and the appropriate mixing of several land uses, activities and dwelling types, including transitional housing facilities; to enhance the appearance and livability of the community through encouragement of creative approaches to the use of land and the design of facilities; to promote and create public and private open space as an integral part of land development design; to reduce, when appropriate, the amounts of public and private improvements avail-able in the City of Escondido; to encourage private development of older areas of the city and for the enhancement and preservation of property with unique features, such as property having historical significance, unusual topography and/or landscape features.” The proposed project violates the existing area plan (overlay zone) and requires an amendment to the SEB Plan because it is residential development only, not mixed use. . According to Figure II-1 in this element, the project site is designated General Commercial (C-G) with a mixed-use overlay (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). In addition to the amendment to the SEB Plan, the project requires a zone change from C-G to PD-R. The addition of the condominium development on a vacant site in a mixed-use environment would help the City reach its goal of blending multi-family residential development with compatible uses such as commercial and/or offices (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). With approval of the proposed zone change and amendment to the SEB Plan, the project would be consistent with existing land use plans for Escondido. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Escondido44


c) Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project site is within a suburban area characterized by residential and commercial development. No habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan would be affected by project implementation. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

ImpactXI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the project 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? The project site and surrounding properties are within a suburban area with no current oil or gas extraction. The project would not be in the floodplain or floodway according to the Community Protection Element (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). No mineral resource activities would be altered or displaced by the proposed project. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

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?

City of Escondido45



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XII. NOISE-- Would the project result in:

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels 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?

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations. Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance; while noise from a point source typically attenuates at about 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm that

City of Escondido46


breaks the line-of-sight reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which newer dwelling units in California are constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to interior noise levels of about 30 dBA with closed windows (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], May 2006).

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than other uses due to the amount of noise exposure and the types of activities involved. For example, residences, motels, hotels, schools, libraries, churches, nursing homes, auditoriums, museums, cultural facilities, parks, and outdoor recreation areas are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. The surrounding residential uses, including Citracado Village and the surrounding single family residences are considered noise sensitive uses or sensitive receptors.

For construction-related noise, erection or demolition of buildings, excluding owner resident additions or remodeling, and the grading and excavation of land including the use of blasting, the start-up and use of heavy equipment such as dump trucks and graders and the use of jack hammers except on Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM and on Saturdays 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Escondido, Municipal Code, 2015).

The City of Escondido uses the equivalent noise level (abbreviated as Leq), a metric that considers both duration and sound power level, to gauge community noise. The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measuring period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period. Table 5 shows the City’s noise standards by zone, and Table 6 provides guidelines for acceptable noise levels related to specific land use.

Table 5 City of Escondido Municipal Code 17-229 Sound Level Limits by Zone

Zone TimeApplicable Limit One-Hour

Average Sound Level (Decibels)

Residential zones 7 AM to 10 PM 5010 PM to 7 AM 45

Multi-residential zones7 AM to 10 PM 5510 PM to 7 AM 50

Commercial Zones7 AM to 10 PM 6010 PM to 7 AM 55

Light industrial/industrial park zones Anytime 70*General industrial zones Anytime 75**Subject to provisions of Section 17-229(c)(5)Source: Escondido, Municipal Code, 2015.

City of Escondido47


Table 6City of Escondido Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

Land Use Category

Noise Exposure Levels(Ldn or CNEL, dBA)

Normally Acceptable

Conditionally Acceptable

Normally Unacceptable

Clearly Unacceptable

Residential-Single family, Duplex, Mobile Home 50-60 60-70 70-75 75-85

Residential- Multi-family, Residential Mixed-use 50-65 60-70 70-75 75-85

Transient Lodging, Motels, Hotels 50-65 60-70 70-80 80-85

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

50-65 60-70 70-80 80-85

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA 50-70 65-85 NA

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA 50-75 70-85 NA

Playgrounds, Parks 50-70 65-75 75-85 NAGolf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

50-75 70-80 80-85 NA

NA: Level not defined by the City of Escondido General Plan.Source: Escondido, City of, General Plan, 2012.

The Escondido Noise Abatement and Control Ordinance does not allow construction equipment, or combination of equipment, to be operated so as to cause noise at a level in excess a one-hour average sound level limit of 75 decibels at any time, unless a variance has been obtained in advance from the city manager. Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas sound is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise (e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks). This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is measured in vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads.

City of Escondido48


Vibration impacts would be significant if they exceed the following Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) thresholds:

65 VdB where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations, such as hospitals andrecording studios72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including hotels75 VdB for institutional land uses with primary daytime use, such as churches and schools95 VdB for physical damage to extremely fragile historic buildings100 VdB for physical damage to buildings

In addition to the groundborne vibration thresholds outlined above, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) outlines human response to different levels of groundborne vibration, and determined that vibration that is 85 VdB is acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Construction-related vibration impacts would be less than significant for residential receptors if they occur during the City’s normally permitted hours of construction below the threshold of physical damage to buildings and any vibration over 85 VdB would be infrequent with respect to the number of events per day.

a) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standardsestablished in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

The major sources of noise in Escondido include traffic related noise along the city’s roadway network, the NCTD Rail Line, firing ranges, commercial/industrial noise, flight operations, and community activities. Generally speaking, residential, education, and medical uses are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial activities. Noise sensitive uses include residences, schools, hospitals, rest homes, and long-term medical or mental care facilities. The nearby residential uses are noise sensitive receptors.

Three noise measurements were taken using an ANSI Type II integrating sound level meter on Thursday, October 1, 2015 to characterize existing ambient noise levels at the project site. These noise measurements represent weekday traffic noise. Table 7 identifies measured noise levels and Figure 5 shows the locations of these measurements. The Leq for point 1, measured at the northwest corner of the project site adjacent to South Escondido Boulevard and Citracado Village, was 62.4, with a maximum and minimum of 77.7 and 49.2, respectively. The Leq for point 2, measured on Cranston Drive across from the eastern corner of the project site, was 63.3, with a maximum and minimum of 74.2 and 48.1, respectively. The Leq for point 3, measured at the southwest corner of the project site along South Escondido Boulevard, was 56.8, with a maximum and minimum of 74.9 and 48.9, respectively. The primary noise during the study was vehicular traffic. Secondary noise included pedestrian traffic. The Leq at two of the three locations (Measurement 1 and 2) is within the conditionally acceptable range for multi-family residential uses and the Leq at the third location (Measurement 3) is within the normally acceptable range (see Table 7). The project would be conditioned to meet a 45 dB interior noise level. Therefore, ambient noise levels at the project site would be considered acceptable for the proposed residential use.

City of Escondido49

Centre C

ity Pky

Cra

nsto

n Dr

S Escondido Blvd

W Citracado Pky

Tesoro Gln

Noise Measurement Locations Figure 5City of Escondido

Imagery provided by Google and its licensors © 2015.

0 14070

Feet ±Project Boundary

Noise Measurement Location



The project would generate noise typical of residential uses, such as conversations, residential traffic, and children playing. These types of noise would be similar to ambient noise in the project area. Therefore, the project would not generate noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Impacts would be less than significant.


b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration orgroundborne noise levels?

The project would involve standard construction activities that would result in some vibration that may be felt on properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site, as commonly occurs with construction projects.

Table 8Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV at 25 ft(in/sec)

Approximate Lv† at 10 ft (VdB)

Approximate Lv† at 100 ft (VdB)

Approximate Lv†at 270 ft (VdB)

Large Bulldozer 0.089 95 75 66

Loaded Truck 0.076 94 74 65

Jack Hammer 0.035 87 67 58

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006

As shown in Table 8, vibration levels would be as high as about 95 VdB at the closest residences, slightly under the 100 VdB threshold established by the FRA for physical damage to buildings. For the adjacent residences 10 feet away, vibration levels would not exceed the level at which building damage could occur, but could exceed the threshold of 72 VdB for residences

Table 7Noise Monitoring Results

Measurement Number Measurement Location Primary Noise Source Sample

TimeLeq [15]

(dBA)

1 Southwestern boundary of

project site at South Escondido Boulevard

Citracado Parkway and Centre City Parkway Traffic (300 feet) 10:56 AM 62

2 Northwestern boundary of

project site at South Escondido Boulevard

Citracado Parkway Traffic and Centre City Parkway (520 feet) 11:14 AM 63

3 Southeastern boundary of

project site at Cranston Drive

Cranston Drive Traffic (20 feet) 11:40 AM 57

Source: Field visit using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter, October 1, 2015. Distances are from centerline of nearest road.See Appendix F for noise monitoring data sheets and monitoring locations.

City of Escondido51


and buildings where people normally sleep. In accordance with Escondido Municipal Code 17-234, construction is permitted only between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday. Construction would not occur during normal sleep hours; however groundborne vibration may occur frequently during the course of the day, over multiple days throughout the construction period. Therefore, impacts related to groundborne vibration would be potentially significant without mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 would be required to reduce impacts of groundborne vibration to a less than significant level.

N-1 Noise and groundborne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses to the north. In addition, the use of vibratory rollers and packers should be avoided, as feasible, near sensitive areas.

N-2 The operation of construction equipment that generates high levels of vibration, such as large bulldozers and loaded trucks, shall be prohibited within 45 feet of existing nearby residential structures to the north during construction of the proposed project. Instead, small bulldozers not exceeding 310 horsepower shall be used within this area during grading and excavation operations.

Additionally, while construction would occur up to the property edge, the majority of construction would take place in the center of the site, which would be approximately 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor.


c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levelsexisting without the project?

Noise associated with operation of the project may be periodically audible at adjacent uses. Noise events that are typical of residences include traffic, conversations, and children playing. On-site operations are expected to also involve noise associated with rooftop ventilation, heating systems, and trash hauling. These would be consistent with the noise associated with the existing residences and commercial uses adjacent to the project site. Measured noise levels in the area range from about 57 to 63 dBA and operation of the proposed residential use would not be expected to substantially change these levels.

Permanent project-related changes in noise would be primarily due to increases in traffic volumes on nearby street segments. For traffic-related noise, impacts would be significant if project-generated traffic results in exposure of sensitive receptors to unacceptable noise levels. Table 9 shows the significance thresholds for increases in traffic related noise levels caused by the project.

City of Escondido52


Table 9Significance of Changes in Operational

Roadway Noise Exposure

Ldn or Leq in dBA

Existing Noise Exposure

Allowable NoiseExposure Increase

45-50 7

50-55 5

55-60 3

60-65 2

65-75 1

75+ 0

Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006.

Traffic noise was modeled for three study area street segments. As shown in Table 10, under existing conditions, noise levels on nearby roadway segments range between 42.7 and 59.1. According to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) thresholds for significance of changes in operational roadway noise exposure, the existing noise exposure is in the 55-60 dBA range (Table 9) for Roadway 1 and 3, and in the under 45 dBA for Roadway 3. The incremental increases in noise are forecast to range from 0.3 dBA to 1.3 dBA. These increases are less than the applicable thresholds. As a result, project impacts would be less than significant.

Table 10Traffic Noise

Roadway

Projected Noise Level (dBA Leq)1 Change in Noise Level (dBA Leq)

Existing (1)

Existing + Project

(2)

Future without Project

(3)

Future + Project

(4)

Due to Project Traffic under

Existing Conditions(2 minus 1)

Due to Project Traffic Under

Future Conditions(4 minus 3)

1. South Escondido Boulevard

58.4 59.7 58.4 59.7 1.3 1.3

2. West Citracado Parkway

42.7 43.3 43.6 43.9 0.6 0.3

3. Cranston Drive 59.1 59.8 59.1 59.8 0.7 0.7

Source: HUD Exchange DNL Calculator1 Projected traffic noise levels calculated based on Traffic Study.Note: Levels shown in this table reflect traffic noise from each individual road source, not the overall noise level from allsources (including non-road sources). Consequently, levels may differ from actual ambient noise levels.


City of Escondido53


d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Project construction would generate temporary noise levels that could be audible to sensitive receptors near the project site. Temporary construction activity noise is allowed pursuant to the operational limitations established in the Municipal Code for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare of sensitive receptors. Noise impacts are a function of the type of activity being undertaken and the distance to the receptor location. Nearby noise-sensitive land uses include residences located directly north, and to the west and east of the site. The sensitive receptors to the north are approximately 10 feet away from the project fence line; to the east are approximately 100 feet away from the project fence line; and to the west are approximately 270 feet from the project fence line, across South Escondido Boulevard and Centre City Parkway. Additionally, Escondido Lodge, a motel, is located approximately 100 feet to the south. Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in one location for one or more days at a time with either a fixed-power operation, such as pumps, generators, and compressors, or a variable noise operation, such as pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers whereas mobile equipment moves around the construction site with power applied in a cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA, 2006). Table 11 identifies various construction equipment noise emission levels for different types of construction equipment.

City of Escondido54


City of Escondido55

Table 11Typical Noise Levels Generated by

Construction Equipment

Equipment Type Typical Lmax (dBA)50 Feet from the Source

Air Compressor Stationary 81Augur Drill Rig Stationary 84Backhoe Mobile 80Compactor (ground) Mobile 83Concrete Mixer Stationary 85Dozer Mobile 82Dump Truck Mobile 76Excavator Mobile 81Flat Bed Truck Mobile 74Front End Loader Mobile 79Generator Stationary 81Grader Mobile 83Paver Mobile 89Pickup Truck Mobile 75Pneumatic Tools Stationary 85Roller Mobile 80Saw Stationary 70Scraper Mobile 89Warning Horn Stationary 83Welder/Torch Stationary 74Source: FHWA, 2006.

Construction noise would be generated on local roadways by workers commuting to and from the job site and by construction material deliveries. On-site, noise would be generated by construction equipment during site preparation and construction activities. Typical heavy construction equipment would include bulldozers, excavators, dump trucks, frontend loaders, graders, and industrial/concrete saws. Development activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other sources of noise. During each stage of development, a different mix of equipment would be operating and noise levels would vary based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. Based on the project plans, construction activities may occur directly adjacent to multi-family residences, which are located approximately 10 feet away to the north and single family residences which are located approximately 100 to 270 feet away to the east and west respectively. In addition, Escondido Lodge is located approximately 100 feet to the south. Consequently, these noise-sensitive uses may be exposed to temporary noise levels during construction activity on the project site. Pursuant to Section 17-234 of the City of Escondido Municipal Code, construction-related noise, erection or demolition of buildings, and the grading and excavation of land including the use of blasting, the start-up and use of heavy equipment such as dump trucks and graders, and the use of jack hammers, is prohibited for any person or the City of Escondido, at any construction site


City of Escondido56

except Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 AM and 6 PM and on Saturday between the hours of 9 AM and 5 PM (Escondido, Municipal Code, 2015). Construction noise impacts would be temporary, and construction contractors would be required to comply with Municipal Code requirements restricting hours of excessive noise generation. Required compliance with the time restrictions established in Section 17-234 would reduce the hours of construction and consequently limit construction noise to times when people are generally less sensitive to noise and reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum degree feasible; however, impacts due to temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would be required to reduce impacts of construction noise to a less than significant level.

N-3 The project Applicant and/or contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment has properly operating mufflers.

N-4 Construction activities associated with the proposed project shall, to the extent

feasible, be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. When the use of impact tools are necessary, they shall be hydraulically or electrically powered when feasible to minimize noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

N-5 The Applicant shall locate stationary construction noise sources away from adjacent

receptors to the extent feasible, and ensure that they are muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.

N-6 The Applicant shall designate a construction relations officer to serve as a liaison

with surrounding residents and property owners who is responsible for responding to any concerns regarding construction noise and vibration. The liaison’s telephone number(s) shall be prominently displayed at the project site. Signs shall be posted at the project site that include permitted construction days and hours.

N-7 Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM

from Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Further, no construction activity shall be undertaken on Sundays and recognized City holidays (Section 17-234 of the City’s Municipal Code).

N-8 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall ensure that all

exterior windows associated with the proposed residential uses at the project site shall be constructed to provide a sufficient amount of sound insulation to ensure that interior noise levels would be below an Ldn or CNEL of 45 dB in any room.



City of Escondido57

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? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. San Diego International Airport is located approximately 25 miles south of the project site and McClellan-Palomar Airport is approximately 12 miles west of the project site. There are no private airstrips within the Escondido city limits. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XIII. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES-- Would the project:

a) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

a) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The project site is underlain by surficial soil consisting of undocumented fill, colluvium, alluvium, and older alluvium, as well as formational granitic rock (GEOCON, 2006). These sediments comprise poorly consolidated, poorly sorted, permeable floodplain deposits of sandy, silty, and clay-bearing alluvium. Quaternary-age older alluvial deposits are present on the east and north-central portions of the site and beneath the undocumented fill, alluvium, and colluvium in the western portions of the site to a depth of approximately 25 feet. As is typical throughout southern California, the Quaternary younger alluvium may be underlain at unknown depths by Pleistocene alluvial sediments, many of which contain fossils, especially in coastal and near-coastal settings (e.g., Agenbroad, 2003; Macias et al., 2014). Pleistocene alluvial sediments have produced numerous scientifically significant paleontological resources throughout southern California, and these units are generally considered to have high paleontological sensitivity; however, Escondido is not a known paleontological resource area. Nonetheless, due to the significant paleontological resources throughout southern California, impacts on paleontological resources would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.


City of Escondido58

Mitigation Measure

Mitigation Measure PR-1 would be required to reduce impacts on paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

PR-1 Paleontological Resources. If paleontological resources are encountered during construction or land modification, the construction manager shall ensure that all ground disturbance activities are stopped, and shall notify the Community Development Department immediately and arrange for a qualified paleontologist to assess the nature, extent, and potential significance of any fossils. If such fossils are determined to be significant, appropriate actions to mitigate impacts to the fossils shall be identified in consultation with a qualified paleontologist. Depending upon the nature of the find, actions could involve avoidance, documentation, or other appropriate actions, to be determined by the qualified paleontologist.



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XIV. 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?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

a) Would the project 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)? The project involves the construction of a 65-unit townhome development. The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates that the current population of Escondido (2015) is 147,294 (Department of Finance, 2015). SANDAG estimates that the City’s population would increase to 154,635 by 2020, an increase of 7,341 (SANDAG, 2011). The DOF estimates that there


are approximately 2.76 persons per household in Escondido (Department of Finance, 2015). Based on this average, the 65-unit project would accommodate 179 people. This would increase the population of Escondido to 147,473. The population increase associated with the proposed project is within the population forecast for the City so impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b, c) No Impact. The site is currently a vacant lot. There are no housing units on the project site or people residing on the project site in any form of temporary housing. Therefore, the project would not displace any existing housing units or people. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XV. PUBLIC SERVICESa) Would the project result in substantial

adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities?

a (i) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental

City of Escondido59


facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection? The Escondido Fire Department (EFD) provides service to the City of Escondido and, through a contractual arrangement established in 1984, the Rincon Del Diablo Fire Protection District, which covers a 50 square mile area and a population of approximately 153,000 residents in North San Diego County (City of Escondido Fire Department, 2015). The department protects a diverse community consisting of large areas of residential development, commercial/retail centers, office buildings, industrial parks, and educational facilities. In addition, the EFD protects and manages several thousand acres of wildland and wildland urban interface lands (City of Escondido Fire Department, 2015). The station closest to the project site is Fire Station No. 5, located at 2319 Felicita Road, approximately 0.75 miles west of the project site, across the I-15. The project site is within the existing service area of the EFD and on-site construction would comply with applicable Fire Code requirements. Based on the project’s impact on services, the Escondido Fire Marshal, Marlene Donner, indicates that new fire protection facilities would not be needed at this time (personal communication, Marlene Donner, City of Escondido Fire Marshal, October 19, 2015). In addition, the site is within response times specified in the General Plan. With the continued implementation of existing practices of the City, including compliance with the California Fire Code, the proposed project would not significantly affect community fire protection services. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (ii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection? Police protection is provided by the Escondido Police Department. The department has 170 sworn police personnel and 69 non-sworn support personnel, and currently provides public safety services to the City of Escondido (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). The project site is within the Escondido Police Department’s service area and includes approximately 179 new residents. Based on the project’s impacts on services and communication with the Police Department, new police protection facilities would not be needed at this time (personal communication, Badge Number 1081, City of Escondido Police Department, October 15, 2015). Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (iii) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Escondido60


The project site is served by the Escondido Union School District (EUSD) for elementary and middle school and Escondido Union High School District (EUHSD) for high school. Table 13 shows the current enrollment and capacity for the elementary, middle, and high schools, plus the number of students that would be generated by the proposed project. As shown in Table 13, L.R. Green Elementary is currently operating over capacity and the new students generated by the project would exacerbate this condition; however, the project site is within the L.R. Green Elementary school boundaries and future students living at the project site would have priority based on their address. The options for alternative elementary schools in the vicinity are Miller and Juniper, 0.6 and 1 mile away from the project site, respectively. The proposed project would not cause Bear Valley Middle School or Escondido Union High School District to exceed their respective capacities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Table 12 School Capacity and Student Generation

Enrollment Capacity % of Capacity

L.R. Green Elementary 682 645 106%

Students Generated by Project (0.2713students per unit) 18 - -

Existing plus Project 700 645 109%

Bear Valley Middle School 1,087 1,140 95%


Existing plus Project 1,095 1,140 96%

Escondido Union High School District1 7,555 8,253 92%


Existing plus Project 7,564 8,253 92%1Escondido Union High School District does not calculate capacity or student generation factor by site; therefore District total was used. Source: State of California Office of Public School Construction website and personal communication with Escondido Union School District and Cindy Kroon, 2015 as well as Escondido Union High School District and Sheri Walden, 2015.

Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998) states that payment of statutory fees “...is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Therefore, based on state law, impacts related to school capacity would be less than significant under CEQA since the applicant would be required to pay State-mandated school impact fees to the Escondido Union School District and the Escondido Union High School District. Neither District has indicated any concerns about their ability to serve the project. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Escondido61


a (iv) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Refer to Section XV, Recreation. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a (v) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? The proposed project would contribute incrementally, but not substantially, toward impacts to the City’s public services and facilities such as storm drain usage (discussed in Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality), solid waste disposal (discussed in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems), and water usage (discussed in more detail in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems). Library services are provided by the Escondido Public Library. The closest library branch is the Escondido Main Library located at 239 South Kalmia Street. The proposed project would directly increase the population by an estimated 179 residents. Residents may use existing library facilities; however, increased demand would be nominal. There are no other public services for which impacts are anticipated. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

PotentiallySignificant

Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XVI. RECREATIONa) Would the project increase the use of

existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

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

City of Escondido62


The City of Escondido owns and operates approximately 7,686 acres of public land for recreation, including community parks, neighborhood parks, sports parks, and open space (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). The facilities closest to the project site are Kit Carson Park, 0.6 miles southeast of the project site, and Westside Park, approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the project site. The City’s estimated 2015 population is 147,294 (Department of Finance, 2015). Therefore, the City currently has 52 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, which substantially exceeds the standard ratio of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents used by the Quimby Act. The proposed project would not directly affect any existing or planned parks, but residential population increase associated with the proposed project would increase the use of neighborhood parks and other recreational facilities in the area. Development of the proposed project would add 65 new dwelling units and an estimated 179 residents for a total City population of 147,473 residents (refer to Section XIII, Population and Housing). The parkland ratio would remain around 52 acres per 1,000 residents after development of the proposed project. The proposed project would also include 25,961 sf of common open space available to residents with a private dog run and pet lawn, turf and landscaped areas, community garden, and tot-lot playground. Additionally, Section 6-456.8 of the Escondido Municipal Code requires all subdivision projects to pay a public facilities benefit fee. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

ImpactXVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC


a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic

City of Escondido63



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

ImpactXVII. TRANSPORTATION/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 use (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

a) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Construction of the project would generate temporary construction-related traffic such as deliveries of equipment and materials to the project site and construction worker traffic. Construction traffic would be limited and temporary, and would not be substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The following significance criteria were used for the intersection analysis per the City of Escondido standards (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2015):

1. Signalized Intersections

A signalized intersection is directly significantly impacted when the project traffic degrades the Level of Service to worse than mid-level D (a delay of 45.1 seconds or more). If the intersection is already operating worse than mid-level D, a cumulative impact would occur if the project increases the delay by more than two (2) seconds.

2. Unsignalized Intersections

City of Escondido64


An unsignalized intersection is directly significantly impacted when the project traffic degrades the Level of Service to worse than mid-level D (a delay of 30.1 seconds or more). If the intersection is already operating worse than mid-level D, a cumulative impact would occur if the project increases the delay by more than two (2) seconds.

Kunzman Associates, Inc. completed a Traffic Study for the proposed project in October 2015. The trip generation rates for the townhome development were obtained from the SANDAG’s Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 for ADT, AM peak hour (7:00 AM – 9:00 AM) and PM peak hour (4:00 PM – 6:00 PM). The trip generation is shown in Table 14. The project would generate an estimated 520 average daily trips (ADT) with 41 total AM peak hour trips (8 inbound/33 outbound) and 52 total PM peak hour trips (36 inbound/16 outbound).

Table 13 Project Trip Generation

Land Use Dwelling Units

Peak HourDaily TripsMorning Evening

Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound TotalCondominium 65 8 33 41 36 16 52 520Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc., October 2015 & SANDAG’s (Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002. Table 15 summarizes the existing + project intersections levels of service (LOS) at study intersections. All study area intersections are calculated to currently operate at Level of Service (LOS) B or better. Because all intersections would operate at a Level of Service B or better, per the City of Escondido significance thresholds, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be necessary.

Table 14 Existing + Project Intersection Operations

Intersection ControlType

PeakHour

Existing + Project

Delay LOS cSignificant

ImpactCentre City Parkway/Citracado

Boulevard TS AM 13.8 B 0.5 No

PM 13.2 B 0.1 NoEscondido Boulevard/Citracado

BoulevardCSS AM 11.2 B 0.4 No

PM 13.4 B 0.7 NoEscondido Boulevard/Project

AccessCranston Drive/Citracado

BoulevardCranston Drive/Project Access

CSS

CSS

CSS

AM 8.6 A N/A NoPM 8.6 A N/A NoAM 9.4 A 0.1 NoPM 9.2 A 0.1 NoAM 8.8 A N/A NoPM 8.8 A N/A No

Source: Kunzman Associates, Inc., October 2015 N/A = Project Access was not an existing intersection at the time of Traffic Study, and therefore not accounted for in the c.

TS= Traffic Signal; CSS= Cross Street Stop

City of Escondido65


Although significant impacts are not anticipated, the following on- and off-site-specific circulation and access recommendations established in the Traffic Study (Kunzman Associates, Inc., 2015) are outlined below:

Construct Escondido Boulevard from the north project boundary to the south project boundary at its ultimate half-section width including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. Construct Cranston Drive from the north project boundary to the south project boundary at its ultimate half-section width, including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development, as necessary. On-site traffic signing and striping should be implemented in conjunction with detailed construction plans for the project. Sight distance at the project accesses must comply with standard California Department of Transportation and City of Escondido sight distance standards. The final grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans shall demonstrate that sight distance standards are met.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Would the project 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? San Diego International Airport and McClellan-Palomar Airport are located approximately 25 miles south and 12 miles west of the project site of the project site, respectively. Proposed residences would be no more than 39 feet or three stories in height. The project would not affect airport operations, alter air traffic patterns, or in any way conflict with established FAA flight protection zones. NO IMPACT d) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Construction traffic would access the site from South Escondido Boulevard; operational traffic would have additional access to the site from Cranston Drive. The proposed project would not introduce or encourage any incompatible land uses in the project site vicinity as it involves the construction of a townhome development in a mixed-use area. In addition, the proposed project would be required to conform to traffic and safety regulations that specify adequate emergency access measures. The project would facilitate infill development that would not be expected to hinder emergency access or evacuation. Therefore, the project would not increase hazards and emergency access issues are not anticipated. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f) Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

City of Escondido66


The project site is in an area already served by public transportation and bicycle roadways. There are sidewalks on portions of South Escondido Boulevard and Cranston Drive and the project includes sidewalks in the internal roads. Centre City Parkway, directly adjacent to South Escondido Boulevard has Class II bike lanes on both sides of the road. The site is also located along the projected North County Transit District (NCTD) Rail Line, and located approximately 2.3 miles southeast of the Escondido Transit Center, that is currently served by the Existing SPRINTER Rail Line, and local bus, and will be served in the future by the NCTD Rail Line and Rapid Bus. The proposed project would not affect or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially reduce the performance or safety of such facilities. To the contrary, providing infill residential development would be expected to provide opportunities for increased use and enhancement of alternative transportation systems. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XVIII. 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 ofnew stormwater 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?

City of Escondido67



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-- Would the project:

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?

a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Would the project 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? e) Would the project 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? Wastewater treatment would be provided by the City of Escondido. Based on an estimated 230 gallons of wastewater per unit per day (City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, 2006), the proposed project would generate approximately 14,950 gallons of wastewater per day. Escondido’s waste water treatment plant, the Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility (HARRF), is equipped with a maximum capacity of 18.0 million gallons per day (City of Escondido Wastewater Division, 2015). The wastewater treatment plant has an average flow of 15.6 million gallons per day, which means it has a remaining daily capacity of 2.4 million gallons per day. Therefore, the wastewater treatment plant would have adequate capacity to accommodate the minimal increase in wastewater generation and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Would the project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would use the City’s existing stormwater drainage infrastructure, and would not substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site. In addition, the project would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan. As such, the project would not contribute to the need for new or expanded stormwater infrastructure. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Escondido68


d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The City of Escondido uses two sources for potable water. The first source is local water that originates from the watershed and well fields near Lake Henshaw. The second source of water is the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), which purchases the majority of its water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD); MWD imports the majority of its water from the Colorado River Aqueduct and from the Northern California State Water Project. Water imported from the Delta and Colorado River by MWD is treated at Metropolitan’s Skinner Treatment Plant and released into the Water Authority’s system. In addition, all water, regardless of source, is treated at the Escondido-Vista Water Treatment Plant, prior to being distributed throughout Escondido via a system of pipelines and reservoirs. If MWD, SDCWA, and member agency supplies are developed as planned, along with achievement of the SBX7-7 retail conservation target, no shortages are anticipated within the Water Authority’s service area in a normal year through 2035 (Table 15). The City of Escondido daily water use was 88 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) in the 2014 fiscal year (Equinox Center, 2015). The project is expected to accommodate approximately 179 new residents. Based on 88 gallons per person, daily water demand would be approximately 15,752 GDCP. The City’s projected population after the project would be 147,473, which is well within City of Escondido’ growth forecast of 154,635 people in Escondido for the year 2020. As a result, project residents are already accounted for in their supply and demand planning (Table 16). Additionally, according to the City of Escondido 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City has taken further steps to ensure a consistent water supply by expanding its use of recycled water, encouraging the development of regional desalination projects, and established a successful conservation program that implements temporary water use reduction measures as defined in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to assist in ensuring reliability (City of Escondido, 2011). Based on the above, there would be sufficient water to serve the project site. No new entitlements or resources are needed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

City of Escondido69


Table 15San Diego County Water Authority

Normal Year Supply and Demand Assessment (AF/YR)1

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Water Authority SuppliesIID Water Transfer 100,000 190,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

ACC and CC Lining Projects 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200 80,200

Proposed Regional Seawater Desalination

0 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000

Sub-Total 180,200 326,200 336,200 336,200 336,200

Member Agency Supplies

Surface Water 48,206 47,940 47,878 47,542 47,289

Water Recycling 38,660 43,728 46,603 48,278 49,998

Groundwater 11,710 11,100 12,100 12,840 12,840

Groundwater Recovery 10,320 15,520 15,520 15,520 15,520

Sub-Total 108,896 118,288 122,101 124,180 125,647

Metropolitan Water District Supplies

358,189 230,601 259,694 293,239 323,838

Total Projected Supplies 647,285 675,089 717,995 753,619 785,685

Total Demands w/ SBX7-7Conservation

647,285 675,089 717,995 753,619 785,685

Source: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan1 Normal water year demands based on 1960 – 1980 hydrologies.

City of Escondido70


Table 16 San Diego County Water Authority

Multiple Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment 2016-2018 (AF/YR)2016 2017 2018

Member Agency Supplies 78,943 93,408 112,499Water Authority Supplies 236,200 236,200 266,200Metropolitan Allocation (Preferential Right) 322,661 323,350 324,100

Total Estimated Core Supplies w/o Storage Takes

637,804 652,958 702,799

Total Demands w/ SBX7-7Conservation 682,338 705,461 740,326

Potential Supply (Shortage) or Surplus (Difference between Supplies and Demands)

(44,534) (52,503) (37,527)

Utilization Carryover Supplies 44,534 40,000 30,000

Total Projected Core Supplies w/ Utilization of Carryover Storage Supplies

682,338 692,958 732,799

Remaining Potential Surplus Supply, or (Shortage) that will be handled through Management Actions

0 12,503 (7,527)

Source: 2010 Urban Water Management Plan

Like much of California, the Escondido Water Division is currently in a Level 2 Water Shortage Alert condition. This action was taken in response to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) emergency statewide drought regulations and the San Diego County Water Authority’s activation of Level 2 Drought Alert. Escondido Water Division and its customers are required by the Emergency Drought Regulations, adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board, to reduce water use by 20 percent compared to 2013 water use. Outdoor irrigation is limited to a maximum of three days per week for seven minutes at each station, excluding drip/micro-irrigation systems, and stream rotor sprinklers. The on-site irrigation system would be a high efficient system, utilizing bubblers, rotors (high efficient rotor heads), and low-volume shrub heads. California experienced a fourth consecutive dry year in 2015 with an all-time low snowpack water content level of only 6 percent of average. The lowest percentage recorded prior to 2015 was 25 percent in 2014. In response to the severe drought conditions, Governor Brown issued an Executive Order on April 1, 2015 requiring officials to impose statewide mandatory water use restrictions for the first time in history. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted emergency regulations in May 2015 requiring water suppliers throughout California to significantly reduce water use. The new

City of Escondido71


regulations place Escondido Water Division in a conservation tier that requires the District and its customers to reduce water use by 20 percent compared to 2013. The following mandatory water use restrictions are now in effect:

Limit watering to no more than 3 days per week (homes with addresses ending in odd numbers may only water on Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday; homes with addresses ending in even numbers may only water on Saturday, Monday, and Wednesday; and apartments, condos, mobile home parks, and businesses may only water on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday); Limit watering to 7 minutes per station per day (this excludes drip/micro-irrigation systems or steam rotor sprinklers; Irrigate between the hours of 6 p.m. and 10 a.m.; No watering during or 48 hours after rain; Eliminate irrigation runoff; Washing hardscape with a hose or other pressurized source is prohibited; Use a hose with a positive shut-off nozzle when washing vehicles; Use recirculated water in fountains; Hotels and motels must provide guests with the option not to have towels and/or other linens laundered daily; Restaurants or other places where food is served must not serve drinking water to customers unless requested; and Repair all leaks and line breaks as soon as they are discovered.

These measures would apply to the proposed project and would reduce water demand as compared to the forecasts contained in the 2010 UWMP. Given that the proposed project’s demand is well within water demand forecasts for Escondido Water Division and would be subject to all current water use restrictions as well as any further restrictions that may be imposed in the future, significant impacts to water supplies are not anticipated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? Solid waste generated in Escondido is collected by a private service provider, Escondido Disposal, Inc., that collects solid waste, green waste, household hazardous waste, and recyclable materials (City of Escondido General Plan, 2012). The material is taken to a materials recovery facility (MRF) in the City where it is sorted and transferred, before being deposited in the Sycamore Landfill in Santee, California. Sycamore Landfill has a capacity of 7,500 tons per day, and would have a daily permitted capacity of 11,450 tons per day by 2030 (County of San Diego, 2012). According to the September 2012 County of San Diego Countywide Five-Year Review Report of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, San Diego County landfills have remaining capacity for the next 17 years. Otay Landfill has a closure date of 2028, Miramar Landfill has a closure date of 2022, and Sycamore Landfill’s permitted capacity will expand three times over the course of 18 years, up to 11,450 tons per day.

City of Escondido72


As shown in Table 17, the proposed project would generate approximately 0.1625 tons of solid waste per day, approximately half of which would go to a landfill based on Assembly Bill 341 (AB 341), which established a statewide waste diversion goal of 50 percent. This incremental increase in solid waste generation associated with the project would be within the permitted capacity of the Sycamore Landfill. Consequently, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Table 17 Estimated Solid Waste Generation

Land Use Size Generation Factor Total (lbs/day) Total (tons/day)

Multi-family Residential 65 units 5 lbs du/day 325 0.1625

Total Solid Waste Generation 325 0.1625

Total Solid Waste Sent to Landfill (Assuming 50% diversion rate) 162.5 0.0813

Source: CalRecycle, 2015.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Escondido’s Garbage and Rubbish Chapter in the Municipal Code addresses solid waste management and adheres to State regulations for solid waste and recycling. Topics of the chapter include, but are not limited to, collection operations, mandatory recycling, illegal disposal, and mandatory reporting of waste management activities. The project would comply with all applicable regulations related to solid waste, which would include diverting 50 percent of the solid waste to a recycling facility and compliance with the City Solid Waste and Recycling Policies outlined in the General Plan, as well as the San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT


Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XIX.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal

City of Escondido73



Impact


Unless Mitigation

Incorporated


ImpactNo

Impact

XIX.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

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?

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, 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? As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, ground disturbance during construction of the proposed project has the potential to disturb the nesting habitat of birds, although impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with surveys and avoidance as required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The project does not have the potential to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, potential impacts on unknown buried cultural resources during construction would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-9 to protect potential archaeological resources, fossils, and human remains. In addition, mitigation measure PR-1 would protect potential paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED 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

City of Escondido74


viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections I through XVII, the project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact after mitigation with respect to all environmental issues. The project involves infill development that is generally consistent with the land use pattern in the area. There are no other planned or pending projects within the immediate vicinity of the project site that would create cumulative impacts (Kuzman Associates, Inc., 2015). The nearest pending projects are the TM SUB13-0001 Cranston subdivision, which would include development of six single family residences, the SUB13-0009 – Zak/2412 South Escondido, which would involve construction of 76 condominium units, and the Tract 900 – Self Storage PD, which would include construction of four single family residences and one commercial lot. All three projects would be within ¼ of a mile from the proposed project site. The proposed project includes impacts to biological and cultural resources, however the project is infill on a previously disturbed lot and therefore the biological impacts would not be cumulative. Cultural resources are not typically cumulative in nature. All other projects would be required to mitigate any impacts to a less than significant level, further ensuring no significant cumulative impacts would occur. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project, as designed, adequately addresses public health and safety objectives identified in the General Plan and Municipal Code. No significant impact was identified that could result in an adverse impact to human beings. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant effect on human beings either directly or indirectly. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of Escondido75


REFERENCES Agenbroad, L.D. 2003. New localities, chronology, and comparisons for the pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis). In J. Reumer (ed.): Advances in Mammoth Research, Proceedings of the

2nd International Mammoth Conference, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. DEINSEA 9:1-16. Atkins. June 2012 City of Escondido 2012 Water Master Plan. September 2015.

https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/PDFs/Utilities/WaterMasterPlan.pdf California Business Standards Commission. Current 2013 Codes. 2015.

http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/Current2013Codes.aspx California Department of Conservation. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. October

2015. http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/WH/regulatorymaps.htm. California Department of Education. October 2015. http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ California Department of Finance. September 2015.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/documents/E-1_2015PressRelease.pdf.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. June 2015.

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.

September 2015. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm

California Office of Public School Construction. July 2015.

http://www.dgs.ca.gov/opsc/home.aspx. Coffey Engineering, Inc., October 2015. Conservation, Department of, California Important Farmland Finder. October 2015.

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html County of San Diego Department of Public Works. 2012. Accessed October 2015.

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dpw/recycling/Files/FINAL_5_YEAR_UPDATE_OF_THE_SAN_DIEGO_COUNTYWIDE_CIWMP.pdf.

Draft Program EIR for Rye Canyon Business Park, Santa Clarita, January 1996. Dudek, Biological Survey. 2005. Escondido, City of. Climate Action Plan, Adopted December 4, 2013. Accessed September 2015

https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/PDFs/Planning/ClimateActionPlan/AdoptedClimateActionPlan.pdf

City of Escondido76


Escondido, City of, Fire Department. September 2015. https://fire.escondido.org/. Escondido, City of, General Plan Resolution 2012-52, May 2012.

https://www.escondido.org/general-plan.aspx Escondido, City of, Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan. June 2015.

https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/pdfs/pubworks/jrmp/JRMP.pdf Escondido, City of, Municipal Code. October 2015. http://qcode.us/codes/escondido/. Escondido, City of, Wastewater Division. September 2015.

https://www.escondido.org/wastewater-division.aspx. Escondido, City of, 2012 Water Master Plan. June 2012.

https://www.escondido.org/Data/Sites/1/media/PDFs/Utilities/WaterMasterPlan.pdf Escondido High School. September 2015. http://ehscougars.com/. Escondido Police Department. October 2015. https://police.escondido.org/. Escondido Unified School District. October 2015. http://www.eusd.org/. Equinox Center. February 2015. San Diego County Residential Water Use Trends. September

2015. http://www.equinoxcenter.org/assets/files/Feb-2015-Equinox-Center-Residential-Water-Consumption-Trends---for-Distribution.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise

Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). October. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). May 2006, Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment.

October. 2015. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf.

GEOCON Incorporated, Geotechnical Investigation, Citracado South Village, Escondido

California. January 2006. Accessed September 2015 Geotracker. June 2015.

http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=2516+escondido+boulevard+ca.

Kuzman Associates, Inc., Stella Park Condos Traffic Impact Analysis, October 30, 2015. Macias, M.K., E.B. Kitao, and R.S. Gray. 2014. New Pleistocene megafauna localities in Santa

Barbara County, California: Paleontological reconnaissance of the marine terrace deposits at Vandenberg Air Force Base. Paper presented at the Pacific Section AAPG/SEG/SEp.m. Joint Technical Conference, Bakersfield, CA (April 29, 2014).

City of Escondido77


RECON, Letter of Reliance for Cultural Resources at 2516 South Escondido Boulevard, Escondido (RECON Number 4153A). Accessed September 2015.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Citracado South Property, Escondido, California. April 2006. Accessed September 2015.

San Diego Air Pollution Control District website. September 2015. http://www.sdapcd.org/.

San Diego, County of, Department of Public Works. July 2015. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dpw/recycling/Files/FINAL_5_YEAR_UPDATE_OF_THE_SAN_DIEGO_COUNTYWIDE_CIWMP.pdf.

SANDAG. September 2015. http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/demographics/fastfacts/esco.htm.

Persons Contacted

Badge Number 1081, Escondido Police Department, October 15, 2015

Donner, Marlene, Fire Marshal, Escondido Fire Department, October 19, 2015

Kroon, Cindy, Administrative Analyst II, Facilities Department, Escondido Union School District, October 8, 2015

Walden, Sheri, Administrative Assistant of Business Services, Escondido Union High School District, October 8, 2015

City of Escondido78

City of Escondido


Draft Mitigation and Monitoring Report

February 2016

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program


Prepared by:

City of Escondido 201 North Broadway Escondido, CA 92025

(760) 839-4880 Contact: Bill Martin, Assistant Planning Director

(760) 839-4557

Prepared with the assistance of:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue

Ventura, California 93003

February 2016

Citracado South ProjectMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

City of EscondidoMMRP-1

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Citracado South Project, proposed in the City of Escondido. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the required mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) are implemented as part of the overall project implementation. In addition to ensuring implementation of mitigation measures, the MMRP provides feedback to agency staff and decision-makers during project implementation, and identifies the need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. The following table summarizes the mitigation measures for each issue area identified in the IS-MND for the proposed project. The table identifies each mitigation measure; the action required for the measure to be implemented; the time at which the monitoring is to occur; the monitoring frequency; and the agency or party responsible for ensuring that the monitoring is performed. In addition, the table includes columns for compliance verification. These columns will be filled out by the monitoring agency or party and would document monitoring compliance. Where an impact was identified to be less than significant, no mitigation measures were required. This MMRP will be used by City staff or the City’s consultant to determine compliance with permit conditions. Violations of these conditions may cause the City to revoke the operating permit.

Documents

City of Escondido Citracado South Project · The project would adhere to the parking requirements and design standards in the Escondido Municipal Code. Section 33-765 of the Code