Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-21; Planning Commission; 01; Jefferson Street Homes - Demolition of two existing single-family residences on two lots and the development of a 12-unit, three-story residential condominium project onMeeting Date: May 21, 2025 Item To: Planning Commission Staff Contact: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner; 442-339-2611; kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov Subject: Jefferson Street Homes - Demolition of two existing single-family residences on two lots and the development of a 12-unit, three-story residential condominium project on a 0.542-acre site. Location: 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street / 155-251-18-00 & 155-251-19-00 / District 1 Numbers: CT 2024-0004 / PUD 2024-0004 / CDP 2024-0021 (DEV2024-0012) Applicant/Representative: Jonathan Frankel, Rincon Homes, 925-708-3638, jfrankel@rincongrp.com CEQA Recommendation: ☐ Not a Project ☒ Exempt ☐ IS/ND or IS/MND ☐ EIR☐Other: Permit Type(s): ☐SDP ☐ CUP ☒ CDP ☒ TM/TPM ☐ GPA ☐ REZ ☐ LCPA☒Other: PUD Commission Action: ☒Decision ☐ Recommendation to City Council ☐ Informational (No Action) Recommended Actions That the Planning Commission ADOPT the Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit 1) APPROVING a CEQA exemption and APPROVING a Tentative Tract Map CT 2024-0004, Planned Development Permit PUD 2024-0004, and Coastal Development Permit CDP 2024-0021, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Existing Conditions & Project Description Existing Setting The subject site consists of two parcels totaling 0.542 acres, 23,618 square feet, located at 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street, on the southeast corner of Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way (Exhibit 2), and is within the Mello II segment of the city’s Local Coastal Program and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. The two properties are currently developed, each with an existing single- family residence and attached garage. Topographically, the site is flat and currently takes vehicle access from both Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way. Site Map 1 May 21, 2025 Item #1 1 of 473 Table “A” below includes the General Plan and Zoning designations, Village & Barrio Master Plan (VBMP) land use district(s), and current land uses of the subject site and surrounding properties. TABLE A – SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Location General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Current Land Use Site Residential, 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15) Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Single-family residences North Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) & Residential, 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15) One Family Residential (R-1) & Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Single-family residences South Residential, 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15) Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Single-family residences East Residential, 0-4 dwelling units per acre (R-4) One Family Residential (R-1) Single-family residences West Residential, 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15) Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Single-family residences & Multifamily residences General Plan Designation(s) Zoning Designation(s) Proposed Project The applicant proposes demolishing two existing single-family residences on two parcels located at 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street (APNs 155-251-18-00 & 155-251-19-00) and construct a 12-unit, residential air-space condominium project on one merged lot totaling 0.542 acres (23,618 square feet). This project is considered an in-fill site located within the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal. The development of the proposed condominium project requires the approval of a Tentative Tract Map (CT 2024-0004), a Planned Development Permit (PUD 2024-0004), and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2024-0021). The Tentative Tract Map Subdivision is considered major as it involves the division of land into five or more condominiums. The project’s base density, which represents the number of dwelling units allowed under the city’s R-15 General Plan land use designation, is 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre. Under the base density, 9 dwelling units are May 21, 2025 Item #1 2 of 473 allowed.1 An application for a density bonus is a request by an applicant proposing to include affordable units to build more units than the General Plan and Zoning designations allow. The applicant is seeking a density bonus under State law, which would entitle the developer to increase the density of the project by 35% in return for designating at least 11% of the base dwelling units (1 unit of 9 units) affordable to very low-income households. The density bonus that is authorized by State law (Gov. Code §65915 et seq.) is set on a sliding scale based upon the percentage of affordable units in the project, ranging from 5% to 50% additional units over the base number of units permitted pursuant to the General Plan. With the 35% density bonus, the maximum number of residential units allowed on the site is 13 units, with one of those required to be restricted as affordable to very low-income households (per State Density Bonus Law). The developer has chosen to build 12 residential units, rather than the 13 units allowed under State law. State law also entitles the developer to other incentives intended to help make the development of affordable housing economically feasible, including but not limited to reduced parking requirements and concessions and waivers such as reduced setback and minimum square footage requirements. The project is proposing one density bonus incentive/concession and six (6) density bonus waivers that are discussed in Exhibits 4 and 5. In addition to the affordable unit provided for the project to be granted a density bonus under State law, the developer is required to comply with Carlsbad’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Under the inclusionary ordinance, developments proposing a total of seven or more units must provide at least 15% of the development's base density units as affordable to lower income households. This project is required to provide one (1) unit deed restricted to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). The one (1) very low-income unit proposed satisfies both the State Density Bonus Law and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. The proposed 12-unit condominium project is designed as four triplex condominium structures creating 12 residential units. Six of the condominium units will be 2,302 square feet in size, with the remaining six units being 2,320 square feet in size. Each of the units will include four bedrooms, a roof deck, and an attached two-car garage accessed from a common drive isle. As condominiums are proposed, the underlying lot will be held in common interest between the 12 property owners. The common areas include a private drive aisle, guest parking, and common landscaped areas. All buildings are three stories with a building height of 31 feet, 1.1 inch, with roof deck guard rails and architectural features extending an additional four (4) feet, six (6) inches. All units include private patios, balconies, and roof decks. Access to each of the units will be provided by a 24-foot drive isle off Buena Vista Way. Each unit has an attached two-car garage, and the site will provide one uncovered visitor parking space. The architectural design of the project is a beach contemporary style featuring rectangular massing, flat roofs with roof decks, and balconies off the second floors to provide visual interest. Primary building materials include sand finish stucco, cut coarse stone, and composite wood siding. The primary colors proposed are white, teak, and seashell, with gray accents, as well as black window frames and guardrails. Vinyl fencing and stone biofiltration planters are also proposed. Grading quantities include 190 cubic yards of cut, 4,500 cubic yards of fill, and 4,375 cubic yards of remedial grading. A grading permit will be required for the project. The proposed project will provide frontage improvements along Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way, including a curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 1 Potential unit yield are calculations are based on CMC provisions (Chapter 21.53). Under the R-15 General Plan land use designation, 8.13 dwelling units are allowed, which is normally rounded down. However, in the context of State Density Bonus Law, fractional units are rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, the proposed project’s base density is 9 dwelling units. May 21, 2025 Item #1 3 of 473 Public Outreach & Comment The Developer has completed the Early Public Notice procedures pursuant to City Council Policy No. 84 (Development Project Public Involvement Policy). A notice of project application was mailed on July 12, 2024, to all owners of property located within a 600-foot radius and all residents within a 100-foot radius of the project site. A two-foot-tall by three-foot-wide yellow sign was also posted at the project site on July 15, 2024, notifying all pass-by traffic of the project, which provides project name, application numbers, description, as well as both Developer and city staff contact information. A total of 221 property owners and occupant notifications were mailed the notice of project application. A total of four (4) comments were received as a result of the early public notice. Comments received listed concerns regarding traffic, parking availability, number of proposed units adjacent to single-family lots, impacts to views and sun exposure from building height, and construction noise. All comments submitted are documented in the administrative record and are attached to the staff report (Exhibit 8). To summarize these public comments, the comments and staff responses, along with references to reports or documents with respect to each issue, are provided below. • Increased Traffic from Densification: A residential project proposing 12 units is anticipated to generate 72 average daily trips (ADT) with 6 peak hour trips. This level of traffic generation, under 110 ADT and 11 peak hour trips is not subject to further evaluation such as a Transportation Demand Management plan or Local Mobility Analysis. An analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was carried out in connection with the projects CEQA analysis (Exhibit 9). • Availability of Street Parking: Parking for residents of the project is provided as required by the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project will provide a two-car garage for each unit and will also provide one (1) on- site visitor parking space. In total the project requires three (3) visitor parking spaces. Consistent with CMC provisions (Chapter 21.45, Table C), on-street visitor parking is permitted on public streets when specific requirements are met. The two additional visitor parking spaces required are identified as on- street, parallel parking spaces, consistent with those requirements. As the site is currently composed of two separate lots with at least one driveway per lot, and the project proposes one vehicle entrance to the site, the development of the site will increase the amount of available street parking. • Increase in Number of Units: The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale, based upon the percentage of affordable units at each income level. Based on the details of the request, this project is entitled to a density bonus of up to four additional units for the dedication of one unit for very low- income households. The project proposes three additional units beyond the base residential density provided by the city’s General Plan land use designation of Residential, 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15). • Building Height: The building height complies with the 35-foot maximum height limit of the Multiple- Family Residential (R-3) Zone. A density bonus waiver of height limits is not requested. Additionally, there is no view protection ordinance in the city. Project Analysis General Plan Consistency The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of R-15 Residential which allows for the development of residential units at a density of 11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The City of May 21, 2025 Item #1 4 of 473 Carlsbad General Plan includes several goals and policies that guide development and land use within the city. A discussion of how the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies is summarized in Exhibit 4. Municipal Code Consistency The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, most notably Tile 21 Zoning Code, includes requirements and provisions that guide development and land use within the city, consistent with the General Plan. The project is required to comply with all applicable regulations and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including those for the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) zone (CMC Chapter 21.16) and Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45). Specific compliance with these relevant requirements is described in Exhibit 4. Local Coastal Program Consistency The project site is in the Coastal Zone and requires a Coastal Development Permit. The project complies with the Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment), including all goals and policies of the General Plan and all zoning code standards, as referenced above. Additional information on the Coastal Development Permit and Local Coastal Program findings is included in Exhibit 4. State Density Bonus The Developer is seeking an increase in the allowable density of the project under Gov. Code §65915 et seq., the State Density Bonus Law. This law allows a developer to increase the density on a property above the maximum limit set by a city’s general plan in exchange for reserving a certain number of the new dwelling units as affordable or other qualifying housing for at least 55 years. Projects proposing certain percentages of affordable units can request incentives or concessions from specific requirements, when modifying such regulations would provide “identifiable and actual cost reductions” to provide for affordable housing costs and rents. Developers can also have development standards waived or revised when such deviations are needed to achieve the density allowed under State law.2 The 0.542-acre site is located in the R-15 General Plan Land Use Designation, which permits a density range of 11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre (stated as a minimum to maximum density range). This results in a maximum base density of 8.13 units (0.542 acres multiplied by 15 units per acre), which rounds up to 9 units for this site (pursuant to Density Bonus Law, all density calculations are rounded up.) The density bonus that is authorized by State law is set on a sliding scale based upon the percentage of affordable units in the project, ranging from 5% to 50% additional units over the number ordinarily permitted. The Developer is requesting a density bonus of up to 35% allowed under State law, for a total of 4 additional units (9 units multiplied by 35%, rounded up), but only proposes to build three of the four additional units allowed. In exchange for the 35% density bonus, the Developer is required to designate 11% of the 9 base maximum density units, or one (1) unit, as affordable density bonus units. The affordable density bonus units are required to be affordable to “very low-income households” for a period of 55 years. The developer is proposing to construct 12 units at a density of 22.14 dwelling units per acre. The project is requesting incentives, concessions or waivers as allowed under State Density Bonus Law. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) Section 21.86.060 of the Density Bonus Ordinance, a project can request incentives, concessions and waivers as defined in State Density Bonus Law, based on the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Developer is requesting one (1) concession/incentive and six (6) waivers from development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as listed below and included in Exhibit 5. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the project in intitled to two concession or incentive for the project and there is no limit to the number of waivers an applicant can request, as long as the concession/incentive or waiver does not cause a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, an adverse impact on property listed on the California historical register or would violate state or federal law. 2 Refer to Exhibit 6 for an info-bulletin that provides more information on how State Density Bonus Law works. May 21, 2025 Item #1 5 of 473 Concession/Incentive 1. Concession to eliminate the 5-foot street right-of-way dedication on Buena Vista Way. Waivers 1. Waiver of CMC R-3 Standard 21.16.050(A)(1) requiring a side yard on each side of the lot (…) not less than ten percent of the width of the lot; provided, that such side yard shall be not less than five feet in width and need not exceed ten feet (10 feet side yard setback from south property line required – 5 feet proposed). 2. Waiver of CMC R-3 Standard 21.16.060(A)(1)(b) requiring buildings to observe a distance from the rear property line the equivalent of twice the required side yard (20 feet rear-yard setback from east property line required – 18 feet, 9 inches proposed). 3. Waiver of CMC Planned Development Standard 21.45.080 (Table E)(E.5) requiring buildings to observe a setback of 10 feet from any public street (10 feet setback from north property line required – 4 feet, 9 inches proposed). 4. Waiver of CMC Planned Development Standard 21.45.060 (Table C) (C.9) requiring community recreation space of 200 square feet per unit (2,400 square feet required – 0 square feet proposed). 5. Waiver of CMC Planned Development Standard 21.45.080 (Table E) (E.6) requiring a minimum 10 feet minimum building separation (10 feet separation required – 6 feet proposed). 6. Waiver of CMC Yards Standard 21.46.120 (3) limiting planting boxes and masonry planters that intrude into required yards (and building separation for planned development projects) to 42 inches in height and two feet of intrusion (2 feet intrusion allowed in rear (east) setback – 3 feet, 3 inches of intrusion proposed). Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base units, or one (1) unit, shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). The one (1) very low-income unit proposed to satisfy State Density Bonus requirements also satisfies the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA) This project is subject to California Gov. Code §65589.5(j)(1), which states when a proposed housing development project complies with the applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria that were in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, cities shall not disapprove the project or impose a condition requiring lower density unless the city finds based on a preponderance of evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, or there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid such adverse impact. A “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete; and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact, other than the disapproval of the project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. May 21, 2025 Item #1 6 of 473 There is no preponderance of evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. The design of the site development and the types of improvement would not cause serious public health or safety problems since the project would not degrade the levels of service on the adjoining streets, drainage system, public facilities, and city sewer and water is available to the site or can be provided. The project’s proposed street alignments, grades, and widths; drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof; location and size of all required easements and right-of-way; lot size and configuration; and traffic and emergency response access were all reviewed for compliance to relevant city policies and codes. The proposed deviations (i.e., waivers requested as part of the proposed density bonus, which are permitted pursuant to State Density Bonus Law), supplement the Developer’s land use application to avoid restrictive zoning limitations that would preclude the project as it has been designed and submitted to the city. Discretionary Actions & Findings In addition to the Coastal Development Permit required for development within the Coastal Zone, the following discretionary actions are requested. Additional information on the Coastal Development Permit and Local Coastal Program findings is included in Exhibit 4. Tentative Tract Map CT 2024-0004 Pursuant to Section 21.45.050, Planned Developments, approval of a Major Subdivision Map (Tentative Tract Map) is required with the processing of a Major Planned Development Permits (five or more dwelling units). Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 1). Planned Development Permit PUD 2024-0004 Pursuant to Section 21.45.050, Planned Developments, approval of a Major Planned Development Permit is required for a project proposing five or more dwelling units. Staff finds that the required findings for this application can be met (Exhibit 1). Environmental Review Prior to final action by the decision-making body on the project, an environmental determination shall be made by the appropriate decision-makers as part of the approval action to ensure agency compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has reviewed the scope of the project and applicable studies provided by the applicant and finds that the project belongs to a class of projects that the State Secretary for Resources has found do not have a significant impact on the environment, and it is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents pursuant to CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15332 (In-Fill Development Projects): • The project is consistent with the General Plan as well as the zoning ordinance in terms of land use, density, and development standards. • The project is within the city limits, is less than five acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses. • Because the site contains only non-native and ornamental vegetation, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic (as verified by the Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis prepared by LOS Engineering dated April 30, 2025), noise (as verified by the Noise Study prepared by Birdseye Planning Group dated June 2024), air quality (as verified by the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study by Birdseye Planning Group dated July 2024), or water quality. May 21, 2025 Item #1 7 of 473 •The subject site is served by public and private utilities, including the city’s water, sewer, and electrical utilities. The subject site has access and is served directly from Jefferson St. which is an existing developed roadway with existing utilities. Water infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site is maintained and operated by CMWD. Sewer service is currently provided by the City of Carlsbad to the project site via the existing public sewer system in the vicinity of the project. Water service for domestic and fire protection uses would be provided via the existing water connections to the existing public water system. Furthermore, the project would pay the required water connection fees to help offset the project’s contribution to the city’s water collection infrastructure needs. For sewer, according to City of Carlsbad Utilities Department staff, the sewer lines adjacent to the site need to be upsized along the project’s flow path (in pipes downstream of the project site, north of Laguna Dr.) to accommodate the project’s addition of 12 residential units and other future growth in the area. Utilities staff indicated that facilities to service the proposed project are reasonably expected to be available within the next five years. Therefore, the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. A draft Notice of Exemption is included as Exhibit 9. This must be reviewed and considered prior to approval of the project. The draft Notice of Exemption demonstrates that the project qualifies for the exemption – and that none of the exceptions to categorical exemptions listed in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 or Chapter 19.04 of the Municipal Code have been triggered. As part of an additional and optional public disclosure, the draft Notice of Exemption was posted on the city’s website on May 1, 2025 and an email was sent to all interested parties that have expressed interest in this project or have signed up to receive environmental notices. Conclusion Considering the information above and in the referenced Exhibits, staff has found that the proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies of the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, provisions of the Municipal Code, and Local Facilities Management Zone 1. All required public improvements and utilities are available to serve the proposed development. In addition, there are no environmental issues associated with the project. The project is conditioned to ensure the proposed project’s compatibility with the surrounding properties and that the public health, safety, and welfare of the community are maintained. The project would be required to comply with all applicable California Building Standards Codes and engineering standards through the standard building permit and civil improvement plan checking process. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the project, as described in this staff report. Exhibits 1.Planning Commission Resolution (CT/PUD/CDP) 2.Location Map 3.Disclosure Statement 4.Project Analysis (General Plan, Zoning Ordinance) 5.Supplemental Application - Density Bonus Checklist 6.Informational Bulletin IB-112 – State Density Bonus Law 7.Informational Bulletin IB-157 – Inclusionary Housing Program 8.Public Comments 9.Draft Notice of CEQA Exemption 9.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis 9.2 Noise Study 9.3 Air Quality Study 9.4 Historical Assessment, 2502 Jefferson Street May 21, 2025 Item #1 8 of 473 9.5 Historical Assessment, 2518 Jefferson Street 9.6 Archaeological Survey 9.7 Paleontological Assessment 10.List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 11.Reduced Exhibits 12.Full Size Exhibits “A” – “Z” dated May 21, 2025 (on file in the Planning Department) May 21, 2025 Item #1 9 of 473 Exhibit 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CEQA EXEMPTION DETERMINATION AND APPROVING CARLSBAD TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF TWO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON TWO LOTS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 12-UNIT, THREE-STORY, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 0.542-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON ST., WITHIN THE MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AND WITHIN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: JEFFERSON STREET HOMES CASE NO.: CT 2024-0004/PUD 2024-0004/CDP 2024-0021 (DEV 2024-0012) WHEREAS, RREG INVESTMENT SERIES LLC SERIES 1042, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as PARCEL 1, APN 155-251-19-00: LOT 10 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 11, BLOCK “C” OF RESUBDIVSION OF PORTION OF SUNNYSLOPE TRACT, IN THE CTY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 995, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 6, 1906. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 57.5. FEET. PARCEL 2, APN 155-251-18-00 : THE NORTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 11 AND ALL OF LOT 12, BLOCK “C” OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF SUNNYSLOPE TRACT, IN THE CITYOF CARLSBAD, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 995, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO, JUNE 6, 1906. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 57.5. FEET ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12, A DISTANCE OF 12.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 14, FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 10’ 04”, AN ARE DISTANCE OF 15.43 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. (“the Property”); and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. May 21, 2025 Item #1 10 of 473 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Planned Development Permit, Coastal Development Permit, and Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibit(s) “A” – Z” dated MAY 21, 2025, on file in the Planning Division, CT 2024-0004/PUD 2024-0004/CDP 2024-0021 (DEV2024-0012) – JEFFERSON STREET HOMES, as provided by Chapter 21.16, 21.45, 21.201, and 20.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on MAY 21, 2025, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) Compliance with CEQA. The proposed action to demolish two existing single-family residential structures and the construction of four, three-story, residential condominium triplexes (12 units) is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32 – Infill Development Projects), which allows for infill development projects that meets certain criteria, such as being surrounded by urban uses and not resulting in significant impacts. No exceptions to the categorical exemption as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 or Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070(C) apply. The notice of exemption will be filed with the Recorder/County Clerk within five days after project approval by the decision-making body. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CT 2024-0004/PUD 2024-0004/CDP 2024-0021 (DEV2024-0012) - JEFFERSON STREET HOMES, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: Findings: Tentative Tract Map (CT 2024-0004) 1. That the proposed map and the proposed design and improvement of the subdivision as conditioned, is consistent with and satisfies all requirements of the General Plan, any applicable specific plans, Titles 20 and 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, and the State Subdivision Map Act, and will not cause serious public health problems, in that the 12-unit residential condominium May 21, 2025 Item #1 11 of 473 project created through the tentative tract map satisfies all the minimum requirements of Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and has been designed to comply with all applicable regulations including the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone, the Planned Development Ordinance, and the R-15 General Plan Land Use designation, as modified by State Density Bonus Law. Density Bonus Law is a State mandate. A Developer who meets the requirements of State law is entitled to receive the density bonus and other benefits as a matter of right. As conditioned, the design and improvements of the proposed project are consistent with the General Plan. All approvals and permits required by Title 21 for the project have been obtained or will be concurrently obtained with the approval of the tract map. The design of the tract map or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The proposed location and size of the right-of-way, sanitary facilities and utilities, traffic access, and grading were all reviewed for compliance with relevant city policies and codes. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project has been designed to meet the requirements of the city and other service agency standards. All necessary public facilities and services are in place or can be extended to serve the project, which comes with support from fire, water, sewer, and school service providers, indicating that existing facilities are available to service the project. 2. That the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding future land uses since surrounding properties are developed and are currently designated as R-4 or R-15 Residential in the General Plan. The proposed development is in conformance with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan because the land use designation allows for residential uses on the project site. The subject property is bordered on all sides by existing single-family and multi-family residential development and the project’s bulk, size, and scale is consistent with the patterns established on adjoining properties. Given the existing, surrounding development, the residential condominium project is compatible with existing and future land uses. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of the development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate residential development at the density proposed, in that the R-15 General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development at a density range of 11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre and up to nine (9) base units are allowed on the subject 0.542-acre parcel. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the Developer proposes a 35% density bonus to allow for the construction of up to 13 units, of which 12 units will be built. In exchange, the Developer is required to designate 11% of the base units onsite (one unit) as affordable to very low-income households for 55 years, earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI). Additionally, all required development standards and design criteria, aside from those waived or reduced in compliance with State Density Bonus Law, required by the Multiple- Family Residential (R-3) Zone and the Planned Development Ordinance are incorporated into the 12-unit residential condominium project. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements of record or easements established by court judgment, or acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, in that the 12-unit residential May 21, 2025 Item #1 12 of 473 condominium project has been designed and conditioned so that there are no conflicts with established easements. 5. That the property is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act). 6. That the design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, in that structures include operable windows on all elevations and balconies to maximize exposure of each unit to natural light and ventilation from nearby coastal breezes. 7. That the Planning Commission has considered, in connection with the housing proposed by this subdivision, the housing needs of the region, and balanced those housing needs against the public service needs of the city and available fiscal and environmental resources in that consistent with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and State Density Bonus Law, the project provides 11% of the base units onsite (one unit) as affordable to very low-income households for 55 years, earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI). The one (1) very low-income unit proposed to satisfy State Density Bonus Law requirements also satisfies Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base units, or one (1) unit, shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). 8. That the design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the 12-unit residential condominium project site has been previously developed or disturbed with the development of single-family residential structures and a childcare use and is surrounded by existing single-family and multi-family residential development. Furthermore, the project site is devoid of sensitive vegetation and any natural water features which would support habitat for threatened or endangered species. 9. That the discharge of waste from the subdivision will not result in violation of existing California Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, in that the project has been designed in accordance with the Best Management Practices for water quality protection in accordance with the City’s sewer and drainage standards and the project is conditioned to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 10. The proposed tract map meets or performs all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and that none of the findings (a) through (g) in Section 66474 of the California Government Code that require a city to deny approval of a tract map apply to the project. Planned Development Permit (PUD 2024-0004) 11. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan, and complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter, and all other applicable provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, in that the R-15 General Plan Land Use designation allows residential development at a density range of 11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre and up to nine (9) base units (rounded up under State Density Bonus Law) are allowed on the subject 0.542-acre parcel. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, the Developer proposes a 35% density bonus to allow for the construction of up to May 21, 2025 Item #1 13 of 473 13 units, of which 12 units will be built. In exchange, the Developer is required to designate 11% of the base units onsite (one unit) as affordable to very low-income households for 55 years, earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI). As discussed in the staff report, the project is consistent with all minimum development and design standards applicable to the property, aside from those waived or reduced in compliance with State Density Bonus Law, as contained in Chapters 21.16 (Multiple-Family Residential Zone (R-3)) and 21.45 (Planned Developments) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 12. The proposed project will not be detrimental to existing uses, or to uses specifically permitted in the area in which the proposed use is to be located, and will not adversely impact the site, surroundings, or traffic, in that the 12-unit residential condominium project is compatible with existing surrounding single-family and multi-family residential uses as permitted by the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone and adjacent Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zone, and does not create any traffic or circulation impacts as Buena Vista Way and Jefferson Street are adequately designed to accommodate the 72 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) being generated. 13. The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare, in that the 12- unit residential condominium project has been designed to comply with all applicable development standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding multiple-family, condominium, and single-family residential uses. 14. The project’s design, including architecture, streets, and site layout a) contributes to the community’s overall aesthetic quality; b) includes the use of harmonious materials and colors, and the appropriate use of landscaping; and c) achieves continuity among all elements of the project, in that the 12-unit residential condominium project is arranged with units along a private drive aisle that is enhanced by decorative pavers and landscaping. The four-building configuration of three-story buildings with attached garages are architecturally harmonious with each other and include a variety of exterior materials and colors that are complementary of each other. Primary building materials include finish stucco, cut coarse stone, and composite wood siding, in white, teak, and “seashell”, with gray accents and black window frames and guardrails. All elements (i.e., site layout, architecture, landscaping) create continuity in the overall project design. Coastal Development Permit (CDP 2024-0021) 15. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) and all applicable policies, in that the site is designated R-15 Residential (11.5-15 du/ac) for multi-family residential development by the Mello II LCP. The project consists of the demolition of two residential structures on two lots and the construction of 12 condominiums in four separate triplex buildings. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding existing single-family and multi-family residential structures. The three-story structures will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right- of-way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the Coastal Zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on-site. The proposed project is not located in an area of known geological instability or flood hazard. Since the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. May 21, 2025 Item #1 14 of 473 16. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that the property is not located adjacent to the shoreline. Therefore, the 12-unit residential condominium project will not interfere with the public’s right to physical access to the ocean and, furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. 17. That the project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the 12-unit residential condominium project will adhere to the city's Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes or native vegetation is located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. 18. The project is not located in the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone, according to Map X of the Land Use Plan, certified September 1990 and Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fees are not required in accordance with the provisions of the Coastal Agriculture Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.202 of the Zoning Ordinance). 19. The project is not between the sea and the first public road parallel to the sea and therefore, is not subject to the provisions of the Coastal Shoreline Development Overlay Zone (Chapter 21.204 of the Zoning Ordinance). May 21, 2025 Item #1 15 of 473 General 20. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the city’s General Plan based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May 21, 2025, including, but not limited to the following: a. Land Use & Community Design – The project makes efficient use of limited land supply by subdividing a 0.542-acre site into 12 condominiums units on one lot. The project meets all development standards (aside from those waived or reduced in compliance with State Density Bonus Law) provides adequate parking, and the proposed design and materials ensure the development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Furthermore, the project provides additional housing within the existing neighborhood by constructing 10 additional new residences (in addition from the existing two (2) single-family residences). b. Housing – Included in the 12 units proposed, the project provides one (1) unit as affordable to very low-income households for 55 years, earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI). The one (1) very low-income unit proposed to satisfy State Density Bonus Law requirements also satisfies Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base units, or one (1) unit, shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). c. Mobility – The proposed project has been designed to meet applicable circulation requirements, which include a single driveway access point from Buena Vista Way. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay traffic impact fees prior to issuance of a building permit that will go towards future road improvements. d. Public Safety – The proposed structural improvements will be required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable fire safety requirements including fire sprinklers. Additionally, the proposed project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods or liquefaction. e. Noise – The project consists of 12 residential condominiums configured in four separate buildings. A noise study by Birdseye Planning Group, dated June 2024 was provided. The exterior required private recreation areas are below the maximum 60 dB(a) CNEL noise level, and interior noise levels below the maximum 45 dB(a) CNEL can be achieved with operable windows closed. Mechanical ventilation is incorporated into the design of the units, which provides required heating and cooling of units without the need for open windows. 21. The project is consistent with the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan, the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1 and all city public facility policies and ordinances. The project includes elements or has been conditioned to construct or provide funding to ensure that all facilities and improvements regarding sewer collection and treatment; water; drainage; May 21, 2025 Item #1 16 of 473 circulation; fire; schools; parks and other recreational facilities; libraries; government administrative facilities; and open space, related to the project will be installed to serve new development prior to or concurrent with need. Specifically, a. The project has been conditioned to provide proof from the Carlsbad Unified School District that the project has satisfied its obligation for school facilities. b. Park-in-lieu fees are required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 20.44 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. c. The Public Facility fee is required to be paid by Council Policy No. 17 and will be collected prior to the issuance of building permit. d. The Local Facilities Management fee for Zone 1 is required by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.90.050 and will be collected prior to issuance of building permit. 22. That the project is consistent with the city’s Landscape Manual and Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 18.50). 23. The Planning Commission finds that the project, as conditioned herein, is in conformance with the Elements of the city’s General Plan, based on the facts set forth in the staff report dated May 21, 2025. 24. The Planning Commission has reviewed each of the exactions imposed on the Developer contained in this resolution, and hereby finds, in this case, that the exactions are imposed to mitigate impacts caused by or reasonably related to the project, and the extent and the degree of the exaction is in rough proportionality to the impact caused by the project. Conditions: NOTE: Unless specifically stated in the condition, all of the following conditions, upon the approval of this proposed subdivision, must be met prior to approval of a final map, building or grading permit whichever occurs first. 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the city shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all future building permits; deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the city’s approval of this Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit. 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown May 21, 2025 Item #1 17 of 473 on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims and costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees incurred by the city arising, directly or indirectly, from (a) city’s approval and issuance of this Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit (b) city’s approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator’s installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the city’s approval is not validated. 6. Prior to submittal of the building plans, improvement plans, grading plans, or final map, whichever occurs first, developer shall submit to the City Planner, a 24" x 36" copy of the Tentative Tract Map, Site Plan, conceptual grading plan and preliminary utility plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision-making body. The copy shall be submitted to the City Planner, reviewed and, if found acceptable, signed by the city's project planner and project engineer. If no changes were required, the approved exhibits shall fulfill this condition. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the Building Division from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. 8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that Plan prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project and substantial work has been performed with at least one major inspection (foundation, underfloor, frame, or final) conducted by the city within 36 months of project approval. 10. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the city that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. The applicant acknowledges that sewer connection(s) for the Project will May 21, 2025 Item #1 18 of 473 not be available until that segment of existing 8” sewer main in Jefferson Street between Buena Vista Way and Laguna Drive is upsized to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A note to this effect shall be placed on the Final Map. In order to facilitate this goal, the city may enter into an agreement with property owners willing or required to construct public sanitary sewer infrastructure in order to reimburse those constructing the work for a fair share of the direct cost of construction collected from properties that directly benefit from that construction. The Developer may prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to City Engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 20.16.070 for public improvements. Said improvements shall be installed to city standard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 11. Developer shall pay the Citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy #17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zone 1 pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid, this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void. 12. Developer shall submit to the city a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed. Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction of the City Planner, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the City of Carlsbad has issued a Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit on the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The City Planner has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer or successor in interest. 13. Prior to issuance of grading permit(s), developer shall make a separate formal landscape construction drawing plan check submittal to the Planning Division and obtain City Planner approval of a Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan showing conformance with the approved Preliminary Landscape Plan and the city’s Landscape Manual. Developer shall construct and install all landscaping and irrigation as shown on the approved Final Plans. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. All irrigation systems shall be maintained to provide the optimum amount of water to the landscape for plant growth without causing soil erosion and runoff. 14. The first submittal of Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans shall be pursuant to the landscape plan check process on file in the Planning Division and accompanied by the project’s building, improvement, and grading plans. 15. Project has been granted additional units, a concession, and waivers in accordance with density bonus provisions found in Government Code Sections 65915 to 65918 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.86. Per density bonus definitions, the project had a calculation of 9 base units (rounded up). Applicant requested an increase in density to allow three (3) additional units, for May 21, 2025 Item #1 19 of 473 a total project size of 12 units. Based on the requested density bonus, applicant must provide 11% of the base units as very low-income units, as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 50053. The project must provide one (1) density bonus very low-income affordable unit based on calculations in Government Code Section 65915. 16. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, Developer shall list the following condition on all grading and building permit construction plans. Construction activities shall take place during the permitted time and day per Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 8.48. Developer shall ensure that construction activities for the proposed project are limited to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no work shall be conducted on Sundays or on federal holidays. 17. Developer shall establish a homeowner's association and corresponding covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to final tract map approval. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer shall provide the Planning Division with a recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the Department of Real Estate and the City Planner. A “hold” will be placed on the building permit (i.e., Certificate of Occupancy) to ensure that said CC&R’s are received prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. At a minimum, the CC&Rs shall contain the following provisions: a. General Enforcement by the City: The City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enforce those Protective Covenants set forth in this Declaration in favor of, or in which the City has an interest. b. Notice and Amendment: A copy of any proposed amendment shall be provided to the City in advance. If the proposed amendment affects the City, City shall have the right to disapprove. A copy of the final approved amendment shall be transmitted to City within 30 days for the official record. c. Failure of Association to Maintain Common Area Lots and Easements: In the event that the Association fails to maintain the “Common Area Lots and/or the Association’s Easements” as provided in Article , Section the city shall have the right, but not the duty, to perform the necessary maintenance. If the city elects to perform such maintenance, the city shall give written notice to the Association, with a copy thereof to the Owners in the Project, setting forth with particularity the maintenance which the city finds to be required and requesting the same be carried out by the Association within a period of thirty (30) days from the giving of such notice. In the event that the Association fails to carry out such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements within the period specified by the city’s notice, the City shall be entitled to cause such work to be completed and shall be entitled to reimbursement with respect thereto from the Owners as provided herein. d. Special Assessments Levied by the City: In the event the City has performed the necessary maintenance to either Common Area Lots and/or Association’s Easements, the city shall submit a written invoice to the Association for all costs incurred by the City to perform such maintenance of the Common Area Lots and or Association’s Easements. The city shall provide a copy of such invoice to each Owner in the Project, together with a statement that if the May 21, 2025 Item #1 20 of 473 Association fails to pay such invoice in full within the time specified, the city will pursue collection against the Owners in the Project pursuant to the provisions of this Section. Said invoice shall be due and payable by the Association within twenty (20) days of receipt by the Association. If the Association shall fail to pay such invoice in full within the period specified, payment shall be deemed delinquent and shall be subject to a late charge in an amount equal to six percent (6%) of the amount of the invoice. Thereafter the City may pursue collection from the Association by means of any remedies available at law or in equity. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the city, the city may levy a special assessment against the Owners of each Lot in the Project for an equal pro rata share of the invoice, plus the late charge. Such special assessment shall constitute a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot against which the special assessment is levied. Each Owner in the Project hereby vests the city with the right and power to levy such special assessment, to impose a lien upon their respective Lot and to bring all legal actions and/or to pursue lien foreclosure procedures against any Owner and his/her respective Lot for purposes of collecting such special assessment in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article of this Declaration. e. Landscape Maintenance Responsibilities: The HOAs and individual lot or unit owner landscape maintenance responsibilities shall be as set forth in Exhibit ____________. f. Balconies, trellis, and decks: The individual lot or unit owner allowances and prohibitions regarding balconies, trellis, and decks shall be as set forth in Exhibit __________. 18. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer shall submit to the City Planner a recorded copy of the Condominium Plan filed with the Bureau of Real Estate which is in conformance with the City-approved documents and exhibits. 19. If satisfaction of the school facility requirement involves a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism which is inconsistent with City Council Policy No. 38, by allowing a pass-through of the taxes or fees to individual home buyers, then in addition to any other disclosure required by law or Council policy, the Developer shall disclose to future owners in the project, to the maximum extent possible, the existence of the tax or fee, and that the school district is the taxing agency responsible for the financing mechanism. The form of notice is subject to the approval of the City Planner and shall at least include a handout and a sign inside the sales facility, or inside each unit, stating the fact of a potential pass-through of fees or taxes exists and where complete information regarding those fees or taxes can be obtained. 20. Developer shall submit and obtain City Planner approval of an exterior lighting plan including parking areas. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. 21. Developer shall display a current Zoning and Land Use Map, or an alternative, suitable to the City Planner, in the sales office or inside each unit, at all times. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to trails, future and existing schools, parks, and streets. May 21, 2025 Item #1 21 of 473 22. Developer shall post a sign in the sales office, or inside each unit, in a prominent location that discloses which special districts and school district provide service to the project. Said sign shall remain posted until ALL of the units are sold. 23. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and Building Official. 24. No outdoor storage of materials shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. When so required, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval of the Fire Chief and the City Planner of an Outdoor Storage Plan, and thereafter comply with the approved plan. 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, whichever occurs first, Developer shall: a. Retain the services of a qualified archaeologist who shall be on-site to monitor ground disturbing activities. In the event cultural resource material is encountered, the archaeologist is empowered to temporarily divert or halt grading to allow for coordination with the Luiseno Native American monitor and to determine the significance of the discovery. The archaeologist shall follow all standard procedures for cultural resource materials that are not Tribal Cultural Resources, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations including but not limited to the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017). b. Enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement, otherwise known as a Tribal Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, or other Luiseno Native American tribe that meets all standard requirements of the tribe for such Agreements, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations including but not limited to the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (2017). This agreement will address provision of a Luiseno Native American monitor and contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any Tribal Cultural Resources and/or Native American human remains inadvertently discovered during the course of the project. The agreement will outline the roles and powers of the Luiseno Native American monitor and the archaeologist. 26. Public Improvements Plans and Final Landscape Plans shall include street trees on Buena Vista Way. In total, plans must include no less than seven (7) street trees, with no less than three (3) trees planted along each street frontage, as required by the Landscape Manual. Engineering: General 27. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the city engineer for the proposed haul route. May 21, 2025 Item #1 22 of 473 28. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for the development of the subject property, unless the district engineer has determined that adequate water and sewer facilities are available at the time of permit issuance and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. 29. Developer shall submit to the city engineer an acceptable instrument, via CC&Rs and/or other recorded document, addressing the maintenance, repair, and replacement of shared private improvements within this subdivision, including but not limited to private driveway, utilities, street trees, sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, enhanced paving, water quality treatment measures and storm drain facilities located therein and to distribute the costs of such maintenance in an equitable manner among the owners of the properties within this subdivision. The CCR’s shall include a requirement to provide an annual verification of the effective operation and maintenance of each structural treatment control BMP in accordance with the BMP maintenance agreement and the SWQMP. The annual verification shall be submitted to the enforcement official in a format as approved by the city prior to the start of the rainy season. 30. Developer shall include rain gutters on the building plans subject to the city engineer’s review and approval. Developer shall install rain gutters in accordance with said plans. 31. Developer shall prepare, submit and process for city engineer approval a final map to subdivide this project. There shall be one Final Map recorded for this project. Developer shall pay the city standard map review plan check fees. 32. Developer shall install sight distance corridors at all street intersections and driveways in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The property owner shall maintain this condition. 33. Property owner shall maintain all landscaping (street trees, tree grates, shrubs, groundcover, etc.) and irrigation along the parkway frontage with Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way as shown on the Tentative Map. Fees/Agreements 34. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation, the city’s standard form Geologic Failure Hold Harmless Agreement. 35. Developer shall cause property owner to execute and submit to the city engineer for recordation the city’s standard form Drainage Hold Harmless Agreement. 36. Developer shall cause property owner to submit an executed copy to the city engineer for recordation a city standard Permanent Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Maintenance Agreement. 37. Developer shall cause owner to execute, for recordation, a city standard Local Improvement District Agreement to pay fair share contributions for undergrounding of all existing overhead utilities and installation of streetlights, as needed, along the subdivision frontage, should a future district be formed. Grading 38. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Tentative Map, a grading permit for this project is required. Developer shall prepare and submit plans and technical studies/reports as required by city engineer, post security and pay all applicable grading plan review and permit fees per the city’s latest fee schedule. May 21, 2025 Item #1 23 of 473 39. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the contractor shall submit a Construction Plan to the city engineer for review and approval. Said Plan may be required to include, but not be limited to, identifying the location of the construction trailer, material staging, bathroom facilities, parking of construction vehicles, employee parking, construction fencing and gates, obtaining any necessary permission for off-site encroachment, addressing pedestrian safety, and identifying time restrictions for various construction activities. May 21, 2025 Item #1 24 of 473 Storm Water Quality 40. Developer shall comply with the city's Stormwater Regulations, latest version, and shall implement best management practices at all times. Best management practices include but are not limited to pollution control practices or devices, erosion control to prevent silt runoff during construction, general housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to stormwater, receiving water or stormwater conveyance system to the maximum extent practicable. Developer shall notify prospective owners and tenants of the above requirements. 41. Developer shall complete and submit to the city engineer a Determination of Project’s SWPPP Tier Level and Construction Threat Level Form pursuant to City Engineering Standards. Developer shall also submit the appropriate Tier level Storm Water Compliance form and appropriate Tier level Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Developer shall pay all applicable SWPPP plan review and inspection fees per the city’s latest fee schedule. 42. This project is subject to ‘Priority Development Project’ requirements and Trash Capture Requirements. Developer shall prepare and process a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP), subject to city engineer approval, to comply with the Carlsbad BMP Design Manual latest version. The final SWQMP required by this condition shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer with final grading plans. Developer shall pay all applicable SWQMP plan review and inspection fees per the city’s latest fee schedule. 43. Developer is responsible to ensure that all final design plans (grading plans, improvement plans, landscape plans, building plans, etc.) incorporate all source control, site design, pollutant control BMP and applicable hydromodification measures. Dedications/Improvements 44. Developer shall cause owner to dedicate to the city and/or other appropriate entities for the public street and public utility purposes as shown on the Tentative Map. The offer shall be made by a certificate on the final map. All land so offered shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and without cost to the city. Streets that are already public are not required to be rededicated. Additional easements may be required at final design to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 45. Developer shall design the private drainage systems, as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the city engineer. All private drainage systems (12” diameter storm drain and larger) shall be inspected by the city. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees for private drainage systems. 46. Prior to any work in city right-of-way or public easements, Developer shall apply for and obtain a right-of-way permit to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 47. Developer shall prepare and process public improvement plans and, prior to city engineer approval of said plans, shall execute a city standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement to install and shall post security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 for public improvements shown on the Tentative Map. Said improvements shall be installed to city May 21, 2025 Item #1 25 of 473 standards to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to: A. Curb & Gutter B. Sidewalk C. Driveway D. Curb Ramp E. Sewer Service F. Water Services G. Tree Well H. D25 Outlet Structure I. 3” AC Grind and Overlay Additional public improvements required in other conditions of this resolution are hereby included in the above list by reference. Developer shall pay the standard improvement plan check and inspection fees in accordance with the fee schedule. Improvements listed above shall be constructed within 36 months of approval of the subdivision or development improvement agreement or such other time as provided in said agreement. 48. Developer shall cause owner to waive direct access rights on the final map prior to the issuance of a building permit for Jefferson Street. 49. Developer is responsible to ensure all existing overhead utilities servicing the subject property are to be undergrounded as shown on the Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the city engineer. No new or relocated utility poles are allowed. 50. Developer is responsible to ensure utility transformers or raised water backflow preventers that serve this development are located outside the right-of-way as shown on the Tentative Map and to the satisfaction of the city engineer. These facilities shall be constructed within the property. Non-Mapping Notes 51. Add the following notes to the final map as non-mapping data: A. Developer has executed a city standard Subdivision Improvement Agreement and has posted security in accordance with C.M.C. Section 20.16.070 to install public improvements. These improvements include, but are not limited to: a. Curb & Gutter b. Sidewalk c. Driveway d. Curb Ramp e. Sewer Service f. Water Services g. Tree Well h. D25 Outlet Structure i. 3” AC Grind and Overlay May 21, 2025 Item #1 26 of 473 B. Building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the appropriate agency determines that sewer and water facilities are available. C. No structure, fence, wall, tree, shrub, sign, or other object may be placed or permitted to encroach within the area identified as a sight distance corridor as defined by City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards or line-of-sight per Caltrans standards. D. The owner of this property on behalf of itself and all of its successors in interest has agreed to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Carlsbad from any action that may arise through any diversion of waters, the alteration of the normal flow of surface waters or drainage, or the concentration of surface waters or drainage from the drainage system or other improvements identified in the city approved development plans; or by the design, construction or maintenance of the drainage system or other improvements identified in the city approved development plans. E. There are no public park or recreational facilities to be located in whole or in part within this subdivision. The subdivider is therefore obligated to pay park-in-lieu fees in accordance with section 20.44.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and has either paid all of said park in-lieu fees or agreed to pay all of said park-in-lieu fees in accordance with section 20.16.070 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Utilities 52. Developer shall meet with the fire marshal to determine if fire protection measures (fire flows, fire hydrant locations, building sprinklers) are required to serve the project. 53. Developer shall design and agree to construct public facilities within public right-of-way or within minimum 20-foot wide easements granted to the district or the City of Carlsbad. At the discretion of the district or city engineer, wider easements may be required for adequate maintenance, access and/or joint utility purposes. 54. The developer shall agree to design landscape and irrigation plans utilizing recycled water as a source and prepare and submit a colored recycled water use map to the Planning Department for processing and approval by the district engineer. 55. Developer shall install potable water and/or recycled water services and meters at locations approved by the district engineer. The locations of said services shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 56. The developer shall agree to install sewer laterals and clean-outs at locations approved by the city engineer. The locations of sewer laterals shall be reflected on public improvement plans. 57. The developer shall design and agree to construct public water, sewer, and recycled water facilities substantially as shown on the Tentative Map to the satisfaction of the district engineer and city engineer. May 21, 2025 Item #1 27 of 473 Code Reminders The project is subject to all applicable provisions of local ordinances, including but not limited to the following: 1.Developer shall pay planned local area drainage fees in accordance with Section 15.08.020 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code to the satisfaction of the city engineer. 2.Developer shall pay traffic impact and sewer impact fees based on Section 18.42 and Section 13.10 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, respectively. The Average Daily Trips (ADT) and floor area contained in the staff report and shown on the Tentative Map are for planning purposes only. 3.Subdivider shall comply with Section 20.16.040(D) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. NOTICE TO APPLICANT An appeal of this decision to the City Council must be filed with the City Clerk at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92008, within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission’s decision. Pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.54, section 21.54.150, the appeal must be in writing and state the reason(s) for the appeal. The City Council must make a determination on the appeal prior to any judicial review. NOTICE Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the “imposition” of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as “fees/exactions.” You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading, or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. May 21, 2025 Item #1 28 of 473 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on May 21, 2025, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Meenes, Burrows, Foster, Hubinger, Merz, Stine NAYES: Lafferty ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. RMEENES, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: ERIC LARDY City Planner JE F F E R S O N S T BUENA VISTA WY E L C AMINO R E A L LA COSTA AV A L G A R D C A R L S B A D B L CT2024-0004/PUD2024-0004/CDP2024-0021 JEFFEERSON STREET HOMES SITE MAP J SITE Map generated on: 3/18/2025 Exhibit 2 May 21, 2025 Item #1 30 of 473 Page 1 of 6 P-1(A) Form Rev 6/2023 Development Services Planning Division 1635 Faraday Avenue 442-339-2600 www.carlsbadca.gov AUTHORIATION, CONSENT, AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT P-1(A) APPLICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT INFORMATION This submittal form (Part A through Part F) must be completed as part of your application with the City of Carlsbad. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. PART A. Owner Authorization and Consent NOTE: This Consent and Disclosure Form must list the name of the principal owners (10% or greater) and attach a copy of the current corporate articles, partnership agreement, or trust document, as applicable. Provide name(s) of the person(s) authorized to sign on behalf of the organization. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NOT-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. This is to certify under penalty of perjury that the undersigned is/are the record owner(s) of the property known as: Assessor’s Map Book, Page and Parcel (APN/APNs): ___________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ; and Street Address (if applicable): ____________________________________________________________. that I/we (full legal name of all record owners) consent to the filing of the Land Use Review Application on our property for processing by the City of Carlsbad Planning Division. I/We declare under penalty of perjury that I/we have reviewed this Affidavit and the information is true and correct. Name: __________________________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________ Name: __________________________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________ Name: __________________________________________________________________ Signature: _______________________________________________________________ (For additional names, please use a separate sheet of paper) 2502 & 2518 Jefferson, LLC - Tom St. Clair, Manager Exhibit 3 May 21, 2025 Item #1 31 of 473 Page 2 of 6 P-1(A) Form Rev 6/2023 IMPORTANT: A Grant Deed is required if the ownership does not match city records. Ownership on the deed must correspond exactly with the ownership listed. If the owner noted on the Grant Deed does not match the person signing as Property Owner, provide paperwork documenting the person signing is authorized to sign as a Property Owner. Whenever any excavation, fill, or other project-related improvement requires entry onto adjacent property for any reason, the Land Use Review Application shall include the written consent or legal easements or other property rights of the adjacent property owner or their authorized representative, and shall include such consent with the application package. The application will not be deemed complete unless and until all necessary consent documents are so filed. The consent shall be in a form acceptable to the City Planner. If the proposed improvements on the adjacent property change the nature of the property’s development rights (or implied bundle of rights), the city might require recordation of a Covenant and Agreement for Offsite Improvements and Release of Liability as a condition of project approval. Does the project’s limits of disturbance encroach on property not owned by the Property Owner? Yes No If yes, attach adjacent owner authorization. PART B. Owner Declarations (to be signed by Property Owner) I/We hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I have read the information below and that: 1. I/We understand that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to substantiate the request through the requirements of the application. 2. I/We understand that if there is a zoning violation on the property, application review may be delayed. Any unpermitted structures or uses must either be removed or legalized at part of this application. 3. I/We understand that if this application is approved, I/we may be required to record a covenant with the County Recorder’s Office, the form and content that is satisfactory to the City and its City Attorney, to notify future owners of the project approval and restrictions. 4. If this Land Use Review Application is approved or conditionally approved, I/we hereby certify that I/we will comply with all conditions attached to the approval action. I/We understand that the failure to comply with any conditions shall constitute grounds for the revocation or modification of the approval, permit, or other authorizations provided. 5. Prior to any use of the project site pursuant to the permit issued, all conditions of approval (if any) will be completed or secured in the manner as stated or required. Property Owner Signature(s): _________________________________________________________ Name(s): __________________________________________________ Date: __________________ John Edward Garcia & Eliza Garcia Living Trust - Joann Lange, Trustee2502 & 2518 Jefferson LLC - Tom St. Clair, Manager May 21, 2025 Item #1 32 of 473 Page 3 of 6 P-1(A) Form Rev 6/2023 PART C. Project Team Information (complete all applicable fields) Applicant: Same as Owner Different from Owner Name (if different from Owner): __________________________________________________________ Company or Firm: ______________________________________________________________________ Contact Address: _______________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________ State: ___________________________ Zip Code: _____________ Agent or Representative: Same as Applicant Different from Applicant N/A Name (if different from Applicant): ________________________________________________________ Company or Firm: ______________________________________________________________________ Contact Address: _______________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________ State: ___________________________ Zip Code: _____________ Other (specify Architect, Engineer, CEQA Consultant, etc.): ____________________________________ Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Company or Firm: ______________________________________________________________________ Contact Address: _______________________________________________________________________ City: ___________________________ State: ___________________________ Zip Code: _____________ NOTE: A Letter of Authorization (LOA) from the Property Owner empowering a person or persons to act on the behalf of the Property, is required if anyone other than the Property Owner signs the Land Use Review Application as the Applicant or Agent. The authorized person (Applicant or Agent) on the LOA must correspond with the name and signature, above. PART D. Single “Point of Contact” Designation A single “point of contact” is an individual that handles all communications with the city and its review team for the purposes of sending and receiving application materials, information, reports, etc. The point of contact is to be the single individual elected on the Land Use Review Application form for all communications and to remain as the primary contact for all status updates relating to the Land Use Review Application. Single Point of Contact: Applicant Property Owner Agent Other ____________________ 5315 Avenida Encinas Suite 200 Carlsbad CA 92008 Carlsbad CA 2502 & 2518 Jefferson, LLC Rincon Homes Architect Rincon Homes 5315 Avenida Encinas Suite 200 92010 Jonathan Frankel 92008 925-708-3638jfrankel@rincongrp.com May 21, 2025 Item #1 33 of 473 Page 4 of 6 P-1(A) Form Rev 6/2023 PART E. Contribution Disclosure Has the Property Owner, Applicant, or Agent had more than $900 worth of business transacted with any member of city staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past 12 months? Yes No If yes, indicate person(s): ______________________________________________ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. PART F. Applicant Declarations (to be signed by Applicant) I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I have read the information below and that: 1. I have carefully reviewed and prepared the application and plans in accordance with the instructions. 2. I understand that the specific information needed to initiate planning case processing corresponds to those items listed in the application form’s “Minimum Submittal Intake Requirements Checklist.” I also understand that even if the application is duly filed and accepted for intake processing, each application submitted to the Planning Division is required to have specified information included in the application packet before it is determined to be complete. The specific information to determine completeness is in “Completeness Determination Requirements Checklist.” 3. The Planning Division has developed policies to help ensure that discretionary permit applications are timely processed. The Permit Streamlining Act shot clock starts on the intake date the Planning staff accepts a duly filed application. 4. I understand that once an application is determined to be complete, project or design changes that will increase the number of units, add uses that were not previously listed, substantially change the site plan, or other changes that trigger the need for additional discretionary approvals will require a new application, or the filing of other application permit types, which would restart the review “clock” and extend processing timelines. 5. I understand that upon city review, additional information, documents, reports, entitlements and fees might be required, including any referral fees. I understand that all fees and deposits submitted with this application will be refunded only as provided for by the ordinances, regulations, or policies in effect at the time of the application submittal. 6. I understand that it is my responsibility to ensure that statements are true, that discrepancies do not exist between the project’s description on the application, the architectural plans and the structural plans. If discrepancies exist between the architectural plans and the structural plans, the architectural plans shall take precedence. Ultimately, the scope of work, as described on the permit that authorizes construction, takes precedence over the plans. If there is a discrepancy between the plans and the description on the permit, the permit governs. May 21, 2025 Item #1 34 of 473 Page 5 of 6 P-1(A) Form Rev 6/2023 7. I understand that all materials submitted in connection with this application might become public record subject to inspection and copying by the public. I acknowledge and understand that the public might inspect and copy these materials and that some or all of the materials might be posted on the city website or elsewhere online, outside of the city’s control. 8. I understand there are no assurances at any time, implicitly or otherwise, whether provided to me in writing or by oral communications regarding final staff recommendations to the decision- making body about this application or the determination of any decision-making body. 9. If the project is approved or conditionally approved, the approved plan set of project drawings, civil plans/grading, sections, site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, and landscape plans shall not be altered without express authorization by the City Planner. Once a permit has been issued, the Applicant may request permit modifications. “Minor" modifications might be granted if found by the City Planner to be in substantial conformity with the approved plan set, including all exhibits and permit conditions. Modifications beyond the scope described in the approved plan set might require submittal of an amendment to the permit and approval by the authorized review body. 10. Should any proponent of the project fail to file a timely and valid appeal of the permit within the applicable appeal period, such inaction shall be deemed to constitute acceptance of the permit by the Applicant; and agreement by the Applicant to be bound by, to comply with, and to do all things required of or by the Applicant pursuant to all of the terms, provisions, and conditions of the issued permit or other approval. 11. As part of this application, the Applicant hereby agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Carlsbad, its Council, boards and commissions, officers, employees, volunteers and agents, to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the application or related decision, including environmental documents, or to challenge a denial of the application or related decisions. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the city, if any, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Applicant, city, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The Applicant shall indemnify the city for all of the city’s costs, attorneys’ fees, and damages that the city incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth herein. The Applicant shall pay to the city upon demand any amount owed to the city pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed. May 21, 2025 Item #1 35 of 473 Page 6 of 6 P-1(A) Form Rev 6/2023 By signing below, I hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city and I certify that the application I am submitting, including all additional required information, is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any misstatement or omission of the requested information or of any information subsequently requested might be grounds for rejecting the application, deeming the application incomplete, denying the application, suspending or revoking a permit issued on the basis of these or subsequent representations, or for the seeking of such other and further relief as deemed by the City of Carlsbad. Applicant Signature: _________________________________________________________________ Name: ____________________________________________________ Date: __________________ This form must be stapled/attached to the application and shall be effective until replaced or revoked in writing. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson, LLC - Tom St. Clair, Manager May 21, 2025 Item #1 36 of 473 Exhibit 4 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project is subject to the following regulations: A.General Plan (Residential 15) Land Use Designation and Density Bonus Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.86) B.Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone and Planned Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.16, 21.45) C.Local Coastal Program (Mello II Segment) D.Tentative Tract Map (Title 20) E.Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85) F.Growth Management Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.90) and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above regulations is discussed in detail within the sections below. A.R-15 Residential General Plan Land Use Designation and Density Bonus Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.86) The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is R-15 Residential, which allows residential development at a density range of 11.5-15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). With a net developable acreage of 0.542-acres the land use designation of R-15 allows a density of six to eight units on the site. Table A below identifies the permissible density range for properties located within the R-15 General Plan Land Use designation. TABLE A – PROPOSED DENSITY Gross Acres Net Acres Allowable Density Range; Min/Max Dwelling Units per R-15 Designation* Project Density; Proposed Dwelling Units 0.542 0.542 11.5-15 du/ac Minimum: 6 dwelling units Maximum: 9 dwelling units 22.14 du/ac 12 dwelling units *For density bonus projects fractional units shall be rounded up per CMC Section 21.86.050. The proposed project entails a request to construct a 12-unit, three-story, residential condominium project. As summarized above, the maximum base number of units for a 0.542-acre parcel at 15 du/ac is 8 dwelling units (which is rounded up to nine dwelling units under State Density Bonus Law). In order to construct 12 units, the Developer is requesting approval of a density bonus pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.86, the Density Bonus Ordinance, and California (hereinafter referred to as “State”) Density Bonus Law (Government Code Sections 65915 to 65918). CMC Chapter 21.86 was established as a means to implement California Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. (State Density Bonus Law) and the goals, objectives and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan, which includes the provision to provide housing affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. May 21, 2025 Item #1 37 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) State Density Bonus Law requires cities and counties to grant density bonuses to developers who propose to construct a specified percentage of housing affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate- income households or who propose to construct senior housing or housing available for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, homeless persons, or lower income students. Cities and counties must provide all requirements for density bonuses and the amount of density bonus or incentives/concessions that developers may be eligible. The legislative intent of State Density Bonus Law is to increase the production of affordable housing by requiring local agencies to grant an increase to the maximum allowable residential density over the otherwise maximum eligible density. The density bonus that is authorized is set on a sliding scale based upon the percentage of affordable units in the project, ranging from 5% to 50% additional units over the number ordinarily permitted. Likewise, State Density Bonus Law provides for a progressive approach to incentives or concessions, allowing up to four incentives or concessions in some cases. It also includes incentivization in the form of waivers from development standards, which do not count as incentives or concessions, and are unlimited. In this instance, to support the implementation of the project, the Developer is requesting a 35% density bonus pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. In exchange for the 35% density bonus, the Developer is required to designate 11% of the base maximum density units, or one unit, as an affordable density bonus unit. The affordable density bonus unit is required to be affordable to “very low-income households” for a period of 55 years. Very low-income households are those earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI). While the State Density Bonus Law formula would have allowed up to 13 units, the developer has chosen to build 12 units. In addition to the affordable unit provided for the project to be granted a density bonus under State law, the developer is required to comply with Carlsbad’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Under the inclusionary ordinance, developments proposing a total of seven or more units must provide at least 15% of the development's base density units as affordable to lower income households. This project is required to provide one (1) unit deed restricted to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). The one (1) very low-income unit proposed satisfies both the State Density Bonus Law and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. Density bonus law stipulates that a request for a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is not compliant with a general plan. In addition, State Density Bonus Law explicitly requires the city to consider “the density allowed under the land use element of the general plan” in determining maximum allowable residential density. Therefore, the proposed density of the Project complies with the R-15 General Plan Land Use Designation. Incentives, Concessions or Waivers The project is requesting incentives, concessions or waivers as allowed under State Density Bonus Law1 and implemented by CMC Chapter 21.86 – Density Bonus Ordinance. A project can request incentives and concessions as defined in State Density Bonus Law, based on the percentage of affordable units. Incentives or Concessions An incentive or concession may include any of the following: 1 Refer to Exhibit 6 for an info-bulletin that provides more information on how State Density Bonus Law works. May 21, 2025 Item #1 38 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS)  A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements (excluding State Building Standards), that results in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions. A reduction/modification to standards or requirements may include, but is not limited to, a reduction in minimum lot size, setback requirements, and/or in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required.  Other regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions.  The city council may, but is not required to, provide direct financial incentives, including the provision of publicly owned land, or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. In order to deny the requested incentive or concession, the city would have to make any of the following findings in writing based upon substantial evidence:  The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with those defined above, to provide for affordable housing costs.  The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, based upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.  The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. The Developer is requesting one concession, the elimination of a five-foot street dedication requirement along Buena Vista Way, as discussed in Exhibit 5. Staff has found no substantial evidence that any of the above findings apply in this case Waivers In addition to incentives or concessions, waiver or reduction of development standards that would “have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a density bonus housing development at the density or with the incentives or concessions permitted by” can also be considered. There is no limit on the number of waivers or reductions of development standards that may be granted, and the granting of a waiver or reduction shall neither increase nor decrease the number of incentives or concessions to which the project is entitled. Waivers or reductions of development standards shall be granted by the city unless certain findings can be made. In order to deny the requested waivers or reductions, the city would have to make any of the following findings in writing based upon substantial evidence:  The standard(s) requested to be waived or reduced will not have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this chapter.  The requested waiver or reduction of development standards would have a specific adverse impact (a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written May 21, 2025 Item #1 39 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete) upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact.  The waiver or reduction of development standards would be contrary to state or federal law. The Developer is requesting six waivers as discussed in Exhibit 5. These waivers include requests for reduced side-yard, street-side-yard, and rear setbacks, and a reduction in minimum building separation requirements, as well as requests to increase permitted intrusions into required yards and elimination of requirements to provide community recreational space for the development. Staff has found no substantial evidence that any of the above findings apply in this case. General Plan Compliance In addition to the above, the project also complies with the other Elements of the General Plan as outlined in Table “B” below: TABLE B – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Land Use Goal 2-G.3 Promote infill development that makes efficient use of limited land supply, while ensuring compatibility and integration with existing uses. Ensure that infill properties develop with uses and development intensities supporting a cohesive development pattern. Policy 2-P.7 Do not permit residential development below the minimum of the density range except in certain circumstances. The proposed 12-unit residential infill development makes efficient use of the existing lot in that it increases the number of units from two (2) to 12. A 12-unit development is compatible with the surrounding development. The 12-unit residential project density of 22.14 du/ac is above the minimum R-15 Residential density range of 11.5 dwelling units per acre. Yes Mobility Policy 3-P.5 Require developers to construct or pay their fair share toward improvements for all travel modes consistent with the Mobility Element, the Growth The proposed project has been designed to meet all circulation requirements, including vehicular access to and from Buena Vista Way. In addition, the applicant will be required to pay any applicable traffic Yes May 21, 2025 Item #1 40 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? Management Plan, and specific impacts associated with their development. impact fees, prior to issuance of a building permit, that will go toward future road improvements. The proposed project includes the improvement of curb, gutter and sidewalk along the frontage of Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way. The project will update the frontage to current development standards. Noise Goal 5-G.2 Ensure that new development is compatible with the noise environment, by continuing to use potential noise exposure as a criterion in land use planning. Policy 5.P.2 Require a noise study analysis be conducted for all discretionary development proposals located where projected noise exposure would be other than “normally acceptable.” The project consists of 12 residential condominiums configured in duplex, triplex, and four-unit buildings. A noise study prepared for the project (Birdseye Planning Group in June 2024) concluded the project complies with the Noise Guidelines Manual and applicable General Plan policies. No project-specific conditions are required. Yes Housing Program 2.1 The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that a minimum of 15 percent of all ownership projects of seven units or more be restricted and affordable to lower income households. Goal 10-G.1 New housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city Under the inclusionary ordinance, developments proposing a total of seven or more units must provide at least 15% of the development's base density units as affordable to lower income households. This project is required to provide one (1) unit deed restricted to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). The one (1) unit designated as affordable to very low- income households for 55 years, earning up to 50% of the area median income (AMI) satisfies both the State Yes May 21, 2025 Item #1 41 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? and regional growth and to meet or exceed the city’s established Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Density Bonus Law and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. This housing development will help ensure the city achieves its goal of contributing housing with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth and to meet or exceed the city’s established Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Per Government Code Section 65863 (aka No Net Loss Law) a city cannot approve new housing at significantly lower densities or at different income categories than was projected in the RHNA of the Housing Element without making specific findings and identifying other sites that could accommodate these units and affordability levels “lost” as a result of the approval. The so-called “no net loss” provisions apply when a site is included in the jurisdiction’s Housing Element’s inventory of sites and is either rezoned to a lower residential density or is approved at a lower residential density than shown in the Housing Element. The project site is not identified in the City’s General Plan Housing Element Residential Sites Inventory. Because the provision of “no net loss” applies to housing located on any site listed in May 21, 2025 Item #1 42 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Element Use, Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program Proposed Uses & Improvements Comply? the City’s Housing Element, the City does not need to determine if this project or a decision related to this project would be subject to No Net Loss Law and its remedies. Public Safety Goal 6-G.1 Minimize injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from fire, flood, hazardous material release, or seismic disasters. Policy 6-P.6 Enforce the requirements of Titles 18, 20, and 21 pertaining to drainage and flood control when reviewing applications for building permits and subdivisions. Policy 6-P.34 Enforce the Uniform Building and Fire codes, adopted by the city, to provide fire protection standards for all existing and proposed structures. Policy 6-P.39 Ensure all new development complies with all applicable regulations regarding the provision of public utilities and facilities. The proposed structural improvements will be required to be designed in conformance with all seismic design standards. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with all the applicable fire safety requirements including fire sprinklers. The proposed location and size of the right-of-way, sanitary facilities and utilities, traffic access, and grading were all reviewed for compliance with relevant city policies and codes. Furthermore, the project has been conditioned to develop and implement a program of “best management practices” for the elimination and reduction of pollutants which enter into and/or are transported within storm drainage facilities. Therefore, the proposed project has been designed to meet the requirements of the city and other service agency standards. All necessary public facilities and services are in place or can be extended to serve the project, which comes with support from fire, water, sewer, and school service providers, indicating that existing facilities are available to service the project. Yes May 21, 2025 Item #1 43 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) Removal of Existing Housing Under State Density Bonus Law, projects that include the demolition or removal of affordable rental units are ineligible for Density Bonus unless the units are replaced concurrently with the development of the project. The project applicant has provided a housing declaration affirming that neither of the existing single-family residences were protected units. B. Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone and Planned Development Regulations (CMC Chapter 21.16, 21.45) The proposed project is required to comply with all applicable land use and development standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) including the Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) Zone (CMC Chapter 21.16) and Planned Developments (CMC Chapter 21.45). Table “C” below shows how the project complies with the applicable requirements of the R-3 zone and Planned Development standards. TABLE C – R-3 ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD REQUIRED/ALLOWED PROPOSED Street Yard Setback (Jefferson St. & Buena Vista Way) 10 feet minimum* 10 feet, 3.5 inches – Jefferson** 4 feet, 9 inches – Buena Vista*** Side Yard Setback 10 feet minimum 5 feet*** Rear Yard Setback 20 feet minimum 8 feet, 9 inches* Building Height 35 feet maximum 31 feet, 11 inches Lot Coverage 60 percent 54.4 percent Parking Two-car garages Two-car garages *12.45.080, Planned Development Standards (Table E (E.5)) **An additional 6 feet is being dedicated to Jefferson St. right-of-way. ***State Density Bonus Law waiver C. Coastal Development Regulations for the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (CMC 21.201) and the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC 21.203) 1. Mello II Segment of the Certified Local Coastal Program and all applicable policies The proposed site is in the Mello II Segment of the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and is not located within the appealable area of the California Coastal Commission. The project site has an LCP Land Use designation of R-15 Residential, which are consistent with the city’s General Plan and Zoning. The project’s consistency with the R-15 Residential General Plan Land Use designation is analyzed in Section “A,” Table “A” and “B” above. May 21, 2025 Item #1 44 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) The project consists of the demolition of two (2) existing residential units on two lots and the construction of a 12-unit condominium project. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding development of single-family and multi-family residential structures. The three-story structures will not obstruct views of the coastline as seen from public lands or the public right-of- way, nor otherwise damage the visual beauty of the Coastal Zone. No agricultural uses currently exist on the previously developed site, nor are there any sensitive resources located on-site. The proposed project is not located in an area of known geologic instability or flood hazard. Since the site does not have frontage along the coastline, no public opportunities for coastal shoreline access are available from the subject site. Furthermore, the residentially designated site is not suited for water-oriented recreation activities. 2. Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone (CMC Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the city’s Master Drainage Plan, Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, BMP Design Manual and Jurisdictional Runoff Management Program (JRMP) to avoid increased urban run-off, pollutants and soil erosion. The subject property does not include steep slopes (equal to or greater than 25 percent gradient) nor native vegetation. In addition, the site is not located in an area prone to landslides, or susceptible to accelerated erosion, floods, or liquefaction. D. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) The Land Development Engineering Division has reviewed the proposed Major Subdivision and has found that the subdivision complies with all applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and the city’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) for Major Subdivisions. The subdivision is considered major because it involves the division of land into five or more condominiums (12 condominiums proposed). The proposed project will improve the frontage infrastructure along Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way, including a curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The project has been conditioned to install all infrastructure-related improvements and the necessary easements for these improvements concurrent with the development. E. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC Chapter 21.85) Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.85, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, 15% of the base units, or one (1) unit, shall be constructed and restricted both as to occupancy and affordability to lower-income households; 9 units X 15% = 1 unit (1.39 rounded down). The one (1) very low-income unit proposed to satisfy State Density Bonus Law requirements also satisfies the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements. F. Growth Management The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 in the Northwest Quadrant of the city. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table “F” below. May 21, 2025 Item #1 45 of 473 PROJECT ANALYSIS (GENERAL PLAN, MUNICIPAL CODE, AND OTHER REGULATIONS) TABLE D – GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard Impacts/Demand Compliance City Administration 35.37 sq. ft./du Yes Library 18.86 sq. ft./du Yes Wastewater Treatment 10 EDU = 2,000 GPD Yes Parks 0.07acre Yes Drainage 0.63 CFS Yes Circulation 52 ADT Yes Fire Station No. 1 Yes Open Space N/A N/A Schools Carlsbad (E=1.17/M=0.61/HS = 0.78) Yes Sewer Collection System 12 EDU Yes Water 2,220 GPD Yes May 21, 2025 Item #1 46 of 473 1 Jefferson Street Homes CDP 2024-0021 / PUD 2024-0004 / CT 2024-0004 Supplemental Application - Density Bonus Program Project Name Jefferson Street Homes (the “Project”) CDP 2024-0021 Project Location Street Address: 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, CA 92008 (the “Site”) APN: 155-251-18-00 & 155-251-19-00 Site Description The .542 acre Project Site currently contains two (2) vacant and unoccupied single family residential dwelling units. The Project Site is surrounded by single family residential uses to the north, east, and south. Multi-family residential uses occur to the west. Access is provided via a new private driveway on Buena Vista Way. The Site is designated R-15 Residential (R-15) in the General Plan and is zoned R-3. Both the general plan and zoning permit multifamily residential uses on the Project Site. All the properties surrounding the Site immediately to the north, south, and west are similarly designated for multi-family residential uses in the General Plan. Project Description: The Project proposes the demolition of two (2) single family homes to construct 12 three-story condominium townhome units. The condominium units will be contained within four (4) tri-plex buildings. Units range in size from 2,302 SF to 2,320 SF and feature four-bedroom floorplans. All units will include a private, attached two car garage. 11 total visitor parking spaces are provided onsite and on street pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code (“CMC”) Section 21.45.060(C)(7). The project sets aside 11% of base units (1 unit) as affordable for very low-income families (50% AMI). As a result, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”), the Project is entitled to a 35% increase in residential density. Although the Project could include 13 total units, the Project does not utilize all the density provided by the SDBL. Density Bonus Calculations (Government Code Section 65915(f)(2)/Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.86) Base Maximum Density: 15 du/ac Base Maximum Units: .542 ac x 15 = 8.13 or 9 (round up per CMC Section 21.86.040(G)) Affordable Units: 11% of base units; 11% x 9 = .99 or 1 VLI affordable unit (50% AMI) Density Bonus Units: 9 x 35% = 3.15 or 4 (round up per SDBL) Total Proposed units: 12 units (13 possible) Exhibit 5 May 21, 2025 Item #1 47 of 473 2 Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 21.85) Base units: .542 ac x 15= 8.13 or 8 (round down pursuant to CMC section 21.85.050) Inclusionary units: 8 x 15% = 1.2 or 1 (round down pursuant to CMC 21.85.050) Parking All residential units will have a two-car garage on the ground floor. 11 visitor parking spaces are provided, with one on site and 10 on street pursuant to CMC 21.45.060(c)(7). Access is taken from a new private drive aisle along Buena Vista way. Waivers Requested 1. Waiver of rear and side yard setback requirements found within CMC Section 21.45.080(E)(5), 21.16.050, and permitted intrusions into required yards pursuant to 21.46.120. The proposed project would include a reduced rear yard setback of 18’, a reduced street side yard setback of 4’-9” and a reduced interior side yard setback of 3’. Further, the proposed project will include planter boxes that intrude 3’ into the required yard. Increasing the rear and side yard setbacks and limiting intrusions into the required yards would reduce the Project’s developable lot area, and thus, would physically preclude the implementation of the project as proposed at the densities permitted by CMC Chapter 21.86 and California Government Code Section §65915. This waiver does not result in a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or a listed historical property. 2. Waiver of community recreational space requirements found within CMC Section 21.45.060(C)(9) and 21.45.080(E)(8) The proposed project provides private yards and balcony spaces for all units with private recreational space ranging from 696 SF – 746 SF per unit. However, providing 200 SF of common community recreational space would reduce the total lot area that could be available for residential development, and thus, would physically preclude the implementation of the project as proposed at the densities permitted by CMC Chapter 21.86 and California Government Code Section §65915. This waiver does not result in a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or a listed historical property. 3. Waiver of building separation requirements found within CMC section 21.45.080(E)(6) The Project proposes 10’ minimum separation between buildings at the ground floor. However, the Project proposes reducing the building separation on the second and third May 21, 2025 Item #1 48 of 473 3 floors to 6’. Providing 10’ of building separation on the 2nd and 3rd floors would further reduce the floor area available for residential development and would physically preclude the implementation of the project as proposed at the densities permitted by CMC Chapter 21.86 and California Government Code Section §65915. 8’ of building separation satisfies minimum fire and engineering standard. This waiver does not result in a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety, the physical environment, or a listed historical property. Incentive Requested 4.Elimination of 5’ Street Dedication Request along Buena Vista Way. Elimination of the street dedication requirement results in actual identifiable cost savings to provide for the onsite affordable unit, as no new frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk) are required. The circulation element of the general plan does not identify Buena Vista Way as a street that is contemplated for widening or modification. As a result, this incentive does not preclude future planned improvements to the street and will not result in varying widths for the public right-of-way in the event other properties develop in the future. May 21, 2025 Item #1 49 of 473 This bulletin outlines the development allowances provided under Govt. Code §65915, commonly referred to as state density bonus law. The bulletin is only intended to summarize the key provisions of state law rather than cite them in total. The document has been updated to include recent state legislation, including AB 1287, the “middle-income homes density bonus law,” which became effective January 1, 2024. BACKGROUND State density bonus law allows a developer to increase density (total number of homes) allowed on a property above the maximum set under a city’s local land use plan (Carlsbad General Plan) by as much as 100%. In addition, qualifying applicants can also receive reductions in required development standards such as setbacks and height limits when those standards prevent the applicant from achieving the density allowed under state law. Other tools include reduced or no parking requirements for certain project types. In exchange for these benefits, a certain number of the new dwelling units within the development project must be reserved for lower-income households, seniors, or the other eligible affordable housing projects. Pursuant to Government Code §65915(a)(1), each jurisdiction must adopt an ordinance that specifies how compliance with density bonus law will be implemented. Failure to adopt an ordinance does not relieve the city from complying with state density bonus law. As such, the city’s adopted ordinance, Carlsbad Municipal Code §21.86, references state mandates where appropriate (as opposed to repeating state code requirements) and focuses more on the permit processing requirements for density bonus applications. ELIGIBILITY Any housing development that proposes five or more units and incorporates at least one of the following is eligible for a density bonus. Note: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) may be included as part of a single-family or multi-family development, but ADUs do not count towards/against the total density allowed under state density bonus. Refer to info-bulletin IB-111 for more on ADUs. •At least 5% of the housing units are restricted to very low-income residents. •At least 10% of the housing units are restricted to low-income residents. •At least 10% of the units in a for-sale housing development are restricted for moderate- income. •100% of the housing units (other than manager’s units) are restricted affordable with a maximum of 20% of the units being moderate. •At least 10% of the housing units are rent restricted at the very low-income level for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons. •At least 20% of the housing units are for low- income college students in housing dedicated for full-time students at accredited colleges. •The project donates at least one acre of land to the city for very low-income units, and the land Exhibit 6 May 21, 2025 Item #1 50 of 473 has the appropriate permits and approvals and access to needed public facilities. •The project is a senior citizen housing development; in which case, no affordable units are required. •The project is a mobile home park that is age- restricted to senior citizens; in which case, no affordable units are required. AFFORDABILITY DURATION State density bonus law establishes how long an affordable unit must stay affordable. •Affordable rental units must be restricted at the targeted income level group for at least 55 years. •Affordable for-sale units must be restricted at the targeted income level group for at least 30 years, which starts after the initial sale of the affordable unit. Affordable units may be sold at a market price to other than targeted households provided that the sale results in an equity sharing agreement with the city. DENSITY BONUS CALCULATIONS Despite the city’s rounding requirements under CMC §21.53.230 (Table A), for projects utilizing density bonus, Government Code §65915(q) requires that each component of any density calculation resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. In other words, all density related calculations must be rounded up. Base Density Calculation Step one in calculating density bonus is to calculate the project’s base density, which represents the number of dwelling units allowed under the city’s General Plan, per acre of property. Calculating base density under density bonus is no different from how the city calculates density for standard residential development projects, with the following exceptions: •While the city uses developable (or net) acreage in determining density, density bonus law requires cities to use gross acreage. This allowance was clarified in an HCD technical assistance letter dated July 26, 2023. •While the city utilizes a “mid-range” density calculation for determining the allowable number of units on a property, state law requires that density bonus be calculated based upon the maximum density allowed under the city’sGeneral Plan and zoning ordinance for the subject property. •Pursuant to SB-330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), the city is prohibited from enforcing housing caps. As such, the housing caps in the city’s Growth Management Plan (GMP) cannot be applied to new housing development projects. Refer to IB-132 for more information on SB-330 and Reso No. 2021-074 for the city’s suspension of the GMP cap limits and performance standard moratorium provisions. Density Bonus Calculation Step two in calculating density bonus is to calculate the project’s density increase, which represents the number of units allowed in addition to the base density units. These additional dwelling units are set per a sliding scale, based upon two primary factors: •The percentage of units in the project that will be set aside (reserved) as affordable; and, •The household income category of those affordable units (i.e., very low, low, or moderate income). For convenience, a Density Bonus Table is included on page six of the city’s Density Bonus Report (Form P-1(H)). As you will see from the table, the number of affordable units (far left column) and the level of affordability (top row) greatly influence the number of density bonus units that can be granted. For example, a project that reserves 10% of its units as affordable for very low-income families is eligible for a 32.5% density bonus, as opposed to a density bonus of only 20% if those same affordable units were reserved for low-income families. Refer to info-bulletin IB-137 (Carlsbad’s Housing Plan) for more information on household income and affordability. May 21, 2025 Item #1 51 of 473 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING CALCULATIONS To help provide local affordable housing, the city in 1993 adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance (§21.85), which established the legal basis for requiring affordable (inclusionary) housing units in new residential development in the city. For more information, refer to info-bulletin IB-157 (Inclusionary Housing Program). While the city’s inclusionary regulations are separate from density bonus law, there are a few important provisions in the city’s inclusionary ordinance that directly affect density bonus projects, as reflected below. •The city’s inclusionary requirements apply to all proposed development projects that include residential units. This means that projects subject to the state density bonus law/city’s density bonus ordinance (§21.86), must also comply with the city’s inclusionary housingordinance (§21.85). •Projects proposing seven or more housing units are required to restrict at least 15% of the total proposed units for low-income households. The total proposed units include base density and density bonus units. •When calculating inclusionary requirements, fractional units resulting in less than 0.5 are rounded down to the next whole number. •The required affordable inclusionary units satisfy the required affordable density bonus units. The city’s application of its inclusionary code is consistent with AB 2345 and the Department of Housing & Community Development’s (HCD) technical assistance letter dated September 2, 2022 to the City of West Hollywood. THEORETICAL EXAMPLE Sometimes showing the math helps folks better understand how density bonus works. The following is a theoretical example on how these different density calculations are applied. SECONDARY DENSITY BONUS AB 1287 (Alvarez, 2023) amended state density bonus law by requiring jurisdictions to award an additional (or second) density bonus for projects that have allocated a certain amount of affordable housing for very-low income, low-income, or moderate-income units, as summarized in the section below. Minimum Eligibility The proposed density bonus project must comply with one of the following affordability requirements to be eligible for an additional density bonus. •A minimum of 15% of the base units are reserved for very low-income households; or •A minimum of 24% of the base units are reserved for low-income households; or •A minimum of 44% of the base units are reserved for moderate-income households. A property 1.003 net acres in size has a zoning designation of R-15 (11.5 to 15 dwelling units per acre). Under density bonus, this results in a maximum base density of 15.05 units for this site (1.003 acres multiplied by 15 units per acre), which rounds up to 16 units. The applicant proposes that 3 of the 16 units will be reserved for low-income households. This results in 18.7% of the units that will be reserved as affordable housing (3 affordable units divided by 16 base density units), which rounds up to 19%. Based on the sliding scale found in the Density Bonus Table in the Density Bonus Report (Form P-1(H)), with 19% of the affordable units reserved for low-income families, the project’s base density can increase by 33.5% or 5.36 units (16 base density units multiplied by 33.5%), which rounds up to 6 density bonus units for a total of 22 units for this project. To satisfy the city’s inclusionary ordinance, a total of 3.3 affordable low-income units are required for this project (15% inclusionary requirement multiplied by 22 total units), which rounds down to 3 units. In this example, the 3 affordable low-income units satisfy the requirements under state density bonus law as well as the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. May 21, 2025 Item #1 52 of 473 Density Increase Under state law, the city must grant the developer an additional density bonus if additional units are set aside for either very low or moderate-income households. Like traditional density bonus calculations, the secondary density bonus is also on a sliding scale, based on the project’s base density. For reference, the secondary density bonus allowances have been included in the Density Bonus Table found on page six of the city’s Density Bonus Report (Form P- 1(H)). To help illustrate how this secondary density bonus is applied, let us relook at the previous theoretical example. It is important to highlight that AB 1287 caps the affordable set aside at 50%. For projects that allocate the maximum of moderate-income units (44%), they would only be eligible to set aside another 6% of very- low income or moderate-income units to receive an additional bonus of 23.75% or 22.5%, respectively. REMOVAL OF EXISTING RENTAL UNITS Under density bonus law, projects that include the demolition or removal of affordable rental units are ineligible for density bonus unless the units are replaced concurrent with the development of the project. This provision applies to the following types of rental units: • Units subject to recorded restrictions • Units subject to rent control • Units occupied by very low- or low-income households If household rental income cannot be determined, the city may assume households are occupied by low- income households in the same proportion as low- income renters in the city, consistent with AB 2556. Additionally, under state law the affordable units required under density bonus may also be used to satisfy any replacement unit requirements. This allowance was clarified in an HCD technical assistance letter dated December 14, 2023. DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEVIATIONS Traditional development projects must be designed to comply with city established development standards and design regulations such as building height limitations, setback requirements, minimum parking ratios, and on-site open space directives. However, under state density bonus law, applicants can deviate from these development standards when found that the standards prevent the applicant from achieving the density allowed under the state law. There are two types of tools available to applicants: • Incentives & Concessions • Waivers Instead of 3 units, the applicant now proposes that 5 of the 16 units will be reserved for low- income households. This results in 31.2% of the units that will be reserved as affordable housing, which rounds up to 32%. With 32% of the affordable units reserved for low-income households, the project’s base density can increase by 50% or 8.0 units (16 base density units multiplied by 50%), for a total of 24 units. Since more than 24% of the base units are being reserved for low-income households (31.2%, specifically), this project is eligible for a second density bonus. In this example, the applicant proposes to reserve an additional 15% of the base units for moderate-income households, which results in 2.4 units (16 base density units multiplied by 15%) that rounds up to 3 units. With 15% of the affordable units reserved for moderate-income households, the project’s base density can increase by an additional 50% or 8.0 units (16 base density units multiplied by 50%). As a result, the total project size increases to 32 total units, 8 of which will be restricted affordable. May 21, 2025 Item #1 53 of 473 Incentives & Concessions Incentives and concessions, as defined under state density bonus law, allow a developer to deviate from those requirements when modifying such regulations would provide “identifiable and actual cost reductions” to provide for affordable housing costs and rents. This requirement was clarified in the court decision of Schreiber v. City of Los Angeles (later codified as part of the passage of AB 1287) and the sections below reflect the holdings in that case. Application A few key considerations regarding the application of incentives or concessions: •Under the government code, the terms “incentives” and “concessions” are used interchangeably. As such, the city considers them one in the same (“incentives/concessions”). •A density bonus project is entitled to incentives/concessions even without a request for a density bonus --- if a developer provides the affordable housing specified under density bonus law, they are eligible for incentives/concessions. •The city applies incentives/concessions to the development standards or design regulations requiring deviation, not to the individual situation. For example, say a project proposes three separate buildings with each building requiring an increase in the city’s maximum building height standard. In this example, the city would require one incentive/concession for this deviation, even though the deviation applies to three separate buildings. If that same project requires a deviation from the building height and rear yard setback standards, the city will require two incentives/concessions since these are considered two different development standards. •Pursuant to the Schreiber case, which was later codified as part of the passage of AB 1287, a developer is not required to provide financial evidence (i.e., pro forma) documenting that a requested incentive/concession will result in actual cost reductions. However, applicants need to reasonably document “why” the requested incentive/concession will reduce affordable housing development costs. As such, the city requires applicants to provide reasonable documentation to show that a requested incentive/concession will result in identifiable cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. Number Authorized The number of incentives/concessions that can be requested by a developer varies by the amount and type of affordable units being proposed, as reflected below. INCOME % OF AFFORDABLE UNITS1 Very Low 5% 10% 15% 16% ≥80% Low 10% 17% 24% --- ≥80% Moderate 10% 20% 30% 45% 20% Student2 20% --- --- --- --- Incentives 1 2 3 4 53 1 The % of a project’s affordable units must be at least equal to the listed %. 2 Lower-income student in a dedicated student housing development. 3 To qualify for 5 incentives, a project must reserve at least 80% of the units for lower income households (very low, low, or combination thereof). The remaining 20% may be reserved for moderate income households. The applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet. As noted in footnote #1, when determining the appropriate number of incentives/concessions, a project’s percentage of affordable units must be “at least” equal to the percentages shown in the table above (§65915(d)(2)). In other words, the percentages in the table are minimums. So, in the case of the theoretical example project that reserved 19% of the units for low-income, the applicant is eligible to receive two incentives/concessions. If affordable units are provided to satisfy the city’s inclusionary housing obligation above required density bonus affordable units, the total number of affordable units count May 21, 2025 Item #1 54 of 473 when determining the number of incentives/concessions allowed. Grounds for Denial Under the Schreiber case, the city must grant a requested incentive/concession unless it finds, under a preponderance of evidence, the following: •The incentive/concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. •Granting the incentive/concession would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety or on property listed on the California historical register, which cannot be mitigated, or would be contrary to state or federal law. Waivers Density bonus law offers another form of assistance to developers, separate from concessions/waivers, in the form of “waivers.” A waiver is a modification or reduction to established development standards or design regulations when those requirements potentially cause the construction of the development project physically infeasible, if not approved. Application A few key considerations regarding waivers. •Waivers do not count as an incentive/concession and can be used in concert (combined) with incentives/concessions. •The developer must provide sufficient documentation justifying why the city’s established development standard(s) or design regulation(s) physically preclude construction of the project and why the waiver(s) is necessary. Sufficient documentation may include a written explanation of the physical constraints accompanied with an exhibit showing the site and developable envelope. Number Authorized Unlike concessions/incentives, applicants are entitled to waive any established development standards or design regulations that would physically preclude the development from achieving the allowances authorized under density bonus law. In other words, there is no limit in the number of waivers an applicant can request. Grounds for Denial The city is not required to grant or otherwise authorize a waiver if it finds that the requested deviation or modification causes a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and cannot be mitigated, would have an adverse impact on property listed on the California historical register, or would otherwise violate state or federal law. Like incentives/concessions, the city must include a showing of substantial evidence when making a finding of denial on a waiver request. PARKING ALLOWANCES Despite the city’s parking requirements under CMC §21.44, the city may not require more than the following parking ratios for a density bonus project (including parking for persons with disabilities): Unit Type Required Parking Studio 1 space One Bedroom 1 space Two Bedroom 1.5 spaces Three Bedroom 1.5 spaces Four Bedroom 2.5 spaces May 21, 2025 Item #1 55 of 473 State law further limits parking requirements for specified projects as reflected below. •0.5 spaces per unit for projects with at least 11% very low income, 20% lower income, or 40% moderate income, when located within ½ mile of accessible major transit stop, which in the city is the Carlsbad Village Coaster Station or Poinsettia Coaster Station. •No parking spaces are required for projects meeting the following: o 100% affordable to lower income residents, within ½ mile of a major transit stop, which in the city is the Carlsbad Village Coaster Station or Poinsettia Coaster Station. o 100% senior or special needs rental project affordable to lower income, either with paratransit service or within ½ mile of an accessible bus route that operates at least eight times per day. o Rental supportive housing development that is 100% affordable to lower incomehouseholds. Parking requirements may be satisfied by providing individual parking stalls or in tandem, so long as the stalls are provided onsite. Requesting these parking standards does not count as an incentive/concession or waiver; however, an applicant may request further parking standard reductions using the incentive/concession or waiver allowances. DENSITY BONUS APPLICATIONS The city’s Density Bonus Ordinance can be found in CMC §21.86 and applicants should follow the permit submittal requirements and processes set forth in the Land Use Review Application (Form P-1). Pursuant to changes in state density bonus law that went into effective in 2019, the city developed a supplemental form outlining the information that must be submitted for a complete density bonus application; referred to as the Density Bonus Report Form P-1(H). This includes project location, property description, project description, density calculations, and information on any requested incentives/concessions or waivers. Once a development application is determined to be complete, the city, under state law, will notify the applicant of the level of density bonus and parking ratio the development is eligible to receive. PROJECTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE When a density bonus project is proposed in the coastal zone, legislation that went into effect in 2019 attempted to strike a balance between the state goals of promoting housing and protecting the coast. Density bonuses, incentives/concessions, waivers, and parking reductions are to be permitted so that they are consistent with both density bonus law and the California Coastal Act. Granting of a density bonus or an incentive does not require a general plan, zoning, or local coastal plan amendment. YOUR OPTIONS FOR SERVICE To schedule an appointment to submit an application or to learn more about density bonus, please contact the Planning Division at 442-339-2600 or via email at Planning@carlsbadca.gov. NOTE: State density bonus law is regularly updated and revised by the state legislature and the city may not be able to timely update this bulletin to reflect the most current provisions. Please refer to current state law (§65915 et seq.). May 21, 2025 Item #1 56 of 473 When housing prices spiked in the 1990s, many cities looked for ways to help make housing more affordable. One such tool that many jurisdictions implemented was INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REGULATIONS. Under these laws, developers are required to set aside a certain number of units within their residential development project and make them affordable to lower income households. As part of their inclusionary housing program, many cities also included provisions that allow developers to deviate from the strict adherence of the policy, so long as it is found that the alternative means of compliance meets the intent of the jurisdiction’s inclusionary housing policies, and is consistent with the housing affordability and fair housing choice goals specified in its long-range housing plan. This info-bulletin provides an overview of Carlsbad’s Inclusionary Housing Program and describes how it helps address affordable housing needs while advancing equitable development goals consistent with the city’s adopted Housing Element. NEED FOR LOCAL INCLUSIONARY HOUSING The state faces a serious housing problem that not only threatens its economic security, the lack of access to affordable housing can have a direct impact upon the health, safety, diversity, and welfare of Carlsbad residents. To retain a healthy livable environment and meet state mandated housing goals, more needs to be done to accommodate locally available and affordable housing stock. To help address this need, the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, originally adopted in 1993, established the legal basis for requiring affordable (inclusionary) housing units in new residential development in the city. The law applies to all proposed development projects that include residential units and requires that a minimum of 15% of the units within a project be affordable to lower- income households. Since its implementation, the inclusionary housing ordinance has proven to be extremely effective. From 1995 to 2020, the city produced 19,026 housing units, of which roughly 13% were made affordable through this program. And it is anticipated that the city will generate over 500 additional affordable units over the next eight- year period. HOUSEHOLD INCOME & AFFORDABILITY We hear this a lot --- How do we make housing more affordable? The term “affordable housing” can be used to describe housing that receives some form of subsidy/restriction that forcibly keeps rents and mortgages low. It can also mean housing that’s naturally affordable simply because of market supply and demand. In order to make a meaningful difference in providing affordable housing, the solution should not be looked at as an “either-or” approach between privately produced housing and subsidized housing…it requires both. To help understand what qualifies as affordable, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes income ranges for different household types, which they have grouped into five “income categories:” extremely low, very low, low, moderate and above- moderate household income. The household income for each of these categories is based on a percentage of the region’s Area Median Income or AMI. Carlsbad falls within the San Diego County region, which has an AMI of $95,100 (2021) per year for a four-person household. In comparison, the city’s actual median income is closer to $108,000, but under state law the city must use the county AMI. To help illustrate, the table below shows the income levels for a family of four. Exhibit 7 May 21, 2025 Item #1 57 of 473 Income Category % of AMI Household Income1,2 Extremely Low <30% <$28,500 Very Low 30 - 50% $28,500 - $47,600 Low 51 - 80% $47,600 - $76,000 Moderate 81 - 120% $77,000 - $114,100 Above Moderate >120%>114,100 1 AMI as of April 2021 was $95,100 for family of four; 2 Figures rounded. For housing costs to be considered affordable, a family’s monthly rent/mortgage payment should not exceed 30% of the gross annual household income of any given income category. So, a low-income family of four with a gross annual income of $55,000 should pay no more than $1,375 per month for housing. For a rental unit, total housing costs include the monthly rent payment as well as consideration for a utility allowance. With for-sale units, total housing costs include the mortgage payment, homeowner association dues, property taxes, mortgage insurance and any other related assessments. To learn more about HCD and housing, please see our Info-Bulletin: Carlsbad Housing Plan (IB-137). INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS The city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC §21.85) was passed by the City Council in 1993, and established the legal basis for requiring inclusionary housing in new residential development in the city. The following provides a summary of key standards required under the ordinance for new residential development in the city. Number of units required •All residential development projects proposing seven or more housing units are required to provide at least 15% of the total units (including density bonus units) to be restricted for low-income households. For projects proposing six or fewer units, refer to Alternative #1 under the “Alternative Means of Compliance” section of this info-bulletin. •Inclusionary unit requirements apply to all residential development projects (rental or for-sale product), including mixed-use projects. •When calculating, fractional units ≥0.5 must be rounded up to the next whole number. Example: An applicant proposes to satisfy its inclusionary requirements for a 112-unit residential development by reserving 15% of the units for low- income households, or 17 units (112 X 0.15 = 16.8, rounded up to 17). The remaining 95 units (112 units minus 17) may be sold at market rate. Duration units protected •Inclusionary rental units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for not less than 55 years. •Inclusionary for-sale units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for not less than 30 years. Development standards •Inclusionary units should be located throughout the development rather than clustered in one area. •The inclusionary units must be indistinguishable from the market-rate units in the development, at least outwardly. •The inclusionary units must be constructed prior to or concurrent with development of the market-rate units, and prior to final building permit approval of the market-rate units. •Residents of the inclusionary units must have access to the same amenities – such as pool, fitness center and parking – as residents of the market-rate units. •The inclusionary units must include a similar mix and number of bedrooms as the market-rate units. •When ten or more inclusionary units are required, at least ten percent of those required units must provide at least three bedrooms. •To the extent possible, projects using for-sale units to satisfy inclusionary requirements shall be designed to be compatible with conventional mortgage financing programs. May 21, 2025 Item #1 58 of 473 ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE The city understands that various constraints may frustrate a developer’s ability to meet the strict letter of the city’s inclusionary housing regulations. As such, the ordinance allows for the City Council to authorize “alternative means of compliance” when it is found that the alternative meets the intent of the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (CMC §21.85) and the goals and policies of the city’s 2021-2029 Housing Element. Council Policy Statement No. 57 (Policy 57) lists those alternatives that have been found to meet the intent of the city inclusionary code and help address its affordable housing needs. These alternative means of compliance are summarized in the sections below, but please refer to Policy 57 for the specific requirements. Alternative #1: Payment of in-lieu fee Rather than constructing the inclusionary unit as part of the development project, applicants proposing ≤six units may instead pay a fee. •$8,529 for a new single-family detached home •$15 per square foot of net building area for each proposed market-rate unit. The rates above are effective 2022. Please check the city’s Fee Schedule for the most current rates. “Net building area” means the aggregate gross floor area of all the unrestricted dwelling units within a development, excluding areas outside the dwelling unit’s habitable space such as garages, carports, parking areas, porches, patios, open space, and excluding common areas such as lobbies, common hallways, stairways, elevators and equipment spaces. Collected in-lieu fees are deposited into the city’s Housing Trust Fund, and applied towards the furthering of the city’s affordable housing needs pursuant to Council Policy Statement No. 90 (Policy 90). Alternative #2: Varying housing affordability In addition to providing more housing available for low income families, the city also recognizes a need to increase housing stock for other targeted and needed housing affordability levels such as moderate, very low- and extremely low-income households. As such, so long as the total average gross income restriction for the required inclusionary units does not exceed 80% of the AMI, the makeup of the inclusionary units can be comprised on any combination of income categories. Alternative #3: Increases in residential density While not specific to the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance, sometimes there is a request from a property owner to increase their residential density above what is authorized under the city’s current land use plans. In exchange for the increased density, the city will require that any future development on the site meet the following additional inclusionary housing requirements. •At least 20% of the total residential units are restricted for low-income households; or, •A least 15% of the total residential units are restricted for low-income households and an additional 10% are restricted for moderate-income households; or, •At least 15% of the total residential units are restricted for very low-income households. May 21, 2025 Item #1 59 of 473 This has been applied to properties that received an increase in residential density as part of the 2015 General Plan update and the 2021-29 Housing Element. Alternative #4: Reduction credit Residential development (for-sale or rental product) can reduce its inclusionary housing obligations from 15% to 12.5%, under the following conditions. • All affordable units must be made available to very low- or extremely low-income households. • Affordable units are located on the same site as the market-rate units. • No financial assistance from the city is provided. • Example: “A 78-unit residential development is proposed, which requires that 15% of the units be reserved for low-income (12 units). If the developer voluntarily agrees to make inclusionary units available to very low-income households, then the developer may receive an incentive reduction credit. Under this scenario, 10 units in a 78-unit development projects equates to 12.8%, which meets the minimum inclusionary housing requirement. Alternative #5: Use of accessory dwelling units Pursuant to CMC §21.85.070.B, construction of up to 15 accessory dwelling units (ADU) can be used to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements. Refer to our info- bulletin on ADUs (IB-111) for additional information. The standards below provide additional specifications for when this allowance can be used. • The project proposes ≥200 residential detached dwelling units. • The ADU may be an attached or detached product type (Junior ADU prohibited) . • The ADUs shall have an affordability term (≤80% AMI with rents ≤70% AMI) of at least 30 years. Notwithstanding the above, for projects proposing ≤six units, the in-lieu fee may be waived if a detached or attached ADU or Junior ADU is constructed concurrent with construction of the market-rate unit, deed restricted for low-income households for 30-years, and occupied by income-qualified families. Alternative #6: Off-site construction Circumstances may arise in which the public interest would be better served by allowing some or all of the required inclusionary units to be developed at an alternative site. This is referred to as a “Combined Inclusionary Housing Project” or “Combined Project.” To qualify, the following requirements must be met. • The inclusionary calculation requirements shall be based on the total number of market-rate units to be provided, as opposed to the total number of residential units in the project. See example below. Example: An applicant proposes to satisfy its inclusionary requirements for a 112-unit project by building 15% of the units for low-income households off-site. This leaves 85% of the units for market rate, for a total residential unit count of 132 units (112 ÷ 0.85 = 131.8, rounded to 132). Using the total residential unit count, the number of inclusionary units required is 20 (132 X 0.15 = 19.8, rounded to 20). • The decision-making authority of the permit application may approve a Combined Project subject to the following findings. o The site has not or will not receive a density increase or density bonus. o Site conditions make it physically infeasible to accommodate the inclusionary units on-site. o Significant price and product type disparities make it financially infeasible to accommodate the inclusionary units on-site. o There is a documented lack of development capacity to deliver affordable housing on-site. o The off-site option provides greater financial feasibility/cost effectiveness than the on-site. o The off-site option provides better access to jobs, schools, transit, and services. o The off-site option supports housing goals and policies in the city’s Housing Element. May 21, 2025 Item #1 60 of 473 Notwithstanding, the City Council shall retain final permit approval authority, including approval of the Affordable Housing Agreement, on any Combined Project that requires financial assistance from the city. Alternative #7: Inclusionary housing credit bank For projects that build inclusionary units in excess of code requirements, and where the city is financially participating in the project, the city can sell those excess units in the form of credits to other developers to satisfy their inclusionary requirement. The proceeds from the credit sales are deposited into the city’s Housing Trust Fund and redistributed pursuant to Policy 90. • Bank Creation. The City Council may approve the creation of an inclusionary housing credit bank, subject to the following findings. o The inclusionary units are in excess of the minimum number of units required under the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; or o The inclusionary units are part of a 100% affordable housing project; and o The inclusionary units are constructed and received final inspection; and o The city financially contributed to the construction of the project. • Credit Purchase Eligibility. Projects proposing more than seven, but no more than 50 residential units are eligible to purchase credits. • Credit Price. The price for each inclusionary unit shall be determined by dividing the city’s financial contribution by the total number excess inclusionary units, subject to annual CPI adjustments. • Credit Bank. Applicants must pay the credit price of available credits from the oldest established inclusionary housing bank that is located within the same city quadrant in which the market-rate units are located, or if none available, sites which are contiguous to the quadrant in which the units are proposed. • Credit Purchase Ratio – The amount of credits to be purchased shall be based on the following. o 7 to 20 units: 1.0 credit/inclusionary unit o 21 to 35 units: 1.5 credits/inclusionary unit o 36 to 50 units: 2.0 credits/inclusionary unit • Credit Purchase Approval. The decision-making authority of the development project is authorized to approve credit purchases, so long as the findings below are met. Should a request to purchase credits occur after discretionary approval, the Community Development Director or the Housing & Homeless Services Director shall have the authority to approve credits, subject to the same findings. o The project site is located within the same Growth Management Plan quadrant that the housing credit is located, or if nonavailable, sites which are contiguous (share a common boarder) with the quadrant in which the units are proposed. o Sufficient housing credits available to purchase. • Credit Price Payment. Payment of credit purchases shall be due prior to recordation of the final map or issuance of a building permit, in situations where the project does not include a subdivision. If the project entitlements expire, credits will be made available to another eligible project(s). May 21, 2025 Item #1 61 of 473 Alternatives not listed, but may be considered The City Council may approve other alternatives means of compliance not listed in Policy 57 when evidence is provided that the alternative helps achieve relevant Housing Element policies and goals and assists the city in meeting its state housing requirements. As part of the City Council’s consideration, the applicant must also show why compliance with current inclusionary housing regulations would be infeasible or present unreasonable hardship in light of such factors as project size, site constraints, market competition, price and product type disparity, available financial subsidies, and approved alternatives listed in Policy 57. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENTS An Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) is a legally binding agreement between the developer and the city to ensure that the inclusionary requirements of a residential development are satisfied. CMC §21.85.140 provides the specific requirements of the AHA, but the more significant components are listed below. • A project condition shall be added to projects subject to the inclusionary ordinance and Policy 57 requiring that an AHA be reviewed, approved, and recorded prior to Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever is first. • Among other items, the AHA must include the number of required inclusionary units, the unit sizes, location, affordability tenure, required findings, terms and conditions of affordability and unit production schedule. • The AHA and all relevant terms and conditions shall be recorded against the entire development. • The AHA shall bind all future owners and successors in interest for the term of years specified therein. APPROVAL AUTHORITY The approval authority for the development project subject to these standards is as follows: • The decision-making authority for the underlying permit application(s) shall have the authority to approve projects found consistent with Policy 57. • Development projects that propose an alternative means of compliance that is not specifically provided for in the CMC or Policy 57 shall be considered by the Housing Commission for a recommendation to the City Council. • Approval authority of the AHA is as follows: o AHA that are consistent with CMC §21.85 and Policy 57 and do not request financial assistance from the city shall first be considered by the Affordable Housing Policy Team for a recommendation to the H&HS Director. o Affordable Housing Agreements that propose a deviation(s) to Policy 57 or request financial assistance shall first be considered by the Affordable Housing Policy Team and Housing Commission for a recommendation to the City Council, which has the authority to issue final approval of the alternative. YOUR OPTIONS FOR SERVICE To schedule an appointment or to learn more about this program, please contact the Planning Division at 442-339- 2600 or via email at Planning@carlsbadca.gov or the Housing & Homeless Services Department at 442-339- 4721 or via email at Housing@carlsbadca.gov. May 21, 2025 Item #1 62 of 473 From:Elena Quaranta To:Kyle Van Leeuwen; Council Internet Email Subject:Rejection of Apartment Project on Jefferson Street Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 12:15:05 PM Hello, As a resident of Jefferson Street, I would like to voice my rejection of the apartment plan for 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street. Reasons for Project Rejection: 1. Jefferson Street is already too busy - More apartments mean more traffic and less parking availability. I have already written to the city previously and requested speed bumps for safety. 2. Obstructive Structure - Most homes on this street are one-story high. This building will obstruct views and block out the sun and sky.3. Preservation of neighborhood integrity - This is an older home, and like most houses on the block, was built with a local single-family home in mind. 4. Noise Pollution - Constant construction will be loud and disruptive and add to the already high traffic noise of the neighborhood. Please note my rejection and keep me informed on any other actions I can take to cease this project, as I do believe this project is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Jefferson Resident, Elena CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Exhibit 8 - Correspondence May 21, 2025 Item #1 63 of 473 From:Bryn To:Council Internet Email; Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:protect carlsbad Date:Monday, July 29, 2024 6:00:16 PM NO to the project at 2502 and 2518 jefferson street Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 21, 2025 Item #1 64 of 473 From:rgraz3333@aol.com To:Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:Jefferson Town Homes Date:Tuesday, July 30, 2024 9:00:32 AM Hi Kyle, I spoke to you a week ago about the mega town houses at 2502 & 2518 Jefferson. After speaking with a couple of neighbors I am even more concerned about the traffic and impact on our quite little neighborhood. I am very concerned and unhappy about the 12 - 35 ft tall town homes to be built at the corner of Buena Vista Way. I live at 1107 Buena Vista Way and have lived here for many many years. I thought I could enjoy a peaceful retirement. Guess I was mistaken. I am already surrounded by ADUs. I have been living with construction work surrounding me since Nov, this time. They are still working on the unknown size of the ADU next to me at 2501 Davis Ave and another property on Tuttle St. The 2501 Davis Ave flipper has already converted the garage into a JR ADU. The main houseis only 2 bedrooms. I have been unsuccessful at finding out how large the 2501 ADU will be. I believe they are adding the property at 1015 Buena Vista Way to complete the 12 town homes. The person that owns the 2 properties on Jefferson also owns 1015BVW. He recently removed it's for sale listing. I do not believe 1015 BVW is R3. The town homes will have their access on BVW. This will add a minimum of 24 vehicles. There are only 15 properties on BVW, not including all the ADUs. Will they be placing a signal light at the intersection? It is already difficult to turn left ontoJefferson. There used to be a 25 ft height restriction. Would you appreciate living next to a 35 ft tall building in your residential neighborhood? What happens to the people that have solar panels that could be blocked by these structures? Carlsbad should change Carlsbad Village Dr back to Elm since it is no longer a village. There will be so much more traffic that it will be difficult to visit downtown. I already stay home most of the time, because there is no parking. I am unable to ride a bicycle. I am old! So new bikes lanes will not benefit me. Thank you for your time, Sue Graziano, R.N. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 21, 2025 Item #1 65 of 473 From: TEO SAN ANTONIO <teosanantonio@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 11:57 AM To: Kyle Van Leeuwen <kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov> Cc: Building <building@carlsbadca.gov>; codeenforcement <codeenforcement@carlsbadca.gov>; Council Internet Email <citycouncil@carlsbadca.gov>; rocco_hernandez <rocco_hernandez@yahoo.com> Subject: Project Number CT 2024-004/PUD 2024-004/CDP 2024-0021 (Jefferson Street Homes) Greetings Mr. Van Leeuwen, Hope all is well. My name is Teo San Antonio, homeowner and resident of 2530 Jefferson Street-- next door to the above Project Number CT 2024-004. We would like to understand more about the project and it’s scale. How can we get more information about this project so we can get clarity? With the current neighborhood and it’s standard of living, we would like to understand the project’s impact to Carlsbad neighborhood and direct properties next/near to the project. We would also like to understand the permit process of this relatively big scale building. City of Carlsbad has policies in place that have Climate sensitive initiatives like CAP Project that protect our surrounding environment from over development, and long-term negative effects. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Best Regards, May 21, 2025 Item #1 66 of 473 Teo San Antonio 626-922-0480 mobile CC: Mr. Hernandez, Legal Counsel CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. <Jefferson Homes Plan Set 8-8-24 - ShortREDUCED.pdf> CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 21, 2025 Item #1 67 of 473 From:tiffany shelton To:Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:No on projects 2502&2518 Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 4:32:03 PM Tiffany Shelton Patriot Portable RestroomsVIP Restrooms661-212-5908CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 21, 2025 Item #1 68 of 473 From:Trecy Hood To:Council Internet Email; Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:No to the Project at 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street Date:Tuesday, May 6, 2025 1:14:42 PM Thanks, Trecy HoodCAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. May 21, 2025 Item #1 69 of 473 From:Planning To:Eric Lardy; Cynthia Vigeland Cc:Kyle Van Leeuwen Subject:FW: Rincon Homes - CT 2024 - 0004 Date:Monday, May 19, 2025 6:41:42 AM Attachments:Jeffeson Street Homes - Rotate Proposed Project 90 Degress.pdf From: Patrick Kellett <realhelppat@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 4:34 PM To: Kyle Van Leeuwen <kyle.vanleeuwen@carlsbadca.gov>; Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov>; Patrick Kellett <realhelppat@yahoo.com>; Leanne <leanne@ymail.com> Subject: Re: Rincon Homes - CT 2024 - 0004 Hello Mr. Van Leeuwen & Carlsbad Planning Commissioners, I am writing today to address the Jefferson Street Homes development proposed by Rincon Homes (CT 2004 - 0004). I am myself a real estate broker and developer so I do understand the need for increasing housing supply in California and Carlsbad specifically. I am generally not opposed to increasing density in order to provide more homes - if these developments are well planned. The applicant (Rincon Homes) has proposed exactly what one would expect a builder to propose - maximum density, no additional "guest parking", and has effectively pushed all of the negative impacts of this development (including ingress and egress for ALL 24 garage spaces) onto the neighboring R-1 zoning, the neighboring single family home owners, and the neighboring street. The question really is what the City of Carlsbad, the Planning Commission, and Planning Department are going to do to lesson the negative impacts of this type of development on the surrounding homeowners. The City's track record the last few years is not great, with the City Planners and Planning Commission effectively acting as the proverbial "rubber stamp" for any (often hideously ugly) proposal coughed up by big, out of the area builders. In previous decades I had thought that Carlsbad Planners had done a pretty decent job in understanding their role in "softening the edges" between Zoning areas (in this case R-1 & R-3 Zones). But that "softening" by City officials ended years ago in favor of a build baby build attitude that now reigns supreme. No parcel is more negatively affected by this proposal than mine. My wife and I reside directly next door (to this proposed project to the East) at 1015 Buena Vista Way. We live in a 1950's single level, single family home. We understood going in that with R-3 zoning next door (facing Jefferson Street) that an increased density development would likely one day be going in next door. However, we never imagined that the Planning Department would rubber stamp a development that takes every advantage of the R-3 Zoning (facing Jefferson Street) and pushes all of the negative impacts for the development onto the R-1 zoned neighboring street (Buena Vista Way) and its residents. There is no element of this development (as proposed) which seeks to soften or diminish in any way the negative impacts on the surrounding neighbors. It is literally a worst case scenario. If indeed the State is mandating this absurdity - my wife and I ask that you at least consider the following proposals to lesson the negative impacts on the neighbors. 1. The project as proposed has fully 1/2 of the 12 total units (6 in total) hovering 36 feet above our single family, single story home and yard. Each of the 6 units fronting our home & yard has a second story family room "view deck" AND a forth story (roof top) deck looking down on EVERY SQUARE INCH of our property. Since the subject property is essentially a square - please consider requiring that the project be rotated 90 degrees (I provided a sample site re-design) so that only 2 of the proposed 12 homes hover above my neighboring single level home - and the proposed "view decks" look only into the neighboring R-3 zoned property (to the South) and out onto the neighboring street Buena Vista Way (to the North). 2. I have built beach front homes before in CA - and the State of California (CA Coastal Commission) REQUIRES that homes developed along the beach step back (like layers of a wedding cake) so as not to abruptly change mass and scale as it is hideously ugly to go from R-1 single family, single level homes to R-3 massive scale condominiums is one fell swoop. Instead this project, like the State itself mandates on the beach front, should be rotated 90 degrees AND the 2 end units abutting a change in zoning should be 1 and 2 story residences prior to reaching the new 3 story highest density and scale. Yes, the builder would have to build 2 somewhat smaller end units - but this does not seem to be much of a price to pay for building at max density along what is a rather drastic change is zoning and density. 3. Everyone who lives in this area knows that we already have a parking problem in the area - even at current density levels. Adding 12 units with no guest parking to what are currently 2 single family lots is a recipe for disaster. However, pushing the R-3 impacts from Jefferson Street to neighboring Buena Vista Way is patently unfair to the existing neighbors. Ingress and egress for this project (and all 24 garages) should come from Jefferson Street NOT Buena Vista Way. Again, this project should be rotated 90 degrees with the ingress and egress for the 24 cars & garages should be taken off Jefferson Street (from whence the R-3 Zoning is derived). If anyone at the City or the State is foolish enough to believe that because this project is within 1 mile of our totally useless public transportation system - and therefore no onsite guest parking is necessary - then fine, you should have no problem bringing the ingress and egress off Jefferson Street (where there is already almost no parking available in the evenings). 4.If anyone at the City is listening and understands that we ALREADY HAVE a parking problem at this end of Jefferson, I would strongly encourage the acquisition (like the City Counsels of old) of 2 dilapidated properties (one near the Laguna end of Jefferson and one near the Las Flores end) and the conversion of those parcels into Free Public Parking in order to begin to address the existing parking deficits in the area. Rubber stamping a proposal such as this lacks imagination or any actual "planning" insights. It fails to address existing parking deficits while only further exacerbate parking shortages and negatively impact existing residents. Thank you for any consideration and please see the attached exhibit, Patrick Kellett 1015 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad, CA 92008 619-246-8001 Cell RealHelpPat@yahoo.com Public Comment received by 10am 5/21/2025 From: Elena Quaranta <elenaequaranta@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 4:59 PM To: Kyle Van Leeuwen <Kyle.VanLeeuwen@carlsbadca.gov>; Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Comments for Hearing on 5/21 Hello, This is to be read at the hearing tomorrow as a comment. If I am there, I can read it myself. I plan on attending, but in case of any disruption to my schedule, I am sending this to be read during the hearing. Thank you. - Elena Carlsbad Village is a jewel of a beach town. Unlike other beach cities, with their maddening traffic, tourist prices, unsightly structures stacked on top of each other, and an unfortunate lack of any stimulating culture, Carlsbad Village has stayed quaint and homey. History can be felt here. You can feel it when you look up at a tall, strong eucalyptus tree, when you stop to touch the intricate detail of an old village building, or when you listen to the familiar hum of a vintage car driving by. The village is charming because it has been lived in by people who care for it, and we must continue to care for it. I think about an archival video I watched of the Twin Inns, where people were dancing and gathering there for the last time, concerned about the preservation of village classics that make Carlsbad, Carlsbad. Over the years, the height restrictions have been lifted, and developers from outside North County have moved in quickly to land grab and pop up eyesore structures that pay no respect to the architecture surrounding them. These units are indistinguishable from any other big, bland box suburban unit. The priority here is to stuff as many people on top of each other with little regard to quality of life or the ethos of Carlsbad. The three-story condominiums should not be built because they will not add value and only worsen the problems that Jefferson Street faces. Jefferson traffic is already dangerous enough. What we need are speed bumps, not more vehicles. Jefferson street parking is crowded enough. If multiple people are living in a unit, that means more cars will wind up parking on the street, regardless of a garage. Jefferson is loud enough. The noise from the construction for a project this large will be so loud and long that it will have a considerable negative impact on health and daily living. These structures will block out the big, open, beautiful sky and sun. The construction will most likely damage trees and plants on the property as well as the surrounding neighbor properties. There are privacy concerns, since people will now be able to look down onto private property and into neighbors’ windows. There is a great opportunity here to upgrade the two one-story homes that already exist. Give two local families a part of history, a yard, room to grow, and make memories. Keep the integrity of the neighborhood. Most surrounding houses are one-story local family homes. We know businesses and homeowners can respect the character of Carlsbad because we have seen it. We have seen projects and businesses that align with Carlsbad and add to it. We have seen projects that keep the bones of a building and turn it into an inviting business. We are the ones living here, so our voices should be the ones most regarded. If our community says, "Don’t tear down our only stores," don’t tear them down. If our community says, "Enough big box units," don’t steamroll more in. Respect our community and care for this village like it should be consciously cared for, before it turns into something completely unrecognizable. From: Chela Sandy <gataroja@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 11:00 PM To: Planning <planning@carlsbadca.gov> Subject: Jefferson Street Homes neighbor comment (please read at Planning hearing on May 21st) Dear Planning Department, My husband and I have been home owners in Carlsbad for 32 years. We live on Buena Vista Way and Tuttle Street, on the opposite corner from the proposed Jefferson Street Homes. We object to this development for many reasons, some of which I write here for your consideration. I would ask that you read this at the hearing on May 21st at 5:00 pm. 1) The extreme danger of having so many more residents on the already very busy Jefferson Street. As it stands now, turning left onto Jefferson from Buena Vista Way is nearly impossible due to the heavy volume of traffic coming from both ways. The lack of parking in our small neighborhood is already obvious, adding 12 homes with the possibility of having 24 new residents at the very least is going to heavily impact our homes and our safety. We would ask for a street light at the corner of Buena Vista Way and Jefferson if this project is allowed to go forward, at the developer's expense. 2) the quality of life in our quiet neighborhood will be diminished if these 12 units are allowed on such a small area of land. The construction with its' accompanying noise, dust pollution and constant trucks driving by will hurt the peace of our area, there are several elderly homeowners on this block as well as several families with young children. The safety and welfare of the current neighbors must be taken into account. 3) Impact on the value of the long standing homeowner's homes in this neighborhood. The low heights (at most there are 2 stories currently on all the homes in this neighborhood) allow for views of the gorgeous trees and sky, providing much needed peace of mind for the people who live here. These qualities are worth a lot of money and these homeowners deserve to have the value they've worked hard to achieve and maintain preserved. When you propose putting in 4 tri-plexes and a density bonus of 3 additional units, you are taking away the peaceful and lovely neighborhood feel and views. 4) Historical tree on property. The magnificent tree located on the corner of Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way is in very good condition, provides lots of shade and meets the stated desires of the City of Carlsbad to maintain and add to the tree canopy. Why would the City offer to plant free trees for City residents while contemplating tearing down one of the most beautiful trees in the whole City? Thank you for the opportunity to offer our comments on this ill conceived building project. This needs to be fewer units, 2 stories, with a great architect who can work with the existing tree. I realize the builder has spent a lot of money to buy these 2 homes that once housed a vibrant pre-school and a kind family with adorable dogs, we are not saying this should not go forward at all, just that it needs to be kept at 2 stories and with fewer units. The 1 "affordable" unit is laughable, can't wait to see how much that one will cost? Respectfully, Grace Francisco 1076 Buena Vista Way, Carlsbad, CA. 92008 "Happiness depends upon ourselves" Aristotle CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION To: Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk From: CITY OF CARLSBAD Attn: Fish and Wildlife Notices Planning Division 1600 Pacific Highway, Suite 260 1635 Faraday Avenue San Diego CA 92101 Carlsbad, CA 92008 MS: A-33 (442) 339-2600 Subject: Filing of this Notice of Exemption is in compliance with Section 21152b of the Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act). Project Number and Title: CT 2024-0004 / PUD 2024-0004 / CDP 2024-0021 (DEV2024-0012) - JEFFERSON STREET HOMES Project Location - Specific: 2502 & 2518 Jefferson Street Project Location - City: Carlsbad Project Location - County: San Diego Description of Project: Demolition of two existing single-family residences on two parcels followed by the construction of four, three-story triplex structures creating 12 residential airspace condominium units on one lot. Each structure will be approximately 31 feet in height, with parapets, roof deck guardrails, and architectural features extending to approximately 35.5 feet in height. Six of the condominium units will be 2,302 square feet in size, with the remaining six units being 2,320 square feet in size. Each of the units will include a roof deck and an attached two-car garage accessed from a common drive isle. A 35% density bonus is requested with the dedication of 11% of the base density units to be designated for very-low- income households (1 unit). One incentives/concession and six waivers are requested to facilitate the development. The incentives/concession requests to waive the five-foot right-of-way dedication on Buena Vista Way. The waivers requested are from (1) side yard setback requirements; (2) street-side yard setback requirements; (3) rear yard setback requirements; (4) community recreation space requirements; (5)minimum separation requirements between structures; and (6) limits on size of raised planters in setbacks and building separation areas. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Carlsbad Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: JONATHAN FRANKEL, RINCON HOMES Name of Applicant: RINCON HOMES Applicant’s Address: 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 200, CARLSBAD, CA, 92008 Applicant’s Telephone Number: (925) 708-3638 Name of Applicant/Identity of person undertaking the project (if different from the applicant above): Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption: Class 32, Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) Exhibit 9 May 21, 2025 Item #1 70 of 473 Reasons why project is exempt: The project is consistent with the general plan as well as the zoning ordinance in terms of land use, density, and development standards. The project is within the city limits, is less than five acres in size, and is surrounded by urban uses. Because the site contains only non-native and ornamental vegetation, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic (project is calculated to generate less than 110 average daily trips (ADT)), noise (as verified by the Noise Study prepared by Birdseye Planning Group dated June 2024, Exhibit 1), air quality (as verified by the Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study by Birdseye Planning Group dated July 2024, Exhibit 2), or water quality. Finally, the subject site is served by public and private utilities, including the city’s water, sewer, and electrical utilities. The subject site has access and is served directly from Jefferson St. which is an existing developed roadway with existing utilities. Water infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site is maintained and operated by CMWD. Sewer service is currently provided by the City of Carlsbad to the Project site via the existing public sewer system in the vicinity of the Project. Water service for domestic and fire protection uses would be provided via the existing water connections to the existing public water system. Furthermore, the Project would pay the required water connection fees to help offset the Project’s contribution to the city’s water collection infrastructure needs. For sewer, accordingly to City of Carlsbad Utilities Department staff, the sewer lines adjacent to the site need to be upsized along the Project’s flow path (in pipes downstream of the Project site, north of Laguna Dr.) to accommodate the Project’s addition of 10 units and other future growth in the area. Utilities staff indicated that facilities to service the proposed Project are reasonably expected to be available within the next five years. The city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) will address this system deficiency and support system reliability prior to Project occupancy. Wastewater generated by the proposed Project would be conveyed to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF), located in Carlsbad, for treatment and then disposal through the ocean outfall or delivery to the adjacent Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility for reuse. As the Project’s addition of 10 residences would represent a fraction of a percent of the population served by the city, wastewater generated by the Project would represent a small fraction of the available capacity of the city. The Developer would pay required sewer capacity and connection fees to help offset the Project’s contribution to the city’s wastewater collection infrastructure needs and would require approval of sewer permits prior to connection to the sewer system. (The Municipal Code includes regulations that require the city to assure available sewer capacity for new projects and fees for improvements to the infrastructure system.) Therefore, the proposed Project wastewater flows do not exceed the capacity of existing or planned wastewater conveyance systems and there would be adequate treatment capacity for the Project, prior to occupancy, in addition to existing commitments. Exceptions to Exemptions CEQA Section 15300.2 – Exceptions Planning staff evaluated all the potential exceptions to the use of Categorical Exemptions for the proposed project (in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2) and determined that none of these exceptions apply as explained below: a. Location. “Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located - a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.” May 21, 2025 Item #1 71 of 473 Response – The location exception is not applicable to Class 32 Exemptions for In-Fill Development Projects. b. Cumulative Impact - “All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” Response – In identifying projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts, the CEQA Guidelines allow the use of a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects, producing related or cumulative impacts, including those that are outside of the control of the lead agency. The Project is not considered to have a significant growth-inducement impact because it is located in a predominantly developed portion of the city and is of the same form, size and scale of recent development in the vicinity of the Project site, and of that which is permitted by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. There is no evidence to conclude that significant impacts will occur based on past project approvals or that the proposed Project's impacts are cumulatively considerable when evaluating any cumulative impacts associated with construction air quality, noise, transportation, or water quality in the area surrounding the proposed Project. Accordingly, the Project’s incremental impacts, when considered together with the impacts of the related projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. The Project, and all future projects, will be required to comply with all applicable local, regional, and state laws, regulations, and guidelines, and any significant conflicts would be mitigated or resolved through the city discretionary review and approval. As described above, any potential impact cause by the Project’s construction and operation would continue to be less than significant and would not contribute significantly to regional cumulative impact in the broader project region. Therefore, this exception does not apply. c. Significant Effect - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for any activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” Response – There are no unusual circumstances that would have a significant impact on the environment due to the Project. The Project does not involve any unusual circumstances. In regard to biological resources, the Project is not located within an existing or proposed Hardline Conservation Areas or Standards Areas of the Habitat Management Plan, and the conditions of approval for the Project will reduce impacts to breading or nesting birds. d. Scenic Highway - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.” Response – Roosevelt Street is not considered a historical and scenic corridor throughout Carlsbad, is not a highway officially designated as a State Scenic Highway, nor is it visible from a Carlsbad historical or scenic corridor or State Scenic Highway. The Project site is also surrounded on all sides by existing residential structures. Therefore, implementation of the Project will result in similar visual conditions compared with a no project scenario. May 21, 2025 Item #1 72 of 473 e. Hazardous Waste Site - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.” Response – The Project site is not identified on the Department of Toxic Substance Control geoportal map as a Cleanup, Hazardous Waste, or Inspection site. Furthermore, there is no indication that the site has had any previous uses associated with hazardous materials, such as dry-cleaning or gas station. f. Historical Resources - “A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” Response – Cultural Resources Reports for the two existing properties were prepared by Kristi S. Hawthorne (Exhibit 3 & 4, dated January 29, 2024 & January 30, 2024), to determine if the Project would impact any historical resources pursuant to CEQA. The report concluded that none of the buildings on the project site are listed or eligible to be listed in any national, state, or local landmark or historic district programs. As such, development of the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, and this exception does not apply. Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 19.04.070(B) - Exceptions Exceptions. Even though a project may otherwise be eligible for an exemption, no exemption shall apply in the following circumstances: 1. Grading and clearing activities affecting sensitive plant or animal habitats, which disturb, fragment or remove such areas as defined by either the California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.), or the Federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Section 15131 et seq.); sensitive, rare, candidate species of special concern; endangered or threatened biological species or their habitat (specifically including sage scrub habitat for the California Gnatcatcher); or archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods; Or 2. Parcel maps, plot plans and all discretionary development projects otherwise exempt but which affect sensitive, threatened, or endangered biological species or their habitat (as defined above), archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods, wetlands, stream courses designated on U.S. Geological Survey maps, hazardous materials, unstable soils, or other factors requiring special review, on all or a portion of the site. (Ord. NS-593, 2001) Response – The Project site is located in a developed part of the city and is surrounded by residential uses. The Project site contains two existing buildings and landscaping with only non-natives and ornamental vegetation with no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Furthermore, the site is not within mapped areas of potential critical habitat as depicted in the City’s General Plan.1 Two Cultural Resources Reports (Exhibits 3 & 4), prepared by Kristi S. Hawthorne, concluded that none of the buildings on the Project site are listed or eligible to be listed in any national, state, or local landmark or historic district programs. Although the likelihood that intact archaeological or cultural 1 City of Carlsbad. 2015 City of Carlsbad General Plan – Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element. Adopted September 2015. https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3424/637434861099030000 May 21, 2025 Item #1 73 of 473 resources exist on the Project site is low due to previous site disturbance, an Archaeological Survey Report (South Environmental LLC, dated May 2024, Exhibit 5) and Paleontological Resource Assessment (South Environmental LLC, May 2024, Exhibit 6) was provided and found no archeological resources or significant fossil material within the project site. Nonetheless, the Project will be conditioned to require archaeological, Native American, and paleontological monitoring of ground- disturbing activities during project construction in compliance with standard city regulatory procedures outlined in the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (City of Carlsbad 2017). Therefore, earth-moving activities associated with the Project would not affect archaeological or cultural resources from either historic or prehistoric periods. Hazardous materials, unstable soils or other factors requiring special review do not apply or are not found within this project location. Lead Agency Contact Person: Kyle Van Leeuwen Telephone: 442-339-2611 ERIC LARDY, City Planner Date May 21, 2025 Item #1 74 of 473 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St (DEV2024-0012) City of Carlsbad April 30, 2025 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Prepared for: Rincon Homes 5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: LOS Engineering, Inc. 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92130 Phone 619-890-1253 Job #2406 Exhibit 9.1 May 21, 2025 Item #1 75 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation ii April 30, 2025 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 VMT Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................... 4 2.2 VMT Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 4 3.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Site Plan .................................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: City of Carlsbad Residential VMT Map ................................................................................ 5 List of Tables Table 1: City of Carlsbad VMT Thresholds for Transportation Impacts .............................................. 4 Table 2: City of Carlsbad Residential VMT Thresholds for Transportation Impacts ........................... 5 Appendices Appendix A ................................................................. City of Carlsbad VMT Map Analysis Template May 21, 2025 Item #1 76 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation 1 April 30, 2025 1.0 Introduction A Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis is required to satisfy the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines that utilize VMT as the measure of mobility effectiveness for determining transportation impacts. The proposed project is located across two parcels that include 2502 and 2518 Jefferson St Carlsbad, California. The project includes removing existing uses and constructing new uses as follows: Existing uses to be removed: Two (2) single family dwelling units Proposed project: Twelve (12) multi-family dwelling units The net increase is 10 dwelling units. The project parcel is approximately 0.54 acres resulting in a final density of approximately 22.2 dwelling units per acre (12 units/0.54 acres). The project is anticipated to open in year 2026. The location of the project is shown in Figure 1. A site plan is shown in Figures 2. The format of this study includes the following chapters: 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled 3.0 Conclusions May 21, 2025 Item #1 77 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation 2 April 30, 2025 Figure 1: Project Location Source: LOS Engineering, Inc. No Scale Pine Valley Boulder Campo Warner Springs Santa Ysabel Julian La Mesa San Diego Imperial Beach El Cajon Chula Vista United States Fallbrook Mexico Riverside County San Diego County Camp Joseph Pendleton Oceanside Carlsbad Encinitas Escondido Vista San Marcos Santee Temecula RamonaPoway Pacific Ocean Tecate LegendExisting Roadway Proposed Roadway PROJECT LOCATION N May 21, 2025 Item #1 78 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation 3 April 30, 2025 Figure 2: Site Plan Source: Kirk Moeller Architects, Inc. May 21, 2025 Item #1 79 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation 4 April 30, 2025 2.0 Vehicle Miles Traveled A VMT analysis is required to satisfy the CEQA guidelines that utilize VMT as the measure of effectiveness for determining transportation impacts. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory developed guidance on implementing Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) that shifts the transportation impact measure of effectiveness from Level of Service (LOS) to VMT. The OPR Transportation Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018 states on page 8 “As noted above, lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance”. In compliance with SB 743 and OPR guidance, the City of Carlsbad has adopted the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, May 31, 2023 (“VMT Guidelines”) to evaluate impacts under CEQA using a VMT metric. 2.1 VMT Significance Thresholds The VMT Guidelines documents significance thresholds for transportation VMT impacts based on the project type. As shown in Table 1, the significance threshold for a transportation VMT impact is based on 15% below the city average VMT/Capita. TABLE 1: CITY OF CARLSBAD VMT THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS Project Type Metric Significance Thresholds Residential VMT per Capita A significant transportation impact occurs if the project VMT/capita exceeds a level 15% below the city average VMT/capita Source: VMT Guidelines. 2.2 VMT Analysis The project does not meet any of the City’s current VMT screening criteria; therefore, the VMT analysis is based on the City’s VMT Analysis maps. The project residential VMT was determined using the City of Carlsbad Vehicle Miles Traveled map that is derived from SANDAG’s Series 14 growth forecast Activity Based Model 2 plus (AMB2+) analysis map. The Carlsbad VMT analysis map showing the project location and VMT/Capita is shown in Figure 3. May 21, 2025 Item #1 80 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation 5 April 30, 2025 Figure 3: City of Carlsbad Residential VMT Map As shown in Figure 3, the project is forecasted to have a VMT/Capita at 78.3% of the city average VMT/Capita, which is below the 85th percentile city average VMT; therefore, the project has a less than significant VMT transportation impact and VMT mitigation is not recommended. The findings are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2: CITY OF CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL VMT THRESHOLDS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS City Average VMT/Capita for project location City Wide Residential Average VMT/Capita Project % Compared to City Average Significant Transportation Impact (over 85%)? 18.8 24.0 78.3% No Source: City of Carlsbad VMT Map. To ensure compliance with the VMT Guidelines, the City of Carlsbad has VMT report templates. A VMT map template for this project is included in Appendix A. May 21, 2025 Item #1 81 of 473 LOS Engineering, Inc. 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St VMT Traffic and Transportation 6 April 30, 2025 3.0 Conclusion A VMT analysis is required to satisfy the CEQA guidelines that utilize VMT as the measure of mobility effectiveness for determining transportation impacts. In compliance with SB 743 and OPR guidance, the City of Carlsbad has adopted the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, May 31, 2023, to evaluate impacts under CEQA using a VMT metric. The proposed project is located across two parcels that include 2502 and 2518 Jefferson St Carlsbad, California. The project results in a net increase of 10 dwelling units by removing existing uses and constructing new uses as follows: Existing uses to be removed: Two (2) single family dwelling units Proposed project: Twelve (12) multi-family dwelling units The project did not meet any of the City’s current VMT screening criteria; therefore, the VMT analysis was prepared using the City’s VMT Analysis maps. The residential project with a net increase of 10 dwelling units is forecasted to have a VMT/Capita at 78.3% of the city average VMT/Capita, which is below the 85th percentile city average VMT; therefore, the project has a less than significant VMT transportation impact and VMT mitigation is not recommended. May 21, 2025 Item #1 82 of 473 Appendix A City of Carlsbad VMT Map Analysis Template May 21, 2025 Item #1 83 of 473 VMT Report Template for Land Development Projects – VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 2 VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps Requirements Submission Date: April 2025 SECTION I: Developer Profile Developer Name: Rincon Homes Property Manager Name: Mr. Jonathan Frankel Developer Mailing Address: 5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Primary Contact Name: Mr. Jonathan Frankel Primary Contact Phone/Email: 925-708-3638 jfrankel@rincongrp.com Developer Mailing Address: 5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Transportation Consultant Firm: LOS Engineering, Inc. Transportation Consultant Representative: Mr. Justin Rasas, P.E. Transportation Consultant Contact Phone/Email: 619-890-1253 justin@losengineering.com Transportation Consultant Address: 11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 SECTION II: Project Information Project Name: 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St Permit Number: DEV2024-0012 Project Address: 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St, Carlsbad CA 92008 May 21, 2025 Item #1 84 of 473 VMT Report Template for Land Development Projects – VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 3 SECTION III: Compliance Overview Checklist Complete the appropriate sections of the checklist below to ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad’s VMT Analysis Guidelines. CEQA VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps Compliance Checklist Satisfactory? (completed by City) YES NO VMT Report documenting VMT screening and VMT analysis ☐ ☐ VMT Analysis performed using VMT maps ☐ ☐ VMT Impact Conclusion (significant or less than significant impact) ☐ ☐ Mitigation Measure Identification and Analysis (for significant impacts) ☐ ☐ SECTION IV: VMT Report Contents The following provides the required contents of a VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps Report. Page # or Appendix: (completed by preparer) CEQA VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps Required Content Satisfactory? (completed by City) YES NO Executive Summary/Introduction: •Purpose of VMT analysis and identification of type of VMT report being prepared •Regional vicinity map with project location •Project screening results •VMT analysis method (Carlsbad VMT maps) •Significance of CEQA impacts •Mitigation measures and significance after mitigation ☐ ☐ Project Description, including: •Proposed project description (land use type, intensity, etc.) ☐ ☐ Final City Review 5/1/2025 May 21, 2025 Item #1 85 of 473 VMT Report Template for Land Development Projects – VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 4 • VMT reduction measures that are part of the project description • Site plan VMT Screening Assessment • Table that displays all screening criteria and demonstrates that the project does not meet the criteria and a brief statement of why. To demonstrate why a project doesn’t meet any of the screening criteria, the following information may be necessary: o Daily project trip generation (total, without adjustments for existing land uses on the site). o A map showing the project’s lack of proximity to a major transit stop, planned major transit stop, or a stop/transit center along a high- quality transit corridor. o Statements that locally serving, affordable housing, and redevelopment criteria are not applicable. • For projects with multiple land uses, perform a screening assessment and create a screening assessment table for each land use. Document the conclusion of the screening assessment by land use. If one land use meets the screening criteria and one does not, only complete a VMT analysis for the component that does not meet the screening criteria. ☐ ☐ Identify VMT Calculation Methodology and VMT Metric • Provide screenshot(s) of Carlsbad VMT maps with project TAZ(s) highlighted and VMT data displayed (for each metric that is applicable). • For residential projects, VMT/Capita is applicable. • For employment projects, VMT/Employee is applicable. • The VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps Report type is only applicable to residential and employment projects. ☐ ☐ May 21, 2025 Item #1 86 of 473 VMT Report Template for Land Development Projects – VMT Analysis Using VMT Maps City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92008 5 Identify VMT Thresholds and Perform VMT Impact Analysis • Refer to the Carlsbad VMT Analysis Guidelines to determine the appropriate impact threshold to apply to the analysis. Document the threshold and the numerical value that represents the threshold. For example, the threshold for residential projects is 15% below the city-wide average VMT/capita, or currently 20.4 miles per resident. • Determine the project’s VMT using the Carlsbad VMT maps, and if applicable, apply any VMT reduction measures that are part of the project description (refer to VMT Analysis Guidelines Appendix F for guidance on performing reduction calculations). • Compare the project’s VMT to the City threshold and document if the project has a significant or less than significant impact. Identify and Analyze Mitigation Measures (if the Impact is Significant) • If a significant impact is identified, refer to VMT Analysis Guidelines Appendix F to identify potential mitigation measures and analysis guidance. • Analyze how much VMT reduction is associated with the mitigation measures and determine if mitigation reduces the impact to less than significant. • If the impact is still significant after mitigation is applied, document that the project has a significant and unavoidable impact. May 21, 2025 Item #1 87 of 473 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES PROJECT NOISE STUDY Prepared for: Rincon Real Estate Group Prepared by: June 2024 Exhibit 9.2 May 21, 2025 Item #1 88 of 473 Table of Contents Page Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Setting .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Overview of Sound Measurement ................................................................................................. 2 Sensitive Receptors .......................................................................................................................... 5 Project Site Setting ............................................................................................................................ 7 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................ 8 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Methodology and Significance Thresholds ................................................................................ 10 Temporary Construction Noise .................................................................................................... 11 Temporary Construction-Related Vibration .............................................................................. 13 Long-Term Operational Noise Exposure .................................................................................... 13 d References ................................................................................................................................................. 18 List of Figures Figure 1 - Project Location ........................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 – Noise Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 – Sensitive Properties ............................................................................................................... 15 List of Tables Table 1 – Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments ..................................... 6 Table 2 – Noise Monitoring Results......................................................................................................... 8 Table 3 – Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................................................. 11 Table 4 – Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances from Project Construction ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 5 – Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................... 13 Table 6 – Modeled Noise Levels ............................................................................................................ 14 Appendices Appendix A Noise Monitoring Data May 21, 2025 Item #1 89 of 473 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA NOISE STUDY This report is an analysis of the potential noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of a new 12-unit residential infill project (Jefferson Street Homes) at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad. The report has been prepared by Birdseye Planning Group, LLC, under contract to the applicant to support the environmental review process and address comments provided by the City of Carlsbad after review of the project entitlement submittal. This study analyzes the potential for temporary impacts associated with construction activity and long-term impacts associated with operation of the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street southwest of the intersection with Buena Vista Way (APN 115-251-18-00 and 115-251-19-00). The site is approximately 0.54 acres and would replace two existing single-family residences. The proposed project would be comprised of four buildings (A-D) with three units per building. Each unit would have two parking spaces. The site would be accessed via Buena Vista Way Place Construction would require the demolition and removal of two existing residences. Construction is anticipated to begin in mid-2025 and be completed in early 2026. Figure 1 provides a vicinity map; Figure 2 shows a project site plan. SETTING Overview of Sound Measurement Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). Sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Based on the logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy is equivalent May 21, 2025 Item #1 90 of 473 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map - Project Site May 21, 2025 Item #1 91 of 473 Figure 2 - Site Plan May 21, 2025 Item #1 92 of 473 to an increase of 3 dBA, and a sound that is 10 dBA less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. 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 dB 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 (i.e., industrial machinery). 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. 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 reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer residential units and office buildings is generally 30 dBA or more. In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important since sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). 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. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually do not differ by more than 1 dB. Table 1 shows sound levels of typical noise sources measured using Leq. Sensitive Receptors Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with each of these uses. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element Update (approved September 2015) includes a variety of land use and development types that are noise sensitive including residences, schools, churches, hospitals and convalescent care facilities. May 21, 2025 Item #1 93 of 473 Sensitive receptors are located adjacent to and surrounding the project site. The closest is a four-story multifamily building located adjacent to and west of the site at 2530 Jefferson Street adjacent to and south of the site. Single- and multifamily residences are the dominant land use in the area. Table 1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Noise Source (at Given Distance) Noise Environment A-Weighted Sound Level (Decibels) Human Judgment of Noise Loudness (Relative to Reference Loudness of 70 Decibels*) Military Jet Takeoff with Afterburner (50 ft) Carrier Flight Deck 140 128 times as loud Civil Defense Siren (100 ft) 130 64 times as loud Commercial Jet Take-off (200 ft) 120 32 times as loud Threshold of Pain Pile Driver (50 ft) Rock Music Concert Inside Subway Station (New York) 110 16 times as loud Ambulance Siren (100 ft) Newspaper Press (5 ft) Gas Lawn Mower (3 ft) 100 8 times as loud Very Loud Food Blender (3 ft) Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000 ft) Diesel Truck (150 ft) Boiler Room Printing Press Plant 90 4 times as loud Garbage Disposal (3 ft) Noisy Urban Daytime 80 2 times as loud Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 ft) Living Room Stereo (15 ft) Vacuum Cleaner (10 ft) Commercial Areas 70 Reference Loudness Moderately Loud Normal Speech (5 ft) Air Conditioning Unit (100 ft) Data Processing Center Department Store 60 1/2 as loud Light Traffic (100 ft) Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime 50 1/4 as loud Bird Calls (distant) Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 1/8 as loud Quiet Soft Whisper (5 ft) Library and Bedroom at Night Quiet Rural Nighttime 30 1/16 as loud Broadcast and Recording Studio 20 1/32 as loud Just Audible May 21, 2025 Item #1 94 of 473 0 1/64 as loud Threshold of Hearing Source: Compiled by dBF Associates, Inc., 2016 Project Site Setting The most common and primary sources of noise in the project site vicinity are motor vehicles (e.g., automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles) along Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way. Motor vehicle noise can be a concern when it is characterized by a high number of individual events that can create a sustained noise level in proximity to noise sensitive uses. Interstate 5 is located approximately 850 feet to the east. It is audible as background noise but contributes negligibly to overall noise levels at the project site. The Atichson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) rail corridor is located approximately 0.6 miles west of the site. This segment of the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) corridor is the second busiest passenger and freight rail corridor in the United States. According to the rail timetables, up to 50 trains (40 passenger and 10 freight trains) use the corridor segment daily between Oceanside and the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego. Existing wheel-rail noise and engine noise is not audible at the project site. The warning horns/bells that are used when trains are approaching or departing the Carlsbad Village Drive station are audible as background noise but overall, rail operations contribute negligibly to the ambient noise environment in the study area. McClellan-Palomar Airport is located approximately 4.4 miles southeast of the site. The site is outside the airport influence area; however, aircraft operations (airplanes and helicopters) are audible and contribute to existing noise levels in the project area. No other noise sources are near the project site. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Update Noise Element (2015) provides noise contours associated with transportation corridors (i.e., roadways, railroad and airport). This provides a graphic illustration of sound levels near road corridors, but typically does not include effects of landforms and adjacent structures. Generally, barriers between a source and receiver absorb or reflect noise resulting in a quieter environment. Where barriers or landforms do not interrupt the noise transmission path from source to receiver, the contours prove to be reasonable estimates of typical noise levels from roadway traffic. In areas where barriers or landforms interrupt the sound transmission, the noise contours overestimate the extent to which a source intrudes into neighboring areas. The noise contour distances describe worst-case conditions because they do not account for any obstructions to the noise path, such as walls, berms, or buildings. As noted, railroad noise is audible when train pass-by events occur. The contours provided in the General Plan Update Noise Element provide a reasonable prediction of rail noise levels at the site. Under existing conditions as shown in Noise Element Figure 5-2, the project site is outside the 60-65 dBA CNEL contour intervals for both the railroad track and I-5. As shown in Noise Element Figure 5-3, the project site would be within the 60-65 dBA future contour at build out which is anticipated to occur in 2040. The dominant noise source at the project site is traffic on Jefferson Street. May 21, 2025 Item #1 95 of 473 To gather data on the general noise environment at the project site, one weekday 15-minute noise measurement was acquired in proximity to the project site on Tuesday June 4, 2024 using an ANSI Type II integrating sound level meter. The predominant noise source in the area during monitoring was traffic on Jefferson Street. Aircraft overflights and train pass by events contributed negligibly to ambient conditions. During monitoring, a total of 170 cars/light trucks and five medium trucks (i.e., two axles, four-wheels) passed the site on Jefferson Street. Table 2 identifies the noise measurement location and measured noise levels. The monitoring location is shown in Figure 3. Monitoring data is provided as Appendix A. Table 2 Noise Monitoring Results Measurement Location Primary Noise Source Sample Time Leq (dBA) Project site located at 2502 Jefferson Street Traffic Weekday morning 65.0 Source: Field visit using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter. Regulatory Setting In 1976, the California Department of Health, State Office of Noise Control published a recommended noise/land use compatibility matrix which many jurisdictions have adopted as a standard in their general plan noise elements. This matrix indicates that residential land uses and other noise sensitive receptors preferentially should be located in areas where outdoor ambient noise levels do not exceed 65 to 70 dBA (CNEL or Ldn). Municipal Code and Noise Guideline Manual The City of Carlsbad has established noise guidelines in Table 2 of General Plan Noise Element (City of Carlsbad, 2015) that are applicable for transportation noise sources. The noise guidelines identify compatible exterior noise levels for various land use types. Residential land uses are considered normally acceptable up to 60 dB CNEL. Commercial land uses are considered normally acceptable up to 65 dB CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 75 dB. Interior spaces within commercial buildings are limited to 50 dBA CNEL. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code regulates construction noise by limiting the hours of operation (City of Carlsbad 2003). Construction activities are allowed to occur Monday through Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. to sunset; and on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to sunset, excluding legal holidays. The City does not have quantitative noise level limits (i.e., based on sound levels) for general nuisance noise such as that associated with stationary equipment located on private property. May 21, 2025 Item #1 96 of 473 Figure 3 - Noise Monitoring LocaƟon - Project Site M1 May 21, 2025 Item #1 97 of 473 For the purpose of this study, the residential standard of 60 dB CNEL is used to evaluate potential exterior noise impacts associated with the proposed project traffic at neighboring receivers. An interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL is used herein as referenced in the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual (1995). Vibration Standards Vibration is a unique form of noise as the energy is transmitted through buildings, structures and the ground whereas audible noise energy is transmitted through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) for the purpose of evaluating the potential for adverse construction-related impacts. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is a PPV of approximately 0.01 inches/second which equates to 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. With respect to potential ground-borne vibration impacts on structures, the FTA states that ground-borne vibration levels in excess of PPV 0.2 inches/second (100 VdB) could damage fragile buildings and levels in excess of PPV 0.12 inches/second (95 VdB) could damage extremely fragile historic buildings. No historic buildings occur on the site or are known to occur near the site. Adjacent buildings are all relatively modern structure constructed consistent with applicable California Building Code and seismic standards. However, to conservatively estimate potential vibration impacts on neighboring residences, a PPV of 0.2 inches per second (100 VdB) is used herein. IMPACT ANALYSIS Methodology and Significance Thresholds Construction noise estimates are based upon noise levels reported by the Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Reference noise levels from that document were used to estimate noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line-of-sight method of sound attenuation). The site is currently developed with two single-family residences. Noise levels associated with existing and future traffic were based on the difference in trip volumes between existing volumes counted during monitoring and the proposed use less traffic generated by the existing use. A doubling of traffic volumes would be required to cause a noticeable increase (3 dBA) in traffic noise. Thus, the two numbers were calculated to determine whether the project would generate enough traffic to increase noise levels by 3 dBA or more. The AT&SF rail line is located approximately 0.6 miles west of the site. Rail noise levels at the site were estimated based on May 21, 2025 Item #1 98 of 473 methodologies approved by the Federal Rail Administration. Specific assumptions used in the analysis are described below. As noted, a noise increase greater than 3 dBA is readily perceptible to the average human ear; and thus, is the level considered a substantial noise increase related to traffic operations. However, within the City of Carlsbad, noise impacts are also considered significant if noise levels would exceed 60 dBA CNEL. For the purpose of this evaluation, the peak hour Leq is used for traffic noise as it provides a more conservative estimate of potential noise levels. The CNEL is used within the rail noise discussion. Existing noise levels at the site currently exceed 60 dBA as shown in Table 2. Thus, the determination of impact is based on whether existing exterior noise levels would noticeably change with project operation. A noticeable change is +/- 3 dBA and requires that the sound energy either double or decrease by one-half. Thus, for existing conditions at the site to noticeably increase, the project would need to double existing traffic volumes while maintaining the same travel speed. Temporary Construction Noise The main sources of noise during construction activities would include heavy machinery used during demolition, grading, and clearing the site, as well as equipment used during building construction and paving. Table 3 shows typical noise levels associated with heavy construction equipment. As shown, average noise levels associated with the use of heavy equipment at construction sites can range from 81 to 91 dBA at 25 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and phase of construction. Table 3 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Onsite Typical Maximum Level (dBA) 25 Feet from the Source Typical Maximum Level (dBA) 50 Feet from the Source Typical Maximum Level (dBA) 100 Feet from the Source Air Compressor 86 80 74 Backhoe 86 80 74 Bobcat Tractor 86 80 74 Concrete Mixer 91 85 79 Loader 86 80 74 Bulldozer 91 85 79 Jack Hammer 94 88 82 Pavement Roller 91 85 79 Street Sweeper 88 82 76 Man Lift 81 75 69 Dump Truck 90 84 78 May 21, 2025 Item #1 99 of 473 Table 3 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Onsite Typical Maximum Level (dBA) 25 Feet from the Source Typical Maximum Level (dBA) 50 Feet from the Source Typical Maximum Level (dBA) 100 Feet from the Source Mobile Crane 89 83 77 Excavator/Scraper 91 85 79 Source: FTA Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (September 2018), Table 7-1. Noise levels are based on actual maximum measured noise levels at 50 feet (Lmax). Noise levels are based on a noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. As noted, there are residential properties adjacent to the site and construction noise will be audible at these properties. Table 4 shows typical maximum construction noise levels at various distances from construction activity, based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The noise level used to estimate the maximum noise level that could occur is based on use of a bobcat tractor as it is likely to be the noisiest type of equipment used over a sustained period of time during demolition and site preparation activities. Actual noise levels will fluctuate throughout the day and may periodically exceed 84 dBA at the property line depending on the type and location of equipment used and whether multiple pieces of equipment are operating simultaneously in the same area. Table 4 Typical Maximum Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances from Project Construction Distance from Construction Maximum Noise Level at Receptor (dBA) 25 feet 84 50 feet 78 100 feet 72 250 feet 66 500 feet 60 1,000 feet 54 Construction noise levels at neighboring residences could be as high as 84 dBA. However, temporary construction noise is not restricted if it occurs between the hours specified in the noise ordinance referenced herein. No construction noise impact would occur. May 21, 2025 Item #1 100 of 473 Temporary Construction-Related Vibration Activities associated with residential projects do not generate vibration. Thus, this discussion will focus on temporary vibration caused by construction. As referenced, the closest residence to the site is located adjacent to and south of the site. However, residences surround the project site on all sides. Based on the information presented in Table 5, vibration levels from operation of a large bulldozer would be approximately 87 VdB (0.089 inches/second) or less at 25 feet (Caltrans 2013). Grading within 25 feet of the nearest residential structures would be required. As discussed, a PPV of 0.2 inches/second (100 VdB) is the vibration energy required to damage fragile historic buildings. While vibration from grading may be perceived at neighboring residences, the vibration energy would be well below that required to cause structural damage. Vibration levels at residential buildings adjacent to the project site may exceed the groundborne velocity threshold level of 72 VdB for residences and/or buildings where people sleep as discussed above. Maximum vibration levels would range from 58 to 87 VdB depending on the type of equipment used. However, as long as construction occurs within the prescribed hours, any temporary impact would be less than significant. Table 5 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate VdB 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 87 81 79 77 75 Loaded Trucks 86 80 78 76 74 Jackhammer 79 73 71 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 50 48 46 Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 1998 Long-Term Operational Noise Exposure Exterior Traffic Noise. Traffic is the primary noise source that would be generated by the proposed project. Thus, whether a traffic-related noise impact would occur is based on whether the project would double peak hour traffic volumes relative to existing conditions or cause noise levels to exceed 60 dBA. The peak hour is defined as the one-hour period between 7:00 am and 9:00 am and 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm when the highest volumes occur. As referenced, one of the existing structures are single-family residence which generate approximately 10 daily trips (San Diego Association of Governments, Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002). The proposed project would provide 12 multi- family units which generate 6 daily trips per unit. The project could generate up to 72 daily May 21, 2025 Item #1 101 of 473 trips. The existing uses generate 20 daily trips. The project would result in a net increase of 52 daily trips, and five peak hour trips, relative to what occurs under existing conditions. Noise levels generated by traffic on Jefferson Street were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 software (see Appendix A). The model calculates traffic noise at receiver locations based on traffic volumes, travel speed, mix of vehicle types operating on the roadways (i.e., cars/trucks, medium trucks and heavy trucks) and related factors. Traffic volumes and vehicle mix used to calibrate TNM were based on vehicle counts obtained during the monitoring period. The 15-minute counts were multiplied by four to obtain hourly traffic counts. The model was calibrated to calculate noise levels that are +/- 2 dBA those measured on-site and reported in Table 2. Noise levels were calculated at the following receivers and are intended to represent conditions at multiple receivers within proximity to these locations: 1. Single-family residence at 2530 Jefferson Street; 2. Multi-family residences at 2525-2535 Jefferson Street (Laguno do Los Peitos); and 3. Single-family residence at 915 Buena Place. The receiver locations are shown in Figure 4. As shown in Table 6, the daytime hourly average (Leq) exceeds the 60-dBA standard at Receivers 1 and 3 under baseline conditions. The addition of 52 daily trips (approximately 5 peak hour trips) with the project would add 0.1 dBA to the existing Leq; and thus, have no effect on traffic noise levels. Thus, long term traffic operation associated with the project would have no adverse effect on noise levels at sensitive properties within proximity to the site. Project impacts related to exterior traffic noise would be less than significant. Table 6 Modeled Noise Levels Receptor Existing Leq Exceed Standard? With Project Leq dBA Change Significant Impact Site 1 64.9 Yes 65.0 +0.1 No Site 2 58.4 No 58.5 +0.1 No Site 3 65.4 Yes 65.5 +0.1 No Interior Traffic Noise. Current development is designed to meet or exceed California Energy Code Title 24 standards which specify construction methods and materials that result in energy efficient structures and up to a 30 dBA reduction in exterior noise levels (assuming windows are closed). Older residences typically provide a 20-25 dBA reduction in exterior noise levels. When windows are open the insertion loss drops to about 10 dBA. Assuming windows are closed, interior noise levels within the adjacent residences would be reduced from a high of 65.5 dBA at Receiver 3 (baseline) to between 45.5 dBA and 40.5 dBA which would meet the 45-dBA interior standard for residences. As stated, the project is anticipated to be within the 65 dBA future year May 21, 2025 Item #1 102 of 473 Figure 4 - Receiver LocaƟons - Project Site R3 R2 R1 May 21, 2025 Item #1 103 of 473 (2040) noise contour. Assuming a baseline noise level of 64.9 dBA, a 30 dBA reduction in noise levels associated with current construction methods and materials would result in an interior noise level of approximately 34.9 dBA within the proposed units adjacent to Jefferson Avenue and less as the distance from Jefferson Avenue increases. This would be below the 45-dBA interior standard for residential buildings. Exterior Railroad Noise. The AT&SF corridor is located approximately 0.6 miles to the west of the site and is used by Amtrak and the North County Transit District Coaster to provide passenger rail service. It is also used by freight trains during the late evening and nighttime hours. Based on the timetables, approximately 50 trains operate daily within this segment. Train volumes vary throughout the day but are generally higher during the morning and evening commute hours and reflect the dominant use of this corridor by commuter rail and passenger trains. Train noise is generated by a combination of factors including the number of locomotives, rail cars, speed, volume distribution over the day and nighttime hours and whether train horns are used. The existing rail noise levels at the project site were calculated using a proprietary software program based on Federal Rail Administration methodology. Iit was assumed the average speed through the area is 50 miles per hour and that each passenger train has one locomotive and 10 rail cars. For freight trains it was assumed they have two locomotives and 50 cars. Train warning horns were audible during monitoring as a distant source; thus, it was conservatively assumed that train operators do use the warning horn when passing by the site. Of the 50 train pass by events each day, five freight operations were assumed to occur during the nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. Based on these assumptions, the exterior CNEL at the project site (3,168 feet west of the rail corridor) is approximately 46.7 dBA when both passenger and freight rail operations are combined. The estimated CNEL is less than measured background noise and generally appears consistent with CNEL contours provided in the 2015 General Plan Update Noise Element for residential areas within the City of Carlsbad. Rail operation would not exceed the recommended CNEL (60-dBA) for residential uses. Interior Railroad Noise. The existing exterior CNEL at the site exceeds the standard recommended by the City of Carlsbad for residential uses. However, the project would have no impact on noise levels. Design features associated with the project would reduce interior noise levels to at least 45 dBA CNEL as specified in the City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual for sensitive land uses (i.e., residences). As noted above, the proposed project would be designed to meet or exceed California Energy Code Title 24 standards which specify construction methods and materials that result in energy efficient structures and up to a 30 dBA reduction in exterior noise levels (assuming windows are closed). Assuming windows are closed, the CNEL associated with rail noise would be well below background noise levels. No measures in addition to compliance with Title 24 design requirements would be necessary to reduce interior rail noise. May 21, 2025 Item #1 104 of 473 Rail Vibration. As noted, the proposed project would be constructed approximately 3,168 feet east of the rail corridor. The distance between a conventional commuter railroad and Category 2 (i.e., residential) land use where the potential for a vibration impact to occur is 200 feet as defined in Table 6.8 within the FTA noise and vibration impact assessment methodology. The screening distances include a 5-decibel safety factor. The proposed project site is located outside the 200-foot screening distance; thus, no rail related vibration impacts would occur at the site. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning. The HVAC system proposed for use on the site has not been specified and noise levels vary depending on the size of the system. However, it is assumed that a total of 12 HVAC units, one for each unit, will be located on the roof of each unit. Reference noise levels for the project are based on noise measurements made at similar facilities. HVAC noise levels can be expected to range from 60 to 70 dBA at 5 feet from the equipment and ventilation openings. To conservatively evaluate HVAC noise levels, the Leq was predicted at the eastern property line based on the distance between the sources and the two east facing multifamily buildings on the east side of the site. It is assumed the six HVAC units would be an average of 30 feet west of the eastern property line. The sound level generated by the six HVAC units would be approximately 77.8 dBA 5 feet from the source. This would attenuate to 62.2 dBA at the eastern property line which is less than measured ambient conditions shown above in Table 2. Each HVAC unit would be installed within a noise shroud which typically provides 5-10 dBA of attenuation. Conservatively, HVAC noise levels at the eastern property line would be approximately 57.2 dBA which is less than the 60 dBA residential standard. A building parapet would provide an additional 5 dBA of attenuation for the first and second floor residential units. If constructed, the parapet would further reduce HVAC noise to 52.2 dBA. While noise levels were estimated east of the project site, based on the building configuration, noise levels to the south would be similar. Noise levels at properties to the west and north would be less because the attenuation distance across Jefferson Street (west) and Buena Vista Way (north) would be greater than to the east and south. May 21, 2025 Item #1 105 of 473 References City of Carlsbad. General Plan Update Noise Element. 2015. City of Carlsbad. Noise Guidelines Manual. September 1995. San Diego Association of Governments Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, April 2002 Federal Highway Administration. Roadway Construction Noise Model. 2006. Users Guide Table 1. Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Noise Model Version 2.5, 2004. Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Guidelines (Report Number 293630-1), December 1998. May 21, 2025 Item #1 106 of 473 Appendix A Monitoring Data Sheet May 21, 2025 Item #1 107 of 473 May 21, 2025 Item #1 108 of 473 Site 1 Start Date 6/4/2024 Start Time 9:27:31 AM End Time 9:42:30 AM Duration 00:14:59 Meas Mode Single Input Range Low Input Type Mic SPL Time Weight Fast LN% Freq Weight dBA Overload No UnderRange No Sensitivity 18.44mV/Pa LZeq 72.3 LCeq 71.1 LAeq 65.0 LZFmax 90.4 LCFmax 89.4 LAFmax 75.7 LZFmin 58.6 LCFmin 56.0 LAFmin 45.7 LZE 101.8 LCE 100.6 LAE 94.5 LZpk 99.4 LCpk 98.1 LApk 87.9 LAF1% 72.5 LAF2% 72.0 LAF5% 70.9 LAF8% 70.1 LAF10% 69.7 LAF25% 66.5 LAF50% 60.9 LAF90% 50.4 LAF95% 48.2 LAF99%46.8 May 21, 2025 Item #1 109 of 473 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS <Project Name?> <Organization?> 10 June 2024 <Analysis By?> TNM 2.5 Calculated with TNM 2.5 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT: <Project Name?> RUN: 2502 Jefferson Street Existing BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA. Receiver Name No.#DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus Goal dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB Receiver1 1 1 0.0 64.9 66 64.9 10 ----64.9 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver2 2 1 0.0 58.4 66 58.4 10 ----58.4 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver3 3 1 0.0 65.4 66 65.4 10 ----65.4 0.0 8 -8.0 Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction Min Avg Max dB dB dB All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\TNM25\Program\2502 Jefferson Street 1 10 June 2024 May 21, 2025 Item #1 110 of 473 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS <Project Name?> <Organization?> 11 June 2024 <Analysis By?> TNM 2.5 Calculated with TNM 2.5 RESULTS: SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT: <Project Name?> RUN: 2502 Jefferson Street Existing BARRIER DESIGN: INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use ATMOSPHERICS: 68 deg F, 50% RH of a different type with approval of FHWA. Receiver Name No.#DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeq1h LAeq1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit'n Calculated Crit'n Impact LAeq1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub'l Inc minus Goal dBA dBA dBA dB dB dBA dB dB dB Receiver1 1 1 0.0 65.0 66 65.0 10 ----65.0 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver2 2 1 0.0 58.5 66 58.5 10 ----58.5 0.0 8 -8.0 Receiver3 3 1 0.0 65.5 66 65.5 10 ----65.5 0.0 8 -8.0 Dwelling Units # DUs Noise Reduction Min Avg Max dB dB dB All Selected 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 All Impacted 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 All that meet NR Goal 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\TNM25\Program\2502 Jefferson Street W-Project 1 11 June 2024 May 21, 2025 Item #1 111 of 473 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES PROJECT AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY Prepared for: Rincon Homes 5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Prepared by: July 2024 Exhibit 9.3 May 21, 2025 Item #1 112 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad i JEFFERSON STREET HOMES PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY and GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY Table of Contents Page PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 SETTING ................................................................................................................................................. 4 Air Pollution Regulation .......................................................................................................... 4 California Air Resources Board .............................................................................................. 5 San Diego Air Polution Control District ................................................................................ 6 Air Quality Management Plans .............................................................................................. 6 SDAPCD Rules and Regulations ............................................................................................ 8 Regional Climate and Local Air Quality ............................................................................... 9 Pollutants ................................................................................................................................... 10 Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................................... 13 Monitored Air Quality ............................................................................................................. 13 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 14 Methodology and Significance Thresholds ........................................................................... 14 Construction Emissions ............................................................................................................ 18 Operational Impacts ................................................................................................................. 20 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 24 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 29 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Site Plan ..................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables Table 1 Current Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards .............................. 5 Table 2 San Diego County Attainment Status ................................................................. 11 Table 3 Ambient Air Quality Data .................................................................................... 14 Table 4 SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds ............................................... 16 Table 5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions With Dust Control Measures.................................................................................................................. 19 Table 6 Estimated Operational Emissions ........................................................................ 21 Table 7 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................ 25 Table 8 Estimated Annual Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................. 26 May 21, 2025 Item #1 113 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad ii Table 9 Estimated Annual Solid Waste and Water Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions . 27 Table 10 Estimated Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ............................ 27 Table 11 Combined Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................. 27 Appendices Appendix A CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Results – Summer/Annual Emissions May 21, 2025 Item #1 114 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 1 JEFERRSON STREET HOMES PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AIR QUALITY and GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY This report is an analysis of the potential air quality and greenhouse gas impacts associated  with the Jefferson Street Homes Project, a multifamily development proposed for construction  in the City of Carlsbad.  The report has been prepared by Birdseye Planning Group, LLC, under  contract to the applicant to support the environmental review process and address comments  provided by the City of Carlsbad after review of the initial project entitlement submittal. This  study analyzes the potential for temporary impacts associated with construction activity and  long‐term impacts associated with operation of the proposed project.  PROJECT DESCRIPTION   The project site located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street southwest of the intersection with  Buena Vista Way (APN 115‐251‐18‐00 and 115‐251‐19‐00). The site is approximately 0.54 acres  and would replace two existing single‐family residences.  The proposed project would be  comprised of four buildings (A‐D) with three units per building.  Each unit would have two  garage parking spaces and be wired for EV charging. The site would be accessed via Buena  Vista Way Place. The site is zoned Residential 3 (R‐3), Multifamily Residential. The site is  surrounded by existing single‐ and multi‐family residences. The project would be permitted  outright in the R‐3 zone. Construction would require the demolition and removal of two  existing residences. Construction is anticipated to begin in mid‐2025 and be completed in late  2025. The following scope of work is intended to demonstrate that the project meets the  conditions for a Class 32 categorical exemption for air quality.  While not required for a Class 32  exemption, for informational purposes, this report also analyzes the Projectʹs contribution to  GHG emissions. The site is shown in Figure 1.  The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2.     The following measures are intended to demonstrate compliance with statewide regulations;  and thus, have been incorporated into the the air emissions modeling      The project will provide recycling bins in the trash enclosure areas;   The project will install drought‐tolerant vegetation and water‐efficient irrigation  systems;   The project will install low‐water use appliances and fixtures;   The project will install Energy Star, or equivalent, dishwashers, clothes washers,  refrigerators, and fans;   The project will be compliant with San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)  Rule 67.0.1 (d) which requires the use of low Volitile Organic Compound (VOC) paint      May 21, 2025 Item #1 115 of 473 Figure 1 - Vicinity Map - Project Site May 21, 2025 Item #1 116 of 473 Figure 2 - Site Plan May 21, 2025 Item #1 117 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 4  (no greater than 50 grams/Liter) for use on buildng interior and exterior surface and 100  grams/Liter for traffic marking coatings; and   The project will install bicycle parking facilities.    Dust Control Methods  The project would implement various construction dust control strategies as design features to  be compliant with SDAPCD Rule 55. Compliance with these dust control measures are listed as  follows and would be identified on grading plan approvals:     During clearing, grading, earth‐moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill  materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving  the site and to create a crust after each day’s activities cease;     During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of  vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum,  this would include wetting down such areas later in the morning, after work is   completed for the day, and whenever winds exceed 15 mph during active operations.  Watering of active disturbance areas, including active grading areas and unpaved roads,  would occur approximately every 2 hours of active operations, approximately three  times per work day (at a minimum):     All grading and excavation operations shall be halted when wind speeds exceed 25  miles per hour;     Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent  roadways shall be swept, vacuumed, and/or washed at the end of each workday; and    All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material to and from the construction  site shall be covered and/or a minimum 2 feet of freeboard shall be maintained.   REGULATORY SETTING Air Pollution Regulation Air pollutants are regulated at the national, State, and air basin level; each agency has a  different degree of control. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)  regulates at the national level; the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) regulates at  the State level; and the SDAPCD regulates air quality in San Diego County.    The federal and state governments have been empowered by the federal and state Clean Air  Acts to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality  standards for the protection of public health. The USEPA is the federal agency designated to  administer national air quality regulations, while CARB is the state equivalent in the California   May 21, 2025 Item #1 118 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 5 Environmental Protection Agency. Local control over air quality management is provided by  CARB through multi‐county and county‐level Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) (also  referred to as Air Quality Management Districts). CARB establishes statewide air quality  standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs  are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. CARB has  established 15 air basins statewide. The City of Carlsbad is located in the San Diego Air Basin  (SDAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the SDAPCD.  California Air Resources Board   CARB, which became part of the California EPA (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for ensuring  implementation of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), meeting state requirements of the  federal Clean Air Act and establishing California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQSs). It  is also responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other  emission sources such as consumer products and certain off‐road equipment. CARB also  established passenger vehicle fuel specifications and oversees the functions of local air pollution  control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality  activities at the regional and county level. The CCAA is administered by CARB at the state level  and by the Air Quality Management Districts at the regional level. Both state and federal  standards are summarized in Table 1. The federal ʺprimaryʺ standards have been established to  protect the public health. The federal ʺsecondaryʺ standards are intended to protect the nationʹs  welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and  other aspects of the general welfare.  Table 1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standards Ozone (O3) 1 hour 0.09 ppm -- 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual Average 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 1 hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Average -- 0.03 ppm 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm 1 hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 mg/m3 150 mg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 mg/m3 -- Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 mg/m3 12 mg/m3 24 hours -- 35 mg/m3 Sulfates 24 hours 25 mg/m3 -- May 21, 2025 Item #1 119 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 6 Pollutant Average Time California Standards National Standards Lead 30-day Average 1.5 mg/m3 -- Calendar Quarter -- 1.5 mg/m3 3-month Rolling Average -- 0.15 mg/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm -- Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.010 ppm -- Notes: ppm = parts per million ppb – parts per billion mg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter Source: California Air Resources Board 2016 San Diego Air Pollution Control District   The SDAPCD was created to protect the public from the harmful effects of air pollution, achieve  and maintain air quality standards, foster community involvement and develop and implement  cost‐effective programs that meet state and federal mandates while considering environmental  and economic impacts.     Specifically, the SDAPCD is responsible for monitoring air quality and planning, implementing,  and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality  standards in the district. Programs developed include air quality rules and regulations that  regulate stationary source emissions, including area sources, point sources, and certain mobile  source emissions. The SDAPCD is also responsible for establishing permitting requirements for  stationary sources and ensuring that new, modified or relocated stationary sources do not  create net emissions increases; and thus, are consistent with the regionʹs air quality goals. The  SDAPCD provides significance thresholds in Regulation II, Rule 20.2, Table 20‐2‐1. “AQIA  Trigger Levels.” These trigger levels were established for stationary sources of air pollution and  are commonly used for environmental evaluations. The SDAPCD enforces air quality rules and  regulations through a variety of means, including inspections, educational or training  programs, or fines, when necessary.  The project site is within the SDAB; and thus, is subject to  SDAPCD rules and regulations.    State Implementation Plan/Air Quality Management Plan/Regional Air Quality Strategy    The federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandate that states submit and implement a  State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. SIPs are  comprehensive plans that describe how an area will attain national and state ambient air quality  standards. SIPs are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (i.e.,  monitoring, modeling and permitting programs), district rules, state regulations and federal  May 21, 2025 Item #1 120 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 7 controls and include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be  met through those measures.  State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and  other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB  forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register.   Thus, the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)  prepared by SDAPCD and referenced herein become part of the SIP as the material relates to  efforts ongoing in San Diego County to achieve the national and state ambient air quality  standards.  The most recent SIP element for San Diego County was submitted in December  2016.  The document identifies control measures and associated emission reductions necessary  to demonstrate attainment of the 2008 Federal 8‐hour ozone standard by July 20, 2018.  The San Diego RAQS was developed pursuant to California Clean Air Act (CCAA)  requirements. The RAQS was initially adopted in 1991 and was updated in 1995, 1998, 2001,  2004, 2009 and 2016.  The 2022 RAQS update is under development. Until it is adopted, the 2016  is applicable and can be found at the following:   https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/2016%20RAQS%20(1 ).pdf    The RAQS identifies feasible emission control measures to provide progress in San Diego  County toward attaining the State ozone standard. The pollutants addressed in the RAQS are  volatile organic compounds (VOC) (also referred to as Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)) and  oxides of nitrogen (NOx), precursors to the photochemical formation of ozone (the primary  component of smog). The RAQS was initially adopted by the SDAPCD on June 30, 1992, and  amended on March 2, 1993, in response to ARB comments. At present, no attainment plan for  particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) or particulate matter less than 2.5  microns in diameter (PM2.5) is required by the state regulations; however, SDAPCD has adopted  measures to reduce particulate matter in the SDAB. These measures range from regulation  against open burning to incentive programs that introduce cleaner technology. These measures  can be found in a report titled “Measures to Reduce Particulate Matter in San Diego County,  December 2005: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/PM‐ Measures.pdf    The RAQS relies on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area source  emissions, as well as information regarding projected growth in the County, to estimate future  emissions and then determine strategies necessary for the reduction of emissions through  regulatory controls. CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth  projections are based on population and vehicle trends as well as land use plans developed by  the cities and the County as part of the development of the individual General Plans. As such,  projects that propose development consistent with the growth anticipated by the general plans  would be consistent with the RAQS. In the event that a project would propose development  which is less dense than anticipated within the General Plan, the project would likewise be  consistent with the RAQS. If a project proposes development that is greater than that  May 21, 2025 Item #1 121 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 8 anticipated in the General Plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project might conflict  with the RAQS and SIP; and thus, have a potentially significant impact on air quality.    Under state law, the SDAPCD is required to prepare an AQMP for pollutants for which the  SDAB is designated non‐attainment. Each iteration of the SDAPCD’s AQMP is an update of the  previous plan and has a 20‐year horizon. Currently the SDAPCD has implemented the 2020  Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in San Diego County  (October 2020) and a 2004 Carbon Monoxide Plan.  The 2020 ozone plan was submitted to   CARB on October 20, 2020. It was adopted and submitted to the USEPA for review on  December 28, 2020.  Comments from the USEPA are pending. This plans is available for  download on the ARB website located at the following URL:   https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdapcd/documents/grants/planning/Att%20A%20(Attain ment%20Plan)_ws.pdf    SDAPCD Rules and Regulations    As stated above, SDAPCD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and  state ambient standards in the SDAB. The following rules and regulations apply to all sources in  the jurisdiction of SDAPCD, and would apply to the project.    SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 50: Visible Emissions. Prohibits discharge into  the atmosphere from any single source of emissions whatsoever any air contaminant for a  period or periods aggregating more than 3 minutes in any period of 60 consecutive minutes that  is darker in shade than that designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by  the United States Bureau of Mines, or of such opacity as to obscure an observer’s view to a  degree greater than does smoke of a shade designated as Number 1 on the Ringelmann Chart  (SDAPCD 1997).    SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 51: Nuisance. Prohibits the discharge, from any  source, of such quantities of air contaminants or other materials that cause or have a tendency to  cause injury, detriment, nuisance, annoyance to people and/or the public, or damage to any  business or property (SDAPCD 1976).    SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 55: Fugitive Dust. Regulates fugitive dust  emissions from any commercial construction or demolition activity capable of generating  fugitive dust emissions, including active operations, open storage piles, and inactive disturbed  areas, as well as track‐out and carry‐out onto paved roads beyond a project site (SDAPCD  2009b).    SDAPCD Regulation IV: Prohibitions; Rule 67.0.1: Architectural Coatings. Requires  manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings  to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC  content of various coating categories (SDAPCD 2015).    May 21, 2025 Item #1 122 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 9 SDAPCD Regulation XII: Toxic Air Contaminates; Rule 1200: Toxic Air Contaminants – New  Source Review. Requires new or modified stationary source units with the potential to emit  Toxic Air Contaminatnts (TACs) above rule threshold levels to either demonstrate that they will  not increase the maximum incremental cancer risk above 1 in 1 million at every receptor  location, or demonstrate that toxics best available control technology (T‐BACT) will be  employed if maximum incremental cancer risk is equal to or less than 10 in 1 million, or  demonstrate compliance with SDAPCD’s protocol for those sources with an increase in  maximum incremental cancer risk at any receptor location of greater than 10 in 1 million but  less than 100 in 1 million (SDAPCD 2017b).    SDAPCD Regulation XII: Toxic Air Contaminates; Rule 1210: Toxic Air Contaminant Public  Health Risks – Public Notification and Risk Reduction. Requires each stationary source that is  required to prepare a public risk assessment to provide written public notice of risks at or above  the following levels: maximum incremental cancer risks equal to or greater than 10 in 1 million,  or cancer burden equal to or greater than 1.0, or total acute noncancer health hazard index equal  to or greater than 1.0, or total chronic non‐cancer health hazard index equal to or greater than  1.0 (SDAPCD 2017c).    Regional Climate and Local Air Quality   The weather of San Diego County is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi‐permanent  high‐pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters.  The average minimum temperature for January ranges from the mid‐40s to the high‐50s degrees  Fahrenheit (4 to 15 degrees Celsius) across the county. July maximum temperatures average in  the mid‐80s to the high‐90s degrees Fahrenheit (high‐20s to the high‐30s degrees Celsius). Most  of the county’s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately 10  percent) precipitation during the summer. The average seasonal precipitation along the coast is  approximately 10 inches (254 millimeters); the amount increases with elevations as moist air is  lifted over the mountains.    The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High‐Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for  much of the year and drives the prevailing winds. Local terrain is often the dominant factor  inland and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow upwards in the valleys during the  day and down the hills and valleys at night.    In conjunction with the onshore/offshore wind patterns, there are two types of temperature  inversions (reversals of the normal decrease of temperature with height), which occur within  the region that affect atmospheric dispersive capability and that act to degrade local air quality.  In the summer, an inversion at about 1,100 to 2,500 feet (335 to 765 meters) is formed over the  entire coastal plain when the warm air mass over land is undercut by a shallow layer of cool  marine air flowing onshore. The prevailing sunny days in this region further exacerbate the  smog problem by inducing additional adverse photochemical reactions. During the winter, a  nightly shallow inversion layer (usually at about 800 feet or 243 meters) forms between the  May 21, 2025 Item #1 123 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 10 cooled air at the ground and the warmer air above, which can trap vehicular pollutants. The  days of highest Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentrations occur during the winter months.  The predominant onshore/offshore wind pattern is sometimes interrupted by so‐called Santa  Ana conditions, when high pressure over the Nevada‐Utah region overcomes the prevailing  westerly wind direction. This draws strong, steady, hot, and dry winds from the east over the  mountains and out to sea. Strong Santa Ana winds tend to blow pollutants out over the ocean,  producing clear days. However, at the onset or breakdown of these conditions or if the Santa  Ana is weak, prevailing northwesterly winds are reestablished which send polluted air from the  Los Angeles basin ashore in the SDAB. “Smog transport from the South Coast Air Basin (the  metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties) is a key  factor on more than half the days San Diego exceeds clean air standards” (San Diego Air  Pollution Control District, 2010).  Pollutants  The SDAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that air quality standards are  met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether  the standards are met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or  “non‐attainment.” San Diego County is listed as a federal non‐attainment area for ozone (eight  hour) and a state non‐attainment area for ozone (one hour and eight‐hour standards), PM10 and  PM2.5. As shown in Table 2, the SDAB is in attainment for the state and federal standards for  nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and lead. Characteristics of ozone, carbon  monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulates are described below.    Ozone. Ozone is produced by a photochemical reaction (triggered by sunlight) between  nitrogen oxides (NOX) ROG1. Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion of fuels, while  reactive organic compounds are formed during combustion and evaporation of organic  solvents. Because ozone requires sunlight to form, it mostly occurs in concentrations considered  serious between the months of April and October. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas with  direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in  lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, people with  respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors.    Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a local pollutant that is found in high  concentrations only near the source. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless,  poisonous gas, is automobile exhaust. Elevated CO concentrations; therefore, are usually only  found near areas of high traffic volumes operating in congested conditions. Carbon monoxide  health effects are related to blood hemoglobin. At high concentrations, carbon monoxide  1 Organic compound precursors of ozone are routinely described by a number of variations of three terms: hydrocarbons (HC), organic gases (OG), and organic compounds (OC). These terms are often modified by adjectives such as total, reactive, or volatile, and result in a rather confusing array of acronyms: HC, THC (total hydrocarbons), RHC (reactive hydrocarbons), TOG (total organic gases), ROG (reactive organic gases), TOC (total organic compounds), ROC (reactive organic compounds), and VOC (volatile organic compounds). While most of these differ in some significant way from a chemical perspective, from an air quality perspective two groups are important: non-photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere, or photochemically reactive in the lower atmosphere (HC, RHC, ROG, ROC, and VOC). May 21, 2025 Item #1 124 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 11 reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulties in people with chronic  diseases, reduced lung capacity and impaired mental abilities.    Nitrogen Dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a by‐product of fuel combustion, with the primary  source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen  oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating  the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOX. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant. A  relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist and an increase in  bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur.  Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish‐brown cast to the atmosphere and  reduced visibility. It can also contribute to the formation of PM10 and acid rain.    Table 2 San Diego County Attainment Status Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (one hour) Attainment* Non-Attainment Ozone (eight hour) Moderate Non-Attainment Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment Attainment PM10 Unclassifiable** Non-Attainment PM2.5 Attainment Non-Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified Visibility No Federal Standard Unclassified * The federal 1-hour standard of 12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 1, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was used for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). ** At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or non-attainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable. Source: San Diego Air Pollution Control District. June 2016. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/apcd/en/air-quality- planning/attainment-status.html Suspended Particulates. PM10 is particulate matter measuring no more than 10 microns in  diameter, while PM2.5 is fine particulate matter measuring no more than 2.5 microns in  diameter. Suspended particulates are mostly dust particles, nitrates and sulfates. Both PM10 and  PM2.5 are by‐products of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads and are  directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Suspended particulates are also  created in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. The characteristics, sources, and  potential health effects associated with the small particulates (those between 2.5 and 10 microns  in diameter) and fine particulates (PM2.5) can be very different. The small particulates generally  come from windblown dust and dust kicked up from mobile sources. The fine particulates are  generally associated with combustion processes as well as being formed in the atmosphere as a  secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. Fine particulate matter is more likely to  penetrate deeply into the lungs and poses a health threat to all groups, but particularly to the  May 21, 2025 Item #1 125 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 12 elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the small and fine  particulate matter that is inhaled into the lungs remains there. These materials can damage  health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting  as carriers of an absorbed toxic substance.    Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded  gasoline; the manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary  lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead.  Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of  airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters,  battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead‐emissions sources of  greater concern. Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human  health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances,  anemia, kidney disease, and, in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of  particular concern are low‐level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures  are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient  performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly  susceptible to the effects of lead.    Sulfates. Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination  with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere.  Sulfates can result in respiratory impairment, as well as reduced visibility.    Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor, which has been  detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial  breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short‐term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in air  can cause nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long‐term  exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.    Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic  odor of rotten eggs. Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum  refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in  nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations.    Visibility‐Reducing Particles. Visibility‐reducing particles are any particles in the air that  obstruct the range of visibility. Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the viewshed  of natural scenery, reducing airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility‐ reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5 described above.    Toxic Air Contaminants/Diesel Particulate Matter.  Hazardous air pollutants, also known as  TACs or air toxics, are those pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other  serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental  effects. Examples of toxic air pollutants include:  May 21, 2025 Item #1 126 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 13 1. benzene, which is found in gasoline;  2. perchloroethylene, which is emitted from some dry‐cleaning facilities; and  3. methylene chloride, which is used as a solvent.  Transportation related emissions are focused on particulate matter constituents within diesel  exhaust and TAC constituents that comprise a portion of total organic gas (TOG) emissions  from both diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles. Diesel engine emissions are comprised of exhaust  particulate matter and TOGs which are collectively defined as Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM).   DPM and TOG emissions from both diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles is typically composed of  carbon particles and carcinogenic substances including polycyclic aromatic (i.e., odorous)  hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3‐butadiene. Diesel  exhaust also contains gaseous pollutants, including volatile organic compounds and NOx.      Sensitive Receptors  Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors include residential, school, childcare centers,  acute care hospitals, and long‐term health care facilities. Sensitive receptors are determined  based upon special factors which may include the age of the users or occupants, the frequency  and duration of the use or occupancy, continued exposure to hazardous substances as defined  by federal and state regulations, and the user’s ability to evacuate a specific site in the event of a  hazardous incident. Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels  of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health  and welfare. They are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to  respiratory distress, such as children; the elderly; persons engaged in strenuous work or  exercise and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Recreational uses can  be considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Exercise can place a high demand on  respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution even though exposure periods  during exercise are generally short. Residential uses are considered most sensitive to air  pollution while  Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air  pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority of the workers  tend to stay indoors most of the time. The Project is surrounded by single‐ and multi‐family  apartments/condoimiums. The Laguna de Los Paitos Apartments are located across the street  and west of the site at 2535‐2525 Jefferson Street.   Monitored Air Quality  The SDAPCD monitors air quality conditions at locations throughout the SDAB. For this  analysis, data from the Camp Pendleton monitoring station north of the site were used to  characterize existing ozone and PM2.5 conditions in the vicinity of the project site. A summary of  PM10 data recorded at the 533 First Street El Cajon monitoring station is presented in Table 3.          May 21, 2025 Item #1 127 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 14 Table 3  Measured Air Quality Data    Averaging Time Unit Agency/ Method Ambient Air Quality Standard Measured Concentration by Year Exceedances by Year 2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022 Ozone (O3) – Camp Pendleton Maximum 1-hour concentration ppm State 0.09 0.094 0.074 0.076 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration ppm State 0.070 0.074 0.059 0.067 3 0 0 Federal 0.070 0.074 0.059 0.067 3 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) – Camp Pendleton Maximum 1-hour concentration ppm State 0.18 53 59 50 0 0 0 Federal 0.100 53 59 50 0 0 0 Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)a – El Cajon – Lexington Elementary School, 533 First Street Maximum 24-hour concentration µg/m3 State 50 -- -- - - - Federal 150 _ -- - - - Annual concentration µg/m3 State 20 -- -- -- -- -- -- Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)a – El Cajon – Lexington Elementary School, 533 First Street Maximum 24-hour concentration µg/m3 Federal 35 38.2 30.2 26.4 2 0 0 Annual concentration µg/m3 State 12.0 11.6 10.4 - 0 0 - Federal 12.0 10.3 9.7 9.4 0 0 0 1 – Federal O3 standard reduced from 75 ppm to 70 ppm in October 2015 *Insufficient data to determine number of exceedances Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide data from the Camp Pendleton Monitoring Station. PM10 and PM2.5 data from 533 First Street in El Cajon. Source: California Air Resources Board, 2020, 2021 and 2022 Air Quality Data Summaries available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php Accessed May 1, 2024.    AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS Methodology and Significance Thresholds Air quality modeling was performed in general accordance with the methodologies outlined in  the SDAPCD 2016 RAQS to identify both construction and operational emissions associated  with each phase and the cumulative total of all project phases at build out. All emissions were  calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) software version 2022.1  May 21, 2025 Item #1 128 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 15 which incorporates current air emission data, planning methods and protocol approved by  CARB.     Construction activities would include removal of the existing residences and out buildings, site  clearing and grading to install the buildng foundation and utility connections; construction of  the new buildings and related improvements as well as painting the interior and exterior  building surfaces and minor pavement work for the entrance/exit. Construction activities would  require the use of equipment that would generate criteria air pollutant emissions. For modeling  purposes, it was assumed that all construction equipment used would be diesel‐powered.  Construction emissions associated with development of the proposed project were quantified  by estimating the types of equipment, including the number of individual pieces of equipment,  that would be used on‐site during each of the construction phases as well as off‐site haul trips to  remove demolition debris. Construction emissions are analyzed using the regional thresholds  established by the SDAPCD and published under Rule 20‐2. No soil import/export would be  required.      Operational emissions include mobile source emissions, energy emissions, and area source  emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by motor vehicle trips associated with  operation of the project. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas  consumption for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape  maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings (i.e., paints). To  determine whether a regional air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions are  compared with the SDAPCD recommended regional thresholds for operational emissions.    Regional Thresholds. Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (2022), a project would have  a significant air quality impact if it would:    a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;  b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the  project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard;  c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;  d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial  number of people.    Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) indicates that, where available, the  significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or pollution  control district may be relied upon to determine whether the project would have a significant  impact on air quality. As part of its air quality permitting process, SDAPCD has established  thresholds in Rule 20.2 requiring the preparation of Air Quality Impact Assessments for  permitted stationary sources. SDAPCD establishes quantitative emission thresholds for  stationary sources.  Although these trigger levels do not generally apply to mobile sources or  general land development projects, for comparative purposes these levels may be used to  May 21, 2025 Item #1 129 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 16 evaluate the increased emissions that would be emitted into the SDAB from proposed land  development projects. Project‐related air quality impacts estimated in this environmental  analysis would be considered significant if any of the applicable significance thresholds  presented below in Table 4 are exceeded.     The thresholds listed in Table 4 are screening‐level thresholds used to evaluate whether  proposed‐project‐related emissions could cause a significant impact to air quality. Emissions  below the screening‐level thresholds would not cause a significant impact. The emissions‐based  thresholds for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) are intended to serve as the threshold for  ozone. This approach is used because ozone is not emitted directly; thus, ozone concentrations    Table 4  SDAPCD Air Emission Significance Thresholds  Construction Emissions Pollutant Total Emissions (pounds per day) Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) 75 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 250 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 250 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 100 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 55 Operational Emissions Total Emissions Pounds per Hour Pounds per Day Tons per Year Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) -- 75 13.7 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 25 250 40 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 550 100 Sulfur Oxides (SOx) 25 250 40 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) -- 100 15 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) -- 55 10 Lead and Lead Compounds -- 3.2 0.6   associated with individual projects precursor (ROG and NOx) emissions cannot be determined  through air quality models or other quantitative methods. For nonattainment pollutants, if  emissions exceed the thresholds shown in Table 4, the project has the potential to result in a  cumulatively considerable net increase in these pollutants; and thus, could have a significant  impact on the ambient air quality.    With respect to odors, SDAPCD Rule 51 (Public Nuisance) prohibits emission of any material  that causes nuisance to a considerable number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or  safety of any person. A project that involves a use that would produce objectionable odors  would be deemed to have a significant odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of  off‐site receptors.          May 21, 2025 Item #1 130 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 17 a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air  quality plan?    As stated, under state law, the SDAPCD is required to prepare an AQMP for pollutants for  which the SDAB is designated non‐attainment. Each iteration of the SDAPCD’s AQMP is an  update of the previous plan and has a 20‐year horizon. A project may be deemed inconsistent  with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding  forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. Currently the SDAPCD has implemented the  2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone in San Diego County  (October 2020) and a 2004 Carbon Monoxide Plan. The AQMP incorporates local city General  Plans and the San Diego Association of Governments socioeconomic forecast projections of  regional population, housing and employment growth.    The proposed project involves the construction of 12 new two‐story multifamily townhome  units. The site is approximately 0.54 acres in size with General Plan designation of R‐15 and a  zoning designation of R‐3. The intent of the R‐3 zoning designation is to accommodate high  density residential at a density not to exceed that allowed by the General Plan (i.e., 15 units per  acre).     According to the 2021‐2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) 6th cycle, the City of  Carlsbad will need to accommodate a total of 3,873 units at varying income levels (City of  Carlsbad, April 2022). Of the total, 1,778 units are allocated to the moderate and above  moderate‐income categories. The project would provide 12 units or just over one percent of  Carlsbad’s housing allocation within the 2021‐2029 RHNA.    The San Diego APCD and San Diego Association of Governments are responsible for  developing and implementing the clean air plans for attainment and maintenance of the  ambient air quality standards in the basin, specifically, the SIP and RAQS. The federal O3  maintenance plan, which is part of the SIP, was adopted in 2012. The most recent O3 attainment  plan was adopted in 2020. The SIP includes a demonstration that current strategies and tactics  will maintain acceptable air quality in the basin based on the NAAQS. The RAQS was initially  adopted in 1991 and is updated on a triennial basis (most recently in 2016). The RAQS outlines  SDAPCD’s plans and control measures designed to attain the state air quality standards for O3.  The SIP and RAQS rely on information from CARB and SANDAG, including mobile and area  source emissions as well as information regarding projected growth in the County and the cities  in the County, to project future emissions and determine the strategies necessary for the  reduction of emissions through regulatory controls.     CARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on  population, vehicle trends and land use plans developed by the County and the cities in the  County as part of the General Plan development process. If a project proposes development that  is greater than that anticipated in the local plan and SANDAG’s growth projections, the project  might be in conflict with the SIP and RAQS and may contribute to a potentially significant  cumulative impact on air quality.   May 21, 2025 Item #1 131 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 18 As stated, the R‐3 zoning designation is intended to support multifamily uses. Thus, the project  is consistent with City’s General Plan the land use designation/zoning; and therefore, has been  factored into SANDAG’s growth projections. Furthermore, the estimated increase in  population, employment and housing generated by the project was compared to SANDAG’s  Regional Plan population, employee population, and housing estimates including the years  2025 and 2035. The number of housing units in the City was projected to be 49,299 in 2025 and  51,552 in 2035, or an increase in 2,253 housing units over the 10‐year period. Furthermore, the  City’s population was projected to be 118,068 residents in 2025 and 118,719 residents in 2035, or  increase of 651 residents over the period as shown in the SANDAG Series 14 Regional Forecast  and Baseline Subregional Allocation. The average household size is 2.82 people per dwelling unit.  The project would construct 12 dwelling units, which would have the potential to house  approximately 33 residents. Both the units and population are within the growth projections.    The employee population in the City was projected to be 88,373 in 2025 and 98,168 in 2035, or  increase of 9,795 employees over the period. Because the project is consistent with the General  Plan; and thus, SANDAG’s growth projections, project emissions would not conflict with the  SIP and RAQS. The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.  Impacts would be less than significant.     b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria  pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal  or state ambient air quality standard?    Construction Emissions    Project construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions. These impacts are  associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction  vehicles, work crew vehicle trips in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying  phase upon application of paint and other architectural coatings. Construction would generally  consist of demolition (i.e., removal of the temporary buildings), site preparation  (clearing/grubbing), excavation/grading, construction of the proposed buildings, architectural  coating (i.e., paint) application and paving.     Emissions from the construction phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod 2022.1.  Construction scenario assumptions, including phasing, equipment mix, and vehicle trips, were  based on information provided by the project applicant and CalEEMod default values when  project specifics were not known.    For purposes of estimating project emissions, it is assumed that construction of the project  would occur five days per week and commence in April 2025 and would be complete in late  2025. The schedule is an estimate calculated by CalEEMod 2022.1. The duration of phases are  approximated:    May 21, 2025 Item #1 132 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 19 • Demolition: 2 weeks  • Site Prepartion: 1 week   Grading: 1 week  • Building Construction: 20 weeks   • Paving: 1 weeks   • Architectural Coating: 1 weeks    Construction‐worker and vendor trips estimates by construction phase were based on  CalEEMod default data. Mass grading would include the entire project site. Approximately 5  total trips would be required to remove demolition material. No fill import is anticipated  during the site preparation or grading phases. CalEEMod default trip length values were used  for the distances for all construction‐related trips. Defaults for the construction equipment mix  and vehicle trips used for estimating the project‐generated construction emissions were used  and are provided in Appendix A.    As discussed, the project would implement dust control strategies as a project design feature.  To reflect implementation of proposed dust control strategies, the following was used in  CalEEMod:     Water exposed area two times per day (55% reduction in PM10 and PM2.5); and   Limit equipoment idling to 5 minutes.     Daily construction emissions are shown in Table 5.     Table 5 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions with Dust Control Measures Construction Phase Maximum Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5 2025 Maximum lbs/day 16.6 10.1 10.4 0.02 2.3 1.4 SDAPCD Regional Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55 Threshold Exceeded 2022 No No No No No No As shown in Table 5, construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SDAPCD daily  thresholds. With SDAPCD Rule 55 compliance, federal, state and local construction emission  thresholds would be met. Construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively  considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐ attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.  Impacts will be  less than significant.       May 21, 2025 Item #1 133 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 20 Operational Impacts    Emissions from the operational phase of the project were estimated using CalEEMod version  2022.1. Operational year 2025 was assumed consistent with completion of project construction.    Area Sources. CalEEMod was used to estimate operational emissions from area sources,  including emissions from consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape  maintenance equipment. Emissions associated with space heating and water heating are  calculated in the building energy use module of CalEEMod.     Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional  consumers, including detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics;  personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol  paints; and automotive specialty products. Other paint products, furniture coatings, or  architectural coatings are not considered consumer products. Consumer product VOC  emissions are estimated in CalEEMod based on the floor area of buildings and on the default  factor of pounds of VOC per building square foot per day. The CalEEMod default values for  consumer products were used.    VOC off‐gassing emissions result from evaporation of solvents contained in surface coatings  such as paints and primers used during building maintenance. CalEEMod calculates the VOC  evaporative emissions from application of surface coatings based on the VOC emission factor,  the building square footage, the assumed fraction of surface area, and the reapplication rate.  VOC emissions were estimated based on compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 which limits the  VOC concentrations of various coatings sold and used in San Diego County. Rule 67.0.1, Table  1, lists numeous types of coatings and the allowable VOC concentrations in grams/litre  (g/L).The three general coating categories are 50 grams per liter (g/L) VOC for flat coatings, 100  g/L VOC for non‐flat coatings and 150 g/L VOC for non‐flat high gloss coatings. Consistent with  typical construction practices, it is anticipated that interior and exterior paint would not exceed  non‐flat coating limits, exterior paint would not exceed non‐flat coating limits and a small  portion of exterior paint and finishes (trim and other minor finishes) would not exceed non‐flat  high‐gloss coatings limits. The interior and exterior coatings were estimated to have 50 g/L VOC  while the traffic marking coatings were estimated to be limited to 100 g/L VOC. The default  values in CalEEMod 2022.1 rely on compliance with SDAPCD Rule 67.0.1 referenced above.     Energy Sources. Energy sources include emissions associated with building electricity and  natural gas use. Electricity use would contribute indirectly to criteria air pollutant emissions;  however, the emissions from electricity use are only quantified for GHGs in CalEEMod, since  criteria pollutant emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is typically off site. The  Project will install Energy Star, or equivalent, dishwashers, clothes washers, refrigerators, and  fans; bicycle parking facilities and electric vehicle charging station.     Mobile Sources. CalEEMod default data, including trip characteristics, trip lengths, variable  start information and emissions factors were used for the model inputs. Project‐related traffic  May 21, 2025 Item #1 134 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 21 includes the mixture of vehicles consistent with CalEEMod default vehicle fleet assumptions.  Emission factors for 2026 (the first full year of project operation) were used to estimate  emissions associated with full buildout of the project. Trip data used are 7.3 daily trips per unit.  Based on proximity to transit, these data likely provide a conservative estimate of daily trips.     Table 6 summarizes area, energy and mobile source emissions associated with operation  of the proposed project. As shown in Table 6, daily emissions would not exceed the  SDAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 or PM2.5. Therefore, the project’s air  quality emissions(including impacts related to criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors and  violations of air quality standards) would not result in a cumulatively considerable net  increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under  an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.  Impacts will be less than  significant.    c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?    Construction‐Related Toxic Air Contaminant Impacts    Certain construction projects can create the potential for toxic air contaminant emissions related  to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during  construction. According to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)  methodology, health effects from carcinogenic air toxics are usually described in terms of  “individual cancer risk”.  A cancer risk greater than 10 cases per 1,000,000 people exposed  Table 6 Estimated Operational Emissions Estimated Emissions (lbs/day) ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Maximum lbs/day - 2026 0.75 0.33 3.6 0.007 0.62 0.16 SDAPCD Thresholds 75 250 550 250 100 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Maximum lbs/hour -- 0.013 0.15 0.0002 -- -- SDACPD Thresholds -- -- -- Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Maximum tons/year 0.13 0.06 0.66 0.001 0.11 0.03 SDAPCD Thresholds 13.7 40 100 40 15 10 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No See Appendix for CalEEMod version. 2022.1 computer model output - summer emissions shown May 21, 2025 Item #1 135 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 22 would be considered a significant impact. The California Office of Environmental Health  Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) health risk guidance states that a residential receptor should be   evaluated based on a 30‐year exposure period. “Individual Cancer Risk” is the likelihood that a  person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants over a 70‐year lifetime will contract  cancer, based on the use of standard risk‐assessment methodology. The estimated construction  schedule duration would be approximately 6‐7 months; however, only a portion of the overall  construction work would require the use of diesel‐powered equipment.  The proposed project  would not result in a long‐term (i.e., 30 or 70 year) exposure to a substantial source of toxic air  contaminant emissions; and thus, neighboring residents would not be exposed to the related  individual cancer risk. Further, existing and planned land use within the project area is focused  on residential and supporting commercial uses.  Thus, existing and future residents would not  be exposed to neighboring development that generates TACs.  Therefore, the project would not  expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs. Impacts would be less than  signficant.    Carbon Monoxide Hotspots    As discussed, carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas that may be found in  high concentrations near areas of high traffic volumes. CO emissions are a function of vehicle  idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow. The SDAB is in attainment of state and  federal CO standards; thus, CO data is no longer collected and not all monitoring stations have   CO data available.  The East Valley monitoring station in Escondido is the closest monitoring  station to the site that collected CO data.  The maximum 8‐hour average CO level recorded in  2015, was 2.0 parts per million (ppm). Concentrations at that time were below the 9‐ppm state  and federal 8‐hour standard.    Numerous factors are related to the formation of CO hotspots. The potential for CO hotspots in  the SDAB is steadily decreasing because of the continued improvement in vehicular emissions  at a rate faster than the rate of vehicle growth and/or congestion and the already very low  ambient CO concentrations. Furthermore, CO transport is extremely limited and disperses  rapidly with distance from the source. Under certain extreme meteorological conditions,  however, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthy  levels.    Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating  under congested conditions. Projects contributing to adverse traffic conditions may contribute  to the formation of CO hotspots. Because the City of Carlsbad does not have CO hotspot  guidance, the guidance recommended by the County of San Diego was applied to evaluate the  potential for CO hotspots to occur as a result of the project. As indicated in the County of San  Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements  Air Quality (County of San Diego 2007), a site‐specific CO hotspot analysis should be  performed if a proposed development would cause road intersections to operate at or below a  LOS E with intersection peak‐hour trips exceeding 3,000.   May 21, 2025 Item #1 136 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 23 The proposed project screened out of preparation of a traffic study per the Vehicle Miles  Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines (May 2023); thus, it is not expected to advsersly impact  traffic volumes or traffic operation proximal to the site or otherwise result in CO hot spots that  could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less  than significant.     Indoor Air Quality    CARB has stated that the control measures it has approved for reducing indoor emissions  associated with the use of composite wood products, including formaldehyde, provides a level  of control that protects health and safety. The first emission standards (Phase 1) went into effect  in 2009 and more stringent Phase 2 standards are now in effect for all composite wood panels  and finished goods sold in California. CARB regulations include provisions for no‐added  formaldehyde and ultra‐low emitting formaldehyde‐based resins, to encourage the use of these  lower‐emitting resins in composite wood products. Further, the project would be constructed  using the most current  ventilation requirements found in the Title 24 standards, including the  requirement that new developments use MERV 13 or higher air filters and include mandatory  compliance with the stringent CARB Phase 2 emission standards. Thus, the use of composite  wood project will have no adverse impact on indoor air quality.      d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely  affecting a substantial number of people?  The State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 26, Part 4, Chapter 3, Section 41700,  SDAPCD Rule 51, and City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 6.16.010, commonly referred to  as public nuisance law, prohibits emissions from any source whatsoever in such quantities of air  contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the  public health or damage to property. Projects required to obtain permits from SDAPCD are  evaluated by SDAPCD staff for potential odor nuisance, and conditions may be applied (or  control equipment required) where necessary to prevent occurrence of public nuisance.  SDAPCD Rule 51 also prohibits emission of any material that causes nuisance to a considerable  number of persons or endangers the comfort, health, or safety of any person. A project that  involves a use that would produce objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant  odor impact if it would affect a considerable number of off‐site receptors. Odor issues are  subjective by the nature of odors themselves and due to the fact that their measurements are  difficult to quantify. As a result, this guideline is qualitative and will focus on the existing and  potential surrounding uses and location of sensitive receptors.    The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on numerous factors. The  nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity  of receiving location each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors  seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and  generate citizen complaints. Odors would be potentially generated from vehicles and  equipment exhaust emissions during construction of the project. Potential odors produced  May 21, 2025 Item #1 137 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 24 during construction would be attributable to exhaust emissions, architectural coatings, and  asphalt pavement application. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the project site and  generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people. Therefore,  project construction activities would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to  odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than  significant.    Land uses that typically are associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses,  wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, industrial activities,  composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The project would  construct and operate 12 multifamily residential units and related infrastructure improvements.  The project would not include land uses that typically result in emissions (such as those leading  to odors) that adversely affect a substantial number of people; thus, impacts would be less than  significant.  GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSESSMENT The purpose of  this report is to demonstrate that the Project meets the conditions for a Class 32  categorical exemption for air quality.  The following analysis provides GHG emissions from  construction and operational activities for informational purposes only.  Methodology     GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and existing  development have been estimated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)  version 2022.1.     Construction Emissions     Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily  associated with the operation of construction equipment, worker trips and truck trips required  for hauling excavation spoils, materials and equipment. Site preparation and grading typically  generate the greatest emission quantities because the use of heavy equipment is greatest during  this phase of construction. Emissions associated with the construction period were estimated  based on the projected maximum amount of equipment that would be used on‐site at one time.  Air districts such as the SDAPCD have recommended amortizing construction‐related  emissions over a 30‐year period to calculate annual emissions. Complete CalEEMod results and  assumptions can be viewed in the Appendix.     Operational Emissions    Default values used in CalEEMod version 2022.1 are based on the CEC sponsored California  Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) studies.  CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O and CH4. This methodology has been  May 21, 2025 Item #1 138 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 25 subjected to peer review by numerous public and private stakeholders, and in particular by the  CEC; and therefore, is considered reasonable and reliable for use in GHG impact analysis pursuant  to CEQA. It is also recommended by CAPCOA (January 2008).     Emissions associated with area sources (i.e., consumer products, landscape maintenance, and  architectural coating) were calculated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from CARB,  USEPA, and district supplied emission factor values (CalEEMod User Guide, 2022).  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, April 2022). 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. Emissions from mobile  sources were quantified based on trip generation rates in the Local Transportation Analysis (March  2022).    Construction Emissions. Construction activity analysis is based on the anticipated construction  period beginning in mid 2025 and ending late 2025. Based on CalEEMod results, construction  activity for the project would generate an estimated 75 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent  (CO2E) in 2025 as shown in Table 7. Amortized over a 30‐year period (the assumed life of the  project), construction of the proposed project would generate 3 metric tons of CO2E per year.     Table 7 Estimated Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Year Annual Emissions (metric tons CO2E) 2025 75 Total 75 Amortized over 30 years 3 See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output Operational Indirect and Stationary Direct Emissions. Operational emissions relate to energy use,  solid waste, water use, and transportation.  Each source is discussed below and includes the  emissions associated with existing development and the anticipated emissions that would result  from the proposed project.    Energy Use. CalEEMod default values for electricity use and natural gas consumption for each  land use type  were applied for the proposed land use designation. The energy use from  May 21, 2025 Item #1 139 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 26 residential and commercial land uses is calculated in CalEEMod based on the Commercial End‐ Use Survey. Energy use in buildings (both natural gas and electricity) is divided by CalEEMod  into end‐use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (end uses associated with the building  envelope, such as the HVAC system, water heating system, and integrated lighting) and those  not subject to Title 24 requirements (such as appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous“plug‐in”  uses).    Operational GHG emissions from energy sources include natural gas combustion for appliances  and space and water heating. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards, referred to as the 2022 Title  24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, became effective on January 1, 2023. The current  version of CalEEMod calculates electricity and natural gas emissions based on consumption  estimates and Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CalEEMod Users Guide,  2022). CalEEMod default energy intensity factors (CO2, CH4, and N2O mass emissions per  kilowatt hour) for SDG&E were based on the value for SDG&E’s energy mix in 2021. As shown  in Table 8, the overall emissions associated with electrical energy use at the project site would  be approximately 13 metric tons of CO2E per year. An additional 9 MT CO2E would be  attributable to natural gas.   Table 8 Estimated Annual Energy-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2E) Proposed Project Electricity 13 metric tons Natural Gas 9 metric tons Total 22 metric tons See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output. Water Use Emissions. Based on the amount of electricity generated to supply and convey this  amount of water, as shown in Table 8, the project would generate approximately 1 metric ton of  CO2E per year. Emissions related to water consumption would be reduced by 20% per Senate  Bill X7‐7, by implementing measures that include the installation of low flow plumbing fixtures  (i.e., faucets, toilets, show heads) and water efficient irrigation systems.      Solid Waste Emissions. Implementation of a municipal recycling program that would achieve a  75% diversion rate statewide is required for residential uses per the California Integrated Waste  Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). The CalEEMod results indicate that the project would result  in approximately 1 metric ton of CO2E per year associated with solid waste disposed within  landfills provided 75% of solid waste is recycled (Table 9).    Transportation Emissions. Mobile source GHG emissions were estimated using the trip  generation rates provided in CalEEMod 2022.1 (i.e., Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip  Generation Manual 11th Edition). Table 10 shows the estimated mobile emissions of GHGs for  the project based on the estimated annual VMT of 286,729 as estimated by CalEEMod 2022.1  May 21, 2025 Item #1 140 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 27 (see Appendix A) As shown in Table 10, the project would generate approximately 105 metric  tons of CO2E associated with new vehicle trips.  Table 9 Estimated Annual Solid Waste and Water Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2E) Water 1 metric tons Solid Waste 1 metric tons Total Water and Solid Waste 3 metric tons See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output. . Table 10 Estimated Annual Mobile Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2E) Proposed Project Mobile Emissions (CO2 & CH4) 105 metric tons Total 105 metric tons See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output. Combined Construction, Stationary and Mobile Source Emissions    Table 11 combines the net new construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated  with the proposed project. As discussed above, temporary emissions associated with  construction activity (approximately 75 metric tons CO2E) are amortized over 30 years (the  anticipated life of the project).  Table 11 Combined Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions (CO2E) Construction 3 metric tons Operational Energy Solid Waste Water Area Source 22 metric tons 1 metric tons 1 metric tons 1 metic tons Mobile 105 metric tons Total 133 metric tons See Appendix for CalEEMod software program output. May 21, 2025 Item #1 141 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 28 For the proposed project, the combined annual emissions would total approximately 133 metric  tons per year of CO2E.    Conclusion  As stated herein, the project is new construction of 12 new multifamily units with 24 garage  parking spaces and related improvements. Each unit would be wired for EV charging.     Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air  quality plan?    The project is consistent with the R‐3 zoning designation and is anticipated in the local  plans and SANDAG’s population and employment growth projections. Thus, the project  would be within SANDAG’s population growth forecast and would not conflict with the  SIP and RAQS.    Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria  pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable  federal or state ambient air quality standard?    Project construction and operational emissions would not exceed the SDAPCD  thresholds. Thus, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net  increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under  an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.    Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  The project would not cause or contribute to CO hot spots or otherwise expose receptors  to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction or operations.      Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely  affecting a substantial number of people?    The project would provide 12 residential units, associated parking and related  infrastructure improvements. These uses would not result in other emissions (such as  those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.          May 21, 2025 Item #1 142 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 29 REFERENCES Association of Environmental Professionals. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute  and Guidelines. 2021    California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing  Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.    California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. California Emission Estimator Model version  2022.1.1.22, May 2022.    California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Updated February, 2016.  http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default‐source/clean‐air‐plans/air‐quality‐management‐ plans/naaqs‐caaqs‐feb2016.pdf    California Air Resources Board, Maps of State and Federal Area Designations,   https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps‐state‐and‐federal‐area‐ designations?corr    California Air Resources Board. 2020, 2021, & 2022 Annual Air Quality Data Summaries.  http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed May 2024.    California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2018, 2020  Edition.  https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00‐ 18.pdf    California Air Resources Board. June 2017. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data Inventory Program.  Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm    California Air Resources Board. April 2012. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data – 2020 Emissions  Forecast. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/forecast.htm    California Air Resources Board. May 2014. 2020 Business As Usual Emission Projection, 2014  Edition. Available:  http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/2020_bau_forecast_by_scoping_categor y_2014‐05‐22.pdf    California Air Resources Board. June 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory– 2015 Edition  Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm    California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol, Reporting Entity‐Wide Greenhouse  Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, January 2009.    May 21, 2025 Item #1 143 of 473 Jefferson Street Homes Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study City of Carlsbad 30 California Environmental Protection Agency, March 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor  Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.  http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/2006‐04‐ 03_FINAL_CAT_REPORT_EXECSUMMARY.PDF  City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad Climate Action Plan. September 2015, Updated April 2020.    City of Carlsbad. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis Guidelines, May 2023.     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National  Greenhouse Gas Inventories. [Kroeze, C.; Mosier, A.; Nevison, C.; Oenema, O.; Seitzinger,  S.; Cleemput, O. van; Conrad, R.; Mitra, A.P.; H.U., Neue; Sass, R.]. Paris: OECD, 1997.    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report,  2014.     Office of the California Attorney General. The California Environmental Quality Act, Addressing   Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Updated May 21, 2008.   http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures.pdf       United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas  Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2010. U. S. EPA #430‐R‐11‐005. April 2012.  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html    United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas  Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2015. U. S. EPA #430‐P‐17‐001. April 2017.  https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory‐us‐greenhouse‐gas‐emissions‐and‐sinks‐ 1990‐2015    United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas  Emissions and Sinks: 1990‐2019, U. S. EPA #430‐R‐21‐001. February 2021 May 21, 2025 Item #1 144 of 473 Appendix A CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Model Results – Summer/Annual May 21, 2025 Item #1 145 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 1 / 75 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report Table of Contents 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information 1.2. Land Use Types 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated 3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 146 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 2 / 75 3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated 3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated 3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated 3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated 3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated 3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated 3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated 3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated 4.1.2. Mitigated 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 147 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 3 / 75 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated 4.3.2. Mitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated 4.4.2. Mitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated 4.5.2. Mitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.6.2. Mitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated 4.7.2. Mitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 148 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 4 / 75 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated 4.8.2. Mitigated 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated 4.9.2. Mitigated 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 149 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 5 / 75 5.2.2. Mitigated 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.3.2. Mitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 5.5. Architectural Coatings 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies 5.7. Construction Paving 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated 5.9.2. Mitigated 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths May 21, 2025 Item #1 150 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 6 / 75 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated 5.10.1.2. Mitigated 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.11.2. Mitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 5.12.2. Mitigated 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated 5.13.2. Mitigated 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated 5.14.2. Mitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 151 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 7 / 75 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated 5.15.2. Mitigated 5.16. Stationary Sources 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps 5.16.2. Process Boilers 5.17. User Defined 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1.2. Mitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2.2. Mitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 152 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 8 / 75 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores 7.4. Health & Equity Measures 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures 8. User Changes to Default Data May 21, 2025 Item #1 153 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 9 / 75 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 2502 Jefferson Street Construction Start Date 4/1/2025 Operational Year 2026 Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)1.90 Precipitation (days)21.8 Location 33.16874871133405, -117.3482343321161 County San Diego City Carlsbad Air District San Diego County APCD Air Basin San Diego TAZ 6228 EDFZ 12 Electric Utility San Diego Gas & Electric Gas Utility San Diego Gas & Electric App Version 2022.1.1.25 1.2. Land Use Types Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft)Landscape Area (sq ft) Special Landscape Area (sq ft) Population Description May 21, 2025 Item #1 154 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 10 / 75 Apartments Low Rise 12.0 Dwelling Unit 0.75 12,720 1,000 —33.0 — Parking Lot 24.0 Space 0.22 0.00 ———— 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector #Measure Title Construction C-2*Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling Water W-7 Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy Waste S-1/S-2 Implement Waste Reduction Plan * Qualitative or supporting measure. Emission reductions not included in the mitigated emissions results. 2. Emissions Summary 2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.16.6 10.1 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.14 2.60 0.43 1.02 1.44 —1,785 1,785 0.07 0.06 1.08 1,792 Mit.16.6 10.1 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.14 2.60 0.43 1.02 1.44 —1,785 1,785 0.07 0.06 1.08 1,792 % Reduced ————————————————— Average Daily (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.41 1.70 2.35 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.08 —450 450 0.02 0.01 0.06 453 Mit.0.41 1.70 2.35 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.08 —450 450 0.02 0.01 0.06 453 May 21, 2025 Item #1 155 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 11 / 75 —————————————————% Reduced Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.07 0.31 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —74.5 74.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 75.0 Mit.0.07 0.31 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —74.5 74.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 75.0 % Reduced ————————————————— 2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) ————————————————— 2025 16.6 10.1 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.14 2.60 0.43 1.02 1.44 —1,785 1,785 0.07 0.06 1.08 1,792 Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— 2025 0.41 1.70 2.35 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.08 —450 450 0.02 0.01 0.06 453 Annual ————————————————— 2025 0.07 0.31 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —74.5 74.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 75.0 2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e May 21, 2025 Item #1 156 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 12 / 75 —————————————————Daily - Summer (Max) 2025 16.6 10.1 10.4 0.02 0.46 2.14 2.60 0.43 1.02 1.44 —1,785 1,785 0.07 0.06 1.08 1,792 Daily - Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— 2025 0.41 1.70 2.35 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.06 0.01 0.08 —450 450 0.02 0.01 0.06 453 Annual ————————————————— 2025 0.07 0.31 0.43 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 —74.5 74.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 75.0 2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit.ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.76 0.33 3.64 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 5.52 865 870 0.60 0.03 2.52 897 Mit.0.76 0.33 3.64 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 1.82 864 866 0.23 0.03 2.52 883 % Reduced ——————————67%< 0.5%1%62%——2% Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.69 0.35 2.79 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 5.52 831 836 0.60 0.03 0.15 861 Mit.0.69 0.35 2.79 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 1.82 830 832 0.23 0.03 0.15 847 % Reduced ——————————67%< 0.5%1%62%——2% May 21, 2025 Item #1 157 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 13 / 75 —————————————————Average Daily (Max) Unmit.0.67 0.32 2.83 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.56 0.01 0.14 0.15 5.52 763 769 0.59 0.03 1.03 793 Mit.0.67 0.32 2.83 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.56 0.01 0.14 0.15 1.82 763 764 0.22 0.03 1.03 779 % Reduced ——————————67%< 0.5%1%62%——2% Annual (Max) ————————————————— Unmit.0.12 0.06 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.91 126 127 0.10 < 0.005 0.17 131 Mit.0.12 0.06 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.30 126 127 0.04 < 0.005 0.17 129 % Reduced ——————————67%< 0.5%1%62%1%—2% 2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.40 0.28 2.95 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —725 725 0.03 0.03 2.43 736 Area 0.36 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —133 133 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Water ——————————0.81 4.79 5.60 0.08 < 0.005 —8.27 Waste ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Refrig.———————————————0.09 0.09 Total 0.76 0.33 3.64 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 5.52 865 870 0.60 0.03 2.52 897 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 158 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 14 / 75 Mobile 0.39 0.31 2.77 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —693 693 0.04 0.03 0.06 702 Area 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —133 133 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Water ——————————0.81 4.79 5.60 0.08 < 0.005 —8.27 Waste ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Refrig.———————————————0.09 0.09 Total 0.69 0.35 2.79 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 5.52 831 836 0.60 0.03 0.15 861 Average Daily ————————————————— Mobile 0.34 0.27 2.48 0.01 < 0.005 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 0.14 0.14 —625 625 0.03 0.03 0.94 634 Area 0.33 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.90 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —133 133 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Water ——————————0.81 4.79 5.60 0.08 < 0.005 —8.27 Waste ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Refrig.———————————————0.09 0.09 Total 0.67 0.32 2.83 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.56 0.01 0.14 0.15 5.52 763 769 0.59 0.03 1.03 793 Annual ————————————————— Mobile 0.06 0.05 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —103 103 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 105 Area 0.06 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.15 Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.1 Water ——————————0.13 0.79 0.93 0.01 < 0.005 —1.37 Waste ——————————0.78 0.00 0.78 0.08 0.00 —2.73 Refrig.———————————————0.02 0.02 Total 0.12 0.06 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.91 126 127 0.10 < 0.005 0.17 131 2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) May 21, 2025 Item #1 159 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 15 / 75 Sector ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.40 0.28 2.95 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —725 725 0.03 0.03 2.43 736 Area 0.36 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —133 133 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Water ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 Waste ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Refrig.———————————————0.09 0.09 Total 0.76 0.33 3.64 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 1.82 864 866 0.23 0.03 2.52 883 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Mobile 0.39 0.31 2.77 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —693 693 0.04 0.03 0.06 702 Area 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —133 133 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Water ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 Waste ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Refrig.———————————————0.09 0.09 Total 0.69 0.35 2.79 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.63 0.01 0.16 0.17 1.82 830 832 0.23 0.03 0.15 847 Average Daily ————————————————— Mobile 0.34 0.27 2.48 0.01 < 0.005 0.55 0.55 < 0.005 0.14 0.14 —625 625 0.03 0.03 0.94 634 Area 0.33 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 0.90 0.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.90 Energy < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —133 133 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Water ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 Waste ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Refrig.———————————————0.09 0.09May 21, 2025 Item #1 160 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 16 / 75 Total 0.67 0.32 2.83 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.56 0.01 0.14 0.15 1.82 763 764 0.22 0.03 1.03 779 Annual ————————————————— Mobile 0.06 0.05 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —103 103 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 105 Area 0.06 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.15 Energy < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —22.1 Water ——————————0.11 0.63 0.74 0.01 < 0.005 —1.10 Waste ——————————0.20 0.00 0.20 0.02 0.00 —0.68 Refrig.———————————————0.02 0.02 Total 0.12 0.06 0.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 0.30 126 127 0.04 < 0.005 0.17 129 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.14 —0.14 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855 Demolitio n —————0.25 0.25 —0.04 0.04 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 161 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 17 / 75 Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.4 Demolitio n —————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —3.87 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.88 Demolitio n —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 96.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.43 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 —331 331 0.02 0.05 0.72 347 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.48 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.06 9.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.50 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.50 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.57May 21, 2025 Item #1 162 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 18 / 75 3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.47 4.33 5.65 0.01 0.16 —0.16 0.14 —0.14 —852 852 0.03 0.01 —855 Demolitio n —————0.25 0.25 —0.04 0.04 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.12 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —23.4 Demolitio n —————0.01 0.01 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —3.87 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.88 Demolitio n —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite —————————————————May 21, 2025 Item #1 163 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 19 / 75 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 —94.9 94.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 96.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 0.43 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 —331 331 0.02 0.05 0.72 347 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.48 2.48 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.51 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.06 9.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.50 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.41 0.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.50 1.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.57 3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.47 4.16 5.57 0.01 0.21 —0.21 0.20 —0.20 —859 859 0.03 0.01 —862 May 21, 2025 Item #1 164 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 20 / 75 ———————0.020.02—0.210.21—————Dust From Material Movement Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.35 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.36 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.39 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —47.4 47.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 48.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00May 21, 2025 Item #1 165 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 21 / 75 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.47 4.16 5.57 0.01 0.21 —0.21 0.20 —0.20 —859 859 0.03 0.01 —862 Dust From Material Movement —————0.21 0.21 —0.02 0.02 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 166 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 22 / 75 —————————————————Average Daily Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —2.35 2.35 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.36 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.39 0.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.39 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 —47.4 47.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 48.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 167 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 23 / 75 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720 Dust From Material Movement —————2.07 2.07 —1.00 1.00 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —9.39 9.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.42 Dust From Material Movement —————0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.01 ——————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 168 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 24 / 75 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.55 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.56 Dust From Material Movement —————< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 169 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 25 / 75 3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.09 10.1 10.0 0.02 0.46 —0.46 0.43 —0.43 —1,714 1,714 0.07 0.01 —1,720 Dust From Material Movement —————2.07 2.07 —1.00 1.00 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —9.39 9.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 —9.42 Dust From Material Movement —————0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.01 ——————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.55 1.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.56 May 21, 2025 Item #1 170 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 26 / 75 ———————< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—————Dust From Material Movement Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 —71.2 71.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.27 72.2 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.06 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 171 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 27 / 75 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.14 1.41 1.90 < 0.005 0.06 —0.06 0.05 —0.05 —357 357 0.01 < 0.005 —359 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.26 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —59.2 59.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —59.4 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 —82.0 82.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 83.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 33.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 172 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 28 / 75 Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 21.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.80 8.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.19 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.54 3.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.59 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 —0.22 0.20 —0.20 —1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 —1,309 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.14 1.41 1.90 < 0.005 0.06 —0.06 0.05 —0.05 —357 357 0.01 < 0.005 —359 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.26 0.35 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —59.2 59.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —59.4 May 21, 2025 Item #1 173 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 29 / 75 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.03 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 —82.0 82.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 83.2 Vendor < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 33.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —21.4 21.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 21.7 Vendor < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.80 8.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.19 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —3.54 3.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.59 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.46 1.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.52 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 174 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 30 / 75 826—0.010.03823823—0.18—0.180.19—0.190.015.314.370.51Off-Road Equipment Paving 0.11 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.3 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.87 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 —166 166 0.01 0.01 0.62 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 175 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 31 / 75 Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.10. Paving (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.51 4.37 5.31 0.01 0.19 —0.19 0.18 —0.18 —823 823 0.03 0.01 —826 Paving 0.11 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —11.3 11.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —11.3 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 176 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 32 / 75 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.87 1.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.87 Paving < 0.005 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.07 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.03 —166 166 0.01 0.01 0.62 169 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.36 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite —————————————————May 21, 2025 Item #1 177 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 33 / 75 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Architectu ral Coatings 16.4 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.84 Architectu ral Coatings 0.23 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.30 Architectu ral Coatings 0.04 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 16.6May 21, 2025 Item #1 178 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 34 / 75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.12. Architectural Coating (2025) - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.03 —0.03 —134 134 0.01 < 0.005 —134 Architectu ral Coatings 16.4 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 179 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 35 / 75 —————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Average Daily ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.83 1.83 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.84 Architectu ral Coatings 0.23 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Off-Road Equipment < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.30 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.30 Architectu ral Coatings 0.04 ———————————————— Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite ————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 16.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Average Daily ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.21 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.22 May 21, 2025 Item #1 180 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 36 / 75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual ————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use 4.1.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise 0.40 0.28 2.95 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —725 725 0.03 0.03 2.43 736 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.40 0.28 2.95 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —725 725 0.03 0.03 2.43 736 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise 0.39 0.31 2.77 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —693 693 0.04 0.03 0.06 702 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 181 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 37 / 75 Total 0.39 0.31 2.77 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —693 693 0.04 0.03 0.06 702 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise 0.06 0.05 0.45 < 0.005 <0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —103 103 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 105 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.05 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —103 103 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 105 4.1.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise 0.40 0.28 2.95 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —725 725 0.03 0.03 2.43 736 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.40 0.28 2.95 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —725 725 0.03 0.03 2.43 736 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise 0.39 0.31 2.77 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —693 693 0.04 0.03 0.06 702 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.39 0.31 2.77 0.01 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.01 0.16 0.16 —693 693 0.04 0.03 0.06 702 Annual ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 182 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 38 / 75 1050.16< 0.0050.01103103—0.030.03< 0.0050.100.10< 0.005< 0.0050.450.050.06Apartmen ts Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.05 0.45 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 —103 103 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 105 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————67.6 67.6 < 0.005 <0.005 —67.9 Parking Lot ———————————13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Total ———————————80.9 80.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —81.2 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————67.6 67.6 < 0.005 <0.005 —67.9 Parking Lot ———————————13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Total ———————————80.9 80.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —81.2 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————11.2 11.2 < 0.005 <0.005 —11.2 May 21, 2025 Item #1 183 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 39 / 75 Parking Lot ———————————2.20 2.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.21 Total ———————————13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.4 4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————67.6 67.6 < 0.005 <0.005 —67.9 Parking Lot ———————————13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Total ———————————80.9 80.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —81.2 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————67.6 67.6 < 0.005 <0.005 —67.9 Parking Lot ———————————13.3 13.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.3 Total ———————————80.9 80.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 —81.2 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————11.2 11.2 < 0.005 <0.005 —11.2 Parking Lot ———————————2.20 2.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 —2.21 Total ———————————13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —13.4 May 21, 2025 Item #1 184 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 40 / 75 4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise < 0.005 0.04 0.02 <0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise < 0.005 0.04 0.02 <0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise < 0.005 0.01 <0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —8.64 8.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.66 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —8.64 8.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.66 4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2eMay 21, 2025 Item #1 185 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 41 / 75 Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise < 0.005 0.04 0.02 <0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise < 0.005 0.04 0.02 <0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —52.2 52.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 —52.3 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise < 0.005 0.01 <0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —8.64 8.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.66 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —8.64 8.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.66 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e May 21, 2025 Item #1 186 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 42 / 75 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consume r Products 0.27 ———————————————— Architectu ral Coatings 0.02 ———————————————— Landscap e Equipme nt 0.06 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Total 0.36 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consume r Products 0.27 ———————————————— Architectu ral Coatings 0.02 ———————————————— Total 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Annual ————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consume r Products 0.05 ———————————————— Architectu ral Coatings < 0.005 ———————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 187 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 43 / 75 0.15—< 0.005< 0.0050.150.15—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.06< 0.0050.01Landscap e Total 0.06 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.15 4.3.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consume r Products 0.27 ———————————————— Architectu ral Coatings 0.02 ———————————————— Landscap e Equipme nt 0.06 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Total 0.36 0.01 0.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 1.82 1.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.83 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consume r Products 0.27 ———————————————— Architectu ral Coatings 0.02 ———————————————— Total 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00May 21, 2025 Item #1 188 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 44 / 75 Annual ————————————————— Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Consume r Products 0.05 ———————————————— Architectu ral Coatings < 0.005 ———————————————— Landscap e Equipme nt 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.15 Total 0.06 < 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 0.00 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.15 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————0.81 4.79 5.60 0.08 < 0.005 —8.27 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.81 4.79 5.60 0.08 < 0.005 —8.27 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 189 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 45 / 75 8.27—< 0.0050.085.604.790.81——————————Apartmen ts Low Rise Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.81 4.79 5.60 0.08 < 0.005 —8.27 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————0.13 0.79 0.93 0.01 < 0.005 —1.37 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.13 0.79 0.93 0.01 < 0.005 —1.37 4.4.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 May 21, 2025 Item #1 190 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 46 / 75 0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00——————————Parking Lot Total ——————————0.65 3.83 4.48 0.07 < 0.005 —6.62 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————0.11 0.63 0.74 0.01 < 0.005 —1.10 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.11 0.63 0.74 0.01 < 0.005 —1.10 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 191 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 47 / 75 Total ——————————4.71 0.00 4.71 0.47 0.00 —16.5 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————0.78 0.00 0.78 0.08 0.00 —2.73 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.78 0.00 0.78 0.08 0.00 —2.73 4.5.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————1.18 0.00 1.18 0.12 0.00 —4.12 Annual ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 192 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 48 / 75 0.68—0.000.020.200.000.20——————————Apartmen ts Parking Lot ——————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ——————————0.20 0.00 0.20 0.02 0.00 —0.68 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————————0.09 0.09 Total ———————————————0.09 0.09 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————————0.09 0.09 Total ———————————————0.09 0.09 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————————0.02 0.02 Total ———————————————0.02 0.02 4.6.2. MitigatedMay 21, 2025 Item #1 193 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 49 / 75 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————————0.09 0.09 Total ———————————————0.09 0.09 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————————0.09 0.09 Total ———————————————0.09 0.09 Annual ————————————————— Apartmen ts Low Rise ———————————————0.02 0.02 Total ———————————————0.02 0.02 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 4.7.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total —————————————————May 21, 2025 Item #1 194 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 50 / 75 Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.7.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type 4.8.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e May 21, 2025 Item #1 195 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 51 / 75 —————————————————Daily, Summer (Max) Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.8.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 4.9.1. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)May 21, 2025 Item #1 196 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 52 / 75 Equipme Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.9.2. Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme nt Type ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type May 21, 2025 Item #1 197 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 53 / 75 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 198 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 54 / 75 Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequeste red ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Removed ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequeste red ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Removed ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequeste red ————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————May 21, 2025 Item #1 199 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 55 / 75 Removed ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio n ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Total ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 200 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 56 / 75 Annual ————————————————— Total ————————————————— 4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily, Summer (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequeste red ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Removed ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) ————————————————— Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequeste red ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Removed ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— Annual ————————————————— May 21, 2025 Item #1 201 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 57 / 75 Avoided ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Sequeste red ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— Removed ————————————————— Subtotal ————————————————— —————————————————— 5. Activity Data 5.1. Construction Schedule Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/1/2025 4/15/2025 5.00 10.0 — Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/16/2025 4/17/2025 5.00 1.00 — Grading Grading 4/18/2025 4/20/2025 5.00 2.00 — Building Construction Building Construction 4/21/2025 9/8/2025 5.00 100 — Paving Paving 9/9/2025 9/16/2025 5.00 5.00 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 9/17/2025 9/24/2025 5.00 5.00 — 5.2. Off-Road Equipment 5.2.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 May 21, 2025 Item #1 202 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 58 / 75 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.2.2. Mitigated Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 May 21, 2025 Item #1 203 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 59 / 75 0.3784.08.001.00AverageDieselSite Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh oes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 5.3. Construction Vehicles 5.3.1. Unmitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ———— Demolition Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 4.60 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 5.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2May 21, 2025 Item #1 204 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 60 / 75 Site Preparation Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 8.64 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 1.28 7.63 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 1.73 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.3.2. Mitigated Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition ————May 21, 2025 Item #1 205 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 61 / 75 Demolition Worker 10.0 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 4.60 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Site Preparation ———— Site Preparation Worker 5.00 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Site Preparation Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 7.50 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 8.64 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 1.28 7.63 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Building Construction Onsite truck ——HHDT Paving ———— Paving Worker 17.5 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Paving Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 1.73 12.0 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Architectural Coating Vendor —7.63 HHDT,MHDT May 21, 2025 Item #1 206 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 62 / 75 Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT Architectural Coating Onsite truck ——HHDT 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.5. Architectural Coatings Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) Architectural Coating 25,758 8,586 0.00 0.00 565 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Building Square Footage) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000 — Site Preparation ——0.50 0.00 — Grading ——1.50 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61%61% Water Demolished Area 2 36%36% May 21, 2025 Item #1 207 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 63 / 75 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Apartments Low Rise —0% Parking Lot 0.22 100% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2025 0.00 589 0.03 < 0.005 5.9. Operational Mobile Sources 5.9.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Low Rise 87.8 97.7 75.4 31,924 789 877 677 286,729 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.9.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Low Rise 87.8 97.7 75.4 31,924 789 877 677 286,729 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10. Operational Area Sources May 21, 2025 Item #1 208 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 64 / 75 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Low Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 0 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0 5.10.1.2. Mitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Low Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 0 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 0 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 Pellet Wood Stoves 0May 21, 2025 Item #1 209 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 65 / 75 5.10.2. Architectural Coatings Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft)Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Parking Area Coated (sq ft) 25758 8,586 0.00 0.00 565 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 180 5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 180 5.11. Operational Energy Consumption 5.11.1. Unmitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Low Rise 41,919 589 0.0330 0.0040 162,785 Parking Lot 8,242 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.11.2. Mitigated Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr)CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr)May 21, 2025 Item #1 210 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 66 / 75 Apartments Low Rise 41,919 589 0.0330 0.0040 162,785 Parking Lot 8,242 589 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 421,597 18,265 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 5.12.2. Mitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 337,278 14,612 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Low Rise 8.75 — Parking Lot 0.00 — 5.13.2. Mitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Apartments Low Rise 2.19 — Parking Lot 0.00 — May 21, 2025 Item #1 211 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 67 / 75 5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 5.14.1. Unmitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.14.2. Mitigated Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg)Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment 5.15.1. Unmitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.15.2. Mitigated Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 5.16. Stationary Sources May 21, 2025 Item #1 212 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 68 / 75 5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor 5.16.2. Process Boilers Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr)Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day)Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr) 5.17. User Defined Equipment Type Fuel Type 5.18. Vegetation 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.1.2. Mitigated May 21, 2025 Item #1 213 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 69 / 75 Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 5.18.2.2. Mitigated Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year)Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 6. Climate Risk Detailed Report 6.1. Climate Risk Summary Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 8.12 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 2.70 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise —meters of inundation depth Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters May 21, 2025 Item #1 214 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 70 / 75 Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi. 6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A May 21, 2025 Item #1 215 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 71 / 75 Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure. The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt. The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures. 6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures 7. Health and Equity Details 7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Exposure Indicators — AQ-Ozone 29.9 AQ-PM 44.7 AQ-DPM 87.8 Drinking Water 10.4 Lead Risk Housing 46.8 Pesticides 23.2 Toxic Releases 14.1 Traffic 85.7 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 0.00 Groundwater 59.6 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 80.2 Impaired Water Bodies 77.3 Solid Waste 0.00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 216 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 72 / 75 Sensitive Population — Asthma 10.6 Cardio-vascular 30.4 Low Birth Weights 11.8 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 51.2 Housing 45.6 Linguistic 18.1 Poverty 66.4 Unemployment 37.7 7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. Indicator Result for Project Census Tract Economic — Above Poverty 43.59040164 Employed 47.8121391 Median HI 35.63454382 Education — Bachelor's or higher 53.18875914 High school enrollment 3.028358784 Preschool enrollment 11.35634544 Transportation — Auto Access 33.27345053 Active commuting 58.38573078 Social — 2-parent households 22.80251508May 21, 2025 Item #1 217 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 73 / 75 Voting 60.81098422 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 33.06813807 Park access 56.25561401 Retail density 80.14885153 Supermarket access 72.16732965 Tree canopy 38.05979725 Housing — Homeownership 10.75324009 Housing habitability 43.65456179 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 94.44373155 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 62.20967535 Uncrowded housing 34.55665341 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 20.10778904 Arthritis 29.1 Asthma ER Admissions 76.3 High Blood Pressure 63.5 Cancer (excluding skin)24.3 Asthma 46.1 Coronary Heart Disease 23.5 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 29.1 Diagnosed Diabetes 58.5 Life Expectancy at Birth 70.8 Cognitively Disabled 39.7 Physically Disabled 49.3 Heart Attack ER Admissions 87.2 May 21, 2025 Item #1 218 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 74 / 75 Mental Health Not Good 44.5 Chronic Kidney Disease 35.4 Obesity 54.6 Pedestrian Injuries 43.7 Physical Health Not Good 49.1 Stroke 34.3 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 10.6 Current Smoker 43.7 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 51.7 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.6 SLR Inundation Area 54.1 Children 69.7 Elderly 26.2 English Speaking 38.1 Foreign-born 29.6 Outdoor Workers 36.9 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 25.2 Traffic Density 95.7 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 54.8 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 71.6 May 21, 2025 Item #1 219 of 473 2502 Jefferson Street Detailed Report, 7/3/2024 75 / 75 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)30.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)29.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550)Yes Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617)No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 7.4. Health & Equity Measures No Health & Equity Measures selected. 7.5. Evaluation Scorecard Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures No Health & Equity Custom Measures created. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Operations: Hearths No fireplaces/hearths or woodstoves would be installed. May 21, 2025 Item #1 220 of 473 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT FOR 2502 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Kristi S. Hawthorne 601 S. Ditmar Street Oceanside CA 92054 (760) 390-4192 kristihawthorne@cox.net January 30, 2024 Exhibit 9.4 May 21, 2025 Item #1 221 of 473 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Project Description 2 Historical Cultural Environment 4 Historical Overview 5 Methods and Results 8 Description of Resource 8 History of Ownership 9 Analysis of Subject Resource 14 Eligibility Criteria 14 Application of Criteria 16 Integrity 17 Conclusion 19 Resources 20 Building Forms 22 Chain of Title 23 Additional Views 24 Attachments 25 May 21, 2025 Item #1 222 of 473 1 January 30, 2024 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 REFERENCE: RESULTS OF THE HISTORICAL CULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR 2502 JEFFERSON STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 92008 I. INTRODUCTION This report details the findings of the historical assessment conducted for a building located at 2502 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California 92008 (Figures 1 and 2). This study was conducted to assess the building’s potential for historical and architectural significance as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and the impact of the proposed project. It was not included in the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Survey done in 1990 by Roth and Associates. The house sits on the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way. The property description is: The Northerly one-half of Lot 11, and all of Lot 12, Block C of the Resubdivision of a portion of Sunnyslope tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 995, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 6, 1906. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Easterly 57.5 feet thereof. Also EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 12; thence southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot, 12, a distance of 12.49 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 14.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 63°, 10’,4”, an arc distance of 13.43 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 12; thence, Westerly along the northerly line of said Lot 12 to the Point of Beginning. The Assessor Parcel Number is: 155-251-18-00 May 21, 2025 Item #1 223 of 473 2 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project plans are for demolition of the existing structure to make way for new development. May 21, 2025 Item #1 224 of 473 Figure 1 Project Location, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California May 21, 2025 Item #1 225 of 473 Figure 2 Project Location on USGS 7.5 San Luis Rey Quadrangle May 21, 2025 Item #1 226 of 473 4 Figure 2 Project location on USGS 7.5’ Oceanside quadrangle May 21, 2025 Item #1 227 of 473 5 III. HISTORICAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT The subject property is located within the Sunny Slope subdivision in Carlsbad. It is bound in part by Jefferson Street to the west, Buena Vista Street to the north and Knowles Street to the south. Additionally, it is located southeast of the Buena Vista Lagoon and west of Interstate 5. The Oceanside newspaper announced on June 9, 1906 that the County Board of Supervisors approved the subdivision that year: "The map of the Sunny Slope Tract at Carlsbad together with the dedication of the roads to public use was accepted." The tract was recorded by the Hayes Land Company, owned by John Chauncey Hayes, and consisted of blocks, A, B & C and a strip of 12 lots in Block 13. To the north was Bailey Street which is now Buena Vista Street, to the west was Front Avenue which is now Jefferson Street and to the south Knowles Street. The May 26, 1906 edition of the Oceanside Blade newspaper published a column about "Sunny Slope at Carlsbad" saying: "This beautiful mesa lying to the north and adjoining the townsite has been re-platted into thirty-two lots 100 x 25 feet and are offered at $100 each. They are the only lots that can be bought at that price in either Oceanside, South Oceanside or Carlsbad. They arc pleasantly situated one quarter of a mile from the ocean beach and two blocks from the coming electric road, commanding a grand panoramic view of the old Pacific, Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands. Too much cannot be said of this lovely slope and the mineral springs of curative water, equaling that of the far-famed Bohemian Carlsbad." The lots were sold exclusively by The Hayes Land Co. Sunny Slope was re-subdivided in 1957 and two streets within that immediate tract, Tuttle and Reece, were abandoned. These lots remained largely unimproved for decades until the postwar years. After Interstate 5 was built and the Las Flores exit/entrance to the freeway was constructed, Jefferson Street became a busy artery into Carlsbad. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW In 1881 John Frazier settled on 160 acres just south of the Buena Vista Lagoon and established a small settlement known as "Frazier's Station." In search of water, he drilled a well and in 1883 found what he claimed to have cured him of illnesses relating to stomach and kidney problems. This water was "analyzed" and reported to have the same qualities as water found in Karlsbad, Bohemia. Gerhard Schutte and D. D. Wadsworth purchased the water rights, and together with other investors, formed the Carlsbad Land and Water Company and laid out a town site which they called Carlsbad. May 21, 2025 Item #1 228 of 473 6 Schutte built a home that later became the Twin Inns, a long-standing landmark located on Carlsbad Boulevard. By about 1888 a Santa Fe train depot and several stores were built, and the small village grew to a population of about 300. The San Bernardino Daily Courier described Carlsbad on April 14, 1888: “The town of Carlsbad was laid out a year ago by a company composed of Messrs. Shutte, Smith, Wadsworth and Frazier, who have spared neither time or money in beautifying this famous resort. On arriving at Carlsbad one can see at a glance what the town is; four of the finest residences in Southern California adorn the beautiful hill, sloping as it does gently to the beach, and forming a picturesque sight, which must be seen to be appreciated." The promotional article also described the hotel at Carlsbad: “It is one of the finest constructed hotels on the coast, supplied with all the latest conveniences as to the comfort of the guests. The billiard room on the lower floor is a model of elegance and one of the largest in Southern California. A banking company has been formed and will soon build a two-story brick, marble front, to be used also as an opera house; also a fine church edifice, to cost $5000. The company has fresh water piped all over town free of charge and are going ahead with other improvements regardless of expense. The business houses are located on the gently sloping hills overlooking the placid waters of the Pacific, which, together with the surrounding scenery, make it a charming spot to while away the long and dreamy hours of summer days.” With all the hope and fanfare, Carlsbad’s modest population diminished near the turn of the century and stayed a small coastal village with a population of just 1,660 persons in 1930. In a historical overview in 1949 Dick Carboneau wrote: “By the turn of the century, houses were being tom down, moved, deserted, and surrendered for debt or taxes. The population of Carlsbad was reduced to such a pitiful handful of families that the school threatened to close. R. G. Chase, father of Mrs. Dewey McClellan, recalls that there were only about 8 families in Carlsbad when he came to the community in the early 1900's. Tax titles were for the taking—for anyone who had any money—and lots anywhere on the beach could be had for about $100.” In 1914, the South Coast Land Company purchased the properties of the then-defunct water company, and the community became largely farming. The flower industry began in the early 1920’s. Sam Thompson, owner of the first avocado orchard in Carlsbad, was largely responsible for making Carlsbad “The Home of the Avocado” which was advertised as such. The main business district was located on First Street, now known as State Street. It was one of only two paved roads. For many years the Twin Inns, purchased by E. G. Kentner in 1919, was one of the most popular stops along the Coast highway in North County and was famous for its chicken dinners. Its large plaster statues of chickens were iconic landmarks. May 21, 2025 Item #1 229 of 473 7 In 1925 Roy G. Chase built the Los-Diego Hotel on the southwest corner of State and Grand. The name referred to the two large cities north and south of Carlsbad, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and was “the logical stopping place on the main coast highway between these two cities.” Managed by Mr. and Mrs. C. T. McKeehan, this two-story Spanish-style structure offered guests amenities that included private baths, hot water, and steam heat. The California Highway Commission applied to the Railroad Commission for permission to construct an overpass over the tracks of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company at Carlsbad. Construction of the crossing began in April 1927 and was completed in August. With this new alignment Highway 101 bypassed State Street and ran directly along Lincoln Street, or present-day Carlsbad Boulevard. New businesses such as the Sea Auto Inn and the Carlsbad Mineral Springs Hotel were soon constructed along the new route to take full advantage of the increasing traffic through the city. The Red Apple Inn, built in 1927 by Alfred G. Blair and designed by Robert Baird, was situated on Carlsbad Boulevard. The roadside inn featured 20 guest rooms and a restaurant, decorated with an apple motif. In 1936 the Red Apple Inn was purchased by A. C. Anderson and later became a part of the Army Navy Academy when the institution relocated from Pacific Beach. The Carlsbad Theater opened in 1927, built and owned by R. E. Struve, who also built Oceanside's Palomar Theater three years earlier. However, shortly after opening Clark sold his interest to Rudolph Sonnemonn and Ernest Sutton. Its named was changed to the Iris Theater in 1939 and it continued to change both names and ownership over the years. Fred Mitchell became the publisher of the Carlsbad Journal newspaper in 1928 after he took over the Carlsbad Champion. Dick Carboneau, columnist and editor of the Oceanside Blade Tribune, noted a significant change when the high was rerouted: “The highway was moved in 1929, making a good many changes in the community. It ruined the business of the Los Diego Hotel. The old route went right past the Twin Inns, turned left onto State Street, and then proceeded north to Oceanside. What had originally been the side entrance of the Twin Inns, and was being used as the front entrance, became the side entrance again; and the original rear of the house became the new front in keeping with the rerouting of the highway.” One of Carlsbad’s most famous residents, actor Leo Carrillo, purchased the Los Kiotes homestead in 1937, a small portion of which became a city park. By 1950, downtown street names changed from First to State with the remaining numbered streets changing to Roosevelt, Madison, Jefferson, and Harding, respectively. (Elm Street was later renamed Carlsbad Village Drive.) The City of Carlsbad was incorporated in 1952 to avoid being annexed to the City of Oceanside. Dewey McClellan served as the first mayor. May 21, 2025 Item #1 230 of 473 8 For decades high school students living in Carlsbad attended the Oceanside-Carlsbad Union High School in Oceanside. In 1957 Carlsbad opened a new high school for its residents. Palomar Airport opened in 1959. Built by Young and Arrieta Construction Co., it was located southeast of the Carlsbad city limits, before it was annexed by the City of Carlsbad in 1978 and eventually renamed McClellan-Palomar Airport. In 1969 a large shopping mall, Plaza Camino Real, was built. By 1982 the mall doubled in size to over a million square feet and 140 stores. Indoor malls changed the way most American consumers shopped for decades but shopping has trended away due to online retail and the trend to "open air lifestyle centers." Carlsbad is home to many large companies such ViaSat and Calloway Golf. Other golf manufacturers include TaylorMade-Adidas, Cobra Golf, Titleist, and Odyssey Golf, dubbing Carlsbad as “Titanium Valley”. Carlsbad’s Aviara Golf Club was designed by Arnold Palmer. Carlsbad welcomed Legoland California Resort, LLC, in 1999. It was the first Legoland theme park outside of Europe. A hotel was added in 2018. In 2021, Carlsbad’s economy grew by $1 billion to $14.6 billion, second only to the City of San Diego, according to a report presented to the City Council. IV. METHODS AND RESULTS Background studies consisting of research from the Carlsbad Library, San Diego County Master Property Records, a field check of the property, subdivision maps, historical photographs, census records, research of various newspapers, and recorded deeds were conducted as part of the project. Primary, Continuation and Building, Structure and Object forms for the resource were completed and appear in this report as Appendix A. DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE The subject resource at 2502 Jefferson Street is a Mid-century Modern style home. This single-story dwelling is asymmetrical in shape and placed on an angle, as it is situated on a corner. Its roof is a slightly sloped shed roof which has a moderate overhang. Entrance to the home is made by a small cement porch; the single-door entryway is off centered. To the right of the door is a newer 3-panel picture window. Below this window the exterior is covered in red brick and includes a brick planter. The brick continues at a right angle with another newer 3-panel picture window above. A “wing” continues at another right angle with a single double hung window. To the left of the entry way is a narrow window hidden by shrubbery, followed a single double hung window. The north elevation continues in the home’s asymmetry, forming a May 21, 2025 Item #1 231 of 473 9 slight “U” shape with a garage on one end. Cement driveways are on either side of the house. Aside from the brick façade to the right of the entry, the home is covered in stucco above the window lines and then has a wood horizontal siding. Windows are all replacements. In 2011 the original picture windows were replaced. These windows were original to the house and were fixed multi-paneled. The window on the west elevation was a 12-panel window and the connecting window facing southwest was 9 panels. The house was modified between 1953 and 1964, enlarging a portion of the north elevation. A view of the resource is shown in Figure 4A with additional views in Appendix C. The resource is in good condition. HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP History of ownership was determined through San Diego County Master Property Records and Recorded Deeds through the San Diego County Assessor/Recorder’s Office. Sunny Slope was owned by The Hayes Land Company, its President and founder was John Chauncey Hayes. Hayes was born in Los Angeles, June 1, 1852. His father Benjamin R. Hayes was an attorney, historian and considered a distinguished jurist. J. Chauncey Hayes graduated from Santa Clara College, then studied law with his father, and was admitted to the bar in 1877. He settled in San Luis Rey and served as postmaster in 1883, as well as justice of the peace and authored his famous "San Luis Rey statutes." Hayes became exclusive land agent for Andrew J. Myers, the founder of the city of Oceanside. J. Chauncey Hayes established South Oceanside, a small township just south of the City of Oceanside, which at one time had its own bank, school, cemetery, several brick residences and a newspaper, the South Oceanside Diamond, of which he was the editor. J. Chauncey Hayes lived in Oceanside since its inception and died in 1934 at the age of 82. In 1906 it was reported that Julia F. and Caroline C. Tast of Arizona purchased 32 lots in the Sunny Slope tract, including Lot 10 in Block C, which is contained in a portion of the subject property. The Oceanside Blade reported that "J. F. Tast and C. C. Tast of Kingman, Arizona, this week bought of the Hayes Land Co., 32 lots in Sunny Slope tract, Carlsbad, the price being $2500." The newspaper wrongly assumed the buyers were men and went on to say, "The Messrs. Tast propose to interest Arizona people in their holdings which adjoin the Wellman place recently bought by Jordan & Lang, also of Kingman, and next season it is expected that a number of Arizonans will build summer homes on the tract.” May 21, 2025 Item #1 232 of 473 10 Julia Frances Tast, born 1876, and her sister Caroline Clara Tast, born 1879 in Austria, came to the United States in 1887 with family members after their father died. The two settled in Kingman, Arizona where Julia operated a hotel and dining room. In 1909 Julia married John Boyle, an engineer for a mining company. The couple later moved to Los Angeles, California and Julia's sister Caroline, who remained single, accompanied them. It seems the property reverted back to the Hayes Land Company by 1908 as Hayes sold nearly the same number of lots to Hattie Schutte that year. In 1935 the lots were listed as delinquent in taxes and likely forfeited for nonpayment to the County. By the 1940s Charles and Marie Woolstenhulme had purchased several lots in Sunny Slope, including the subject property. They were living at a home at 1833 Buena Vista Street. Charles Woolstenhulme was born on March 13, 1892 in England and immigrated to the US in 1912. He married his wife Marie in 1924. He was an assistant director for Warner Brothers and Paramount, known for early films including "The Brute" (1927), and "On the Level" (1930). He was the production manager for dozens of films, including "The Great Gatsby" (1949). He died on May 23, 1960 in Glendale, California, USA. The Woolstenhulmes sold the property to Thomas H. and Elizabeth Trainer in 1946. Thomas Hukill Trainer was a native of Alabama, born 1890. He was an auto salesman in Los Angeles and married Edith Elizabeth Overstreet in 1924. The couple had two children, Sarah A. and Thomas H., Jr. The family moved to Carlsbad by 1940 and Trainer worked in a bulb nursery in Granville Park for a year or two before working at the Army Navy Academy. Tax records indicate the house at 2502 Jefferson was built in 1946 but an aerial photograph taken in January 1947 aerial indicates that the lot was unimproved. If the Trainers built a residence on the subject location, they did not occupy it, as they were living near the Army Navy Academy in 1950. The property was sold to Harry and Grace Larson in 1951. Both Harry and Grace were natives of Wyoming, born in 1913 and 1918, respectively. The couple moved to California in about 1944. Harry worked as a carpenter, local fireman and as a plumber. The couple moved to Carlsbad from Vista in about 1949 to a home on Chestnut. In 1950 their house was in the path of the proposed freeway (present day Interstate 5) and the Oceanside Blade Tribune reported the opinions of local residents including Grace Larson’s: Mrs. Harry Larson, housewife: “We have not been residents of Carlsbad very long. We came here and purchased property with the intention of remodeling the house and improving the grounds. Hardly had we gotten settled than surveyors came through the property and told us there might be a highway through our acreage. Consequently, we have done nothing. We don’t know what to do. We want to remodel our house, but we don't dare do it, for fear we would take a loss. We want the matter settled, and we want a full freeway.” May 21, 2025 Item #1 233 of 473 11 The Larsons purchased the subject property and home at 2502 Jefferson Street in 1951 and relocated their family of four sons there. They remained there until 1974 when they sold their home to neighbors John E. and Eliza Garcia. John Edward Garcia was born in Imperial, California in 1924. By 1942 he was living in Oceanside with his parents Felix and Ruth Garcia. In about 1945 he married Eliza Acuna and the couple had three children, Joanne, Jean and Ray. In 1950 the family was living at 3724 Roosevelt Street in Carlsbad where Garcia was working as a carpenter. By 1958 the family moved to a home at 1015 Buena Vista Avenue, adjacent to the subject property at 2502 Jefferson Street. Garcia was then a fireman for the City of Carlsbad, where he worked for several years, attaining the position of captain. Eliza Garcia owned and operated a daycare center at 2518 Jefferson Street. John Edward Garcia died in 2004 and Eliza Alice Garcia died in 2023. The property is in a family trust. May 21, 2025 Item #1 234 of 473 Confidential, Proprietary and/or Trade Secret. TM SM ® Trademark(s) of Black Knight IP Holding Company, LLC, or an affiliate. © 2024 Black Knight Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 1/10/2024 Customer Service Rep:Gennie Aguon Figure 3 May 21, 2025 Item #1 235 of 473 Fi g u r e 4 W e s t e l e v a t i o n , 2 5 0 2 J e f f e r s o n S t r e e t , C a r l s b a d , C a l i f o r n i a May 21, 2025 Item #1 236 of 473 14 ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT RESOURCE ARCHITECTURE The house at 2502 Jefferson Street is best described as Midcentury Modern Contemporary. Known for clean lines, minimal decoration, and connection with nature, Midcentury Modern architecture features wide, low footprint with large, open spaces, floor-to-ceiling windows and flat or gently sloping rooflines, often with overhanging eaves. Geometric shapes, including triangles and rectangles, contribute to the distinctive appearance of Midcentury Modern. This architecture was popular in the US from 1945 to 1969 and divided into three distinct styles: 1. International: Inspired by international architects—as the name implies—this version of midcentury modern architecture was heavily influenced by the Bauhaus movement. Homes were extremely simple, with little to no decoration, and were typically finished with stucco. 2. Contemporary: The most popular midcentury modern style, contemporary homes featured clean lines, floor-to-ceiling windows, and more natural, organic-feeling materials, like wood, stone, and brick. Many of these homes have asymmetrical exteriors with windows extending to the roofline and exposed ceilings and beams in the interior. 3. Organic: A smaller subset of midcentury modern architects emphasized blending their homes into their natural surroundings. Rather than building structures with sharp lines and right angles, they embraced homes with more natural shapes. Because organic midcentury modern homes were so heavily influenced by their natural surroundings, an organic midcentury modern home in a forest would look entirely different than an organic midcentury modern home in the desert. V. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a significant historic resource is one that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources/National Register of Historic Places or other local historic register or is deemed significant in a historical resource survey (Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code). To be eligible for listing under the California Register/National Register (the standards of which are both very similar), a resource must be significant within a historic context and must also meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: Be associated with an event, or series of events, that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history. May 21, 2025 Item #1 237 of 473 15 Criterion B: Have an unequivocal association with the lives of people significant in the past. Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. Criterion D: Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in local, state or national prehistory or history. VI. REGISTER STANDARDS CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA When evaluated within its historic context, under CEQA a property must be shown to be significant for one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation – A, B, C, or D. The Criteria describe how properties are significant for their association with important events or persons, for their importance in design or construction, or for their information potential. In addition, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the California Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. Criterion A: Event. To be considered for listing under Criterion A, a property must be associated with one or more events important in the defined historic context. The event or trends must clearly be important within the associated context. Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A – the property’s specific association must be considered important as well. Criterion B: Person. Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Persons “significant in our past” refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person’s important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic event. Significant individuals must be directly associated with the nominated property. Properties eligible under Criterion B are usually those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. Speculative associations are not acceptable. Documentation must make clear how the nominated property represents an individual’s significant contributions. A property must retain integrity from the period of its significant historic associations Architects are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes, however, can be eligible for consideration under Criterion B, if these properties were personally associated with the individual. May 21, 2025 Item #1 238 of 473 16 Criterion C: Design/Construction: Properties may be eligible under Criterion C if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Properties which embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction refer to the way in which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by a people or culture in past periods of history. Distinctive characteristics are the physical features or traits that commonly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction. A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master’s career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular them in his or her craft. Criterion D: Information Potential. Properties may be eligible under Criterion D if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the California Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The seven key aspects of integrity include: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. VII. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR 2502 JEFFERSON STREET Criterion A (association with a significant historical event): No known significant event occurred on the property before or after the resource was. The property is not significant under Criterion A. Criterion B (association with a historic person or persons): No historical evidence was found to indicate that the dwelling at 2502 Jefferson Street is directly associated with any person(s) or event(s) significant in local, state, or national history. The property does not qualify under Criterion B. Criterion C (represents a significant design or style of construction): The subject residence is Midcentury Modern home but has been modified. The replacement of two of its large, original windows (as well as the others) takes away from its original design element. The dwelling is not considered a valuable example of the use of indigenous May 21, 2025 Item #1 239 of 473 17 materials or craftsmanship. The architect and/or builder are unknown. Additionally, the house has been modified, enlarged between 1953 and 1964. A resource must express a particular phase in the development of a master builder's career, an aspect of his/her work, or a particular idea or theme in the craft. The work of an unidentified craftsman is eligible if it rises above the level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context. In addition, the property is not eligible under Criterion C simply because it was designed by a prominent architect, builder, etc. but must be the work of a master. Criterion C requires that the resource be a notable work of a Master, and that must be clearly demonstrated in the nomination. The resource is not significant under Criterion C. Criterion D (ability to yield further information): It is unlikely that any further information of importance would be revealed with additional study. The resource is not significant under Criterion D. VIII. INTEGRITY Integrity is the ability of a property to convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the California Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The seven key aspects of integrity include: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. FINDING: The location of the dwellings has not changed and therefore the property retains the location element for integrity purposes. Design. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. FINDING: The resource at 2502 Jefferson Street has been altered but still keeps its asymmetrical/geometric shape. However, an addition or modification has been made to the dwelling. Windows have been replaced throughout. An additional, modification of design is the added driveway to the south end of the house. The house does not retain its design integrity. May 21, 2025 Item #1 240 of 473 18 Setting. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. FINDING: The setting at 2502 Jefferson Street has changed considerably since it was first constructed. The immediate area was largely residential with single family homes. Today the area, while still residential, has newer, larger properties with multi-family home. The biggest change, however, is Jefferson Street itself, which is a busy artery into downtown Carlsbad from the Las Flores on/off ramp to Interstate 5 and therefore the subject property does not retain integrity of setting. Materials. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. FINDING: The building does not retain sufficient original materials with all new window replacements and, in particular, the large multi-paned picture windows on the home's front façade. Workmanship. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. FINDING: There is no evidence of a crafts of a particular culture or people, nor a quality of workmanship demonstrated in the construction of either resource. The dwelling does not exhibit or reflect a quality of workmanship element for integrity purposes. Feeling. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. FINDING: Modifications made to the dwelling have altered the aesthetic. It does not retain integrity of feeling. Association. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. May 21, 2025 Item #1 241 of 473 19 FINDING: The building is not link to or associated with any historic important event or person in the development or history of Carlsbad or the State of California. For a building to be identified as architecturally significant, it must retain as much of the original structural and architectural integrity. The building does not retain integrity of design, setting, feeling, workmanship, or association. IX. CONCLUSION No historical evidence was identified to support that the building at 2502 Jefferson Street exemplifies or reflects a unique aspect of Carlsbad’s general historical development. The home is not associated with any person important to the city's history. It does not represent the work of a master builder, craftsman or architect. The dwelling is not eligible for listing under any Criterion, and therefore is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic Resources Inventory, or the National Register of Historic places. The home does not rise to or meet any level of significance, and therefore mitigation measures are not required. Sincerely, Kristi S. Hawthorne May 21, 2025 Item #1 242 of 473 i Kristi S. Hawthorne Qualifications and Experience Since 2020 I have researched, written and submitted no less than seven Cultural Assessments submitted to the City of Carlsbad which includes the following: 180 Cherry Avenue 260 Normandy Lane 270 Juniper 354 Oak Avenue 395 Carlsbad Village Drive 507 Grand Avenue 2668 Ocean Street 2669 Garfield Street 3940 Garfield Street 3950 Garfield Street 4080 Sunnyhill 5511 Los Robles 2002-2008 hired by Archaeos, Inc. to research and write historic content for Historical Assessments 2005 approved by City of Oceanside to research and write Historical Assessments (over 20, which all have been accepted by the Oceanside Planning Commission and Oceanside Historic Preservation Advisory Commission) 2007 hired by ASM Affiliates to supply historic content for Historical Assessment Hired by City of Oceanside in 2015 to conduct Historical Assessments on the following resources:  Oceanside Pier  Bandshell  Comfort Station  Beach community Center 2019 submitted an extensive Cultural and Historic Assessment to the City of San Diego (approved) 2021-2023 Completed Cultural Assessments for 4 homes and buildings to qualify for Mills Act in Oceanside, which have all been accepted and approved I have over 35 years of experience in collecting, maintaining, organizing and preserving historical documents, photos, ephemera and memorabilia for the Oceanside Historical Society May 21, 2025 Item #1 243 of 473 ii Appointed archivist 1987 Served as President 2002-2021 Board Member of the Old Mission San Luis Rey Historic Foundation 2012-2015 Director 2021 to present I have a thorough knowledge of existing records and have compiled my own database in order to effectively study and provide a comprehensive record of early residents of North San Diego County. I developed a computer database to include over 8,000 biographies of local persons; over 500 different subjects pertaining to the history of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Camp Pendleton, Rancho Santa Margarita, Buena Vista Lagoon, Cemeteries, Schools, etc.; Conducted over 50 oral histories Completed research for history book, “Oceanside, Crest of the Wave” by Langdon Sully and Taryn Bigelow, Windsor Publications, 1988. Provided background research on people, buildings and homes for the 1992 Cultural Resource Survey, "Oceanside, California's Pride", prepared for the City of Oceanside by Kathleen Flanigan, Susan H. Carrico, Richard L. Carrico. Author of “Oceanside, Where Life if Worth Living” (Hawthorne) Donning Co., 2000. A comprehensive history of Oceanside and notable people from 1880s to 2000. (Completed all research, photos, captions, interviews, and index) In 2005 completed two studies on Highway 101 for the Highway 101 Association which included research, conducting oral histories, writing history of the road from Oceanside to Del Mar. Author of "100 Years of Photos" (Hawthorn) ProStar Publications, Inc. 2016, (a pictorial history of Oceanside by decade) Author of "The History of Oceanside" (Hawthorne), L+L Printers, 2022, (an updated and revamped history of Oceanside with new photos, design and layout) Writer for the Best of Oceanside and The Osider Magazine (historical articles) Author of blog: HistoriesandMysteries.blog providing non-fiction, historical backgrounds on people, buildings and events. 2018, conducted research for "Tropic of Football: The Long and Perilous Journey of Samoans to the NFL" By Rob Ruck, Two Rivers Distribution, 2018 2019, conducted research and credited as "Historian" for City of Oceanside's Alta Oceanside Environmental Impact Report, December 2019 May 21, 2025 Item #1 244 of 473 iii 2023, wrote and co-produced "Generational Black Pioneers – Featuring Oceanside Entrepreneurs” (directed by Linda Bisesti) a live performance at Oceanside Theatre Company, based on the real lives of Oceanside's earliest Black Residents. 2024, wrote and co-produced "Generational Black Pioneers – Featuring Oceanside Firsts” (directed by Linda Bisesti) a live performance at Oceanside Theatre Company, based on the real lives of Oceanside's earliest Black Residents. Collaborated with Oceanside Public Library for over 30 decades on numerous programs and workshops including Oceanside's historic Eastside Neighborhood, Vietnam War (local impact), and most recently "Visual Analogies" (2023) to gather photos and stories of different cultures and People of Color Collaborated with John Sheehan, FAIA Principal, Studio E Architects on researching of architect Irving J. Gill Collaborated with Seth Mallios, University History Curator, Director, South Coastal Information Center to research local cemeteries for book "Cemeteries of San Diego", Seth Mallios and David M. Caterino, Arcadia Publishing, 2007 Provided research on the history of gliding in North County for Gary Fogel, PhD, for book "Wind & Wings, the History of Soaring in San Diego", Rock Reef Publishing, 2000 May 21, 2025 Item #1 245 of 473 20 X. RESOURCES A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia Savage McAlester, 2013, New York, Penguin Random House Carlsbad Historical Society https://www.carlsbadhistoricalsociety.com/ Citizen-News (Hollywood, California) May 25, 1960, Page 10 Ducy's 1968 Oceanside-Carlsbad Directory https://www.historicaerials.com/ Google Street View 2008-2022 "History of Carlsbad" by Fred W. Mitchell, Editor, Carlsbad Journal; "History of San Diego County", Published by San Diego Press Club, 1936 Home Directory Service, Oceanside-Carlsbad Criss-Cross City Directory, 1954 Luskey's Official Oceanside-Carlsbad Criss-Cross City Directory, 1959 Martinez Daily Standard (Martinez, California), Wed, Jul 6, 1927, Page 1 North County Times (Oceanside, California) · Tue, May 6, 1997 · Page 15 North County Times (Oceanside, California) November 22, 2000, Page 21 Oceanside Blade (Oceanside, California), May 26, 1906 Oceanside Blade (Oceanside, California), June 6, 1906 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), May 29, 1950 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), August 1, 1958 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), October 15, 1958 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), August 22, 1960 San Diego County Master Property Records San Diego Union Tribune (San Diego, California), September 29, 1907 San Diego Union Tribune (San Diego, California), November 19, 1907 May 21, 2025 Item #1 246 of 473 21 San Diego Union Tribune (San Diego, California), June 7, 1935 Seekers of the Spring: A History of Carlsbad, by Marje Howard-Jones. Carlsbad, California: The Friends of the Carlsbad Library, 1982 Windows on the Past, An Illustrated History of Carlsbad, California, by Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez, The Donning Company Publishers, 2002 www.ancestry.com (various vital records) www.library.ucsb.edu/geospatial/finding-airphotos May 21, 2025 Item #1 247 of 473 22 APPENDIX A BUILDING FORMS May 21, 2025 Item #1 248 of 473 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 2502 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County San Diego and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad __ Date T ; R ; __¼ of __ ¼ of Sec ; SB B.M. *c. Address 2502 Jefferson Street City Carlsbad Zip 92008 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) The house sits on the northeast corner of Jefferson Street and Buena Vista Way. The property description is: The Northerly one- half of Lot 11, and all of Lot 12, Block C of the Resubdivision of a portion of Sunnyslope tract, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 995, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, June 6, 1906. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Easterly 57.5 feet thereof. Also EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Lot 12; thence southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot, 12, a distance of 12.49 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave southeasterly, having a radius of 14.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 63°, 10’,4”, an arc distance of 13.43 feet to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 12; thence, Westerly along the northerly line of said Lot 12 to the Point of Beginning. The Assessor Parcel Number is: 155-251-18-00 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject resource at 2502 Jefferson Street is a Mid-century Modern style home. This single-story dwelling is asymmetrical in shape and placed on an angle, as it is situated on a corner. Its roof is a slightly sloped shed roof which has a moderate overhang. Entrance to the home is made by a small cement porch; the single-door entryway is off centered. To the right of the door is a newer 3-panel picture window. Below this window the exterior is covered in red brick and includes a brick planter. The brick continues at a right angle with another newer 3-panel picture window above. A “wing” continues at another right angle with a single double hung window. To the left of the entry way is a narrow window hidden by shrubbery, followed a single double hung window. The north elevation continues in the home’s asymmetry, forming a slight “U” shape with a garage on one end. Cement driveways are on either side of the house. Aside from the brick façade to the right of the entry, the home is covered in stucco above the window lines and then has a wood horizontal siding. Windows are all replacements. In 2011 the original picture windows were replaced. These windows were original to the house and were fixed multi-paneled. The window on the west elevation was a 12-panel window and the connecting window facing southwest was 9 panels. The house was modified between 1953 and 1964, enlarging a portion of the north elevation. P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2 – single family residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: West elevation, 01/25/2024 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Historic  Prehistoric  Both Constructed 1946 *P7. Owner and Address: Eliza Garcia Family Trust 1015 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad CA 92008 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kristi S. Hawthorne, 601 South Ditmar Street Oceanside CA 92054 *P9. Date Recorded: 1/30/2024 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Results of the Historical Building Assessment for 2502 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA 92008 *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# ____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#________________________________________ _______________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___ NRHP Status Code Other Listings __ Review Code Reviewer Date _______ May 21, 2025 Item #1 249 of 473 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2502 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA *Recorded by: Kristi S. Hawthorne *Date 1/30/2024  Continuation  Update History of ownership was determined through San Diego County Master Property Records and Recorded Deeds through the San Diego County Assessor/Recorder’s Office. Sunny Slope was owned by The Hayes Land Company, its President and founder was John Chauncey Hayes. Hayes was born in Los Angeles, June 1, 1852. His father Benjamin R. Hayes was an attorney, historian and considered a distinguished jurist. J. Chauncey Hayes graduated from Santa Clara College, then studied law with his father, and was admitted to the bar in 1877. He settled in San Luis Rey and served as postmaster in 1883, as well as justice of the peace and authored his famous "San Luis Rey statutes." Hayes became exclusive land agent for Andrew J. Myers, the founder of the city of Oceanside. J. Chauncey Hayes established South Oceanside, a small township just south of the City of Oceanside, which at one time had its own bank, school, cemetery, several brick residences and a newspaper, the South Oceanside Diamond, of which he was the editor. J. Chauncey Hayes lived in Oceanside since its inception and died in 1934 at the age of 82. In 1906 it was reported that Julia F. and Caroline C. Tast of Arizona purchased 32 lots in the Sunny Slope tract, including Lot 10 in Block C, which is contained in a portion of the subject property. The Oceanside Blade reported that "J. F. Tast and C. C. Tast of Kingman, Arizona, this week bought of the Hayes Land Co., 32 lots in Sunny Slope tract, Carlsbad, the price being $2500." The newspaper wrongly assumed the buyers were men and went on to say, "The Messrs. Tast propose to interest Arizona people in their holdings which adjoin the Wellman place recently bought by Jordan & Lang, also of Kingman, and next season it is expected that a number of Arizonans will build summer homes on the tract.” Julia Frances Tast, born 1876, and her sister Caroline Clara Tast, born 1879 in Austria, came to the United States in 1887 with family members after their father died. The two settled in Kingman, Arizona where Julia operated a hotel and dining room. In 1909 Julia married John Boyle, an engineer for a mining company. The couple later moved to Los Angeles, California and Julia's sister Caroline, who remained single, accompanied them. It seems the property reverted back to the Hayes Land Company by 1908 as Hayes sold nearly the same number of lots to Hattie Schutte that year. In 1935 the lots were listed as delinquent in taxes and likely forfeited for nonpayment to the County. By the 1940s Charles and Marie Woolstenhulme had purchased several lots in Sunny Slope, including the subject property. They were living at a home at 1833 Buena Vista Street. Charles Woolstenhulme was born on March 13, 1892 in England and immigrated to the US in 1912. He married his wife Marie in 1924. He was an assistant director for Warner Brothers and Paramount, known for early films including "The Brute" (1927), and "On the Level" (1930). He was the production manager for dozens of films, including "The Great Gatsby" (1949). He died on May 23, 1960 in Glendale, California, USA. The Woolstenhulmes sold the property to Thomas H. and Elizabeth Trainer in 1946. Thomas Hukill Trainer was a native of Alabama, born 1890. He was an auto salesman in Los Angeles and married Edith Elizabeth Overstreet in 1924. The couple had two children, Sarah A. and Thomas H., Jr. The family moved to Carlsbad by 1940 and Trainer worked in a bulb nursery in Granville Park for a year or two before working at the Army Navy Academy. Tax records indicate the house at 2502 Jefferson was built in 1946 but an aerial photograph taken in January 1947 aerial indicates that the lot was unimproved. If the Trainers built a residence on the subject location, they did not occupy it, as they were living near the Army Navy Academy in 1950. State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ _ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _ May 21, 2025 Item #1 250 of 473 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information Page 3 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2502 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA *Recorded by: Kristi S. Hawthorne *Date 1/30/2024  Continuation  Update The property was sold to Harry and Grace Larson in 1951. Both Harry and Grace were natives of Wyoming, born in 1913 and 1918, respectively. The couple moved to California in about 1944. Harry worked as a carpenter, local fireman and as a plumber. The couple moved to Carlsbad from Vista in about 1949 to a home on Chestnut. In 1950 their house was in the path of the proposed freeway (present day Interstate 5) and the Oceanside Blade Tribune reported the opinions of local residents including Grace Larson’s: Mrs. Harry Larson, housewife: “We have not been residents of Carlsbad very long. We came here and purchased property with the intention of remodeling the house and improving the grounds. Hardly had we gotten settled than surveyors came through the property and told us there might be a highway through our acreage. Consequently, we have done nothing. We don’t know what to do. We want to remodel our house, but we don't dare do it, for fear we would take a loss. We want the matter settled, and we want a full freeway.” The Larsons purchased the subject property and home at 2502 Jefferson Street in 1951 and relocated their family of four sons there. They remained there until 1974 when they sold their home to neighbors John E. and Eliza Garcia. John Edward Garcia was born in Imperial, California in 1924. By 1942 he was living in Oceanside with his parents Felix and Ruth Garcia. In about 1945 he married Eliza Acuna and the couple had three children, Joanne, Jean and Ray. In 1950 the family was living at 3724 Roosevelt Street in Carlsbad where Garcia was working as a carpenter. By 1958 the family moved to a home at 1015 Buena Vista Avenue, adjacent to the subject property at 2502 Jefferson Street. Garcia was then a fireman for the City of Carlsbad, where he worked for several years, attaining the position of captain. Eliza Garcia owned and operated a daycare center at 2518 Jefferson Street. John Edward Garcia died in 2004 and Eliza Alice Garcia died in 2023. The property is in a family trust. State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ _ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _ May 21, 2025 Item #1 251 of 473 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 4 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2502 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: residential B4. Present Use: residential *B5. Architectural Style: MidCentury Modern *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations)  The resource was constructed circa 1947. Addition was made between 1953 and 1964. Pictures Windows replaced 2019 *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown_____ *B10. Significance: Theme ____ Area Period of Significance none Property Type residential Applicable Criteria n/a (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The house at 2502 Jefferson Street is best described as Midcentury Modern Contemporary. Known for clean lines, minimal decoration, and connection with nature, Midcentury Modern architecture features wide, low footprint with large, open spaces, floor-to-ceiling windows and flat or gently sloping rooflines, often with overhanging eaves. Geometric shapes, including triangles and rectangles, contribute to the distinctive appearance of Midcentury Modern. This architecture was popular in the US from 1945 to 1969. For a building to be identified as architecturally significant, it must retain as much of the original structural and architectural integrity. Modifications to the home have been made and the home does not retain integrity of design, setting, feeling, workmanship, or association. No historical evidence was identified to support that the building at 2502 Jefferson Street exemplifies or reflects a unique aspect of Carlsbad’s general historical development. The home is not associated with any person important to the city's history. It does not represent the work of a master builder, craftsman or architect. The dwelling is not eligible for listing under any Criterion, and therefore is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic Resources Inventory, or the National Register of Historic places. The home does not rise to or meet any level of significance, and therefore mitigation measures are not required. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) none *B12. References: Oceanside Blade Tribune newspaper; Seekers of the Spring: A history of Carlsbad, by Marje Howard-Jones. Carlsbad, California: Carlsbad Historical Society; Windows on the Past, An Illustrated History of Carlsbad, California, by Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez, The Donning Company Publishers, 2002; B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Kristi S. Hawthorne 601 South Ditmar Street Oceanside, California 92054 Date of Evaluation: 1/30/2024 NORTH State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _____ _______________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD *NRHP Status Code (This space reserved for official comments.) May 21, 2025 Item #1 252 of 473 23 APPENDIX B CHAIN OF TITLE May 21, 2025 Item #1 253 of 473 Chain of Title 2502 Jefferson Street 1. Deed Grantor: Charles Woolstenhulme and Marie Woolstenthulme Grantee: T. H. Trainer and Elizabeth Trainer Recorded: April 20, 1946, Book 2108, Page 239 of Official Records 2. Deed Grantor: T. H. Trainer and Elizabeth Trainer Grantee: Harry L. Larson and Grace B. Larson Recorded: July 11, 1951, Book 4163, Page 482 of Official Records 3. Deed Grantor: Harry L. Larson and Grace B. Larson Grantee: John E. Garcia and Eliza Garcia Recorded: May 1, 1974, Document #1974-0111682 of Official Records 4. Deed Grantor: John E. Garcia and Eliza Garcia Grantee: John Edward Garcia and Eliza Garcia Living Trust Recorded: May 5, 1989, Document #1989-2328725 of Official Records May 21, 2025 Item #1 254 of 473 24 APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF 2502 JEFFERSON STREET May 21, 2025 Item #1 255 of 473 Comparison of house shape at 2502 Jefferson Street between 1953 (above) and 1964 (below) The shape of the house has changed on the north elevation May 21, 2025 Item #1 256 of 473 Above: View of 2502 Jefferson Street in 2009 with original picture windows Below: View of 2502 Jefferson Street in 2019 after replacement windows May 21, 2025 Item #1 257 of 473 Go o g l e v i e w 2 0 1 9 s h o w i n g g e o m e t r i c l a y o u t o f n o r t h e l e v a t i o n May 21, 2025 Item #1 258 of 473 Southwest elevation May 21, 2025 Item #1 259 of 473 North elevation May 21, 2025 Item #1 260 of 473 Northwest elevation May 21, 2025 Item #1 261 of 473 Southest elevation May 21, 2025 Item #1 262 of 473 25 ATTACHMENTS May 21, 2025 Item #1 263 of 473 May 21, 2025 Item #1 264 of 473 North County Times (Oceanside, California) · Tue, May 6, 1997 · Page 15 https://www.newspapers.com/image/575917909 Downloaded on Jan 30, 2024 Copyright © 2024 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved. May 21, 2025 Item #1 265 of 473 North County Times (Oceanside, California) · Wed, Nov 22, 2000 · Page 21 https://www.newspapers.com/image/577855662 Downloaded on Jan 30, 2024 Copyright © 2024 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved. May 21, 2025 Item #1 266 of 473 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT FOR THE HISTORICAL ASSESSMENT FOR 2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Kristi S. Hawthorne 601 S. Ditmar Street Oceanside CA 92054 (760) 390-4192 kristihawthorne@cox.net January 29, 2024 Exhibit 9.5 May 21, 2025 Item #1 267 of 473 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Project Description 1 Historical Cultural Environment 4 Historical Overview 4 Methods and Results 7 Description of Resource 7 History of Ownership 8 Analysis of Subject Resource 12 Eligibility Criteria 12 Application of Criteria 14 Integrity 15 Conclusion 17 Resources 18 Building Forms 20 Chain of Title 21 Additional Views 22 Attachments 23 May 21, 2025 Item #1 268 of 473 1 January 29, 2024 City of Carlsbad Community Development Department Planning Division 1635 Faraday Ave. Carlsbad, CA 92008 REFERENCE: RESULTS OF THE HISTORICAL CULTURAL ASSESSMENT FOR 2518 JEFFERSON STREET, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 92008 I. INTRODUCTION This report details the findings of the historical assessment conducted for a building located at 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California 92008 (Figures 1 and 2). This study was conducted to assess the building’s potential for historical and architectural significance as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and the impact of the proposed project. It was not included in the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Survey done in 1990 by Roth and Associates, adopted by the Carlsbad City Council as the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) in 1991. The property description is: Lot 10 and the south half of Lot 11 in Block C of Sunny Slope Tract Subdivision, according to the Map thereof No. 995, Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, on June 6, 1906; EXCEPTING therefrom the Easterly 57.5 feet thereof. The Assessor Parcel Number is: 155-251-19-00 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project plans are for demolition of the existing structure to make way for new development. May 21, 2025 Item #1 269 of 473 Figure 1 Project Location, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California May 21, 2025 Item #1 270 of 473 Figure 2 Project Location on USGS 7.5 San Luis Rey Quadrangle May 21, 2025 Item #1 271 of 473 4 III. HISTORICAL CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT The subject property is located within the Sunny Slope subdivision in Carlsbad. It is bound in part by Jefferson Street to the west, Buena Vista Street to the north and Knowles Street to the south. Additionally, it is located southeast of the Buena Vista Lagoon and west of Interstate 5. The Oceanside newspaper announced on June 9, 1906 that the County Board of Supervisors approved the subdivision that year: "The map of the Sunny Slope Tract at Carlsbad together with the dedication of the roads to public use was accepted." The tract was recorded by the Hayes Land Company, owned by John Chauncey Hayes, and consisted of blocks, A, B & C and a strip of 12 lots in Block 13. To the north was Bailey Street which is now Buena Vista Street, to the west was Front Avenue which is now Jefferson Street and to the south Knowles Street. The May 26, 1906 edition of the Oceanside Blade newspaper published a column about "Sunny Slope at Carlsbad" saying: "This beautiful mesa lying to the north and adjoining the townsite has been re-platted into thirty-two lots 100 x 25 feet and are offered at $100 each. They are the only lots that can be bought at that price in either Oceanside, South Oceanside or Carlsbad. They arc pleasantly situated one quarter of a mile from the ocean beach and two blocks from the coming electric road, commanding a grand panoramic view of the old Pacific, Santa Catalina and San Clemente islands. Too much cannot be said of this lovely slope and the mineral springs of curative water, equaling that of the far-famed Bohemian Carlsbad." The lots were sold exclusively by The Hayes Land Co. Sunny Slope was re-subdivided in 1957 and two streets within that immediate tract, Tuttle and Reece, were abandoned. These lots remained largely unimproved for decades until the postwar years. After Interstate 5 was built and the Las Flores exit/entrance to the freeway was constructed, Jefferson Street became a busy artery into Carlsbad. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW In 1881 John Frazier settled on 160 acres just south of the Buena Vista Lagoon and established a small settlement known as "Frazier's Station." In search of water, he drilled a well and in 1883 found what he claimed to have cured him of illnesses relating to stomach and kidney problems. This water was "analyzed" and reported to have the same qualities as water found in Karlsbad, Bohemia. Gerhard Schutte and D. D. Wadsworth purchased the water rights, and together with other investors, formed the Carlsbad Land and Water Company and laid out a town site which they called Carlsbad. May 21, 2025 Item #1 272 of 473 5 Schutte built a home that later became the Twin Inns, a long-standing landmark located on Carlsbad Boulevard. By about 1888 a Santa Fe train depot and several stores were built, and the small village grew to a population of about 300. The San Bernardino Daily Courier described Carlsbad on April 14, 1888: “The town of Carlsbad was laid out a year ago by a company composed of Messrs. Shutte, Smith, Wadsworth and Frazier, who have spared neither time or money in beautifying this famous resort. On arriving at Carlsbad one can see at a glance what the town is; four of the finest residences in Southern California adorn the beautiful hill, sloping as it does gently to the beach, and forming a picturesque sight, which must be seen to be appreciated." The promotional article also described the hotel at Carlsbad: “It is one of the finest constructed hotels on the coast, supplied with all the latest conveniences as to the comfort of the guests. The billiard room on the lower floor is a model of elegance and one of the largest in Southern California. A banking company has been formed and will soon build a two-story brick, marble front, to be used also as an opera house; also a fine church edifice, to cost $5000. The company has fresh water piped all over town free of charge and are going ahead with other improvements regardless of expense. The business houses are located on the gently sloping hills overlooking the placid waters of the Pacific, which, together with the surrounding scenery, make it a charming spot to while away the long and dreamy hours of summer days.” With all the hope and fanfare, Carlsbad’s modest population diminished near the turn of the century and stayed a small coastal village with a population of just 1,660 persons in 1930. In a historical overview in 1949 Dick Carboneau wrote: “By the turn of the century, houses were being tom down, moved, deserted, and surrendered for debt or taxes. The population of Carlsbad was reduced to such a pitiful handful of families that the school threatened to close. R. G. Chase, father of Mrs. Dewey McClellan, recalls that there were only about 8 families in Carlsbad when he came to the community in the early 1900's. Tax titles were for the taking—for anyone who had any money—and lots anywhere on the beach could be had for about $100.” In 1914, the South Coast Land Company purchased the properties of the then-defunct water company, and the community became largely farming. The flower industry began in the early 1920’s. Sam Thompson, owner of the first avocado orchard in Carlsbad, was largely responsible for making Carlsbad “The Home of the Avocado” which was advertised as such. The main business district was located on First Street, now known as State Street. It was one of only two paved roads. For many years the Twin Inns, purchased by E. G. Kentner in 1919, was one of the most popular stops along the Coast highway in North County and was famous for its chicken dinners. Its large plaster statues of chickens were iconic landmarks. May 21, 2025 Item #1 273 of 473 6 In 1925 Roy G. Chase built the Los-Diego Hotel on the southwest corner of State and Grand. The name referred to the two large cities north and south of Carlsbad, Los Angeles, and San Diego, and was “the logical stopping place on the main coast highway between these two cities.” Managed by Mr. and Mrs. C. T. McKeehan, this two-story Spanish-style structure offered guests amenities that included private baths, hot water, and steam heat. The California Highway Commission applied to the Railroad Commission for permission to construct an overpass over the tracks of the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company at Carlsbad. Construction of the crossing began in April 1927 and was completed in August. With this new alignment Highway 101 bypassed State Street and ran directly along Lincoln Street, or present-day Carlsbad Boulevard. New businesses such as the Sea Auto Inn and the Carlsbad Mineral Springs Hotel were soon constructed along the new route to take full advantage of the increasing traffic through the city. The Red Apple Inn, built in 1927 by Alfred G. Blair and designed by Robert Baird, was situated on Carlsbad Boulevard. The roadside inn featured 20 guest rooms and a restaurant, decorated with an apple motif. In 1936 the Red Apple Inn was purchased by A. C. Anderson and later became a part of the Army Navy Academy when the institution relocated from Pacific Beach. The Carlsbad Theater opened in 1927, built and owned by R. E. Struve, who also built Oceanside's Palomar Theater three years earlier. However, shortly after opening Clark sold his interest to Rudolph Sonnemonn and Ernest Sutton. Its named was changed to the Iris Theater in 1939 and it continued to change both names and ownership over the years. Fred Mitchell became the publisher of the Carlsbad Journal newspaper in 1928 after he took over the Carlsbad Champion. Dick Carboneau, columnist and editor of the Oceanside Blade Tribune, noted a significant change when the high was rerouted: “The highway was moved in 1929, making a good many changes in the community. It ruined the business of the Los Diego Hotel. The old route went right past the Twin Inns, turned left onto State Street, and then proceeded north to Oceanside. What had originally been the side entrance of the Twin Inns, and was being used as the front entrance, became the side entrance again; and the original rear of the house became the new front in keeping with the rerouting of the highway.” One of Carlsbad’s most famous residents, actor Leo Carrillo, purchased the Los Kiotes homestead in 1937, a small portion of which became a city park. By 1950, downtown street names changed from First to State with the remaining numbered streets changing to Roosevelt, Madison, Jefferson, and Harding, respectively. (Elm Street was later renamed Carlsbad Village Drive.) The City of Carlsbad was incorporated in 1952 to avoid being annexed to the City of Oceanside. Dewey McClellan served as the first mayor. May 21, 2025 Item #1 274 of 473 7 For decades high school students living in Carlsbad attended the Oceanside-Carlsbad Union High School in Oceanside. In 1957 Carlsbad opened a new high school for its residents. Palomar Airport opened in 1959. Built by Young and Arrieta Construction Co., it was located southeast of the Carlsbad city limits, before it was annexed by the City of Carlsbad in 1978 and eventually renamed McClellan-Palomar Airport. In 1969 a large shopping mall, Plaza Camino Real, was built. By 1982 the mall doubled in size to over a million square feet and 140 stores. Indoor malls changed the way most American consumers shopped for decades but shopping has trended away due to online retail and the trend to "open air lifestyle centers." Carlsbad is home to many large companies such ViaSat and Calloway Golf. Other golf manufacturers include TaylorMade-Adidas, Cobra Golf, Titleist, and Odyssey Golf, dubbing Carlsbad as “Titanium Valley”. Carlsbad’s Aviara Golf Club was designed by Arnold Palmer. Carlsbad welcomed Legoland California Resort, LLC, in 1999. It was the first Legoland theme park outside of Europe. A hotel was added in 2018. In 2021, Carlsbad’s economy grew by $1 billion to $14.6 billion, second only to the City of San Diego, according to a report presented to the City Council. IV. METHODS AND RESULTS Background studies consisting of research from the Carlsbad Library, San Diego County Master Property Records, a field check of the property, subdivision maps, historical photographs, census records, research of various newspapers, and recorded deeds were conducted as part of the project. Primary, Continuation and Building, Structure and Object forms for the resource were completed and appear in this report as Appendix A. DESCRIPTION OF RESOURCE The subject resource at 2518 Jefferson Street was built as a single-family home, however, it has been modified and used as a pre-school since the 1980s. This single-story wood framed home is best described as a Ranch-style home, but it lacks elements of same, namely a large picture window, moderate to wide roof overhang, and fireplace. The house has a very low-pitched side gable roof. The single-entry doorway is under a small porch supported by two wooden posts. The entryway is off-center to the home. To the right of the entry is a set of two double-hung windows, followed by a horizontal slider. These windows are not original to the home and are newer vinyl replacements. The exterior is covered in a horizontal wood siding. A wide cement driveway is on the north end. May 21, 2025 Item #1 275 of 473 8 A single-story garage has been converted to living space. To the rear, or east elevation of the house, an addition has been built which was added after 1978. A view of the resource is shown in Figure 4A with additional views in Appendix C. The resource is in good condition. HISTORY OF OWNERSHIP History of ownership was determined through San Diego County Master Property Records and Recorded Deeds through the San Diego County Assessor/Recorder’s Office. Sunny Slope was owned by The Hayes Land Company, its President and founder was John Chauncey Hayes. Hayes was born in Los Angeles, June 1, 1852. His father Benjamin R. Hayes was an attorney, historian and considered a distinguished jurist. J. Chauncey Hayes graduated from Santa Clara College, then studied law with his father, and was admitted to the bar in 1877. He settled in San Luis Rey and served as postmaster in 1883, as well as justice of the peace and authored his famous "San Luis Rey statutes." Hayes became exclusive land agent for Andrew J. Myers, the founder of the city of Oceanside. J. Chauncey Hayes established South Oceanside, a small township just south of the City of Oceanside, which at one time had its own bank, school, cemetery, several brick residences and a newspaper, the South Oceanside Diamond, of which he was the editor. J. Chauncey Hayes lived in Oceanside since its inception and died in 1934 at the age of 82. In 1906 it was reported that Julia F. and Caroline C. Tast of Arizona purchased 32 lots in the Sunny Slope tract, including Lot 10 in Block C, which is contained in a portion of the subject property. The Oceanside Blade reported that "J. F. Tast and C. C. Tast of Kingman, Arizona, this week bought of the Hayes Land Co., 32 lots in Sunny Slope tract, Carlsbad, the price being $2500." The newspaper wrongly assumed the buyers were men and went on to say, "The Messrs. Tast propose to interest Arizona people in their holdings which adjoin the Wellman place recently bought by Jordan & Lang, also of Kingman, and next season it is expected that a number of Arizonans will build summer homes on the tract.” Julia Frances Tast, born 1876, and her sister Caroline Clara Tast, born 1879 in Austria, came to the United States in 1887 with family members after their father died. The two settled in Kingman, Arizona where Julia operated a hotel and dining room. In 1909 Julia married John Boyle, an engineer for a mining company. The couple later moved to Los Angeles, California and Julia's sister Caroline, who remained single, accompanied them. It seems the property reverted back to the Hayes Land Company by 1908 as Hayes sold nearly the same number of lots to Hattie Schutte that year. In 1935 the lots were listed as delinquent in taxes and likely forfeited for nonpayment to the County. May 21, 2025 Item #1 276 of 473 9 By the 1940s Charles and Marie Woolstenhulme had purchased several lots in Sunny Slope, including the subject property. They were living at a home at 1833 Buena Vista Street. Charles Woolstenhulme was born on March 13, 1892 in England and immigrated to the US in 1912. He married his wife Marie in 1924. He was an assistant director for Warner Brothers and Paramount, known for early films including "The Brute" (1927), and "On the Level" (1930). He was the production manager for dozens of films, including "The Great Gatsby" (1949). He died on May 23, 1960 in Glendale, California, USA. The Woolstenhulmes sold the property to Thomas H. and Elizabeth Trainer in 1946. Thomas Hukill Trainer was a native of Alabama, born 1890. He was an auto salesman in Los Angeles and married Edith Elizabeth Overstreet in 1924. The couple had two children, Sarah A. and Thomas H., Jr. The family moved to Carlsbad by 1940 and Trainer worked in a bulb nursery in Granville Park for a year or two before working at the Army Navy Academy. The Trainers were living near the Army Navy Academy in 1950 where Thomas continued to work as security. Tax records indicate the house at 2518 Jefferson was built in 1952 and the house is visible in a 1953 aerial photo. In 1954 Thomas and Elizabeth Trainer are listed at 2518 Jefferson Street in the local telephone directory. In 1968 the property was sold to Charles P. and Kay Thompson of Riverside. It is unlikely that the couple occupied the residence as they were living in Escondido a year later. They sold the house to Elmo J. and Jeanne O. Stingley in September of 1973, who then sold it just three months later in December of 1973 to John E. and Eliza Garcia. John Edward Garcia was born in Imperial, California in 1924. By 1942 he was living in Oceanside with his parents Felix and Ruth Garcia. In about 1945 he married Eliza Acuna and the couple had three children, Joanne, Jean and Ray. In 1950 the family was living at 3724 Roosevelt Street in Carlsbad where Garcia was working as a carpenter. By 1958 the family moved to a home at 1015 Buena Vista Avenue, just around the corner from the subject property at 2518 Jefferson Street. Garcia was then a fireman for the City of Carlsbad, where he worked for several years, attaining the position of captain. Eliza Garcia owned and operated a daycare center at 2518 Jefferson, converting the dwelling to a preschool. The Kids Place Preschool operated from the 1980s and closed in 2004. Another daycare, Carlsbad Children's Garden, operated at the location until about March of 2020. John Edward Garcia died in 2004 and Eliza Alice Garcia died in 2023. The property is in a family trust. May 21, 2025 Item #1 277 of 473 Confidential, Proprietary and/or Trade Secret. TM SM ® Trademark(s) of Black Knight IP Holding Company, LLC, or an affiliate. © 2024 Black Knight Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved. 1/10/2024 Customer Service Rep:Gennie Aguon Figure 3 May 21, 2025 Item #1 278 of 473 Fi g u r e 4 W e s t e l e v a t i o n , 2 5 1 8 J e f f e r s o n S t r e e t , C a r l s b a d , C a l i f o r n i a May 21, 2025 Item #1 279 of 473 12 ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT RESOURCE ARCHITECTURE The house at 2518 Jefferson Street is best described as a Ranch-style house. The Ranch was one of the small house types financed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) after WWII, with the increased need to produce housing for veterans and their families with limited budgets. In the 1950s a ranch home became symbolic of the American dream and was one of the most popular housing types built in the US. Ranch-style homes built by developers came in a variety of sizes and designs, including the “Ranchero” which was a “Rambling Ranch” design. While at times modest in size, the front porch area and back patio were considered extensions of living space, especially in Southern California. This style of home, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, were “laid out” horizontally, often asymmetrical in shape, with an off-center entrance. Homes were of one-story, featuring a low-pitched gabled roof and deep-set eaves with roof overhang. Exteriors were a mix of wood siding, brick or stone, and included a large picture window as well as irregular windows throughout. Other elements included a brick or stone fireplace, attached, front facing garage, long or full-length porch and patio with sliding glass door. The residence at 2518 Jefferson Street has a few of the elements of a ranch-style home, but lacking others, including a large picture window, large patio or deck, fireplace, sliding glassed doors, and the attached garage has been converted to living space. V. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a significant historic resource is one that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources/National Register of Historic Places or other local historic register or is deemed significant in a historical resource survey (Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code). To be eligible for listing under the California Register/National Register (the standards of which are both very similar), a resource must be significant within a historic context and must also meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: Be associated with an event, or series of events, that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history. Criterion B: Have an unequivocal association with the lives of people significant in the past. May 21, 2025 Item #1 280 of 473 13 Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. Criterion D: Have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in local, state or national prehistory or history. VI. REGISTER STANDARDS CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA When evaluated within its historic context, under CEQA a property must be shown to be significant for one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation – A, B, C, or D. The Criteria describe how properties are significant for their association with important events or persons, for their importance in design or construction, or for their information potential. In addition, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the California Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. Criterion A: Event. To be considered for listing under Criterion A, a property must be associated with one or more events important in the defined historic context. The event or trends must clearly be important within the associated context. Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A – the property’s specific association must be considered important as well. Criterion B: Person. Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Persons “significant in our past” refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person’s important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic event. Significant individuals must be directly associated with the nominated property. Properties eligible under Criterion B are usually those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. Speculative associations are not acceptable. Documentation must make clear how the nominated property represents an individual’s significant contributions. A property must retain integrity from the period of its significant historic associations Architects are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes, however, can be eligible for consideration under Criterion B, if these properties were personally associated with the individual. Criterion C: Design/Construction: Properties may be eligible under Criterion C if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that May 21, 2025 Item #1 281 of 473 14 represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Properties which embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction refer to the way in which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by a people or culture in past periods of history. Distinctive characteristics are the physical features or traits that commonly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction. A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master’s career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular them in his or her craft. Criterion D: Information Potential. Properties may be eligible under Criterion D if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the California Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The seven key aspects of integrity include: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. VII. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR 2518 JEFFERSON STREET Criterion A (association with a significant historical event): No known significant event occurred on the property before or after the resource was. The property is not significant under Criterion A. Criterion B (association with a historic person or persons): No historical evidence was found to suggest or indicate that the dwelling at 2518 Jefferson Street is directly associated with any person(s) or event(s) significant in local, state, or national history. The property does not qualify under Criterion B. Criterion C (represents a significant design or style of construction): The subject residence is best described as a Ranch-style home but lacks defining elements. The dwelling is not considered a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. The architect and/or builder are unknown. Additionally, the garage has been converted and the house has been modified with a newer addition. May 21, 2025 Item #1 282 of 473 15 A resource must express a particular phase in the development of a master builder's career, an aspect of his/her work, or a particular idea or theme in the craft. The work of an unidentified craftsman is eligible if it rises above the level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context. In addition, the property is not eligible under Criterion C simply because it was designed by a prominent architect, builder, etc. but must be the work of a master. Criterion C requires that the resource be a notable work of a Master, and that must be clearly demonstrated in the nomination. The resource is not significant under Criterion C. Criterion D (ability to yield further information): It is unlikely that any further information of importance would be revealed with additional study. The resource is not significant under Criterion D. VIII. INTEGRITY Integrity is the ability of a property to convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the California Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The seven key aspects of integrity include: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Location. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. FINDING: The location of the dwellings has not changed and therefore the property retains the location element for integrity purposes. Design. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. FINDING: The resource at 2518 Jefferson Street has been converted from a residence to a preschool and while it still resembles a dwelling, the garage conversion and the addition (circa 1978) have changed its original design. Setting. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space. May 21, 2025 Item #1 283 of 473 16 FINDING: The setting at 2518 Jefferson Street has changed considerably since it was first constructed. The immediate area was largely residential with single family homes. Today the area, while still residential, has newer, larger properties with multi-family home. The biggest change, however, is Jefferson Street itself, which is a busy artery into downtown Carlsbad from the Las Flores on/off ramp to Interstate 5 and therefore the subject property does not retain integrity of setting. Materials. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. FINDING: The building does not retain sufficient original materials with newer windows, converted garage and addition. Workmanship. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technology of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. FINDING: There is no evidence of a crafts of a particular culture or people, nor a quality of workmanship demonstrated in the construction of either resource. The dwelling does not exhibit or reflect a quality of workmanship element for integrity purposes. Feeling. Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. FINDING: Modifications made to the dwelling have altered the overall appearance and aesthetic. It does not retain integrity of feeling. Association. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. FINDING: The building is not link to or associated with any historic important event or person in the development or history of Carlsbad or the State of California. For a building to be identified as architecturally significant, it must retain as much of the original structural and architectural integrity. The building does not retain integrity of design, setting, feeling, workmanship, or association. May 21, 2025 Item #1 284 of 473 17 IX. CONCLUSION No historical evidence was identified to support that the building at 2518 Jefferson Street exemplifies or reflects a special or unique aspect of Carlsbad’s general historical development. The building is not associated with any person important to the city's history. It does not represent the work of a master builder, craftsman or architect. The structure, once a dwelling converted to an office building, is not eligible for listing under any Criterion, and therefore is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic Resources Inventory, or the National Register of Historic places. The building does not rise to or meet any level of significance, and therefore mitigation measures are not required. Sincerely, Kristi S. Hawthorne May 21, 2025 Item #1 285 of 473 i Kristi S. Hawthorne Qualifications and Experience Since 2020 I have researched, written and submitted no less than seven Cultural Assessments submitted to the City of Carlsbad which includes the following: 180 Cherry Avenue 260 Normandy Lane 270 Juniper 354 Oak Avenue 395 Carlsbad Village Drive 507 Grand Avenue 2668 Ocean Street 2669 Garfield Street 3940 Garfield Street 3950 Garfield Street 4080 Sunnyhill 5511 Los Robles 2002-2008 hired by Archaeos, Inc. to research and write historic content for Historical Assessments 2005 approved by City of Oceanside to research and write Historical Assessments (over 20, which all have been accepted by the Oceanside Planning Commission and Oceanside Historic Preservation Advisory Commission) 2007 hired by ASM Affiliates to supply historic content for Historical Assessment Hired by City of Oceanside in 2015 to conduct Historical Assessments on the following resources:  Oceanside Pier  Bandshell  Comfort Station  Beach community Center 2019 submitted an extensive Cultural and Historic Assessment to the City of San Diego (approved) 2021-2023 Completed Cultural Assessments for 4 homes and buildings to qualify for Mills Act in Oceanside, which have all been accepted and approved I have over 35 years of experience in collecting, maintaining, organizing and preserving historical documents, photos, ephemera and memorabilia for the Oceanside Historical Society May 21, 2025 Item #1 286 of 473 ii Appointed archivist 1987 Served as President 2002-2021 Board Member of the Old Mission San Luis Rey Historic Foundation 2012-2015 Director 2021 to present I have a thorough knowledge of existing records and have compiled my own database in order to effectively study and provide a comprehensive record of early residents of North San Diego County. I developed a computer database to include over 8,000 biographies of local persons; over 500 different subjects pertaining to the history of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Camp Pendleton, Rancho Santa Margarita, Buena Vista Lagoon, Cemeteries, Schools, etc.; Conducted over 50 oral histories Completed research for history book, “Oceanside, Crest of the Wave” by Langdon Sully and Taryn Bigelow, Windsor Publications, 1988. Provided background research on people, buildings and homes for the 1992 Cultural Resource Survey, "Oceanside, California's Pride", prepared for the City of Oceanside by Kathleen Flanigan, Susan H. Carrico, Richard L. Carrico. Author of “Oceanside, Where Life if Worth Living” (Hawthorne) Donning Co., 2000. A comprehensive history of Oceanside and notable people from 1880s to 2000. (Completed all research, photos, captions, interviews, and index) In 2005 completed two studies on Highway 101 for the Highway 101 Association which included research, conducting oral histories, writing history of the road from Oceanside to Del Mar. Author of "100 Years of Photos" (Hawthorn) ProStar Publications, Inc. 2016, (a pictorial history of Oceanside by decade) Author of "The History of Oceanside" (Hawthorne), L+L Printers, 2022, (an updated and revamped history of Oceanside with new photos, design and layout) Writer for the Best of Oceanside and The Osider Magazine (historical articles) Author of blog: HistoriesandMysteries.blog providing non-fiction, historical backgrounds on people, buildings and events. 2018, conducted research for "Tropic of Football: The Long and Perilous Journey of Samoans to the NFL" By Rob Ruck, Two Rivers Distribution, 2018 2019, conducted research and credited as "Historian" for City of Oceanside's Alta Oceanside Environmental Impact Report, December 2019 May 21, 2025 Item #1 287 of 473 iii 2023, wrote and co-produced "Generational Black Pioneers – Featuring Oceanside Entrepreneurs” (directed by Linda Bisesti) a live performance at Oceanside Theatre Company, based on the real lives of Oceanside's earliest Black Residents. 2024, wrote and co-produced "Generational Black Pioneers – Featuring Oceanside Firsts” (directed by Linda Bisesti) a live performance at Oceanside Theatre Company, based on the real lives of Oceanside's earliest Black Residents. Collaborated with Oceanside Public Library for over 30 decades on numerous programs and workshops including Oceanside's historic Eastside Neighborhood, Vietnam War (local impact), and most recently "Visual Analogies" (2023) to gather photos and stories of different cultures and People of Color Collaborated with John Sheehan, FAIA Principal, Studio E Architects on researching of architect Irving J. Gill Collaborated with Seth Mallios, University History Curator, Director, South Coastal Information Center to research local cemeteries for book "Cemeteries of San Diego", Seth Mallios and David M. Caterino, Arcadia Publishing, 2007 Provided research on the history of gliding in North County for Gary Fogel, PhD, for book "Wind & Wings, the History of Soaring in San Diego", Rock Reef Publishing, 2000 May 21, 2025 Item #1 288 of 473 18 X. RESOURCES A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia Savage McAlester, 2013, New York, Penguin Random House Carlsbad Historical Society https://www.carlsbadhistoricalsociety.com/ Citizen-News (Hollywood, California) May 25, 1960, Page 10 Ducy's 1968 Oceanside-Carlsbad Directory https://www.historicaerials.com/ Google Street View 2008-2022 "History of Carlsbad" by Fred W. Mitchell, Editor, Carlsbad Journal; "History of San Diego County", Published by San Diego Press Club, 1936 Home Directory Service, Oceanside-Carlsbad Criss-Cross City Directory, 1954 Luskey's Official Oceanside-Carlsbad Criss-Cross City Directory, 1959 Martinez Daily Standard (Martinez, California), Wed, Jul 6, 1927, Page 1 Oceanside Blade (Oceanside, California), May 26, 1906 Oceanside Blade (Oceanside, California), June 6, 1906 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), August 1, 1958 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), October 15, 1958 Oceanside Blade Tribune (Oceanside, California), August 22, 1960 San Diego County Master Property Records San Diego Union Tribune (San Diego, California), September 29, 1907 San Diego Union Tribune (San Diego, California), November 19, 1907 San Diego Union Tribune (San Diego, California), June 7, 1935 Seekers of the Spring: A History of Carlsbad, by Marje Howard-Jones. Carlsbad, California: The Friends of the Carlsbad Library, 1982 May 21, 2025 Item #1 289 of 473 19 Times-Advocate (Escondido, California) February 28, 1988 · Page 105 Windows on the Past, An Illustrated History of Carlsbad, California, by Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez, The Donning Company Publishers, 2002 www.ancestry.com (various vital records) www.library.ucsb.edu/geospatial/finding-airphotos May 21, 2025 Item #1 290 of 473 20 APPENDIX A BUILDING FORMS May 21, 2025 Item #1 291 of 473 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 4 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County San Diego and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad __ Date T ; R ; __¼ of __ ¼ of Sec ; SB B.M. *c. Address 2518 Jefferson Street City Carlsbad Zip 92008 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) The subject property is located within the Sunny Slope subdivision in Carlsbad. It is bound in part by Jefferson Street to the west, Buena Vista Street to the north and Knowles Street to the south. Additionally, it is located southeast of the Buena Vista Lagoon and west of Interstate 5. The property description is: Lot 10 and the south half of Lot 11 in Block C of Sunny Slope Tract Subdivision, according to the Map thereof No. 995, Filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, State of California, on June 6, 1906; EXCEPTING therefrom the Easterly 57.5 feet thereof. The Assessor Parcel Number is: 155-251-19-00 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject resource at 2518 Jefferson Street was built as a single-family home, however, it has been modified and used as a pre-school since the 1980s. This single-story wood framed home is best described as a Ranch-style home, but it lacks elements of same, namely a large picture window, moderate to wide roof overhang, and fireplace. The house has a very low-pitched side gable roof. The single-entry doorway is under a small porch supported by two wooden posts. The entryway is off-center to the home. To the right of the entry is a set of two double-hung windows, followed by a horizontal slider. These windows are not original to the home and are newer vinyl replacements. The exterior is covered in a horizontal wood siding. A wide cement driveway is located on the north end. A single-story garage has been converted to living space. To the rear, or east elevation of the house, an addition has been built which was added after 1978. P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2 – single family residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: West elevation, 01/25/2024 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source: Historic  Prehistoric  Both Constructed 1952 *P7. Owner and Address: Eliza Garcia Family Trust 1015 Buena Vista Way Carlsbad CA 92008 *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kristi S. Hawthorne, 601 South Ditmar Street Oceanside CA 92054 *P9. Date Recorded: 1/29/2024 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Results of the Historical Building Assessment for 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA 92008 *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (List): State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# ____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#________________________________________ _______________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___ NRHP Status Code Other Listings __ Review Code Reviewer Date _______ May 21, 2025 Item #1 292 of 473 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information Page 2 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA *Recorded by: Kristi S. Hawthorne *Date 1/29/2024  Continuation  Update History of ownership was determined through San Diego County Master Property Records and Recorded Deeds through the San Diego County Assessor/Recorder’s Office. Sunny Slope was owned by The Hayes Land Company, its President and founder was John Chauncey Hayes. Hayes was born in Los Angeles, June 1, 1852. His father Benjamin R. Hayes was an attorney, historian and considered a distinguished jurist. J. Chauncey Hayes graduated from Santa Clara College, then studied law with his father, and was admitted to the bar in 1877. He settled in San Luis Rey and served as postmaster in 1883, as well as justice of the peace and authored his famous "San Luis Rey statutes." Hayes became exclusive land agent for Andrew J. Myers, the founder of the city of Oceanside. J. Chauncey Hayes established South Oceanside, a small township just south of the City of Oceanside, which at one time had its own bank, school, cemetery, several brick residences and a newspaper, the South Oceanside Diamond, of which he was the editor. J. Chauncey Hayes lived in Oceanside since its inception and died in 1934 at the age of 82. In 1906 it was reported that Julia F. and Caroline C. Tast of Arizona purchased 32 lots in the Sunny Slope tract, including Lot 10 in Block C, which is contained in a portion of the subject property. The Oceanside Blade reported that "J. F. Tast and C. C. Tast of Kingman, Arizona, this week bought of the Hayes Land Co., 32 lots in Sunny Slope tract, Carlsbad, the price being $2500." The newspaper wrongly assumed the buyers were men and went on to say, "The Messrs. Tast propose to interest Arizona people in their holdings which adjoin the Wellman place recently bought by Jordan & Lang, also of Kingman, and next season it is expected that a number of Arizonans will build summer homes on the tract.” Julia Frances Tast, born 1876, and her sister Caroline Clara Tast, born 1879 in Austria, came to the United States in 1887 with family members after their father died. The two settled in Kingman, Arizona where Julia operated a hotel and dining room. In 1909 Julia married John Boyle, an engineer for a mining company. The couple later moved to Los Angeles, California and Julia's sister Caroline, who remained single, accompanied them. It seems the property reverted back to the Hayes Land Company by 1908 as Hayes sold nearly the same number of lots to Hattie Schutte that year. In 1935 the lots were listed as delinquent in taxes and likely forfeited for nonpayment to the County. By the 1940s Charles and Marie Woolstenhulme had purchased several lots in Sunny Slope, including the subject property. They were living at a home at 1833 Buena Vista Street. Charles Woolstenhulme was born on March 13, 1892 in England and immigrated to the US in 1912. He married his wife Marie in 1924. He was an assistant director for Warner Brothers and Paramount, known for early films including "The Brute" (1927), and "On the Level" (1930). He was the production manager for dozens of films, including "The Great Gatsby" (1949). He died on May 23, 1960 in Glendale, California, USA. The Woolstenhulmes sold the property to Thomas H. and Elizabeth Trainer in 1946. Thomas Hukill Trainer was a native of Alabama, born 1890. He was an auto salesman in Los Angeles and married Edith Elizabeth Overstreet in 1924. The couple had two children, Sarah A. and Thomas H., Jr. The family moved to Carlsbad by 1940 and Trainer worked in a bulb nursery in Granville Park for a year or two before working at the Army Navy Academy. The Trainers were living near the Army Navy Academy in 1950 where Thomas continued to work as security. Tax records indicate the house at 2518 Jefferson was built in 1952 and the house is visible in a 1953 aerial photo. In 1954 Thomas and Elizabeth Trainer are listed at 2518 Jefferson Street in the local telephone directory. In 1968 the property was sold to Charles P. and Kay Thompson of Riverside. It is unlikely that the couple occupied the residence as they were living in Escondido a year later. They sold the house to Elmo J. and Jeanne O. Stingley in September of 1973, who then sold it just three months later in December of 1973 to John E. and Eliza Garcia. State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ _ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _ May 21, 2025 Item #1 293 of 473 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information Page 3 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad CA *Recorded by: Kristi S. Hawthorne *Date 1/29/2024  Continuation  Update John Edward Garcia was born in Imperial, California in 1924. By 1942 he was living in Oceanside with his parents Felix and Ruth Garcia. In about 1945 he married Eliza Acuna and the couple had three children, Joanne, Jean and Ray. In 1950 the family was living at 3724 Roosevelt Street in Carlsbad where Garcia was working as a carpenter. By 1958 the family moved to a home at 1015 Buena Vista Avenue, just around the corner from the subject property at 2518 Jefferson Street. Garcia was then a fireman for the City of Carlsbad, where he worked for several years, attaining the position of captain. Eliza Garcia owned and operated a daycare center at 2518 Jefferson, converting the dwelling to a preschool. The Kids Place Preschool operated from the 1980s and closed in 2004. Another daycare, Carlsbad Children's Garden, operated at the location until about March of 2020. John Edward Garcia died in 2004 and Eliza Alice Garcia died in 2023. The property is in a family trust. State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ _ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _ May 21, 2025 Item #1 294 of 473 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 4 of 4 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 2518 Jefferson Street Carlsbad, California B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: residential B4. Present Use: daycare center *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) The resource was constructed circa 1952 *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown_____ *B10. Significance: Theme ____ Area Period of Significance none Property Type residential Applicable Criteria n/a (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The house at 2518 Jefferson Street is best described as a Ranch-style house. The Ranch was one of the small house types financed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) after WWII, with the increased need to produce housing for veterans and their families with limited budgets. In the 1950s a ranch home became symbolic of the American dream and was one of the most popular housing types built in the US. Ranch-style homes built by developers came in a variety of sizes and designs, including the “Ranchero” which was a “Rambling Ranch” design. While at times modest in size, the front porch area and back patio were considered extensions of living space, especially in Southern California. This style of home, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, were “laid out” horizontally, often asymmetrical in shape, with an off-center entrance. Homes were of one-story, featuring a low-pitched gabled roof and deep-set eaves with roof overhang. Exteriors were a mix of wood siding, brick or stone, and included a large picture window as well as irregular windows throughout. Other elements included a brick or stone fireplace, attached, front facing garage, long or full-length porch and patio with sliding glass door. The residence at 2518 Jefferson Street has a few of the elements of a ranch-style home, but lacking others, including a large picture window, large patio or deck, fireplace, sliding glassed doors, and the attached garage has been converted to living space. No historical evidence was identified to support that the building at 2518 Jefferson Street exemplifies or reflects a special or unique aspect of Carlsbad’s general historical development. The building is not associated with any person important to the city's history. It does not represent the work of a master builder, craftsman or architect. The structure, once a dwelling converted to an office building, is not eligible for listing under any Criterion, and therefore is not eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic Resources Inventory, or the National Register of Historic places. The building does not rise to or meet any level of significance, and therefore mitigation measures are not required. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) none *B12. References: Oceanside Blade Tribune newspaper; Seekers of the Spring: A history of Carlsbad, by Marje Howard-Jones. Carlsbad, California: Carlsbad Historical Society; Windows on the Past, An Illustrated History of Carlsbad, California, by Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez, The Donning Company Publishers, 2002; B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Kristi S. Hawthorne 601 South Ditmar Street Oceanside, California 92054 Date of Evaluation: 1/29/2024 NORTH State of California — The Resources Agency Primary# _____________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _____ _______________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD *NRHP Status Code (This space reserved for official comments.) May 21, 2025 Item #1 295 of 473 21 APPENDIX B CHAIN OF TITLE May 21, 2025 Item #1 296 of 473 Chain of Title 2518 Jefferson Street 1. Deed Grantor: Charles Woolstenhulme and Marie Woolstenthulme Grantee: T. H. Trainer and Elizabeth Trainer Recorded: April 20, 1946, Book 2108, Page 239 of Official Records 2. Deed Grantee: Thomas H. Trainer, Sr. Grantor: Charles P. Thompson and Kay Thompson Recorded: December 31, 1968, Book 1968, Page 228853, of Official Records 3. Deed Grantor: Charles P. Thompson and Kay Thompson Grantee: Elmo J. Stingley and Jeanne O. Stingley Recorded: September 24, 1973, Book 1973, Page 0267519 of Official Records 4. Deed Grantor: Elmo J. Stingley and Jeanne O. Stingley Grantee: John E. Garcia and Eliza Garcia Recorded: December 18, 1973, Document #1973-347928 of Official Records 5. Deed Grantor: John E. Garcia and Eliza Garcia Grantee: John Edward Garcia and Eliza Garcia Living Trust Recorded: May 5, 1989, Document #1989-2328725 of Official Records May 21, 2025 Item #1 297 of 473 22 APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF 2518 JEFFERSON STREET May 21, 2025 Item #1 298 of 473 May 21, 2025 Item #1 299 of 473 May 21, 2025 Item #1 300 of 473 Aerial views of backyard (east elevation) providing view of addition. (Redfin.com December 2023) May 21, 2025 Item #1 301 of 473 23 ATTACHMENTS May 21, 2025 Item #1 302 of 473 May 21, 2025 Item #1 303 of 473 Ae r i a l v i e w t a k e n 1 9 5 3 s h o w i n g o r i g i n a l h o u s e a t 2 5 1 8 J e f f e r s o n S t r e e t b e f o r e a d d i t i o n . ax n - 1 9 5 3 _ 1 4 m - 2 0 w w w . l i b r a r y . u c s b . e d u / g e o s p a t i a l / f i n d i n g - a i r p h o t o s May 21, 2025 Item #1 304 of 473 Ae r i a l v i e w t a k e n 1 9 8 1 s h o w i n g h o u s e a t 2 5 1 8 J e f f e r s o n S t r e e t a f t e r a d d i t i o n . Hi s t o r i c a l a e r i a l s . c o m May 21, 2025 Item #1 305 of 473 Times-Advocate (Escondido, California) · Sun, Feb 28, 1988 · Page 105 https://www.newspapers.com/image/571052732 Downloaded on Jan 27, 2024 Copyright © 2024 Newspapers.com. All Rights Reserved. May 21, 2025 Item #1 306 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad, California Prepared For: Rincon Homes 5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad California 92008 Prepared By: South Environmental LLC 2061 N. Los Robles Avenue., Ste. 205 Pasadena, California 91104 Authors: Samantha Jovanovic, MA, MS, Kevin Hunt, BA and Samantha Murray, MA, RPA May 2024 Exhibit 9.6 May 21, 2025 Item #1 307 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad i May 2024 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Project Location ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................................................................. 4 2 Background Research ........................................................................................................................................ 10 2.1 CHRIS Records Search ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.2 Native American Scoping ...................................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Review of Historic Aerial Photographs ............................................................................................ 21 3 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 22 4 Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1 Prehistoric Context .................................................................................................................................. 24 4.2 Ethnographic Context ............................................................................................................................. 27 4.3 Historic Context ........................................................................................................................................ 29 5 Archaeological Survey ....................................................................................................................................... 31 5.1 Methods....................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.2 Results .......................................................................................................................................................... 36 6 Findings and Recommendations................................................................................................................... 37 6.1 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................................. 37 6.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 37 7 References ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Appendix A: SCIC Records Search Summary Appendix B: Native American Scoping Appendix C: Resumes for Qualified Staff May 21, 2025 Item #1 308 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad ii May 2024 Figures Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Tables Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site ................. 10 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site....................... 13 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach ............................................................................................. 16 May 21, 2025 Item #1 309 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 1 May 2024 Executive Summary South Environmental was retained to prepare an archaeological survey report for the 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project (project), located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This analysis includes the results of a California Historical Resources Information Center (CHRIS) records search of the project site and a one-half (0.5)-mile radius from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC); a California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search and informational scoping letters to local tribes; and an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and Luiseño Native American monitor. This report was prepared in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15064.5 for historical resources and the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2017). No archaeological resources were identified within the project site as a result of the records search, Native American scoping, or intensive-level survey. However, a review of the SCIC records search results, archaeological literature, receipt of a positive Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, and responses from Native American contacts indicates that the project site is in an area that is highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. Historic aerial photographs of the project site confirm that the upper levels on soil within the project site were previously disturbed by its former uses and recent development. Nonetheless, it is always possible to encounter resources during project- related ground disturbance. Implementation of the recommendations in Section 6.2 for archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground disturbance occurring below one-foot in depth (as deemed necessary by the qualified archaeologist) will ensure that any cultural resources or human remains identified during construction are handled appropriately such that impacts to archaeological resources and human remains are less than significant. May 21, 2025 Item #1 310 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 2 May 2024 1 Introduction South Environmental was retained to prepare an archaeological survey report for the 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project (project), located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This analysis includes the results of a California Historical Resources Information Center (CHRIS) records search of the project site and a one-half (0.5)-mile radius from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC); a California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search and informational scoping letters to local tribes; and an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and Luiseño Native American representative. This report was prepared in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15064.5 for historical resources and the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2017) by South Environmental Archaeologist Samantha Jovanovic, Principal Archaeologist Kevin Hunt, BA and Cultural Resources Director and Principal Investigator Samantha Murray, MA, RPA, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology. Resumes for key personnel are provided in Appendix C. 1.1 Project Location The project site is identified as 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (Figure 1). The project site is located on the east side of Jefferson Street, the south side of Buena Vista Avenue, and occupies Assessor Parcel Numbers 155-251-18-00 and 155-251-19-00. 1.2 Project Description The project site is currently developed as two single family residences that total 0.542 acres. The proposed project would demolish the existing buildings and structures and construct 12 new residential condominium units. Units shall be 3-story with attached private garages. The proposed units shall consist of four separate 35-feet tall triplex buildings. The maximum depth of ground disturbance is anticipated to be approximately 4-feet. May 21, 2025 Item #1 311 of 473 Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Figure 1. Project Location Map 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Location is within Carlsbad, California, in San Diego Countyon the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Section 31 of Township 11 South and Range 04 West andSection 6 of Township 12 South and Range 04 West Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):Latitude: 33.1685828N Longitude: -117.3480493W Scale: 1:24,000Project Site 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 312 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 4 May 2024 1.3 Regulatory Framework 1.3.1 State California Register of Historical Resources In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(a)). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), enumerated below. According to California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)). The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. May 21, 2025 Item #1 313 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 5 May 2024 California Environmental Quality Act As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources: • California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” • California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) define “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” It also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of an historical resource. • California Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” • California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony. • California Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; preservation-in- place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s). More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).) If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(q)), it is a “historical resource” and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (California Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)). A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1); California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(2) states the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: May 21, 2025 Item #1 314 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 6 May 2024 1. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or 2. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or 3. Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance is materially impaired. If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (California PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]). California PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (California PRC section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (California PRC Section 21074(c), 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used May 21, 2025 Item #1 315 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 7 May 2024 when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed in California PRC Section 5097.98. 1.3.2 Local City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 22 Historic Preservation; Chapter 22.02 General Regulation and Administration It is the intent and purpose of this title to: A. Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of historic resources that represent or reflect elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; B. Safeguard the city’s historic heritage by encouraging preservation of its historic resources; C. Stabilize and improve property values; D. Foster civic pride in the character and accomplishments of the past; E. Protect and enhance the city’s historic attractions for residents, tourists and visitors and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry; F. Strengthen the economy of the city; G. Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city. Chapter 22.06 Historic Resources, Historic Landmarks and Historic Districts 22.06.020 Criteria for historic resources inventory A historic resource may be considered and approved by council for inclusion in the historic resources inventory based on one or more of the following: A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer or architect; or D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological, topographical, ecological or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or May 21, 2025 Item #1 316 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 8 May 2024 E. It is a geographically definable area with a concentration of buildings, structures, improvements, or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. (Ord. NS-433 § 3, 1997; Ord. NS-141 § 5, 1991; Ord. 9776 § 1, 1985). Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element of the General Plan The Arts, History, Culture, and Education Element of the City’s General Plan recognizes that an aesthetic environment and connections to culture and education are essential characteristics of a community that values its quality of life and wishes to be seen by its residents, neighbors and visitors as an attractive and desirable place, addressing the needs of the human spirit. This element is intended to enhance availability and accessibility of the arts for all residents, preservation of the important historic and cultural elements that make Carlsbad unique, and educational opportunities for lifelong learning. The following goal and policies regard the protection of historic resources in the City of Carlsbad: Goals • 7-G.1. Recognize, protect, preserve, and enhance the city’s diverse heritage. • 7-G.2. Make Carlsbad’s history more visible and accessible to residents and visitors. Policies • 7-P.1. Prepare an updated inventory of historic resources in Carlsbad, with recommendations for specific properties and districts to be designated in national, state, and local registries, if determined appropriate and with agreement of the property owners. • 7-P.2. Encourage the use of regional, state and federal programs that promote cultural preservation to upgrade and redevelop properties with historic or cultural value. Consider becoming a participant in the Mills Act tax incentive program. • 7-P.3. Formalize a program of historical markers/plaques at resources in state and national registers or of local importance. • 7-P.4. Promote community education of historic resources, integration and celebration of such resources as part of community events: a. Enhance the community’s recognition that objects of historic importance increase both fiscal and community value. b. Promote the use of historic resources for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the city. Cooperate with historic societies, schools, libraries, parks and community members to stimulate public interest in historic preservation. c. Maintain historical reference materials on file at the Carlsbad City Library. May 21, 2025 Item #1 317 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 9 May 2024 • 7-P.5. Encourage the rehabilitation of qualified historic structures through application of the California Historical Building Code. • 7-P.6. Ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to historic structures listed or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. • Policy 7-P.7 Implement the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources. • Policy 7-P.8 During construction of specific development projects, require monitoring of grading, ground-disturbing, and other major earth-moving activities in previously undisturbed areas or in areas with known archaeological or paleontological resources by a qualified professional, as well as a tribal monitor during activities in areas with cultural resources of interest to local Native American tribes. Both the qualified professional and tribal monitor shall observe grading, ground-disturbing, and other earth-moving activities. • Policy 7-P.9 Ensure that treatment of any cultural resources discovered during site grading complies with the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resource Guidelines. Determination of the significance of the cultural resource(s) and development and implementation of any data recovery program shall be conducted in consultation with interested Native American tribes. All Native American human remains and associated grave goods shall be returned to their most likely descendent and repatriated. The final disposition of artifacts not directly associated with Native American graves shall be negotiated during consultation with interested tribes; if the artifact is not accepted by Native American tribes, it shall be offered to an institution staffed by qualified professionals, as may be determined by the City Planner. Artifacts include material recovered from all phases of work, including the initial survey, testing, indexing, data recovery, and monitoring. • Policy 7-P.10 Require consultation with the appropriate organizations and individuals (e.g., Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information Systems [CHRIS], the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC], and Native American groups and individuals) to minimize potential impacts to cultural resources that may occur as a result of a proposed project. • Policy 7-P.11 Prior to occupancy of any buildings, a cultural resource monitoring report identifying all materials recovered shall be submitted to the City Planner. May 21, 2025 Item #1 318 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 10 May 2024 2 Background Research 2.1 CHRIS Records Search On March 26, 2024, South Environmental requested a cultural resources records search of the project site and a one-half-mile search radius from the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC), which houses cultural resources records for San Diego County. The SCIC completed the search on April 18, 2024. This search included their collections of mapped prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and historic built-environment resources, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 forms (DPR forms), technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources include historical maps of the study area, the NRHP, the CRHR, the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list. A summary of the records search results is presented in Appendix A. 2.1.1 Previously Conducted Cultural Resource Studies The SCIC records search results indicate that two previously conducted cultural resource studies intersect the project site. A summary of these studies is provided following Table 1. An additional 25 studies were identified outside the project site within the 0.5-mile records search radius. A list of all previously conducted studies identified within the records search radius is provided in Table 1. Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site SCIC Report Number Author Year Report Title Proximity to Project Site SD-03027 Smith, Brian, and Larry Pierson 1994 A Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for the Muhe Project, Carlsbad, California Outside (0.18 mi north of site) SD-03031 Smith, Brian, and Larry Pierson 1996 Addendum to a Cultural Resource Survey and Assessment for the Muhe Project, Carlsbad, California Outside (0.18 mi north of site) SD-04111 Seeman, Larry 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California WITHIN (Overlaps entire site) SD-04587 Caltrans and Karen Crafts 1991 Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Upgrade of the Route 78 Interstate 5 Interchange in Oceanside, CA Outside (0.43 mi north of site) SD-05845 Laylander, Don 1988 Historic Property Survey Report for a Widening of State Route 78 Outside (0.42 mi north of site) May 21, 2025 Item #1 319 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 11 May 2024 Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site SCIC Report Number Author Year Report Title Proximity to Project Site SD-06248 Caltrans 1998 Negative Archaeological Survey Report District 11 Outside (0.18 NE of site) SD-06531 Crafts, Karen 1991 Negative Archaeological Survey Report-11-SD-78 P.M. 0.0-0.7 Outside (0.43 mi north of site) SD-08487 Pallette, Drew 2003 Cultural Resources Study for the Proposed NCTD FAO Facility Project Outside (0.43 mi SW of site) SD-09361 Byrd, Brian F., and Collin O’Neill 2002 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5 San Diego County, CA WITHIN (Overlaps entire site) SD-09362 Laylander, Don, and Mark Becker 2004 Archaeological Testing at Twelve Prehistoric Sites (SDI-603, -628, -4553, -6831, -6882, 10965, - 12670, 13484, 15678, 15679, 15680) on the Central San Diego Coast, San Diego County, CA Outside (0.23 mi north of site) SD-09516 Caterino, David 2005 The Cemeteries and Gravestones of San Diego County: An Archaeological Study Outside (0.46 mi NNE of site) SD-09571 Guerrero, Monica C., and Dennis R. Gallegos 2003 City of Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Cultural Resource Background Study City of Carlsbad, California Outside (0.30 mi east of site SD-11761 Dominici, Deb 2007 Historic Property Survey Report, I-5 North Coast Widening Project Outside (0.10 mi east & north of site SD-13916 Caltrans 2012 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Outside (0.15 mi NE of site) SD-14069 Ni Ghabhlain, Sinead 2011 Cultural and Historical Resource Study for the City of Oceanside General Plan- Circulation Element Update Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Outside (0.33 mi N & NW of site) SD-14495 Caltrans 2013 Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(F) Evaluation Outside (0.15 mi NE of site) SD-14615 Caltrans 2007 Interstate 5 Corridor Project Historic Property Survey Report and Supplementals Outside (0.11 mi East of site) SD-14674 City of Carlsbad 2012 Buena Vista Lift Station Sewer Force Main (VC-4) Environmental Documents Outside (0.32 mi north of site) SD-16127 Dominici, Deb, and Don Laylander 2008 2007 Cultural Resources Treatment Plan North Coast Interstate 5 Corridor Outside (350 ft east of site) May 21, 2025 Item #1 320 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 12 May 2024 Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site SCIC Report Number Author Year Report Title Proximity to Project Site SD-16131 Blake, Michelle 2013 Sixth Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR): Revised Area of Potential Effects (APE) I-5 North Coast Corridor Outside (0.11 mi East of site) SD-16264 Smith, Brian F. 2015 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the Lanai Subdivision Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Outside (0.24 NE of site) SD-16287 Smith, Brian F., and David K. Grabski 2015 Cultural Resources Monitoring Report for the De Anda Residence Project, City of Carlsbad, California CPD No. 13-30 APN 155-140-41 Outside (0.10 mi north of site) SD-16620 Kennedy, George L. 2016 Negative Archaeological, Paleontological, and Native American Monitoring and Mitigation Report for the Hirschkoff Family Residence Project, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (CDP 14-13 and 14-14; APN 155-180- 28) Outside (0.26 mi north of site) SD-17196 Castells, Shelby Gunderman 2015 Cultural Resources Study for the Carlsbad Village Drive Mixed Use Development Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Outside (0.40 mi SE of site) SD-17218 Castells, Shelby Gunderman, Shannon Davis, Sarah Stringer- Bowsher, Jennifer Krintz, and Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin 2013 Cultural and Historical Resources Existing Conditions and Evaluation Report for the Pacific Surfliner Carlsbad Village Double-Track Project, San Diego County, California Outside (0.43 mi SW of site) SD-18323 Smith, Brian F., and J.R.K. Stropes 2019 Historic Structure Assessment for the Carlsbad Station Project, Carlsbad, California Outside (0.42 mi south of site) SD-19418 Smith, Brian F., and J.R.K. Stropes 2020 Historic Structure Assessment for 2754 and 2760 Arland Road, Carlsbad, California (APN 156-142- 03) Outside (0.52 mi east of site) SD-04111 Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and Recreation Element Carlsbad, California (Seeman 1982). This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared by Iwanaga for the City of Carlsbad in accordance with CEQA, State Guidelines, and City of Carlsbad implementation procedures as part of the City’s effort to revise their Parks and Recreation Development Program. The study covers Carlsbad’s sphere of influence which encompasses the entire project site. A comprehensive inventory of cultural resources within the City of Carlsbad was completed by CPO (now SANDAG) in April 1981. This study included extensive literature search and in-field surveys which revealed 101 archaeological sites representing significant complex and prehistoric systems. The data indicates that at least three cultures inhabited the area beginning at least 8,000 years ago. The majority of the sites are located on broad mesa tops and along lagoon terraces. The report determined that the Carlsbad area is archaeologically sensitive, however it is impossible to determine potential adverse impacts at this level of planning. It May 21, 2025 Item #1 321 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 13 May 2024 states that if Standard City Conditions and Mitigation Measures are implemented during the planning and development phases, significant adverse impacts should be avoided. This study did not include an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey of the current project site. SD-09361 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey Along Interstate 5, San Diego County, CA (EA 23580K, Contract No. 11A0398) (B.F. Byrd and C. O’Neill 2002). This report was prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. for a proposed California Department of Transportation, District 11 (Caltrans) lane management and upgrade project along approximately 20.5-mi of the Interstate 5 right-of-way (ROW) between Del Mar and Camp Pendleton. The study included a cultural records search with the SCIC and The San Diego Museum of Man that encompassed the current project site, however none of the previous or newly recorded resources within the search radius overlap. The records search included the ROW and a buffer extending west to the coast, 0.3-miles around major lagoons and estuaries that were intersected by the ROW, and 0.5-mile east of the ROW. The study also included a pedestrian survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) extending 6.1 meters from both edges of the pavement, which also does not overlap with the current project. As a result of the records search and survey, a total of 22 sites and 7 isolates were identified within the ROW, all of which were prehistoric. The pedestrian survey relocated 12 of these resources and identified an additional two sites and seven isolates. The nearest of these sites is CA-SDI-628 approximately 0.25-mile north of the project site. Management considerations were not discussed. This study did not include an intensive pedestrian archaeological survey of the current project site. 2.1.2 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources The SCIC records search results indicate that no previously recorded sites overlap the project site. Seventeen previously recorded cultural resources were identified within the 0.5-mile records search area. Ten of the resources are from the historic period, six of the resources are prehistoric, and one resource is a multicomponent site with both historic and prehistoric aspects. A list of all previously recorded resources identified within the records search radius is provided in Table 2. Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site Primary Number Trinomial Resource Description Resource Eligibility Recorded by and Year Proximity to Project Site P-37-000627 CA-SDI-000627 Prehistoric site: campsite Insufficient information 1958 (William Wallace, UCLA) Outside (909 ft SW of site) P-37-000628 CA-SDI-000628 Prehistoric site: marine shell midden Insufficient information 1994 (Larry Pierson-Brian F. Smith & Assoc.) Outside (1,180 ft north of site) May 21, 2025 Item #1 322 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 14 May 2024 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site Primary Number Trinomial Resource Description Resource Eligibility Recorded by and Year Proximity to Project Site P-37-000629 CA-SDI-000629 Prehistoric site: marine shell midden Insufficient information 1958 (William Wallace, UCLA), 2014 Outside (2,561 ft NE of site) P-37-008455 CA-SDI-008455 Prehistoric site: marine shell scatter Insufficient information 1981 (S. Cardenas); 2014 Outside (634 ft north of site) P-37-027036 CA-SDI-017672 Prehistoric site: marine shell scatter Insufficient information 2005 (ASM Affiliates, Inc.) Outside (1,386 ft north of site) P-37-029985 N/A Historic period government building Recommended ineligible for CRHR 2005 (Janice Calpo, Andrew Hope, Caltrans) Outside (2,749 ft SE of site) P-37-032654 CA-SDI-020692 Prehistoric site: marine shell scatter Insufficient information 2012 (Andrew Giletti, Affinis); 2014 (AECOM, AECOM) Outside (2,064 ft north of site) P-37-033874 CA-SDI-021274 Multicomponent including prehistoric possible shell deposit or midden and historic roads/trails/railroad grades Insufficient information 2014 (AECOM) Outside (1,599 ft north of site) P-37-034887 CA-SDI-021704 Historic archaeological site: privies/dumps/trash scatters Recommended ineligible for CRHR 2015 (Brian F. Smith & Assoc.) Outside (540 ft north of site) P-37-037178 N/A Historic period bridge Recommended ineligible for CRHR & NRHP 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) Outside (2,448 ft SW of site) P-37-037179 N/A Historic building: hotel/motel Recommended ineligible for CRHR, NRHP, & Local Register 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) Outside (2,579 ft SW of site) P-37-037180 N/A Historic building: 1-3 story commercial building Recommended ineligible CRHR, NRHP, & Local Register 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) Outside (2,688 ft SW of site) May 21, 2025 Item #1 323 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 15 May 2024 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within 0.5-Mile of the Project Site Primary Number Trinomial Resource Description Resource Eligibility Recorded by and Year Proximity to Project Site P-37-037181 N/A Historic building: privies/dumps/trash scatters Recommended ineligible CRHR, NRHP, & Local Register 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) Outside (2,709 ft SW of site) P-37-038297 CA-SDI-022605 Potentially historic: shell and trash scatter Insufficient information 2018 (Scott Wolf, Dudek) Outside (1,612 ft SW of site) N/A N/A 2530 Davis Ave. Carlsbad, CA Insufficient information N/A Outside (845 ft east of site) N/A N/A 2524 Davis Ave. Carlsbad, CA Insufficient information N/A Outside (845 ft east of site) N/A N/A 2565 Pio Pico Dr. Carlsbad, CA Insufficient information N/A Outside (1,056 ft east of site) 2.2 Native American Scoping A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File search was requested by South Environmental on March 26, 2024. The NAHC responded to the request on April 12, 2024, and reported positive results. The NAHC recommended contacting the Native American tribes listed in Table 3, for additional information or knowledge they may have regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. In anticipation of the NAHC response, on April 4, 2024, South Environmental sent letters to each contact provided by the NAHC and made a follow-up outreach attempt on May 9, 2024. As detailed in Table 3, several tribal contacts have responded to the outreach letters to date. No archaeological, historical, or tribal cultural resources were identified within the project site as a result of South Environmental’s coordination with tribes, however the project site and nearby Buena Vista Lagoon have been identified as being located within ancestral territory, in the vicinity of sacred sites, and the immediate area was identified as culturally sensitive/significant (see Table 3 below). All Native American outreach completed by South Environmental is documented in Appendix B. May 21, 2025 Item #1 324 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 16 May 2024 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach Native American Tribal Contact Method of Notification/Date Response Received Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Art Bunce, Attorney Phone: (760) 489-0329 buncelaw@aol.com Emailed on April 4, 2024 Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Ralph Goff, Chairperson 36190 Church Road, Suite1 Campo, CA 91906 Phone: (619) 478-9046 Fax: (619) 478-5818 rgoff@campo-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Email returned as undeliverable. Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA 91901 Phone: (619) 933-2200 Fax: (619) 445-9126 michaelg@leaningrock.net Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Read receipt received April 5, 2024. Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Robert Pinto, Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA 91901 Phone: (619) 368-4382 Fax: (619) 445-9126 ceo@ebki-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Read receipt received May 9, 2024. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources P.O. Box 507 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Phone: (760) 803-5694 clint@redtailenvironmental.com Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez, Chairperson P.O. Box 130 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Phone: (760) 765-0845 Fax: (760) 765-0320 Mailed via US Post Office on April 4, 2024 No response received to date. Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Escondido, CA 92025 Phone: (760) 737-7628 Fax: (760) 747-8568 Mailed via US Post Office on April 4, 2024 No response received to date. Jamul Indian Village Erica Pinto, Chairperson P.O. Box 612 Emailed on April 4, 2024. No response received to date. May 21, 2025 Item #1 325 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 17 May 2024 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach Native American Tribal Contact Method of Notification/Date Response Received Jamul, CA 91935 Phone: (619) 669-4785 Fax: (619) 669-4817 epinto@jiv-nsn.gov Emailed on May 9, 2024. Jamul Indian Village Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 612 Jamul, CA 91935 Phone: (619) 669-4855 lcumper@jiv-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024 Response received from Lisa Cumper via email on April 8, 2024: “I just did a quick look at our tribal record database, there was a village less than a mile away along the lagoon edge, it’s scattered now and the area is highly developed. I am recommending monitoring for this project.” Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation – Belardes Joyce Perry, Cultural Resource Director 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, CA 92603 Phone: (949) 293-8522 kaamalam@gmail.com Emailed on April 4, 2024 Response received via email on April 12, 2024: “We have no comments. We yield to San Luis Rey Band for Consultation. Thank you.” Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A Heidi Lucero, Chairperson, THPO 31411-A La Matanza Street San Juan Capistrano, CA 9267 Phone: (562) 879-2884 jbmian.chairwoman@gmail.com Emailed on April 4, 2024 Response received via email on April 5, 2024: “This is just outside of our tribal territory but thank you for reaching out.” Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Pine Valley, CA 91962 Phone: (619) 709-4207 Mailed via US Post Office on April 4, 2024 No response received to date. La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Norma Contreras, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Phone: (760) 742-3771 Mailed via US Post Office on April 4, 2024 No response received to date. La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson 8 Crestwood Road Boulevard, CA 91905 Phone: (619) 478-2113 Fax: (619) 478-2125 LP13boots@aol.com Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson P.O. Box 1302 Boulevard, CA 91905 Mailed via US Post Office on April 4, 2024 No response received to date. May 21, 2025 Item #1 326 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 18 May 2024 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach Native American Tribal Contact Method of Notification/Date Response Received Phone: (619 ) 766-4930 Fax: (619) 766-4957 Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Michael Linton, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 Phone: (760) 782-3818 Fax: (760) 782-9092 mesagrandeband@msn.com Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Email returned as Undeliverable. Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer PMB50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA 92059 Phone: (760) 891-3515 Fax: (760) 742-3189 sgaughen@palatribe.com Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Read receipt received on May 9, 2024. Pala Band of Mission Indians Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA 92059 Phone: (760) 891-3537 awallick@palatribe.com Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 Phone: (760) 742-1289 Fax: (760) 742-3422 bennaecalac@aol.com Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Pechanga Band of Indians Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Pechanga Cultural Analyst P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA, 92593 Phone: (951) 770-6313 Fax: (951) 695-1778 eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Pechanga Band of Indians Steve Bodmer, General Counsel for Pechanga Band of Indians P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 Phone: (951) 770-6171 Fax: (951) 695-1778 sbodmer@pechanga-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Emailed on April 4, 2024 Received a response from Rincon Band representation via email on April 24, 2024: May 21, 2025 Item #1 327 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 19 May 2024 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach Native American Tribal Contact Method of Notification/Date Response Received Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural Resources Manager/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 Phone: (760) 648-3000 cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov “After review of the provided documents and our internal information, the Rincon Band has specific concerns that the project may impact tangible Tribal Cultural Resources. The project site is culturally sensitive, with many resources and burials in the area. At this time the Rincon Band would like to consult directly with the lead agency, to review any potential impacts in this project site.” Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney General One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 Phone: (760) 689-5727 dwalsh@rincon-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024 Received a response via email on April 24, 2024. See above. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Linton, Tribal Council/Culture Committee Member One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 Phone: (760) 803-3548 jlinton@rincon-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024 Received a response via email on April 24, 2024. See above. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal Council/Culture Committee Member One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 Phone: (760) 484-4835 lgonzalez@rincon-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Received a response via email on April 24, 2024. See above. San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Affairs Phone: (760) 724-8505 Fax: (760) 724-2172 cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Allen Lawson, Chairperson P.O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 Phone: (760) 749-3200 Fax: (760) 749-3876 allenl@sanpasqualtribe.org Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Email returned as Undeliverable. Email sent to Mariah Banares, Sr. Administrative Assistant on May 9, 2024. Read and forwarded same day. May 21, 2025 Item #1 328 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 20 May 2024 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach Native American Tribal Contact Method of Notification/Date Response Received San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians John Flores, Environmental Coordinator P. O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 Phone: (760) 749-3200 Fax: (760) 749-3876 johnf@sanpasqualtribe.org Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. Read receipt received on May 9, 2024. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer P.O. BOX 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Phone: (951) 663-5279 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 Phone: (951) 663-6261 Fax: (951) 654-4198 jvaldez@soboba-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Cody Martinez, Chairperson Sycuan Tribal Office: 1 Kwaaypaay Court El Cajon, CA, 92019 Phone: (619) 445-2613 cmartinez@sycuan-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Bernice Paipa, Cultural Resource Specialist Sycuan Cultural Center: 910 Willow Glen Drive El Cajon, CA, 92019 Phone: (619) 445-6917 bpaipa2@sycuan-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024. Emailed on May 9, 2024. No response received to date. Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Ray Teran, Resource Management Director 1 Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA 91901 Phone: (619) 659-2312 rteran@viejas-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024 Response received via email on April 5, 2024, from Ray Teran: “The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (“Viejas”) has reviewed the proposed project and at this time we have determined that the project site has cultural significance or ties to Viejas. Cultural resources have been located within or adjacent to the APE-DE of the proposed project. May 21, 2025 Item #1 329 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 21 May 2024 Table 3. Summary of Native American Outreach Native American Tribal Contact Method of Notification/Date Response Received Viejas Band request that a Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for ground disturbing activities and to inform us of any new developments such as inadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human remain. If a Tribe, having a closer proximity to the Project, requests to perform cultural monitoring, Viegas will differ to them” Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Ernest Pingleton, THPO 1 Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA 91901 Phone: (619) 445-3810 epingleton@viejas-nsn.gov Emailed on April 4, 2024 Read Receipt received on April 5, 2024. Response received via email on April 5, 2024, from Ray Teran. See above. 2.3 Review of Historic Aerial Photographs A review of historical aerial photographs was conducted to better understand the history of the project site and any past disturbances. Aerial photographs were available from the following years: 1938, 1947, 1953, 1964, 1967, 1978, 1980-1991, 1993-2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 (NETR 2023); and 1947, 1953, 1956, 1961, 1964, 1969, and 2001 (UCSB 2023). The earliest available aerial photograph of the subject property is from 1938. Historic aerial photographs indicate that the project site originally functioned agricultural land, as evidenced by rows of crops in the 1938 and 1947 photographs. This is consistent with the surrounding area at the time, which was characterized by small farms and sparsely developed single-family homes. The aerial photograph from 1953 indicates that a few large structures were built in a similar configuration to the current building. By the 1960s, much of the agricultural development in the surrounding area was gone and the project site no longer contained rows of crops. The building on the project site appears to have changed between 1953 and 1964. Over the next several decades, the project site underwent various iterations of crops, trees, and open space on the eastern side of the property. It is clear from these photographs that the project site has been subject to past disturbances from agriculture, grading, and ornamental plantings. May 21, 2025 Item #1 330 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 22 May 2024 3 Environmental Setting The project site is located on a residential property in a suburban neighborhood approximately 66 feet above mean sea level and situated approximately 250 feet (20 meters) east of Buena Vista Lagoon. The lagoon is an estuary fed with freshwater by Buena Vista Creek to the east. It is the closest known source of fresh water today, however the watershed in this area has been heavily modified from its natural landscape (Gallegos 1991). The project is within the Loma Alta Creek-Frontal Gulf of Santa Catalina Subwatershed (USGS 2024). The study area has a Mediterranean climate with cool summers and mild winters. Average summer high temperatures are in the low-70s Fahrenheit and average winter lows are in the mid-50s. Average annual rainfall is 0.98 inches, and the wettest months are December through March, with almost no precipitation between June and September (Kauffman 2021; NOAA 2024). The primary geologic units underlying this project are older Quaternary alluvium terrace and marine deposits (Qoa;0) of Pleistocene age. Generalized lithology is unconsolidated, undifferentiated. Major lithologic constituents consist of coarse-detrital and minor constituents are fine-detrital soils (Jennings et al. 2010). Kennedy et al. mapped this unit as “old paralic deposits (Qop, units 6-7) which are undivided and of late to middle Pleistocene age. This unit is described as poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered standline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate (Kennedy et al. 2007) Soils within the project site include (UC Davis and NRCS 2024): • Marina soils are the most prevalent across the entire site. These soils are typically loamy sands found on formerly cultivated ridges with annual grasses. A horizons are grayish brown and brown, slightly and moderately acid, loamy sand. B2 horizons are light brown, moderately and strongly acid, loamy sand. C horizons contain lamellae and light brown and pink, moderately acid, sand. • Carlsbad soils may be found in minor quantities throughout the site. This series is typically a gravelly loamy sand found in areas of shrub grass. A horizons have brown, pale brown, and very pale brown, slightly acid gravelly loamy sand. C horizons consist of pale brown and light brown slightly and strongly acid heavy loamy sand. These horizons are underlain by weakly cemented duripans at a depth of 38 inches. • Corralitos soils may be found in minor quantities throughout the site. This series consists of deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in recent sandy alluvium derived from acid sandstone and related rocks. A horizons are typically brown loamy sand between 0 to 8 inches in depth and grayish brown loamy sand from 8 to 32 inches in depth. They are found on alluvial fans and in small valleys with slopes of 0 to 15 percent. May 21, 2025 Item #1 331 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 23 May 2024 • Chesterton fine sandy loam may be found in minor quantities throughout the site. It consists of moderately well-drained, very slowly permeable soils. They are found on gently sloping to moderately steep uplifted marine sediments and old terraces. May 21, 2025 Item #1 332 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 24 May 2024 4 Cultural Setting 4.1 Prehistoric Context The following chronology synthesizes the works of Warren (1968), True et al. (1974), True and Waugh (1982), Moratto (1984), Erlandson (1991), Gallegos (1991), Gallegos and Kyle (1991), Sutton and Gardner (2010), and Sutton (2015) who have developed and refined prehistoric cultural sequences of Southern California. These interpretations facilitate an understanding of regional and temporal traditions and patterns, supporting meaningful contributions to the archaeological record. The Paleo Coastal Tradition, San Dieguito Complex, Encinitas Tradition, Palomar Tradition, and relevant patterns of these traditions are summarized here as prehistoric contexts for the northern San Diego County area. 4.1.1 Paleo Coastal Tradition (ca. 13,000 – 10,000 BP) The archaeological record suggests that the earliest known peoples of Southern California migrated from the north, along the coast approximately 12,000 years before present (BP) during the terminal Pleistocene. These paleo coastal peoples had well-developed maritime technologies and their presence is evidenced by sites on the northern Channel Islands and the mainland coast of central California. The Daisy Cave site on San Miguel Island has evidenced human occupation dating to approximately 10,400 BP and reevaluations of human remains recovered from the Arlington Springs site on Santa Rosa Island, have radiocarbon dated isolated bone proteins to approximately 11,000 BP (Erlandson 1991; Erlandson et al. 2007; Johnson et al. 2002; Sutton and Gardner 2010). Paleo Coastal Tradition (PCT) sites are associated with estuaries, bay shores, and subsistence strategies that appear to have depended on hunting and gathering vegetal sources related to these ecosystems. Resource exploitation was focused on mollusks, waterfowl, sea mammals, fish, land animals, and plants. Toolkits are characterized by crescentics, percussion flaked foliate knives/points, large leaf-shaped points, engraving tools, choppers, core hammers, pebble hammerstones, and a variety of large ovoid, domed, or rectangular scrapers (Moratto 1984, Koerper et al. 1991, Warren 1967). The Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT) is related to the PCT as either an inland/Great Basin coeval or a seasonal variant with several distinctions related to regional/environmental settings, as opposed to cultural distinctions. These differences include settlement patterns (i.e., a WPLT focus on pluvial lakes, marshes, and old stream channels), degree of sedentism, and site stratification. Materials distinctive to PCT include pitted stones, asphaltum, pointed bone objects, and shell spoons and ornaments (Moratto 1984). May 21, 2025 Item #1 333 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 25 May 2024 4.1.2 San Dieguito Complex (ca. 10,000 – 7,500 BP) In western San Diego County, the San Dieguito Complex is the earliest cultural pattern of the PCT that is supported by the archaeological record, with sites dating as far back as 9,400 BP. Notable similarities between WPLT and San Dieguito sites include percussion flaked knives/points, scrapers, and crescents. The San Dieguito Complex generally predates the following La Jolla Pattern however new data indicating inverse results has challenged understandings of the relationship between these cultural patterns (Wallace 1955, Koerper et al. 1991, Moriarty 1967, Moratto 1984, Sutton and Gardner 2010). 4.1.3 Encinitas Tradition (8,500 – 1,000 BP) The Encinitas Tradition encompassed the region of California extending from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border and is divided into four regional expressions including the Topanga Pattern (northern coastal/near-coastal groups), the Greven Knoll Pattern (northern inland groups), the La Jolla Pattern (southern near-coastal groups), and Pauma Pattern (southern inland groups). The project site is located within the prehistoric culture area of the La Jolla Pattern. It has been suggested that the inland Pauma Pattern was a seasonal expression of La Jolla Pattern groups utilizing inland resources (Sutton and Gardner 2010). The timespan provided above is based on temporal maximums. The majority of Encinitas Tradition sites, especially along the coast, date between 7,000 and 3,000 BP (Sutton and Gardner 2010). The Encinitas Tradition roughly coincides with the Altithermal climactic trend which began in California and other areas between 8,000 and 7,500 radiocarbon years ago (RYBP). This was an arid warming trend that affected both marine and terrestrial environments, ultimately decimating most of the pluvial lakes within the Great Basin. This climatic event may have had a more significant impact on coastal areas (Carbone 1991). The Encinitas tradition is generally characterized by small, mobile groups with generalized, flexible, highly variable subsistence strategies and a well-developed collecting economy that appears to be focused on plant resources, shellfish, and other resources depending on circumstances such as coastal vs. inland environmental setting (Byrd and Raab 2007:220, Sutton and Gardner 2010). The Encinitas toolkit includes an abundance of manos and metates, crudely fashioned core and flake tools, bone tools, shell ornaments, and a paucity of projectile points and vertebrate remains. It has been commonly accepted that this tradition had a reduced emphasis on hunting, however this idea is generally founded on limited concepts of traditional usage of ground stone. There is also a need for a theoretical reconsideration of factors such as the impact of climate change on the preservation of the lithic record and possible shifts in subsistence practices, such as pulverizing long bones for maximized protein extraction (Sutton and Gardner 2010). May 21, 2025 Item #1 334 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 26 May 2024 4.1.4 La Jolla Pattern (8,500 – 1,300 BP) The La Jolla Pattern is divided into three phases and represents the Encinitas Tradition found along the San Diego coast. La Jolla Pattern sites are typically located on terraces surrounding lagoons and bays and are associated with a reliance on shellfish, fishing in rocky near shore areas and kelp beds, heavy exploitation of lagoons, seed gathering, and some terrestrial hunting which may be underrepresented due to the “schlepp effect” (Gallegos and Kyle 1991). La Jolla Pattern, Phase I sites generally date between 8,500 to 5,000 BP and are found along ancient coastal lagoons and terraces. This phase may reflect a migration of inland desert groups as a result of Altithermal warming (Warren et al. 1961, Warren and Pavesic 1963). Distinctive cultural traits include an emphasis on shellfish and plant resources and mortuary practices of mostly flexed inhumations, some extended and secondary burials, and no cremations. Toolkits are characterized by scrapers, Pinto-like points, discoidals, cobble tools, tarring pebbles, and the appearance of abundant manos and metates. La Jolla Pattern, Phase II sites generally date between 5,000 to 4,000 BP and indicate a shift in mortuary patterns, an increase in flaked stone tools, increased artifact formalization, and diversified subsistence patterns indicated by the adoption of the mortar and pestle and an increase in the remains of terrestrial mammals. These groups were relatively large and semi-sedentary with sites typically located on coastal terraces overlooking lagoons and bays. During this phase, the exploitation of Chione increased as Argopecten decreased which is likely a result of increasing siltation within lagoons (Gallegos 1991). Distinctive cultural traits include an emphasis on shellfish and fish, increased use of terrestrial mammals, mortuary practices using flexed inhumations (some beneath metates) and “true” cemeteries, and trade relations with Channel Islands groups. Toolkits are characterized by manos/metates, mortars/pestles, an increased in the number and type of points, late discoidals, and scraper planes. La Jolla Pattern, Phase III sites generally date between 4,000 to 1,300 BP and may represent a transition period influenced by the silting of lagoons and contact with Yuman groups to the east. Distinctive cultural traits include mortuary practices using flexed inhumations, rare cremations, and a shift to lower elevation sites. Toolkits are characterized by cores, scrapers, cobble tools, and bone tools (Sutton and Gardner 2010). 4.1.5 Pauma Pattern (7,500 – 1,000 BP) The Pauma Pattern is divided into two phases and represents the Encinitas Tradition found in Inland San Diego County. Pauma sites are typically located in montane settings and are very similar to La Jolla Pattern sites apart from the availability of shellfish. Warren et al. (1961) has suggested the Pauma Pattern as an inland variant of the La Jolla Pattern. The Pauma Pattern is not as well-defined as the other Encinitas Tradition Patterns. Toolkits contain an abundance of shaped manos, a preference for basin (rather than slab) metates, cobble tools, scrapers, discoidals, stone balls, and few points. These toolkits exhibit a noticeable paucity of flaked stone artifacts, bedrock mortars, ceramics, and small May 21, 2025 Item #1 335 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 27 May 2024 triangular projectile points. Pauma Pattern, Phase I sites speculatively date between 7,500 to 3,000 BP and demonstrate possible coastal ties evidenced by a minor presence of marine shell. Pauma Pattern, Phase II sites speculatively date between 3,000 to 1,300 BP and may represent Takic intrusion from the north. The archaeologic record indicates a distinct break in artifact types and site locations around 1,300 BP (Sutton and Gardner 2010). 4.1.6 Palomar Tradition (1,250 – 150 BP) The inception of the Palomar Tradition beginning around 1,250 to 1,000 BP represents a replacement of Encinitas Tradition groups north of central San Diego County resulting in major shifts in technologies, settlement, and economic patterns. Like the Encinitas Tradition, the Palomar Tradition is divided into cultural patterns and phases, with the San Luis Rey Pattern representing groups in southern Orange County and northern San Diego County and the Peninsular Pattern located much further inland than the project site is located within the cultural area of the San Luis Rey Pattern (Sutton and Gardner 2010). 4.1.7 San Luis Rey Pattern (1,000 – 500 BP) The San Luis Rey Pattern is divided into two phases representing the Palomar Tradition in southern Orange County and northern San Diego County. The San Luis Rey Pattern, Phase I dates from 1,000 to 500 BP and represents a rapid diffusion/adoption of language and material culture patterns from the north by La Jolla Pattern groups. Sites were generally dispersed with a “forager-like” pattern. New cultural traits include the adoption of bow and arrow technology, Cottonwood triangular points, bone awls, shaft straighteners, increased use of shell beads, dark greasy middens, the Rancho Bernardo style of rock art, an increase in the use of mortars and pestles, and an absence of ceramics (Sutton 2015). San Luis Rey Pattern, Phase II sites post-date 500 BP and are characterized by larger, more sedentary winter and summer villages near permanent water sources. Distinctive cultural traits include the adoption of ceramics, an emphasis on collecting, increased reliance on acorns and large game resources, decreased exploitation of coastal resources, and a shift in mortuary practices favoring cremation which may have been related to the Chingichngish religion. Toolkits are characterized by Tizon Brown pottery, ceramic figurines and pipes, and a significant increase in bedrock mortars. This pattern closely resembles ethnohistoric/ethnographic Luiseño groups (Sutton 2015). 4.2 Ethnographic Context The Project site is located within the ancestral territory of the Luiseño, a Takic-speaking, Southern California Native American social group (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luiseño language is derived from the Cupan segment of the Takic language branch, a part of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic family (Mithun 2001:539-540; Golla 2011). May 21, 2025 Item #1 336 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 28 May 2024 Luiseño ancestral territory is situated in the northern half of San Diego County and the western edge of Riverside County. Their lands encompassed the southern Santa Margarita Mountains and the Palomar Mountains, and the foothills to the Pacific Ocean, extending eastward into the San Jacinto Valley and the western foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. The Luiseño shared boundaries with the Juaneño (Acjachemen) directly north-northwest of them and the Gabrielino/Tongva, Serrano further north, the Cahuilla from the deserts to the east, the Cupeño to the southeast, and the Kumeyaay to the south (Ipai-Tipai) (California Parks & Rec. 2024, Bean and Shipek 1978, Kroeber 1925). The Luiseño resided in permanent villages and associated seasonal camps. Village population ranged from 50–400 with social structure based on lineages and clans. A single lineage was generally represented in smaller villages, while multiple lineages and a dominant clan presided in larger villages (Boscana and Harrington 1934:32). Each clan/village owned a resource territory and was politically independent, yet maintained ties to others through economic, religious, and social networks in the immediate region. Place names were given to each territory, often associated with local animals, plants, physical landmarks, or cosmological elements that were known to be linked with a specific location (Sparkman 1908; Kroeber 1925). Luiseño families resided in dome-shaped dwellings made of willow poles covered with interlaced tule reeds. The clan chief (nó t) residence was generally larger in order to accommodate his large family, ceremonial regalia, and ceremonial food processing. Other village structures included a centrally located ceremonial enclosure (wámkiš) and a round semi-subterranean sweat lodge. The ceremonial enclosure and the chief’s home were generally located in the center of the village. The nó t was responsible for combining and controlling religious, economic, and warfare powers (Bean and Shipek 1978). The center of the Luiseño religious beliefs and rituals is Chinigchinich, the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Complex rituals included puberty initiation rites and mourning ceremonies. Like other indigenous California groups, the primary food staple of the Luiseño was the acorn (Bean and Shipek 1978:552), supplemented by other plant resources, fish, shellfish, waterfowl, and marine and terrestrial mammals. Villages were situated near reliable sources of water, needed for the daily leaching of milled acorn flour. Acorn mush (wíiwish) was prepared in various ways and was eaten almost daily, along with a variety of fruits, vegetables, and seeds including pine nuts and the seeds from grass, manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, lemonade berry, wild rose, holly-leaf cherry, prickly pear, lamb’s-quarter. Greens included thistle, white sage, and clover, among many others. Meat and seafood were also part of the daily diet, including deer, duck, goose, ground squirrels, quail, rabbit, bird, and woodrat. Fish and marine resources provided some portion of many tribal communities- most notably those nearest the coast- and included abalone, clams, mussels, lobster, and trout (Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians 2022). Shellfish would have been procured and transported inland from three primary environments, including the sandy open coast, bay and lagoon, and rocky open coast. May 21, 2025 Item #1 337 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 29 May 2024 4.3 Historic Context Post-Contact history for the state of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), Mexican Period (1822–1848), and American Period (1848–present). 4.3.1 Spanish Period (1769–1822) In search of the legendary Northwest Passage, Spanish explorer Juan Rodríquez Cabríllo stopped in 1542 at present-day San Diego Bay. Cabríllo explored the shorelines of present-day Catalina Island as well as San Pedro and Santa Monica Bays. Much of the present California and Oregon coastline was mapped and recorded in the next half-century by Spanish naval officer Sebastián Vizcaíno. Spain laid claim to California based on the surveys conducted by Cabríllo and Vizcaíno (Bancroft 1885:96–99; Gumprecht 1999:35). The 1769 overland expedition by Captain Gaspar de Portolá marks the start of California’s Historic period. With a band of 64 soldiers, missionaries, Baja (lower) California Native Americans, and Mexican civilians, Portolá established the Presidio of San Diego, a fortified military outpost, as the first Spanish settlement in Alta California. In July of 1769, while Portolá was exploring southern California, Franciscan Fr. Junípero Serra founded Mission San Diego de Alcalá at Presidio Hill, the first of the 21 missions that would be established in Alta California by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823. A major emphasis during the Spanish Period in California was the construction of missions and associated presidios to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns, but just three pueblos were established during the Spanish Period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles). 4.3.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848) After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants (Dallas 1955:14). Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican Period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos (Bancroft 1885). During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas May 21, 2025 Item #1 338 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 30 May 2024 in the United States and Mexico. The number of nonnative inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities. 4.3.3 American Period (1848–Present) The Mexican–American War ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ushering California into its American Period. California officially became a state with the Compromise of 1850, which also designated Utah and New Mexico (with present-day Arizona) as U.S. Territories. The Gold Rush began in 1848, and with the influx of people seeking gold, cattle were no longer desired mainly for their hides but also as a source of meat and other goods. During the 1850s cattle boom, rancho vaqueros drove large herds from southern to northern California to feed that region’s burgeoning mining and commercial boom. The cattle boom ended for southern California as neighbor states and territories drove herds to northern California at reduced prices. Operation of the huge ranchos became increasingly difficult, and droughts severely reduced their productivity (Cleland 2005:102–103). In 1880, Robert Kelly, who own part of Rancho San Francisco, granted a coastal right-of-way to the Southern California Railway (Sprague-Bentley 2009). In 1883 Artesian mineral springs are discovered near the coast by John Frazier. The Carlsbad Land and Water Company was formed and purchased Frazier’s land leading to the official establishment of the township of Carlsbad in 1886, named after famed spa town of Karlovy Vary (or Karlsbad in German) in the Czech Republic region of Bohemia. Between the railroad and the mineral springs, Carlsbad drew people for both tourism and settlement. However, a severe drought starting in the 1890s stalled growth (Gutierrez 2002). By the early 1900s, the South Coast Land Company started investing in the area and subdividing the land for small-scale agricultural development. During the next few decades, the land was continuously subdivided into smaller plots for agricultural and residential use. During WWII, Camp Pendleton was established just north of Carlsbad which increased the need for a civilian workforce and, therefore, residences. Consequently, the area around Carlsbad continued to grow through the following decades and significant civil engineering works in the 1960s brought improvements in water, power, sanitation and other infrastructural services to area (Gutierrez 2002). From the 1970s to the present, Carlsbad has continued to expand in both land boundaries and population. Agricultural plots have been continuously subdivided into residential neighborhoods and even those are being redeveloped into apartments and condos to maximize residential capacity. May 21, 2025 Item #1 339 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 31 May 2024 5 Archaeological Survey 5.1 Methods On May 3, 2024, Kevin Hunt of South Environmental and Native American monitor Vi'i Sialo'i of Saving Sacred Sites conducted an intensive-level survey of the project site. Fieldwork included taking field notes, photography using an iPhone 14Pro camera, and examination of close-scale field maps. The site was surveyed using transects spaced approximately five meters apart throughout the site (Photographs 1-9). Areas with exposed ground surface were examined for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools), historical artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), sediment discolorations that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, depressions, and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations). Photograph 1. Overview of front of property on Jefferson Street from northwest corner of site looking south. May 21, 2025 Item #1 340 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 32 May 2024 Photograph 2. Overview of front of property on Jefferson Street from southwest corner of site looking north. Photograph 3. Overview of front of property on Buena Vista Way from northeast corner of site looking west. May 21, 2025 Item #1 341 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 33 May 2024 Photograph 4. Overview of backyard of 2502 looking north. Photograph 5. Overview of backyard of 2502 looking south. May 21, 2025 Item #1 342 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 34 May 2024 Photograph 6. Overview of backyard of 2518 looking east. Photograph 7. Overview of backyard of 2518 looking west. May 21, 2025 Item #1 343 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 35 May 2024 Photograph 8. Detail of sediments on project site. . Photograph 9. Overview of backyard of 2518 looking northwest. May 21, 2025 Item #1 344 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 36 May 2024 5.2 Results No archaeological resources were identified within the project site during the intensive-level pedestrian survey. The project site contains two residences with sheds and additions and has been graded, developed, landscaped, and previously cultivated. Unpaved ground surface visibility throughout the site was approximately 5 to 10 percent due to developed areas, several parked vehicles, landscaping, a children’s playset with woodchips around it, fallen fruit, and scattered debris throughout the property. Sediments observed were primarily medium brown silty sand. Vegetation included non-native grass, shrubs, fruit trees, and ornamental trees. May 21, 2025 Item #1 345 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 37 May 2024 6 Findings and Recommendations 6.1 Summary of Findings No archaeological resources were identified within the project site as a result of the intensive-level survey. However, a review of the SCIC records search results, archaeological literature, receipt of a positive Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC, and responses from Native American contacts indicates that the project site is in an area that is highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. Historic aerial photographs of the project site confirm that the upper levels on soil within the project site were previously disturbed by former uses and recent development. Nonetheless, it is always possible to encounter resources during project-related ground disturbance. Implementation of the recommendations in Section 6.2 for archaeological and Native American monitoring during ground disturbance occurring below one-foot in depth (as deemed necessary by the qualified archaeologist) will ensure that any cultural resources or human remains identified during construction are handled appropriately such that impacts to archaeological resources and human remains are less than significant. 6.2 Recommendations Archaeological and Native American Monitoring A qualified archaeologist and a Luiseño Native American Monitor should be retained to monitor initial ground disturbance associated with the proposed project occurring at depths greater than one-foot below the ground surface. These activities include, but are not limited to, grading, excavation, trenching, and vegetation or foundation removal throughout all portions of the project site. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the Native American Monitor, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined by the qualified archaeologist that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Following the conclusion of all monitoring activities, an archaeological monitoring report should be prepared and submitted to the City detailing the results of all monitoring activities and any cultural resources identified. Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources Should archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) be exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, the monitors shall halt all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find. Depending on the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. In the event that an identified cultural resource is of Native American origin, the qualified archaeologist will consult with the project Applicant and the City of Carlsbad to implement Native American consultation procedures. If the May 21, 2025 Item #1 346 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 38 May 2024 discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the County Coroner has determined, within two working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD would then determine, in consultation with the property owner, the disposition of the human remains. May 21, 2025 Item #1 347 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 39 May 2024 7 References Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1885. History of California, Volume III: 1825-1840. A.L. Bancroft & Co., San Francisco. Bean, Lowell John and Florence C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 550- 563. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Boscana, G. and J.P. Harrington. 1934. A New Original Version of Boscana’s Historical Account of the San Juan Capistrano Indians of Southern California (with two plates). Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 92(4):1-62. Byrd, Brian F. and L. Mark Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215-227. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. California Dept. of Parks and Recreation. 2024. The Digital Atlas of California Native Americans (Digital Atlas). Electronic resource accessed April 18, 2024: https://nahc.ca.gov/cp/. Carbone, Larry A. 1991. Early Holocene Environments and Paleoecological Contexts on the Central and Southern California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 11-18. Perspectives in Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, Senior Series Editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Cleland, Robert Glass. 2005. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-80, second ed., sixth printing. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Dallas, S. F. 1955. The Hide and Tallow Trade in Alta California 1822–1848. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington. ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2017. Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad with contributions from Cogstone Resource Management. Electronic document accessed May 7, 2024: https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/254/637425976516870000. Erlandson, Jon M. 1991. Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 101-113. Perspectives in Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, Senior Series Editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M. and Roger H. Colten. 1991, An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon May 21, 2025 Item #1 348 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 40 May 2024 M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 1-10. Perspectives in Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, Senior Series Editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcassi. 2007. One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who were the First Californians? In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 53-62. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Gallegos, Dennis. 1991. Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carslbad, California. In Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 19-42. Perspectives in Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, Senior Series Editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gallegos, Dennis R., and Carolyn Kyle. 1991. Archaeological Survey for Camp Pendleton Family Housing Area. Report prepared by Gallegos and Associates, Carlsbad, California. On file, South Coast Information Center, San Diego State University, San Diego. Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. University of California Press: Los Angeles. Gumprecht, Blake. 2001. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Gutierrez, Susan S. 2002. Windows on the Past: An Illustrated History of Carlsbad. Walsworth Publishing, Missouri. Jennings, C.W. with modifications by C. Guitierrez, W. Bryant, G. Saucedo, C. Wills. 2010 Geological Map of California, Version 2.0 (California Geologic Survey 150th Anniversary Edition), Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey: California Geologic Data Map Series, GDM No. 2, scale 1:750,000. Johnson, John. R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris. 2002. Arlington Springs Revisted. In Proceedings of the California Islands Symposium. 2 vols. Edited by David R. Browne, Kathryn L. Mitchell, and Henry W. Chaney, pp. 541-545. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Kauffman, Eric. 2021. Climate and Topography. In Atlas of the Biodiversity of California, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. pp. 12-15. United States of America. Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan, digital prep. Bovard, K.R. et al. 2007. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, California Department of Conservation California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map RGM-2, 1:100,000. Krcelich, Marlena and Sarah Corder. 2023. Historic Resource Analysis for 314 Date Avenue in Carlsbad. On file with South Environmental in Pasadena, California. May 21, 2025 Item #1 349 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 41 May 2024 Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adela Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, pp. 43-62. Perspectives in Archaeology, Vol. 1, Jeanne E. Arnold, Senior Series Editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Mithun, M. 2001. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Moriarty III, James R. 1967. Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego County, California. Science 155:553-556. Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC (NETR). 2024. Historic Aerial Photographs of 270 Juniper Avenue and surrounding. Accessed April 17, 2024. https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2024. U.S. Climate Normals Quick Access. Electronic resource, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-climate-normals/, accessed April 17, 2024. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians. 2022. Traditional Foods. Electronic document, https://www.pechanga-nsn.gov/index.php/culture/customs-and-traditions/traditional-foods, accessed April 24, 2023. Sparkman, P.S. 1908. The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 8, No. 4:187-234. Berkeley, California. Sprague-Bentley, Jeannie. 2009. Images of America Carlsbad. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. Sutton, Mark Q. 2015. Revisions to the Palomar Tradition Model in Southern California Prehistory. In Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 51(2):1-18. Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010. Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. In Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64. True, D.L., Clement W. Meighan, and Harvey Crew. 1974. Archaeological Investigations at Molpa, San Diego County, California. University of California Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 11. Berkley. True, D.L., and Georgie Waugh. 1982. Proposed Settlement Shifts During San Luis Rey Times, Northern San Diego County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 4(1):34-54. May 21, 2025 Item #1 350 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad 42 May 2024 University of California, Davis and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. SoilWeb. Electronic resource, https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/, accessed April 17, 2024. University of California, Santa Barbra (UCSB). 2024. Historic Aerial Photographs of 270 Juniper Avenue and surrounding. Map & Imagery Laboratory (MIL) UCSB Library, Electronic Resource, http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/FrameFinder. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2024. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) The National Map Viewer. Electronic resource, https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/services/, accessed April 17, 2024. Wallace, William J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1967. The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32(2):168-185. Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions to Anthropology 1 (3):1-14. Portales. Warren, Claude N., D.L. True, and Ardith A. Eudey. 1961. Early Gathering Complexes of Western San Diego County: Results and Interpretations of an Archaeological Survey. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1960-1961 3:1-106. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. Warren, Claude N., and Max G. Pavesic. 1963. Shell Midden Analysis of Site SDI-603 and Ecological Implications for Cultural Development of Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1962-1963 5:407-438. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. May 21, 2025 Item #1 351 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad Appendix A: SCIC Records Search Summary May 21, 2025 Item #1 352 of 473 South Coastal Information Center San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive San Diego, CA 92182-5320 Office: (619) 594-5682 www.scic.org nick@scic.org Company:South Environmental Company Representative: Date Processed: Project Identification: Kevin Hunt 4/18/2024 2502 and 2518 Jefferson (24-070) Search Radius:1/2 mile Historical Resources:JL Previous Survey Report Boundaries:JL Historic Maps:JL Historic Addresses:JL Hours:1.5 RUSH:no Trinomial and Primary site maps have been reviewed. All sites within the project boundaries and the specified radius of the project area have been plotted. Copies of the site record forms have been included for all recorded sites. Project boundary maps have been reviewed. National Archaeological Database (NADB) citations for reports within the project boundaries and within the specified radius of the project area have been included. The historic maps on file at the South Coastal Information Center have been reviewed, and copies have been included. A map and database of historic properties (formerly Geofinder) has been included. CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM RECORDS SEARCH Quads:1 Aerial Photos:0 Summary of SHRC Approved CHRIS IC Records Search Elements Address-Mapped Shapes:yes Digital Database Records:47 Spatial Features:43 PDFs:Yes PDF Pages:456 RSID:3605 This is not an invoice. Please pay from the monthly billing statementMay 21, 2025 Item #1 353 of 473 Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Records Search Map 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Location is within Carlsbad, California, in San Diego Countyon the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map inSection 31 of Township 11 South and Range 04 West andSection 6 of Township 12 South and Range 04 West Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):Latitude: 33.1685828N Longitude: -117.3480493W Scale: 1:24,000Project Site Records Search (0.5-Mile Buffer) 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 354 of 473 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SD-03027 1994 A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE MUHE PROJECT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BRIAN F. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES SMITH, BRIAN and LARRY PIERSON 37-000628NADB-R - 1123027; Voided - SMITHB 253 SD-03031 1996 ADDENDUM TO A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT FOR THE MUHE PROJECT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BRIAN F. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES SMITH, BRIAN and LARRY PIERSON 37-000628NADB-R - 1123031; Voided - SMITHB 249 SD-04111 1982 Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California Larry SeemanLarry SeemanNADB-R - 1124111; Voided - SEEMAN01 SD-04587 1991 NEGATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT: UPGRADE OF THE ROUTE 78 INTERSTATE 5 INTERCHANGE IN OCEANSIDE, CA CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION CALTRANS and KAREN CRAFTS NADB-R - 1124587; Voided - CALTRANS13 SD-05845 1988 HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT FOR A WIDENING OF STATE ROUTE 78 DON LAYLANDERLAYLANDER, DON 37-000630, 37-005652, 37-009472, 37-009473, 37-009474 NADB-R - 1125845; Voided - LAYLAND 43 SD-06248 1998 NEGATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT DISTRICT 11 CALTRANSNADB-R - 1126248; Voided - CALTRANS11 SD-06531 1991 NEGATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT-11-SD-78 P.M. 0.0-0.7 CALTRANSCRAFTS, KARENNADB-R - 1126531; Voided - CRAFTS 39 SD-08487 2003 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED NCTD FAO FACILITY PROJECT ASM AFFILIATESPALLETTE, DREWNADB-R - 1128487; Voided - PALLETTE04 SD-09361 2002 Archaeological Survey Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5 San Diego County, CA. ASM, IncByrd, Brian F. and Collin O'Neill 37-000606, 37-004552, 37-004553, 37-006851, 37-007296, 37-012120, 37-013484 NADB-R - 1129361; Other - 11A0398; Voided - BYRD15 SD-09362 2004 Archaeological Testing at Twelve Prehistoric Sites (SDI-603, -628, -4553, -6831, -6882, 10965, -12670, 13484, 15678, 15679, 15680) on the Central San Diego Coast, San Diego County, CA. ASMLaylander, Don and Mark Becker 37-000603, 37-000628, 37-004553, 37-006831, 37-006882, 37-010965, 37-012120, 37-012670, 37-013484, 37-018804, 37-018805, 37-018806 NADB-R - 1129362; Other - 11A0398, 11A0742; Voided - LAYLAND50 SD-09516 2005 The Cemeteries and Gravestones of San Diego County: An Archaeological Study David CaterinoCaterino, DavidNADB-R - 1129516; Voided - CATERINO01 SD-09571 2003 CITY OF CARLSBAD WATER AND SEWER MASTER PLANS CULTURAL RESOURCE BACKGROUND STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GALLEGOS & ASSOCIATES GUERRERO, MONICA C and DENNIS R. GALLEGOS 37-000628, 37-000694, 37-005353, 37-006826 NADB-R - 1129571; Other - 12-03; Voided - GUERREM 20 Page 1 of 3 SCIC 4/18/2024 11:42:00 AM May 21, 2025 Item #1 355 of 473 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SD-11761 2007 HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT, I- 5 NORTH COAST WIDENING PROJECT CALTRANSDOMINICI, DEBNADB-R - 1131761; Voided - DOMINICI67 SD-13916 2012 INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CALTRANSCALTRANSNADB-R - 1133916; Voided - CALTRANS88 SD-14069 2011 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCE STUDY FOR THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE GENERAL PLAN- CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PEIR) ASM AFFILIATES, INC.NI GHABHLAIN, SINEAD 37-005130, 37-005508, 37-011687, 37-014227, 37-015694, 37-027452, 37-028351 NADB-R - 1134069; Voided - NIGHAS94 SD-14495 2013 INTERSTATE 5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION CALTRANSCALTRANSNADB-R - 1134495; Voided - CALTRANS89 SD-14615 2007 INTERSTATE 5 CORRIDOR PROJECT HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTALS CALTRANSCALTRANSNADB-R - 1134615; Voided - CALTRANS90 SD-14674 2012 BUENA VISTA LIFT STATION SEWER FORCE MAIN (VC-4) ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS CITY OF CARLSBADCITY OF CARLSBAD 37-000629, 37-030500NADB-R - 1134674; Voided - CITYCARD01 SD-16127 2008 2007 CULTURAL RESOURCES TREATMENT PLAN NORTH COAST INTERSTATE 5 CORRIDOR CALTRANSDeb Dominici and Don Laylander NADB-R - 1136127 SD-16131 2013 SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT (HPSR): REVISED AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS (APE) I-5 NORTH COAST CORRIDOR CaltransMichelle BlakeNADB-R - 1136131 SD-16264 2015 CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORING REPORT FOR THE LANAI SUBDIVISION PROJECT, CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Brian F. Smith and Associates Brian F. SmithNADB-R - 1136264 SD-16287 2015 CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORING REPORT FOR THE DE ANDA RESIDNECE PROJECY, CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CPD NO. 13-30 APN 155-140- 41 Brian F. Smith and Associates SMITH, BRIAN F. and GRABSKI, DAVID K. NADB-R - 1136287; Other - 13-30 Page 2 of 3 SCIC 4/18/2024 11:42:01 AM May 21, 2025 Item #1 356 of 473 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SD-16620 2016 NEGATIVE ARCHAEOLOGICAL, PALEONTOLOGICAL, AND NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORING AND MITIGATION REPORT FOR THE HIRSCHKOFF FAMILY RESIDENCE PROJECT, CITY OF CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (CDP 14-13 AND 14-14; APN 155-180-28) Brian F. Smith and Associates KENNEDY, GEORGE L.NADB-R - 1136620 SD-17196 2015 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY FOR THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ASM Affiliates, Inc.CASTELLS, SHELBY GUNDERMAN NADB-R - 1137196 SD-17218 2013 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE PACIFIC SURFLINER CARLSBAD VILLAGE DOUBLE- TRACK PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ASM Affiliates, Inc.CASTELLS, SHELBY GUNDERMAN, Shannon Davis, Sarah Stringer- Bowsher, Jennifer Krintz, and Sinéad Ní Ghabhláin 37-024739, 37-037136, 37-037137, 37-037138, 37-037139, 37-037140, 37-037141, 37-037142, 37-037143, 37-037144, 37-037145, 37-037146, 37-037147, 37-037148, 37-037149, 37-037150, 37-037151, 37-037152, 37-037153, 37-037154, 37-037155, 37-037156, 37-037157, 37-037158, 37-037159, 37-037160, 37-037161, 37-037162, 37-037163, 37-037164, 37-037165, 37-037166, 37-037167, 37-037168, 37-037169, 37-037170, 37-037171, 37-037172, 37-037173, 37-037174, 37-037175, 37-037176, 37-037177, 37-037178, 37-037179, 37-037180, 37-037181, 37-037182, 37-037183, 37-037184, 37-037185, 37-037186, 37-037187, 37-037188, 37-037189, 37-037190, 37-037191 NADB-R - 1137218; Submitter - PN 20770 SD-18323 2019 HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FOR THE CARLSBAD STATION PROJECT, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BRIAN F. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SMITH, BRIAN F. and J.R.K. STROPES NADB-R - 1138323 SD-19418 2020 HISTORIC STRUCTURE ASSESSMENT FOR 2754 AND 2760 ARLAND ROAD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA (APN 156-142-03) BRIAN F. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SMITH, BRIAN F. and J.R.K. STROPES NADB-R - 1139418 Page 3 of 3 SCIC 4/18/2024 11:42:02 AM May 21, 2025 Item #1 357 of 473 Primary No.Trinomial Resource List Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by P-37-000627 CA-SDI-000627 Other - Malcolm Rogers' 142; BWW-36 SD-00535, SD- 01650, SD-01984 Site Prehistoric AP01 (Unknown); AP16 (Other) - campsite 1958 (Wallace) P-37-000628 CA-SDI-000628 SD-00535, SD- 00659, SD-01650, SD-01984, SD- 03027, SD-03031, SD-08425, SD- 09362, SD-09571, SD-13482 P-37-000629 CA-SDI-000629 Other - W-138 SD-00535, SD- 00659, SD-01650, SD-01984, SD- 13482, SD-14674 Site Prehistoric AP16 (Other) - shell midden ; 1958 (William Wallace, UCLA); 2014 P-37-008455 CA-SDI-008455 Other - JS-1 Site Prehistoric AP16 (Other) - shell scatter 1981 (S. Cardenas); 2014 P-37-027036 CA-SDI-017672 Other - ASM 100605; IC Informal - RNID-5449 SD-13482, SD- 17117 2005 (ASM Affiliates, Inc.) P-37-029985 Resource Name - 1166 Carlsbad Village Drive SD-17116BuildingHistoricHP14 (Government building) 2005 (Janice Calpo, Andrew Hope, Caltrans) P-37-032654 CA-SDI-020692 Other - BVL1 Site Prehistoric AP16 (Other) - shell scatter 2012 (Andrew Giletti, Affinis); 2014 (AECOM, AECOM) P-37-033874 CA-SDI-021274 Other - BV-S-P/H-001 Site Prehistoric, Historic AH07 (Roads/trails/railroad grades); AP16 (Other) - possible shell deposit or midden 2014 (AECOM, AECOM) P-37-034887 CA-SDI-021704 P-37-037178 Resource Name - Carlsbad Overhead Bridge; Other - Caltrans Bridge ID No. 57C0134 SD-17218Building, Structure Historic HP19 (Bridge)2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) P-37-037179 Resource Name - 2550 Carlsbad Blvd.; Other - Shade-A-Sea Auto Inn; Other - Scandia Motel; Other - APN 203-051-04-00 SD-17218BuildingHistoricHP05 (Hotel/motel) - motel 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) Page 1 of 2 SCIC 4/18/2024 11:40:30 AM May 21, 2025 Item #1 358 of 473 Primary No.Trinomial Resource List Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by P-37-037180 Resource Name - 2560 Carlsbad Blvd.; Other - Shade-A-Sea Motel Gas Station; Other - APN 203-051-01-00 SD-17218BuildingHistoricHP06 (1-3 story commercial building) 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) P-37-037181 Resource Name - 2564 Carlsbad Blvd.; Other - APN 203-051-02-00 SD-17218BuildingHistoricHP06 (1-3 story commercial building) 2012 (Shannon Davis, ASM Affiliates, Inc.) P-37-038297 CA-SDI-022605 IC Informal - RNID-4178; Resource Name - LD-SW-01 Site Historic AH04 (Privies/dumps/trash scatters) 2018 (Scott Wolf, Dudek) Page 2 of 2 SCIC 4/18/2024 11:40:30 AM May 21, 2025 Item #1 359 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad Appendix B: Native American Scoping May 21, 2025 Item #1 360 of 473 Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request Native American Heritage Commission 1550 Harbor Blvd, Suite 100 West Sacramento, CA 95691 916-373-3710 916-373-5471 – Fax nahc@nahc.ca.gov Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Date of Request: 03/26/2024 Project: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project, Carlsbad, California County: San Diego USGS Quadrangle Name: San Luis Rey, CA Township: 12 S Range: 4 W Section(s): 6 Company/Firm/Agency: South Environmental Street Address: 2061 N Los Robles Avenue, Ste. 205 City: Pasadena Zip: 91104 Phone: (818) 458-1162 Fax: n/a Email: khunt@southenvironmental.com Project Description: The project proposes to develop a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses in the city of Carlsbad (see Figure 1, attached). The project site occupies approximately 0.542 acres, and the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. May 21, 2025 Item #1 361 of 473 Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Figure 1. Project Location Map 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Location is within Carlsbad, California, in San Diego Countyon the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Section 31 of Township 11 South and Range 04 West andSection 6 of Township 12 South and Range 04 West Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):Latitude: 33.1685828N Longitude: -117.3480493W Scale: 1:24,000Project Site 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 362 of 473 April 12, 2024 Kevin Hunt South Environmental Via Email to: khunt@southenvironmental.com Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project, San Diego County To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources. The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash VICE-CHAIRPERSON Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok PARLIAMENTARIAN Wayne Nelson Luiseño COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay COMMISSIONER Laurena Bolden Serrano COMMISSIONER Reid Milanovich Cahuilla COMMISSIONER Bennae Calac Pauma-Yuima Band of Luiseño Indians EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock Miwok, Nisenan NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov May 21, 2025 Item #1 363 of 473 • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10. 3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on the attached list for more information. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Murphy.Donahue@NAHC.ca.gov Sincerely, Murphy Donahue Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment May 21, 2025 Item #1 364 of 473 County Tribe Name Contact Person Email Address Cultural Affiliation Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Art Bunce, Attorney buncelaw@aol.com Diegueno Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Ralph Goff, Chairperson rgoff@campo-nsn.gov Diegueno Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson michaelg@leaningrock.net Diegueno Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Robert Pinto, Chairperson ceo@ebki-nsn.gov Diegueno Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources clinton@redtailenvironmental.com Diegueno Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson Diegueno Jamul Indian Village Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer lcumper@jiv-nsn.gov Diegueno Jamul Indian Village Erica Pinto, Chairperson epinto@jiv-nsn.gov Diegueno Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A Heidi Lucero, Chairperson, THPO jbmian.chairwoman@gmail.com Juaneno Joyce Perry Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas, Chairperson Kwaaymii Diegueno La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Norma Contreras, Chairperson Luiseno La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson LP13boots@aol.com Diegueno Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson Diegueno Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Michael Linton, Chairperson mesagrandeband@msn.com Diegueno Pala Band of Mission Indians Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO awallick@palatribe.com Cupeno Luiseno Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer sgaughen@palatribe.com Cupeno Luiseno Pala Band of Mission Indians Christopher Nejo, Legal Analyst/Researcher cnejo@palatribe.com Cupeno Luiseno Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar, Chairperson bennaecalac@aol.com Luiseno Pechanga Band of Indians Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Pechanga Cultural Analyst eozdil@pechanga-nsn.gov Luiseno Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Diego County 4/12/2024 Counties Last Updated San Diego Imperial,San Diego 7/25/2023 Imperial,San Diego Imperial,San Diego Imperial,San Diego Imperial,San Diego 11/30/2023 Imperial,San Diego Imperial,San Diego 9/5/2018 Imperial,San Diego Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 3/28/2023 Imperial,San Diego 6/20/2023 Orange,Riverside,San Diego Imperial,San Diego Imperial,San Diego Imperial,San Diego Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 11/27/2023 Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 11/27/2023 Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 11/27/2023 Orange,Riverside,San Diego Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura 8/2/2023 04/12/2024 09:20 AM 1 of 2May 21, 2025 Item #1 365 of 473 Native American Heritage Commission Native American Contact List San Diego County 4/12/2024 Pechanga Band of Indians Steve Bodmer, General Counsel for Pechanga Band of Indians sbodmer@pechanga-nsn.gov Luiseno Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal Council/Culture Committee Member lgonzalez@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Linton, Tribal Council/Culture Committee Member jlinton@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney General dwalsh@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural Resources Manager/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov Luiseno San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Goverment Affairs cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org Luiseno San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Allen Lawson, Chairperson allenl@sanpasqualtribe.org Diegueno San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians John Flores, Env. Coord.johnf@sanpasqualtribe.org Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist jvaldez@soboba-nsn.gov Cahuilla Luiseno Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Bernice Paipa, Cultural Resource Specialist bpaipa2@sycuan-nsn.gov Kumeyaay Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Cody Martinez, Chairman cmartinez@sycuan-nsn.gov Kumeyaay Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Ernest Pingleton, THPO epingleton@viejas-nsn.gov Kumeyaay Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Ray Teran, Resource Management Director rteran@viejas-nsn.gov Kumeyaay San Diego Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura 8/2/2023 Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura 5/31/2023 Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura 5/31/2023 Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura 7/7/2023 Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego,Santa Barbara,Ventura 5/31/2023 Orange,Riverside,San Diego 10/24/2023 Imperial,San Diego Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 7/14/2023 Imperial,Los Angeles,Orange,Riverside,San Bernardino,San Diego 7/14/2023 Imperial,San Diego 8/7/2023 Imperial,San Diego 8/7/2023 Imperial,San Diego 6/29/2023 Imperial,San Diego 6/29/2023 This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project, San Diego County. Record: PROJ-2024-001951 Report Type: AB52 GIS Counties: San Diego NAHC Group: All 04/12/2024 09:20 AM 2 of 2May 21, 2025 Item #1 366 of 473 April 4, 2024 Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians Temet Aguilar, Chairperson P.O. Box 369 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 bennaecalac@aol.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Aguilar: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 367 of 473 April 4, 2024 Pechanga Band of Indians Steve Bodmer, General Counsel P.O. Box 1477 Temecula, CA 92593 sbodmer@pechanga-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear General Counsel Bodmer: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 368 of 473 April 4, 2024 Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Art Bunce, Attorney buncelaw@aol.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Art Bunce: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 369 of 473 April 4, 2024 La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Norma Contreras, Chairperson 22000 Highway 76 Pauma Valley, CA 92061 RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Contreras: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 370 of 473 April 4, 2024 Jamul Indian Village Lisa Cumper, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 612 Jamul, CA 91935 lcumper@jiv-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear THPO Cumper: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 371 of 473 April 4, 2024 Jamul Indian Village Erica Pinto, Chairperson P.O. Box 612 Jamul, CA 91935 epinto@jiv-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Pinto: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 372 of 473 April 4, 2024 San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians John Flores, Environmental Coordinator P. O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 johnf@sanpasqualtribe.org RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Coordinator Flores: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 373 of 473 April 4, 2024 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Michael Garcia, Vice Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA 91901 michaelg@leaningrock.net RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Vice Chairperson Garcia: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 374 of 473 April 4, 2024 Pala Band of Mission Indians Shasta Gaughen, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA 92059 sgaughen@palatribe.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear THPO Gaughen: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 375 of 473 April 4, 2024 Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Ralph Goff, Chairperson 36190 Church Road, Suite 1 Campo, CA 91906 rgoff@campo-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Goff: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 376 of 473 April 4, 2024 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Laurie Gonzalez, Tribal Council/Culture Committee Member One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 lgonzalez@rincon-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Council Member Gonzalez: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 377 of 473 April 4, 2024 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney General One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 dwalsh@rincon-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Attorney General Walsh: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 378 of 473 April 4, 2024 San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Allen Lawson, Chairperson P. O. Box 365 Valley Center, CA 92082 allenl@sanpasqualtribe.org RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Lawson: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 379 of 473 April 4, 2024 Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Clint Linton, Director of Cultural Resources P.O. Box 507 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 clint@redtailenvironmental.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Director Linton: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 380 of 473 April 4, 2024 Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Pine Valley, CA 91962 RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Carmen Lucas: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 381 of 473 April 4, 2024 Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians Carmen Lucas P.O. Box 775 Pine Valley, CA 91962 RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Carmen Lucas: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 382 of 473 April 4, 2024 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Cheryl Madrigal, Cultural Resources Manager/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 cmadrigal@rincon-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear THPO Madrigal: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 383 of 473 April 4, 2024 Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Cody Martinez, Chairman Sycuan Tribal Office 1 Kwaaypaay Court El Cajon, CA 92019 cmartinez@sycuan-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairman Martinez: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 384 of 473 April 4, 2024 Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Michael Linton, Chairperson P.O Box 270 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 mesagrandeband@msn.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Linton: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 385 of 473 April 4, 2024 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Affairs cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Carmen Mojado: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 386 of 473 April 4, 2024 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 jontiveros@soboba-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear THPO Ontiveros: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 387 of 473 April 4, 2024 Inaja-Cosmit Band of Indians Rebecca Osuna, Chairperson 2005 S. Escondido Blvd. Escondido, CA 92025 RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Osuna: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 388 of 473 April 4, 2024 Pechanga Band of Indians Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Pechanga Cultural Analyst P.O. Box 2183 Temecula, CA 92593 sbodmer@pechanga-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Analyst Ozdil: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 389 of 473 April 4, 2024 Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Bernice Paipa, Cultural Resource Specialist Sycuan Cultural Center 910 Willow Glen Drive El Cajon, CA 92019 bpaipa2@sycuan-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Specialist Paipa: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 390 of 473 April 4, 2024 La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson 8 Crestwood Road Boulevard, CA 91905 LP13boots@aol.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Parada: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 391 of 473 April 4, 2024 Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel Virgil Perez, Chairperson P.O. Box 130 Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Perez: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 392 of 473 April 4, 2024 Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation - Belardes Joyce Perry, Cultural Resource Director 4955 Paseo Segovia Irvine, CA 92603 kaamalam@gmail.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Director Perry: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 393 of 473 April 4, 2024 Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Ernest Pingleton, THPO 1 Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA 91901 epingleton@viejas-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear THPO Pingleton: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 394 of 473 April 4, 2024 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Robert Pinto, Chairperson 4054 Willows Road Alpine, CA 91901 ceo@ebki-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Pinto: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 395 of 473 April 4, 2024 Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson P.O. Box 1302 Boulevard, CA 91905 RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Chairperson Santos: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 396 of 473 April 4, 2024 Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Ray Teran, Resource Management Director 1 Viejas Grade Road Alpine, CA 91901 rteran@viejas-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Director Teran: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 397 of 473 April 4, 2024 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist P.O. Box 487 San Jacinto, CA 92581 jvaldez@soboba-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Specialist Valdez: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 398 of 473 April 4, 2024 Pala Band of Mission Indians Alexis Wallick, Assistant THPO PMB 50, 35008 Pala Temecula Road Pala, CA 92059 awallick@palatribe.com RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Assistant THPO Wallick: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 399 of 473 April 4, 2024 Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians Denise Turner Walsh, Attorney General One Government Center Lane Valley Center, CA 92082 dwalsh@rincon-nsn.gov RE: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Attorney General Walsh: South Environmental was retained to conduct a cultural resources inventory for the proposed 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (proposed project). The project site occupies an approximately 0.542-acre area located at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (see enclosed Figure 1). The project proposes to construct a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. As part of the process of identifying potential cultural resources, South Environmental contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred Lands File search on March 26, 2024. The NAHC has not yet responded; however, we anticipate they will recommend we contact you to seek comment. If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project site, please contact me at khunt@southenvironmental.com or 760-207-9736, or via U.S. mail at the address above. Please note that the request herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute Assembly Bill 52 notification or initiation of consultation. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Attachment: Figure 1. Project Location Map May 21, 2025 Item #1 400 of 473 Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Figure 1. Project Location Map 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Location is within Carlsbad, California, in San Diego Countyon the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Section 31 of Township 11 South and Range 04 West andSection 6 of Township 12 South and Range 04 West Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):Latitude: 33.1685828N Longitude: -117.3480493W Scale: 1:24,000Project Site 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 401 of 473 Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082 (760) 749-1092 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov Bo Mazzetti Chairman Joseph Linton Vice Chair Laurie E. Gonzalez Council Member John Constantino Council Member Frank Mazzetti III Council Member April 24, 2024 Sent via email: khunt@southenvironmental.com Re: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, City of Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Hunt, This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “Tribe”), a federally recognized Indian tribe and sovereign government. We have received your notification regarding the above referenced project and we thank you for the opportunity to consult on the project. The identified location is within the Traditional Use Area of the Luiseño people and within the Tribe’s specific Area of Historic Interest (AHI). As such, the Rincon Band is traditionally and culturally affiliated to the project area. After review of the provided documents and our internal information, the Rincon Band has specific concerns that the project may impact tangible Tribal Cultural Resources. The project site is culturally sensitive, with many resources and burials in the area. At this time the Rincon Band would like to consult directly with the lead agency, to review any potential impacts in this project site. If you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 749 1092 ext. 320 or via electronic mail at slinton@rincon-nsn.gov. Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets. Sincerely, Shuuluk Linton Tribal Historic Preservation Coordinator Cultural Resources Department May 21, 2025 Item #1 402 of 473 From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Ray Teran Kevin Hunt Ernest Pingleton RE: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County 4/5/2024 1:32:54 PM The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (“Viejas”) has reviewed the proposedproject and at this time we have determined that the project site has culturalsignificance or ties to Viejas. Cultural resources have been located within oradjacent to the APE-DE of the proposed project. Viejas Band request that a Kumeyaay Cultural Monitor be on site for grounddisturbing activities and to inform us of any new developments such asinadvertent discovery of cultural artifacts, cremation sites, or human remains. If you wish to utilize Viejas cultural monitors (Viejas rate is $54.15/hr. plus GSAmileage), please call Ernest Pingleton at 619-655-0410 or email,epingleton@viejas-nsn.gov, for contracting and scheduling. Thank you. If a Tribe, having a closer proximity to the Project, requests to perform culturalmonitoring, Viejas will differ to them. From: Kevin Hunt <khunt@southenvironmental.com> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 1:30 PM To: Ray Teran <rteran@viejas-nsn.gov> Cc: Ernest Pingleton <epingleton@viejas-nsn.gov> Subject: RE: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County Good afternoon, I’ve attached the site plan. The project would demolish the two existing residencesand build 12 units. I have not yet received a detailed project description from theclient, but I would anticipate ground disturbance between 4-10 feet, to account forfoundations and utilities. Please let me know if you have additional questions. I will update you when I find outmore details, too. Regards, Kevin Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Mobile: 760.207.9736 www.southenvironmental.com May 21, 2025 Item #1 403 of 473 From: Ray Teran <rteran@viejas-nsn.gov> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 1:16 PM To: Kevin Hunt <khunt@southenvironmental.com> Cc: Ernest Pingleton <epingleton@viejas-nsn.gov> Subject: RE: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County Please provide us with the project plan/description, specifically any anticipatedground disturbance activity(ies). THX From: Kevin Hunt <khunt@southenvironmental.com> Sent: Friday, April 5, 2024 12:46 PM To: Ray Teran <rteran@viejas-nsn.gov> Subject: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County Dear Director Teran, Attached please find a scoping letter for the above referenced project. Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Regards,Kevin Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Mobile: 760.207.9736 www.southenvironmental.com May 21, 2025 Item #1 404 of 473 From: To: Subject: Sent: Lisa Cumper Kevin Hunt Re: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County 4/8/2024 9:14:32 AM Hi Kevin, I just did a quick look at our tribal record database, there was a village less than amile away along the lagoon edge, it's scattered now and the area is highly developed.I am recommending monitoring for this project. Kindest Regards, Lisa K. Cumper, THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Cultural Resources Manager, The Jamul Indian Village of California Secretary, KCRC, Kumeyaay Nation Secretary, KHPC, Kumeyaay Nation P.O. Box 612, Jamul CA 91935desk: 619.669.4855cell: 619.928.8689fax: 619.669.4817 email: lcumper@jiv-nsn.govweb: www.jamulindianvillage.com The ground on which we stand is sacred ground, it is the blood of our ancestors. Chief PlentyCoups, Crow May 21, 2025 Item #1 405 of 473 This e-mail message including attachments, if any may contain confidential cultural resource location information; distribution should be restricted to those with a need to know. Cultural resources are nonrenewable, and their cultural, scientific, and aesthetic values can be significantly reduced by disturbance. To deter vandalism, artifact collection, and other activities that can damage culturalresources, their locations should be kept confidential. The legal authority to restrict cultural resource information is in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Section 304; the ArchaeologicalResource Protection Act of 1979, Section 9(a); and California Government Code 6254.10. On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:19 AM Kevin Hunt <khunt@southenvironmental.com> wrote: Dear THPO Cumper, Attached please find a scoping letter for the above referenced project. Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Regards, Kevin Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Mobile: 760.207.9736 www.southenvironmental.com May 21, 2025 Item #1 406 of 473 From: To: Subject: Sent: Heidi Lucero Kevin Hunt Re: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County 4/5/2024 9:09:46 AM This is just outside of our tribal territory but thank you for reaching out. Chairwoman Heidi Lucero CEO Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation JBMIAN.Chairwoman@gmail.com562-879-2884 On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:24 AM Kevin Hunt <khunt@southenvironmental.com> wrote: Dear Chairperson Lucero, Attached please find a scoping letter for the above referenced project. Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Regards, Kevin Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist May 21, 2025 Item #1 407 of 473 From: To: Subject: Sent: Joyce Perry Kevin Hunt; Cami Mojado; Re: Scoping leƩer: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County 4/12/2024 10:46:45 AM Mii Kevin, We have no comments. We yield to San Luis Rey Band for consultation. Thank You. Joyce Stanfield PerryHúu'uni 'óomaqati yáamaqati- Teach peace . Payomkawichum Kaamalam - Presidentkaamalam.com Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen NationCultural Resource Director On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 8:22 AM Kevin Hunt <khunt@southenvironmental.com> wrote: Dear Director Perry, Attached please find a scoping letter for the above referenced project. Please contact me if you have questions or comments. Regards, Kevin Kevin Hunt Principal Archaeologist Mobile: 760.207.9736 May 21, 2025 Item #1 408 of 473 Archaeological Survey Report 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street, Carlsbad Appendix C: Resumes for Qualified Staff May 21, 2025 Item #1 409 of 473 Email: SJarcheoheritage@proton.me Mobile: 562-900-8816 EDUCATION M.S., Conservation for Archaeology & Museums, University College London, 2018 M.A., Principles of Conservation, University College London, 2016 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 2013 B.A., Art History, University of California, Riverside, 2013 A.S. Physical Science, Long Beach City College, 2023 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Google Project Management Professional Certification, Coursera, (2021) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE South Environmental (2021- 2022, 2023-present), Field Archaeologist Rincon Consultants, Inc. (2023-present) Cultural Resources Field Technician, (2021) Archaeological Field Technician RLA Conservation (2020) Conservator Battleship IOWA Museum (2018-2021) Volunteer Conservator Samantha Jovanovic, MS ARCHAEOLOGIST Samantha Jovanovic is an archaeologist with over six years of professional experience in archaeology and museums, and supporting various cultural resources projects . Ms. Jovanovic currently works as an archaeologist and cultural resource technician at South Environmental LLC and Rincon Consultants, Inc., performing pedestrian surveys and monitoring in both urban and undeveloped contexts and assessing artifacts and buildings for historical significance based on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and local-level designation criteria. Ms. Jovanovic has analyzed hundreds of artifacts in several museum institutions ranging from several thousand years to less than a decade old. EXPERTISE • NAGPRA and Section 106 of the NHPA compliance documentation in consideration of impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources, and historic properties. • Resource significance evaluations in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, NAGPRA, ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites) and local designation criteria. • Object conservation, stabilization, handling, and storage according to American Institute of Conservation standards. RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Southern California Edison (SCE) Pole Upgrade Projects (2023- ongoing). Under Rincon Consultants, Ms. Jovanovic performs intensive- level archaeological surveys, historic built environment surveys, and evaluations around SCE power poles in various locations in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. These surveys seek to identify the presence of archaeological/historical resources. On-Call Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) Support (2023). South Environmental is a sub-consultant to Rincon Consultants, Inc. on SoCalGas’s on-call services contract and provides cultural resources services throughout SoCalGas’s service territory. Ms. Jovanovic performs intensive- level pedestrian surveys of areas along gas lines in urban and undeveloped areas. May 21, 2025 Item #1 410 of 473 Samantha Jovanovic, MS Resume, Page 2 Sequoia National Forest (SQNF) Survey of Windy and Castle Burn Zones (2023). Under Rincon Consultants, Ms. Jovanovic performed intensive-level pedestrian surveys of the Castle Fire (2020) and Windy Fire (2021) burn zones within Sequoia National Forest. Southern California Edison (SCE) Subconsultant Agreement for Capital Projects (2021-2022). South Environmental is a sub-consultant to Rincon Consultants, Inc. on SCE’s Environmental Clearance contract and provides cultural resources services throughout SCE’s service territory in Southern California. 2021- 2022, Ms. Jovanovic performed a pedestrian survey along the SCE power lines near California City for the Cal City 115kV Upgrade project. Athos I & II Solar Project in Desert Center, California (2021). Under Rincon Consultants, Ms. Jovanovic performed intensive-level pedestrian surveys and test pits of zones before construction, followed by archaeological monitoring and completion of cultural resources assessment reports in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. PUBLICATIONS • Cavazos, Stefani and Jovanovic, Samantha. Hazards in Collections: A Lead Mitigation Project. Anchor Watch, HNSA Journal. July 2019. • Jovanovic, Samantha. Material Testing: What is it and What is it Important? Anchor Watch, HNSA Journal. September 2018. • Jovanovic, Samantha. A Brief Introduction to the Identification of Plastics. Anchor Watch, HNSA Journal. July 2018. • Jovanovic, Samantha. Defining Evaluative Terminology in Conservation. Anchor Watch, HNSA Journal. April 2018. • Jovanovic, Samantha. Conservation of a Copper Plaque on USS IOWA. Anchor Watch, HNSA Journal. September 2017. SPECIALIZED TRAINING • Google Project Management Professional Certification, Coursera, 2021 • Asbestos Awareness, Science Museum London, 2018 PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS Hazards in Collections. Prepared for the Historic Naval Ships Association. Presented by Samantha Jovanovic and Stefani Cavazos. September 2019. Ms. Jovanovic delivered a 1-hour PowerPoint presentation on potential hazards in the collections kept by maritime museums and historical marine vessels. The presentation was a brief overview of identifying potential health hazards and how to mitigate risk. The presentation included a case study of WWII ship models used to train sailors to identify ships by silhouette. These models were cast in and coated with lead-based paint. Ms. Jovanovic and Ms. Cavazos went through the steps of assessing the risks, mitigating them, and conservation treatment. May 21, 2025 Item #1 411 of 473 Email: khunt@southenvironmental.com Mobile: 760-207-9736 EDUCATION B.A., Anthropology, minor in American Indian Studies, San Diego State University, 1995 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Society for California Archaeology TRAININGS AB 52 and CEQA Training, 2016 Cultural Side of NEPA Seminar, 2007 Traditional Cultural Properties Management Seminar, 2005 Kevin Hunt PRINCIPAL ARCHAEOLOGIST Kevin Hunt is a cultural resources management professional with more than 30 years of experience in California with specific expertise in the cultural resources requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA-Plus, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). His responsibilities include the management and preparation of cultural resources studies, Native American scoping and consultation, and quality assurance and quality control for cultural resources documents. Mr. Hunt draws from his experience and training to ensure that all projects consider the full spectrum of cultural resources including archaeological, historic built environment, and tribal cultural resources. He is an expert in Native American consultation and has strong working relationships with California tribes and Native American consultants. Mr. Hunt coauthored and instructed a Native American monitor training course at the Cahuilla Reservation in 2005. Mr. Hunt also served on the City of Oceanside’s Historic Preservation Advisory Commission from 2020-2023, when he moved out of the city. In addition to experience with cultural resources, Mr. Hunt has managed multidisciplinary projects that included biological and paleontological resources services. Mr. Hunt has conducted paleontological monitoring and salvage and is approved by the County of Orange as a paleontologist and the City of San Diego as a cross-trained archaeological/paleontological monitor. EXPERTISE • CEQA, CEQA-Plus, NEPA, and Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA compliance documentation in consideration of impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources, and historic properties. • Resource significance evaluations in consideration of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and local designation criteria. • Design and execution of archaeological data recovery programs for mitigation of impacts/effects to significant archaeological resources. • Management of cultural resources and multidisciplinary construction monitoring programs. • Third party peer review of cultural resources technical studies and environmental document sections. May 21, 2025 Item #1 412 of 473 Kevin Hunt Resume, Page 2 RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Mill Creek Project, Laguna Hills, Orange County, California (2024). South Environmental was retained to complete a cultural resources study for this project that would demolish two commercial buildings and develop housing on a 3.22-acre project site. Mr. Hunt served as the Project Manager and conducted the cultural resources records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, and pedestrian survey, and served as the primary author of the report. The project was subject to CEQA. Metro Link Union Station (Link US) Utilities Project, Los Angeles, California (2024-ongoing). South Environmental is a subconsultant to HDR Engineering, Inc. providing cultural resources services to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Metro is providing environmental oversight for this Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) utilities replacement project located near the Little Tokyo neighborhood of Los Angeles. Mr. Hunt is South Environmental’s Project Manager, responsible for coordination with HDR, our Native American monitoring subconsultant, and managing two archaeological monitors observing night construction. Southern California Edison (SCE) Subconsultant Agreement for Capital Projects (2021-ongoing). South Environmental is a subconsultant to Rincon Consultants, Inc. on SCE’s Environmental Clearance contract and provides cultural resources services throughout SCE’s service territory in Southern California. Mr. Hunt provides senior oversight and review on archaeological and ethnographic studies in support of this program and participated in pedestrian survey of project alignments. Technical reports recently completed by South Environmental and reviewed by Mr. Hunt include the following: • Ethnographic Literature Review Report for the Cal City 115 kv Upgrade Project in Kern and San Bernardino Counties EVMWD Rice Canyon Reservoir Access Road and New Conduit Project, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California (2022). South Environmental was retained to complete a cultural resources technical report for the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (EVMWD). Efforts included the results of a CHRIS records search of the project site and a one-mile radius with the Eastern Information Center; a NAHC Sacred Lands File search and informational scoping letters to local tribes; a paleontological resources records search; and an intensive pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor. Mr. Hunt conducted the pedestrian survey of the project site. South Environmental also assisted the District with its AB 52 obligations, including participating in meetings with tribes. This study was completed in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. Fiscal Year 2022 Section 110 Archaeological Testing and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility Evaluations of 13 Archaeological Sites at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California (2022-2024). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as the Project Manager for a portion of the archaeological testing of 13 prehistoric archaeological sites. Client: Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC) Southwest National Register Nomination for the San Onofre Beach Club, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California (2022-2024). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as the Project Manager for the completion and submittal of NRHP nomination forms for this historic building complex. Client: NAVFAC Southwest May 21, 2025 Item #1 413 of 473 Kevin Hunt Resume, Page 3 Cultural Resource Assessment for the 4341 El Cajon Boulevard Project, San Diego, San Diego County, California (2023). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as the Principal in Charge for archival research, preparation of a historic context, and evaluation of a 1950s commercial building for inclusion in the NRHP to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended. The proposed project sought federal funding assistance through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 17th Street Affordable Housing Project, San Diego, San Diego County, California (2022). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as Principal and Project Manager for a Section 106 cultural resources study for this project. The study included area of potential effects (APE) delineation, a cultural resources records search, Native American scoping, pedestrian survey of the project site, and preparation of a technical report with appropriate tables and figures. Valley Center Municipal Water District Pipeline Replacement Program Phase I Cultural Resources Study. Valley Center, San Diego County, California (2019-2021). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as Project Manager and Senior Cultural Resources Specialist. He completed and managed a CEQA-Plus cultural resources study for this program of ten pipeline replacement projects. CEQA-Plus is the California State Water Resources Control Board’s version of CEQA/NEPA/Section 106 for projects that may include federal funding assistance. The study included area of potential effects (APE) delineation, a cultural resources records search, Native American scoping, pedestrian survey of miles of alignment, and preparation of a technical report with appropriate tables and figures. The report was revised when a new project was added, another dropped, and others modified. Mr. Hunt also assisted the District with AB 52 consultation with interested Native American tribes. San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy Open Space Regional Management Plan, San Diego County, California (2021). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as Principal and Project Manager for the cultural resources study for the San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy Open Space Regional Management Plan. The study included a cultural resources records search, Native American scoping, site visit to potentially sensitive portions of the plan area, and preparation of a technical report. 295 Juniper Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (2020). Cultural Resources Study for the 295 Juniper Project. Mr. Hunt managed and conducted the study including archival research, preparation of historic context, survey, and evaluation of a single-family residence for inclusion in the CRHR to comply with CEQA and the City of Carlsbad’s guidelines. 4008 Garfield Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (2020). Principal/Project Manager Cultural Resources Study for the 4008 Garfield Project. Mr. Hunt managed and conducted the study including archival research, preparation of historic context, survey, and evaluation of a single-family residence for inclusion in the CRHR to comply with CEQA and the City of Carlsbad’s guidelines. El Dorado Apartments Project, San Marcos, San Diego County, California (2019-2020). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served as Principal and Project Manager of the archaeological monitoring of construction grading for this 3.68-acre mixed-use development. He prepared the archaeological and Native American resources pre-grading report, attended the pre-construction meeting, conducted archaeological monitoring of construction grading, and prepared an archaeological resources monitoring report that was approved by the City of San Marcos. May 21, 2025 Item #1 414 of 473 Kevin Hunt Resume, Page 4 River Village Residential Project Cultural Resources Services, Santee, San Diego County, California (2014-2016). During previous employment, Mr. Hunt served initially as Task Manager during preparation of the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and then Project Manager for subsequent archaeological testing and mitigation efforts for this 82-unit single-family home development project. Mr. Hunt managed Phase I cultural resources survey, Phase II archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility evaluation, Phase III data recovery excavation, and a Native American heritage salvage program because a portion of a Late Prehistoric Kumeyaay village site was identified within the project site that could not be feasibly avoided. Mr. Hunt’s tasks included oversight and coordination of all cultural resources technical studies, intensive consultation and negotiation with Kumeyaay Native American consultants regarding the respectful treatment and disposition of human remains recovered from the project site, coordination and retention of Native American monitors, coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)-assigned Most Likely Descendent, and consultation assistance for the City of Santee with the project owner. May 21, 2025 Item #1 415 of 473 Email: smurray@southenvironmental.com Mobile: 818-458-1162 EDUCATION M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Los Angeles, 2013 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Northridge, 2003 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS California Preservation Foundation Society of Architectural Historians National Trust for Historic Preservation PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Registered Professional Archaeologist (2013) Samantha Murray, MA, RPA CULTURAL RESOURCES DIRECTOR Samantha Murray is the president and cultural resources director at South Environmental, managing a team of archaeologists and architectural historians. She brings over 18 years’ experience in all elements of cultural resources management, including project management, architectural history studies, archaeological assessments, and historical significance evaluations in consideration of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and local-level designation criteria. Ms. Murray has conducted thousands of historical resource evaluations and developed detailed historic context statements for a multitude of property types and architectural styles. She has also provided expertise on numerous projects requiring conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Ms. Murray meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for both Architectural History and Archaeology. She is experienced managing multidisciplinary projects in the lines of private development, transportation, transmission and generation, federal land management, land development, and state and local government. She is an expert in preparation of cultural resources compliance documentation for projects that fall under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Ms. Murray has also served as an expert witness in legal proceedings concerning historical resources under CEQA and local ordinance protection. EXPERTISE • CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 of the NHPA compliance documentation in consideration of impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources, and historic properties. • Resource significance evaluations in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and local designation criteria. • Project design review for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. • Assistance with complex mitigation including HABS/HAER/HALS, salvage, and interpretive displays. • Peer review. May 21, 2025 Item #1 416 of 473 Samantha Murray, MA, RPA Resume, Page 2 SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE The following presents an overview of Samantha Murray’s experience preparing cultural resources reports for the City of Carlsbad in conformance with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 for historical resources and the 2017 Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. For all reports listed below, Ms. Murray served as Principal Investigator of the reports and provided review of all work products. Archaeological Survey Report for 3215-3225 Tyler Street, City of Carlsbad, California (2024). South Environmental was retained to prepare an archaeological survey report for the 3215-3225 Tyler Street project, located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This analysis includes the results of a CHRIS records search of the project site and a one-half (0.5)-mile radius from the SCIC; a NAHC Sacred Lands File search and informational scoping letters to local tribes; and an intensive- level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and Luiseño Native American monitor. Archaeological Survey Report for 270 Juniper Avenue, City of Carlsbad, California (2023). South Environmental was retained to prepare an archaeological survey report for the 270 Juniper Avenue project, located in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. This analysis includes the results of a CHRIS records search of the project site and a one-half (0.5)-mile radius from the SCIC; a NAHC Sacred Lands File search and informational scoping letters to local tribes; and an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and Luiseño Native American monitor. Historical and Archaeological Analyses for 314 Date Avenue, City of Carlsbad, California (2023). South Environmental was retained by a private homeowner to prepare both a historical analysis and an archaeological survey report for a project that proposed demolition of the existing residence located at 314 Date Avenue in Carlsbad. The historic analysis includes the results of a pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of the property for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City of Carlsbad historic resources inventory designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the property significance evaluation, the property was found not eligible for designation in the CRHR or City’s historic resource inventory under all designation criteria and in consideration of the property’s lack of requisite integrity. The archaeological survey report includes the results of a CHRIS records search of the project site and a one-half (0.5)-mile radius from the SCIC; a NAHC Sacred Lands File search and informational scoping letters to local tribes; a paleontological resources records search; and an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified archaeologist and Luiseño Native American monitor. Two prehistoric isolates were identified within the project site as a result of the survey and limited archaeological monitoring was recommended at depths exceeding 2 feet. Historical Analysis for 2879-2885 Hope Avenue, City of Carlsbad, California (2023). South Environmental was retained to prepare a historical analysis for a project that proposed demolition of the existing commercial building located at 2879-2885 Hope Avenue in Carlsbad. This analysis includes the results of a pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of one commercial May 21, 2025 Item #1 417 of 473 Samantha Murray, MA, RPA Resume, Page 3 property for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City of Carlsbad historic resources inventory designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the property significance evaluation, the property was found not eligible for designation in the CRHR or City’s historic resource inventory under all designation criteria and in consideration of the property’s lack of requisite integrity. Historical Analysis for 315 Olive Avenue, City of Carlsbad, California (2022). South Environmental was retained by a private developer to prepare a historical analysis for the existing residence at 315 Olive Avenue in Carlsbad. This analysis includes the results of a pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of one residential property for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City of Carlsbad historic resources inventory designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the property significance evaluation, the property was recommended eligible for designation in the NRHP at the local level, CRHR and the City’s HRI under NRHP Criterion C, CRHR Criterion 3, and City Criterion C. Therefore, the property is considered a historical resource per CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, and any future discretionary modifications to 315 Olive Avenue would require a detailed impacts analysis by a qualified architectural historian to determine the project’s level of potential impact on historical resources. Historical Analysis for 3060 State Street, City of Carlsbad, California (2021). South Environmental was retained by a private developer to prepare a historical analysis for a project that proposed demolition of the building at 3060 State Street in Carlsbad. This analysis includes the results of a pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of one commercial property for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City of Carlsbad historic resources inventory designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the property significance evaluation, the property was found not eligible for designation in the CRHR or City’s historic resource inventory under all designation criteria and in consideration of the property’s lack of requisite integrity. Historical Analysis for 245 Acacia Avenue, City of Carlsbad, California (2021). South Environmental teamed with Anza Resources Consultants to prepare a historical analysis for a project that proposed demolition of the buildings at 245 Acacia Avenue in Carlsbad. This analysis includes the results of a pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of one multi-family residential property for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City of Carlsbad historic resources inventory designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the property significance evaluation, the property was found not eligible for designation in the CRHR or City’s historic resource inventory under all designation criteria and in consideration of the property’s lack of requisite integrity. Historical Analysis for 3570 and 3588-3590 Garfield Street, City of Carlsbad, California (2021). South Environmental teamed with Anza Resources Consultants to prepare a historical analysis for a project that proposed demolition of the buildings at 3570 and 3588-3590 Garfield Street in Carlsbad. This analysis includes the results of a pedestrian survey of the project site by a qualified architectural historian; building development and archival research; and recordation and evaluation of one multi- family residential property for historical significance in consideration of CRHR and City of Carlsbad May 21, 2025 Item #1 418 of 473 Samantha Murray, MA, RPA Resume, Page 4 historic resources inventory designation criteria and integrity requirements. As a result of the property significance evaluation, the property was found not eligible for designation in the CRHR or City’s historic resource inventory under all designation criteria and in consideration of the property’s lack of requisite integrity. May 21, 2025 Item #1 419 of 473 2061 N. Los Robles Avenue, Ste. 205 Pasadena, California 91104 / www.southenvironmental.com May 24, 2024 Jonathan Frankel Rincon Homes 5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 jfrankel@rincongrp.com RE: Paleontological Resources Assessment for the 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Dear Jonathan: South Environmental conducted a paleontological resources assessment for the 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project in the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. The purpose of this assessment is to describe the results of a paleontological resources literature review and records search, summarize the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units within the project site, assess the potential for the project to impact scientifically significant paleontological resources, describe and summarize the results of the field survey conducted to examine the project site for geologic exposures and potential fossil remains, and provide management recommendations for avoiding or reducing project-related impacts to paleontological resources. Project Location and Description The Project is at 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street in the City of Carlsbad, California, a currently developed 0.542-acre property. The project site is located on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) San Luis Rey, California 7.5-minute Quadrangle Map in Section 6 of Township 12 South and Range 4 West (Figure 1). The proposed project would develop a new 12-unit multi-family project located at the subject addresses. The project site is located on the east side of Jefferson Street, the south side of Buena Vista Avenue, and occupies Assessor Parcel Numbers 155-251-18-00 and 155- 251-19-00. Exhibit 9.7 May 21, 2025 Item #1 420 of 473 Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Figure 1. Project Location Map 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Location is within Carlsbad, California, in San Diego Countyon the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map in Section 31 of Township 11 South and Range 04 West andSection 6 of Township 12 South and Range 04 West Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):Latitude: 33.1685828N Longitude: -117.3480493W Scale: 1:24,000Project Site 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 421 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 3 Regulatory Context Paleontological resources are generally considered non-renewable scientific resources because they cannot be replaced once damaged or destroyed, and considerable scientific information can be lost should they be disturbed or displaced from their original location and geologic context without a proper record of their original placement and arrangement in their natural sediments. For this reason, fossils are typically protected under a variety of federal, state, and local laws and regulations to ensure that these basic scientific considerations are made and carried out whenever paleontological resources are going to be disturbed. The pertinent laws and regulations governing paleontological resources are discussed in this section. State Laws and Regulations California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQA requires that public agencies and private interests to identify the potential environmental impacts of their projects on any object or site of significance to the scientific annals of California (Division I, California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 5020.1 [j]). Appendix G in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15023 provides an Environmental Checklist (Section 15023, Appendix G, Section XIV, Part A) that includes the following: "Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?" California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 of the PRC states: No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. As used in this PRC section, 'public lands' means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Therefore, public agencies are required to comply with PRC Section 5097.5 for their activities including construction and maintenance as well as for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others. May 21, 2025 Item #1 422 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 4 Local Laws, Regulations and Guidelines The City of Carlsbad has created the City of Carlsbad General Plan, which includes a section titled “Arts, History, Culture, and Education” (AHCE) (Carlsbad, 2015). This section of the city plan establishes policies and guidelines for the protection of archaeological and paleontological resources and meet the requirements of CEQA. Under the subsection “Archaeological and Paleontological Resources”, the AHCE states: 7-P.7 Implement the City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources. 7-P.8 During construction of specific development projects, require monitoring of grading, ground-disturbing, and other major earthmoving activities in previously undisturbed areas or in areas with known archaeological or paleontological resources by a qualified professional, as well as a tribal monitor during activities in areas with cultural resources of interest to local Native American tribes. Both the qualified professional and tribal monitor shall observe grading, ground-disturbing, and other earth-moving activities. Additionally, in 2017, the City of Carlsbad had a document prepared by ECORP Consulting, Inc. titled “Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines” that details the specific actions that the city requires to properly preserve and protect archaeological and paleontological resources (ECORP, 2017). The Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines defines paleontological resources as follows: “Paleontological resources” are unrelated to humankind. Paleontology is defined as the study of ancient life; paleontological resources include direct remnants of ancient life, such as fossilized bones of vertebrate animals like whales and bison, fossilized invertebrate animals like snail shells and crabs, or fossilized plant parts like pine cones and leaves. In addition, paleontological resources include indirect remnants of ancient life such as fossilized tracks and burrows. Vertebrate fossils are less commonly found compared with invertebrate and plant fossils. Section 10 of these guidelines detail the mitigation measures to be taken to ensure proper protection and preservation of scientifically significant paleontological resources found within the City of Carlsbad. These include a sensitivity model review, a records search and literature review, field surveys of proposed project locations, an impact analysis and mitigation measures to be taken to minimize these impacts, and a curation statement dictating the placement of any scientifically significant fossils that are collected to be curated with the San Diego Natural History Museum. May 21, 2025 Item #1 423 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 5 The field survey conducted and reported upon in this document as well as the proposed mitigation measures included meet the requirements set forth in the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines (ECORP, 2017). Paleontological Resource Definitions Toward the goal of providing guidance to federal, state, and local agencies in carrying out environmental assessments, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has created a set of definitions to determine the significance of paleontological resources. Significant paleontological resources are defined as follows: Fossils and fossiliferous deposits consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years). (SVP, 2010) By this definition, significant paleontological resources are fossils (or fossil assemblages) that are unique, unusual, rare, diagnostically important, or even common with the potential to provide additional scientific information about evolutionary patterns or the paleoenvironmental conditions of a site. This includes fossils that may enhance our understanding of depositional histories, evolutionary trends and patterns within lineages, information regarding palaeoecological environments, that can be used to identify the sedimentary rock units that they are within, or fossils that are unique to a particular geologic region. For this reason, even common or unidentifiable invertebrate and vertebrate fossil remains may be considered scientifically significant, particularly within the larger context of a geologic area from which many specimens have previously been collected and examined. Because CEQA does not define a “unique paleontological resource or site”, the definitions set forth by SVP are used for all paleontological projects that are subject to CEQA. For additional information relating to the determination of the potential significance of paleontological resources based on SVP guidelines, please see Attachment A: Paleontological Resource Potential Classifications. These definitions have been used to determine the potential paleontological sensitivity of the project site. May 21, 2025 Item #1 424 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 6 Paleontological Sensitivity Determination Methods To assess the paleontological sensitivity of the project site and determine its placement within the definitions provided by the SVP, several sources of recorded data were examined: 1) Published geologic maps of the project site and surrounding vicinity. 2) A collections record search was performed by the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) to identify previously collected localities within one mile of the project site. 3) Searches of the following on-line databases were performed to determine additional fossil sites recorded within one mile of the project site: a. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Collections b. The Paleobiology Database c. iDigBio 4) Additional published and unpublished paleontological literature pertaining to the project site and the surrounding vicinity. Geological Context Geologic Setting The project site sits within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges is a region that is approximately 125 miles in length and bound to the north by the Transverse Ranges, stretching to Baja California in the south. It contains northwest trending valleys and is bordered on the east by the Colorado Desert (California Geological Survey, 2002). The project site is located on a sequence of marine and nonmarine rocks of nearshore and marine deposits (Demere and Walsh, 1993) and older terrestrial deposits that currently sit upon wave-cut terraces created by regional uplift (Demere and Walsh, 1993; Kennedey and Tan, 2007). Site Specific Geology and Paleontology Published geologic maps (Kennedy and Tan, 2007) indicate that the project site is located on Pleistocene-aged old paralic deposits, Units 6-7, which have been found to be broadly equivalent to the Bay Point Formation of Kennedy (1975) (see Figures 2 and 3). These paralic deposits are described by Kennedy and Tan (2007) as being “poorly sorted, moderately permeable, reddish-brown, interfingered strandline, beach, estuarine and colluvial deposits composed of siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate.” Similar deposits near the project site have produced a variety of marine invertebrates including crustaceans, echinoids, and molluscs (Stephens, 1929; Grant and Gale, 1931; Emerson and Chace, 1959; Valentine, 1960, 1961; Kern 1977) as well as vertebrate remains including bony fish, rays and May 21, 2025 Item #1 425 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 7 sharks (Jefferson, 1991), and even camel, horse and mammoth from more inland deposits (Grant and Hertlein, 1944; Demere and Walsh, 1993). Finally, a large number of invertebrate and vertebrate fossil remains have been discovered in the Bay Point Formation specifically, to which the Pleistocene-aged old paralic deposits of the project site are broadly equivalent. Therefore, these rock units are considered to be of high paleontological sensitivity due to the diverse and well-preserved assemblage of fossils collected from them (Demere and Walsh, 1993). Summary of Geologic Units in the Project Site and their Paleontological Sensitivity Geologic Units Map Abbr.1 Age Fossils2 Sensitivity Old paralic deposits – Units 6-7 Qop6-7 Pleistocene Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Theocostraca, Echinoidea, Scaphopoda, Malacostraca, Mollusca High 1Kennedy and Tan, 2007. 2iDigBio, 2024; PBDB, 2024, Mueller, 2024; UCMP, 2024 May 21, 2025 Item #1 426 of 473 Tsa Qls Qls Qa Tsa Qop6-7 Qop2-4 water Tsa Tsa Qop2-4 Tsa Qop6-7 Tsa Tsa Qa Qop2-4 Qls Tsa Qop6-7 Qmb Qop7-8 Tmo Tsa Qa Qa Qvop13 Qvop12 Qvop12 Qls Qls Qa Tsa water Teo Qvop13 Qvop12 Source: ESRI USA Topo Maps and World Topo Map 2024 Figure 2. Project Geology Map 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Location is within Carlsbad, California, in San Diego Countyon the USGS San Luis Rey 7.5-minute quadrangle map inSection 31 of Township 11 South and Range 04 West andSection 6 of Township 12 South and Range 04 West Center Coordinate (Decimal Degrees):Latitude: 33.1685828N Longitude: -117.3480493W Scale: 1:24,000Project Site Geologic Units 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 427 of 473 Source: BING Aerial Map 2024 Figure 3. Detail of Project Geology 0 8341.5 Feet Scale: 1:800Project Site Geologic Units Qop6-7 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project May 21, 2025 Item #1 428 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 10 Records Search Results The SDNHM conducted a search of its paleontological records (Mueller, 2024) for all fossil localities recorded within one-half-mile of the project site, finding none within its records. South Environmental also performed a records search of several online databases for all fossil localities recorded within one mile of the project site. The results of the records and online database searches are summarized below: Source* Localities Age/Formation Taxa Depth Distance SDNHM1 None - - - - UCMP 17 Bay Point Fm. Invertebrate, Microfossils - 1 mile PBDB G&H 19382 Bay Point Fm. Malacostraca 1 mile N 19753 Bay Point Fm. Gastropoda, Bivalvia, Theocostraca, Echinoidea, Scaphopoda - 1 mile iDigBio Loc. 56 at Kelley’s Ranch Unrecorded Bivalvia, Cephalopoda (48 instances reported) - 1 mile *SDNHM = San Diego Natural History Museum records search; UCMP = University of California Museum of Paleontology Collections Online Database; PBDB = Paleobiology Online Database; iDigBio = iDigBio Online Database 1Mueller, 2024 2Grant and Hertlein, 1938 3Nations, 1975 Field Analysis Methods A pedestrian field survey of the project site was conducted on May 3, 2024 by a qualified paleontologist. A paleontological pedestrian survey involves a visual inspection of the entire site as well as close inspection of all rock outcrop exposures where the potential for the discovery of paleontological resources is highest. The survey is designed to determine the presence of any paleontological resources found at the surface, evaluate the condition of any previously discovered fossil localities in the project site, and examine the potential for disturbance of natural sedimentary deposits and geologic features (and thus potential for adverse impacts to paleontological resources) by construction activities. Should any paleontological resources be discovered, their location is recorded, and data is collected regarding their identification, placement, appearance, and condition to assist in the assessment of their significance and to preserve as much scientific information about the fossil materials and the project site as possible. May 21, 2025 Item #1 429 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 11 Results Field Survey The project site consists of two lots (2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street) developed with existing residences. The land around the structures was inspected, but the vast majority of this site was covered in vegetation or residential landscaping (Photographs 1 through 4). Soil exposures were noted at a few small locations consisting of reddish-brown sandy soil and whitish-tan, small-medium grained sand. The reddish-brown sandy soil appeared to be fill material that was likely imported to the project site when the residences were originally constructed. The whitish-tan sand appeared to have been excavated by an animal, and thus could have come from lower sedimentary levels, although this could not be determined. The whiteish-tan sand was closely examined for potential fossil remains, but none were discovered. No major bedrock exposures or fossil materials were discovered during the pedestrian survey. Geology Exposure Status No major bedrock exposures were discovered during the field survey. Reddish-brown soil was exposed at limited locations, but this appeared to have been previously worked fill or landscaping soils deposited during or after the construction of the existing residences. A whitish-tan, small- medium grained sand was noted at the northwest corner of the project site, but it could not be determined if this was native sediment or more fill material. May 21, 2025 Item #1 430 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 12 Photograph 1. Southwest corner of the project site, facing northeast. Photograph 2. Northwest corner of the project site, facing southeast. May 21, 2025 Item #1 431 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 13 Photograph 3. Southeast corner of the project site, facing northwest. Photograph 4. Northeast corner of the project site, facing southwest. May 21, 2025 Item #1 432 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 14 Paleontological Sensitivity Analysis Although no bedrock exposures and no fossil specimens were observed on the surface, the project site is located atop the Pleistocene-aged old paralic deposits (Qop) of Units 6 and 7 (Kennedy and Tan, 2007), which are considered to be very similar to other rock units in the area, such as the Bay Point Formation, that are of high sensitivity for scientifically significant paleontological resources (Demere and Walsh, 1993). This is further supported by the number of previously recorded fossil localities identified within a one-mile radius of the project site, many of which are considered to be scientifically significant. This sensitivity ranking is also consistent with the recommendations provided by the SDNHM as part of their records search results, which stated that the underlying old paralic deposits should be considered of “high paleontological sensitivity for the diverse and well-preserved fossils of marine invertebrates, marine vertebrates, and occasional terrestrial vertebrates” discovered in deposits similar to these (Mueller, 2024). Finally, the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines assign a “High” sensitivity to the Pleistocene-aged old paralic deposits (Qop) of Units 6 and 7 (ECORP, 2017). The project proposes to build a 12-unit multi-family residence, with a maximum depth of disturbance anticipated to be approximately 4 feet. Therefore, following the guidelines prepared by the SVP (2010), the project site and its underlying sediments are considered to be of High Potential for yielding scientifically significant fossil materials. Findings and Recommendations Findings Although no scientifically significant fossil materials were discovered in the project site, either during the field survey or in the records searches of previously recorded fossil localities, the underlying sediments are still considered to be of High Potential for yielding scientific fossils, based on the records search and literature review performed by the SDNHM (2024) and South Environmental. The project will involve the construction of a 12-unit multi-family residence, which is likely to impact much of the project site. These activities could result in a maximum depth of disturbance of approximately 4 feet and thus have the potential to result in significant impacts under CEQA including destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically significant paleontological resources. A Qualified Paleontologist (SVP, 2010; ECORP, 2017) should be retained to develop and implement the recommended measures below to reduce impacts to paleontological resource. The proposed measures have been developed in accordance with SVP guidelines, the Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Guidelines and, if implemented, would meet the requirements of the City of Carlsbad General Plan and CEQA. May 21, 2025 Item #1 433 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 15 Recommendations Paleontological Mitigation Plan Pre-Construction Personnel Training Prior to the beginning of any ground disturbing activities, the Qualified Paleontologist should conduct a Paleontological Awareness Training Program for all personnel. The program should include descriptions of potential fossil resources that may be encountered in the project site during earth- moving activities, a discussion of the pertinent laws and regulations relating to said paleontological resources in the area, and a review of the steps that should be taken if a fossil discovery is made. The program should be developed by the Qualified Paleontologist and delivered simultaneously with trainings on cultural and biological resources (if applicable), safety reviews and other matters of concern. Paleontological Monitoring Due to the high potential for the discovery of scientifically significant fossil materials during ground disturbance activities, full-time paleontological resource monitoring should be performed by a paleontological monitor under the direction of a Qualified Paleontologist during said activities. Monitoring should involve the visual inspection of all earth-moving activities, graded areas, trench sidewalls and spoils piles. If the project paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer required based on the geologic conditions of the site, the paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or stopped entirely. Paleontological monitors should prepare daily logs describing the activities of the construction crew, the types of excavation work being done, the equipment being used, recordings of the geology observed during these activities, and records of any fossil discoveries made, whether they be determined to be significant or not. Paleontological monitors should also attempt to record the stratigraphy of the rock that is exposed by construction activities, whether or not fossils were discovered within the exposed sediments. Fossil Discoveries Should fossil materials be discovered, either by the paleontological monitor or the construction field crew, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert construction activities and equipment in a 50-foot radius around the site to further assess the discovery. Should the fossils be determined to be of scientific significance, they should be collected as soon as possible. Standard field procedures should be used in the collection of the fossils to ensure that no scientific data is lost in the recovery process. Fossil specimens discovered during construction can typically be collected by a single qualified paleontologist within a single day, usually in less than one hour. May 21, 2025 Item #1 434 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 16 Occasionally, more extensive efforts may be required to properly salvage a fossil specimen, particularly for larger skeletal elements, entire skeletons or large collections of smaller fossil remains. Should this be the case, the paleontological monitor should have the authority to temporarily halt, divert, or redirect construction activities to ensure that the fossil can be salvaged in a safe and timely manner. The paleontological monitor should work directly with the field crew to clearly communicate their intentions and determine the best way to safely protect and recover the fossils, with minimal disruption to construction efforts. Fossil Preparation and Curation An accredited repository (typically a museum) should be identified for the long-term storage and care of any fossil specimens discovered during paleontological monitoring. Upon completion of the project, collected fossil specimens should be prepared to the standards required by the repository that has agreed to take them and delivered as soon as is feasible upon completion of the preparatory work. Preparatory work should include the removal of excess sedimentary matrix, as well as any steps necessary for the repair and stabilization of the specimens. The specimens should be identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, and copies of all field notes and information related to the fossil should be kept and provided to the repository as well upon delivery of the specimen. The cost of curation will be determined by the repository, and the costs of preparation and curation will be the responsibility of the client. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report Upon completion of paleontological monitoring, the Qualified Paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to be submitted to all interested parties. This report should detail the monitoring activities and methods used during construction, a description of the construction activities that took place, stratigraphic sections created during monitoring, a review of any fossils discovered (whether or not they were deemed significant and collected), a detailed description of the fossils that were collected including their scientific significance, and information relating to the repository where the fossils will be curated. May 21, 2025 Item #1 435 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 17 Thank you for working with South Environmental on this project. If you have any questions about this paleontological resources assessment, please feel free to call me at (626) 314-2961 or email me at jstrauss@southenvironmental.com. Respectfully Submitted, _______________________ Justin J. Strauss, MS Principal Paleontologist Attachments: Attachment A. Paleontological Resource Potential Classifications Attachment B. San Diego Natural History Museum Records Search May 21, 2025 Item #1 436 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 18 References California Geological Survey, 2002, CGS Note 36: California Geomorphic Provinces, Electronic document, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/documents/publications/cgs-notes/CGS- Note-36.pdf (accessed May 2024). City of Carlsbad, 2015, Arts, History, Culture and Education Element in the Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad, California, 28 p., Electronic document, https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/3432/637434861113400000 (accessed May 2024). Deméré, T.A., and Walsh, S.L., 1993, Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego: Prepared for the San Diego Planning Commission, 68 p. ECORP Consulting, 2017, Carlsbad Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Guidelines. Prepared for the City of Carlsbad, California, with contributions from Cogstone Resource Management: Redlands, California, ECORP Consulting, Electronic document, https://www.carlsbadca.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/254/637425976516870000 (accessed May 2024). Emerson, W.K., and Chace, E.P., 1959, Pleistocene mollusks from Tecolote Creek, San Diego, California: San Diego Society of Natural History, Transactions, v. 12, p. 335–345. iDigBio, 2024, iDigBio: Integrated Digitized Biocollections: iDigBio Specimen Portal, http://portal.idigbio.org/portal (accessed May 2024). Grant, U.S., IV, and Gale, H.R., 1931, Catalogue of the marine Pliocene and Pleistocene Mollusca of California: San Diego, San Diego Society of Natural History, Memoirs of the San Diego Society of Natural History Volume 1. Grant, U.S. and Hertlein, L.G., 1938. The West American Cenozoic Echinoidea. Publications of the University of California at Los Angeles in Mathematical and Physical Sciences 2:1-225 Grant, U.S., IV, and Hertlein, L.G., 1944, The geology and paleontology of the marine Pliocene of San Diego, California, Part 1, Geology: San Diego, San Diego Society of Natural History, Memoirs of the San Diego Society of Natural History Volume 2. Kennedy, M.P. 1975. Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, California. Section A - Western San Diego metropolitan area. California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200: 9–39. May 21, 2025 Item #1 437 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project 19 Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic map of the Oceanside 30’ × 60’ quadrangle and adjacent areas, California: California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2, scale 1:100,000. Kern, J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego, California: GSA Bulletin, v. 88, p. 1533–1566. Mueller, K., 2024, Unpublished museum collections records for the 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project: San Diego Natural History Museum. Nations, J.D., 1975, The genus Cancer (Crustacea: Brachyura): systematics, biogeography and fossil record. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Bulletin 23:1-104 Paleobiology Database [PBDB], 2024, The Paleobiology Database: About the PBDB, https://paleobiodb.org/#/ (accessed May 2024). Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP], 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee, https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf (accessed May 2024). Stephens, F., 1929, Notes on the marine Pleistocene of San Diego County, California: San Diego Society of Natural History, Transactions, v. 5, p. 245–256. University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP], 2024, UCMP Specimen Search: University of California Museum of Paleontology, https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed May 2024). Valentine, J.W., 1960, Habitats and sources of Pleistocene mollusks at Torrey Pines Park, California: Ecology, v. 41, p. 161–165, doi:10.2307/1931949. Valentine, J.W., 1961, Paleoecologic molluscan geography of the California Pleistocene: University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, v. 34, p. 309–442. May 21, 2025 Item #1 438 of 473 Attachment A: Paleontological Resource Potential Classifications May 21, 2025 Item #1 439 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project Paleontological Resource Potential Classifications When specific agency guidelines are not provided regarding the protection and preservation of paleontological resources, professional paleontologists in California will refer to the guidelines set forth by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) in order to determine the level of mitigation activities necessary for a particular project. These assessments are made by examining the geologic units in the area, known paleontological sites and localities recorded in the vicinity, and references made to the area by published literature. Based on the results of these analyses, the paleontological resource potential of the geology in the area can be classified into one of four categories: High Potential, Low Potential, Undetermined Potential, and No Potential. Although these guidelines were created specifically for vertebrate fossil remains, they have generally been adopted for use in all fields of paleontology. The definitions for these categories are listed below: High Potential Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e. g., ashes or tephras), and some low-grade metamorphic rocks which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e. g., middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.). Paleontological potential consists of both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data. Rock units which contain potentially datable organic remains older than late Holocene, including deposits associated with animal nests or middens, and rock units which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as having high potential. Low Potential Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances and the presence of fossils is the exception not the rule, e. g. basalt flows or Recent colluvium. Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils. May 21, 2025 Item #1 440 of 473 Paleontological Resources Assessment: 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Street Project Undetermined Potential Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey by a qualified professional paleontologist to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a paleontological resource impact mitigation program can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy. No Potential Some rock units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, for instance high- grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites). Rock units with no potential require no protection nor impact mitigation measures relative to paleontological resources. Reference: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP], 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee, https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf (accessed May 2024). May 21, 2025 Item #1 441 of 473 Attachment B: San Diego Natural History Museum Records Search May 21, 2025 Item #1 442 of 473 1 April 2024 Kevin Hunt South Environmental 2061 N Los Robles Avenue Pasadena, CA 91104 RE: Paleontological Records Search – 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project, Carlsbad Dear Mr. Hunt: This letter presents the results of a paleontological records search conducted for the 2502 and 2518 Jefferson Project (Project), located in the northwestern portion of the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California (Figure 1). The 0.76-acre Project site is bordered to the north by Buena Vista Way, to the west by Jefferson Street, and to the south and east by existing residential development. Methods A review of published geological maps covering the Project site and surrounding area was conducted to determine the specific geologic units underlying the Project site. Each geologic unit was subsequently assigned a paleontological resource sensitivity (Deméré and Walsh, 1993). In addition, a search of the paleontological collection records housed at the San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) was conducted in order to determine if any documented fossil collection localities occur at the Project site or within the immediate surrounding area. Results Published geological reports (e.g., Kennedy and Tan, 2007) covering the Project area indicate that the proposed Project has the potential to impact late Pleistocene-age old paralic deposits, Units 6-7 (broadly equivalent to the Bay Point Formation of Kennedy, 1975). This geologic unit and its paleontological sensitivity are summarized below. The SDNHM does not have any fossil collection localities within a ½-mile radius of the Project site. Old paralic deposits, Units 6-7 (Bay Point Formation) – Late Pleistocene-age (120,000 to 80,000 years old) old paralic deposits, Units 6-7 underlie the entire Project site at the surface, and are broadly equivalent to the nearshore marine deposits of the Bay Point Formation of Kennedy (1975). The SDNHM does not have any fossil collection localities from the Bay Point Formation within a ½-mile radius of the Project site. More broadly, the Bay Point Formation has been assigned a high paleontological sensitivity for the diverse and well-preserved fossils of marine invertebrates, marine vertebrates, and occasional terrestrial vertebrates that have been recovered from these deposits in western San Diego County. Summary and Recommendations The high paleontological sensitivity of the Bay Point Formation in San Diego County (Deméré and Walsh, 1993) suggests the potential for construction of the proposed Project to result in impacts to paleontological resources. Any proposed excavation activities that extend deep enough to encounter May 21, 2025 Item #1 443 of 473 previously undisturbed deposits of this geologic unit (i.e., below the depth of any previously imported artificial fill or disturbed sediments present within the Project site) have the potential to impact the paleontological resources preserved therein. If such excavation is required for Project construction, implementation of a complete paleontological resource mitigation program during ground-disturbing activities is recommended. If you have any questions concerning these findings please feel free to contact me at kmueller@sdnhm.org. Sincerely, Kirstin Mueller Assistant Report Writer San Diego Natural History Museum Enc: Figure 1: Project map Literature Cited Deméré, T.A., and S.L. Walsh. 1993. Paleontological Resources, County of San Diego. Unpublished technical report prepared for the San Diego County Department of Public Works: 1–68. Kennedy, M.P. 1975. Geology of the San Diego metropolitan area, California. Section A - Western San Diego metropolitan area. California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200: 9–39.  Kennedy, M.P., and S.S. Tan. 2007. Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map Series 1:100,000 scale, map no. 2. SDNHM, unpublished paleontological collections data. May 21, 2025 Item #1 444 of 473 May 21, 2025 Item #1 445 of 473 This is a list of acronyms and abbreviations (in alphabetical order) that are commonly used in staff reports. Acronym Description Acronym Description APA American Planning Association LCPA Local Coastal Program Amendment APN Assessor Parcel Number LOS Level of Service AQMD Air Quality Management District MND Mitigated Negative Declaration BMP Best Management Practice NCTD North County Transit District CALTRANS California Department of Transportation ND Negative Declaration CC City Council PC Planning Commission CCR Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions PDP Planned Development Permit CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report CFD Community Facilities District PUD Planned Unit Development CIP Capital Improvement Program ROW Right of Way COA Conditions of Approval RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board CofO Certificate of Occupancy SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments CT Tentative Parcel Map SDP Site Development Plan CUP Conditional Use Permit SP Specific Plan DIF Development Impact Fee SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program DISTRICT City Council Member District Number TM Tentative Map EIR Environmental Impact Report VBMP Village & Barrio Master Plan EIS Environmental Impact Statement (federal) ZC Zone Change EPA Environmental Protection Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GP General Plan GPA General Plan Amendment GIS Geographic Information Systems HCA Housing Crisis Act 2019 IS Initial Study May 21, 2025 Item #1 446 of 473 Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A0.1 TITLE SHEET A0.1 RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWELVE (12) AIR SPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION OF (3) THREE-STORY, 35 -FOOT-TALL TRIPLEX BUILDINGS. SITE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF A RECIPROCAL DRIVEWAY WITH ADEQUATE ON-SITE PARKING DEDICATED TO EACH RESIDENCE. ALL EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE DEMOLISHED INCLUDING THE EXISTING TWO DWELLING RESIDENTIAL HOMES AND GARAGES. PROJECT PROPOSES TO PURSUE STATE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THE PROPOSED DENSITY. NOTE: BOTH EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE UNOCCUPIED AND ARE NOT "PROTECTED UNITS" CT 2024 -0004, PUD 2024 -0004, CDP 2024 -0021 CONDITIONED AREA: LOT AREA: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOT:23,618 SQ. FT. / .542 AC. RESIDENTIAL UNITS: TOTAL UNIT FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED):2,302 S.F. GARAGE:505 S.F. 421 S.F. PARKING PROVIDED EXISTING (TO BE REMOVED):2 UNITS OVERHANGING ELEMENTS: DWELLING UNIT DENSITY: ALLOWABLE DENSITY: BUILDING AREAS: BUILDING TYPE A & B (UNITS 1 - 6) 2 TOTAL BUILDINGS: BASE DENSITY PER DENSITY BONUS ROUND UP: JEFFERSON STREET HOMES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SHEET INDEXPROJECT DIRECTORYCODESVICINITY MAP SCOPE OF WORK/ PROJECT DESCRIPTION UTILITY/ SERVICE PROVIDERS DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS SITE PARKING ANALYSIS N LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEWER DISTRICT:CARLSBAD WASTEWATER DIVISION WATER DISTRICT:CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ELECTRIC:SDGE GAS:SDGE SCHOOL DISTRICT:CARLSBAD UNIFIED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT:CARLSBAD FIRE TELCO:AT&T ARCHITECTURAL A0.1 COVER SHEET A1.1 SITE PLAN OWNER: A2.1A 1ST FLOOR PLAN BUILDING A / B A2.2A 2ND FLOOR PLAN BUILDING A / B A2.4A ROOF PLAN BUILDING A / B A3.1A BUILDING ELEVATIONS BUILDING A / B A3.2A BUILDING ELEVATIONS BUILDING A / B MULTI-FAMILY PRIVATE GARAGE: TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED: 35 SPACES (2 CAR GARAGE X 12 RESIDENCES) 24 SP. 9 UNITS 0.542 AC X 15 D.U. / AC (MAX.) = 8.13 UNITS 1ST FLOOR: CONDITIONED AREA:887 S.F. 2ND FLOOR: LOT COVERAGE: LOT COVERAGE:12,856 S.F. / 23,618 S.F. = 54.4% CIVIL 1 OF 4 LANDSCAPE L-1 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN L-2 HYDROZONE PLAN L-3 WALL AND FENCE PLAN TITLE SHEET/ TENTATIVE MAP A2.3A 3RD FLOOR PLAN BUILDING A / B A2.1C 1ST FLOOR PLAN BUILDING C / D A2.2C 2ND FLOOR PLAN BUILDING C / D A2.4C ROOF PLAN BUILDING C / D A3.1C BUILDING ELEVATIONS BUILDING C / D A3.2C BUILDING ELEVATIONS BUILDING C / D A2.3C 3RD FLOOR PLAN BUILDING C / D 269 S.F. CONDITIONED AREA:994 S.F. 3RD FLOOR: MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS W/ TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS: (2 SPACES X 12 RESIDENCES) 24 SP. PROPOSED CONDOMINIUMS:12 UNITS 60 S.F. MIN. PRIVATE REC. SPACE REQ. PER UNIT PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE CALCULATIONS AREAS: 2ND FLOOR DECK AREA (MIN. 6' DIMENSION EACH UNIT):139 S.F. TOTAL PRIVATE RECREATION AREA EACH UNIT: 607 S.F. UNITS 1, 3, 4, 6: THE NORTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 11 AND ALL OF LOT 12 BLOCK "C" OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF SUNNYSLOPE TRACT, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 995, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 6 1906. EXPECTING THEREFORM THE EASTERLY 57.5 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFORM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12, A DISTANCE OF 12.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 14.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 10' 04", AN ARE DISTANCE OF 15.43 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NOTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN:155-251-18 LOT 10 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 11, BLOCK "C" OF RESUBDIVISION OF PORTINO OF SUNNYSLOPE TRACT, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 995, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY . EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 57.5 FEET THEREOF APN:155-251-19 2 OF 4 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 3 OF 4 SECTIONS & DETAILS CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP) WEEKDAY DAILY %ADT PM PEAK IN:OUT RATIO NOTE: KSF = 1,000 SQ. FT. AM PEAK TRIP GENERATION RATES LAND USE TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS IN:OUT RATIO%ADT AMOUNTLAND USE ADT PM PEAKAM PEAK IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL EXISTING USE PROPOSED USE 3 ADT ANALYSIS TOTAL ADDED ADT'S 52 0 33 2 1 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT 6 TRIPS/ 1 D.U.8%0.20 : 0.80 9%0.70 : 0.30 6RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT 72 1 65 4 212 D.U. A: CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING YES 2A. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEMS YES TOTAL SYSTEM SIZE:29.66 KWDC 4B. ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING YES READY:6 INSTALLED:0 3A. WATER HEATING YES HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER MEETING NEEA TIER 3 OR HIGHER YES 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE 2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE CATV:TIME WARNER CABLE DRAINAGE BASIN:AGUA HEDIONDA / LOS MANOS 2502 - 2518 JEFFERSON ST. 155-251-18-00 / 155-251-19-00 R-15GENERAL PLAN: R-3ZONING: CARLSBAD, CA 92008 PROJECT INFORMATION ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: ADDRESS: STORIES: HEIGHT (MAXIMUM):35-0" BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:V-B OCCUPANCY:R-2 / U (PRIVATE GARAGES) OCCUPANT LOAD:* DESCRIPTION OF USE:RESIDENTIAL EXISTING USE:RESIDENTIAL FULLY SPRINKLERED:NFPA 13R YES FIRE ALARM:NO STORIES:3 HEIGHT:35'-0" MAX. STANDPIPES:NO ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:UNLIMITED 3 MELLO II SEGMENT OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMCOASTAL ZONE: RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE 200 SF PER UNIT 12 X 200 S.F. = 2,400 S.F. REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS WITH 11 OR MORE UNITS NOT IN RH GP: 0 SF PER UNIT (DENSITY BONUS WAIVER REQUESTED TO SATISFY THIS) 0 S.F. PROVIDED: 3RESIDENTIAL SFR 20 1 32 2 12 D.U. A3.0 EXTERIOR COLOR AND MATERIAL PALETTE L-4 MAINTENANCE PLAN FD1.1 FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS AND HYDRANT PLAN ROOF DECK AREA (EACH UNIT): 746 S.F. 741 S.F.TOTAL PRIVATE RECREATION AREA EACH UNIT: UNITS 7, 9, 10, 12: UNITS 1 - 6 TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED):6,906 S.F. PER BLDG. (2 BUILDINGS) TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA (INCLUDING GARAGE):2,778 S.F. PER BLDG. (2 BUILDINGS) TOTAL BLDG. COVERAGE (INCLUDING OVERHANGS): 3,585 S.F. PER BLDG. (2 BUILDINGS) CONDITIONED AREA: TOTAL UNIT FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED):2,320 S.F. GARAGE:505 S.F. 405 S.F. OVERHANGING ELEMENTS: BUILDING TYPE C & D (UNITS 7 - 12) 2 TOTAL BUILDINGS: 1ST FLOOR: CONDITIONED AREA:895 S.F. 2ND FLOOR: 446 S.F. CONDITIONED AREA:1,020 S.F. 3RD FLOOR: UNITS 7 - 12 TOTAL BUILDING FLOOR AREA (CONDITIONED):6,960 S.F. PER BLDG. (2 BUILDINGS) TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA (INCLUDING GARAGE):2,730 S.F. PER BLDG. (2 BUILDINGS) TOTAL BLDG. COVERAGE (INCLUDING OVERHANGS):4,068 S.F. PER BLDG. (2 BUILDINGS) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 10 TRIPS/ 1 D.U.8%0.30 : 0.70 10%0.70 : 0.30 JOHN EDWARD GARCIA & ELIZA GARCIA LIVING TRUST - JO ANN LANGE, TRUSTEE 2502 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 T: 760-994-6155 gerald@hefcongrp.com 11% UNITS VERY LOW INCOME PROPOSED:9 X .11 = .99 UNITS AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS UNITS:1 UNIT 35% DENSITY BONUS PROPOSED:9 X .35 = 3.15 UNITS TOTAL DENSITY BONUS UNITS ALLOWED:4 UNITS TOTAL UNITS ALLOWED:9 BASE + 4 DENSITY BONUS = 13 UNITS TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED THIS PROJECT:12 UNITS PROPOSED WATER USAGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (EXISTING):450 GPD X 2 UNITS = 900 GPD PROPOSED SEWER USAGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (EXISTING):(EDU) = 200 GAL/DAY X 2 DU X (1 EDU PER/DU) = 400 GAL/DAY PLUMBING CALCULATIONS MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PROPOSED):185 GPD X 12 UNITS = 2220 GPD NET INCREASE:1320 GPD MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PROPOSED):(EDU) = 200 GAL/DAY X 12 DU = 2400 GAL/DAY NET INCREASE:2000 GAL/DAY VISITOR PARKING ON SITE:1 SP. VISITOR PARKING ON STREET PER 21.45.060 C.7:10 SP. VISITOR PARKING FOR PROJECTS WITH 11 UNITS OR MORE:.25 X 12 = 3 SP. TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED:27 SP. PARKING REQUIRED 2ND FLOOR DECK AREA (MIN. 6' DIMENSION EACH UNIT):132 S.F. 609 S.F.ROOF DECK AREA (EACH UNIT): TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED THIS PROJECT:12 UNITS DENSITY BONUS PROJECT PROPOSES TO INCORPORATE CURRENT STATE DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS PROPOSED DENSITY:12 D.U. / 0.542 D.U. / AC = 22.14 D.U. / AC ALLOWABLE DENSITY:0.542 AC X 15 D.U. / AC (MAX.) = 8.13 UNITS ADDDITIONAL UNIT SHALL BE ACHIEVED BY DESIGNATING 11% OF THE BASE DENSITY UNITS (9) AS VERY LOW INCOME . TOTAL VERY LOW INCOME UNITS = 1 TOTAL PROJECT UNIT COUNT = 12 TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS REQUIRED = 12 X .15 = 1.8 ROUNDED UP TO 2 PROJECT PROPOSES TO PURCHASE 1 ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE UNIT CREDIT TO SATISFY THE 15% CITY REQUIREMENT. WAIVERS PROPOSED 1. REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 2. REDUCED CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 3. REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIRMENTS 4. REDUCED COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE AREA 5. REDUCED MINIMUM 10' DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS TO 6' AT UPPER FLR. POP OUTS. 6. EXPANDED RAISED PLANTER ALLOWABLE PROTRUSION AREA. INCENTIVE / CONCESSION PROPOSED 1. ELIMINATION OF THE 5'-0" BUENA VISTA STREET DEDICATION REQUEST. NOTE: IF PROPOSED WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS ARE NOT GRANTED THE SITE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FACILITATE THE INCLUSION OF THE PROPOSED VERY LOW INCOME UNIT DUE TO SPACE CONSTRAINTS. STREET DEDICATION, SETBACKS, RAISED PLANTER PROTRUSION, COMMUNITY RECREATION SPACE AND DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS MUST BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW FOR THE SPACES NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED VERY LOW INCOME UNIT. THE PROPOSED WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS DO NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES (PLSA) CONTACT: TYLER LAWSON 535 N HIGHWAY 101 STE A SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92075 T: 858-259-8212 tlawson@pslaengineering.com CIVIL: KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. CONTACT: KIRK MOELLER 2888 LOKER AVENUE EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92010 T: 760-814-8128 kirk@kmarchitectsinc.com ARCHITECT: RINCON HOMES CONTACT: TOM ST. CLAIR 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 T: 714-724-5647 tstclair@rincongrp.com DEVELOPER/ CONTRACTOR: MJS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTACT: DAN DELLE 507 30TH ST. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 T: 949-675-9964 dan@mjs-la.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC CONTACT: TOM ST. CLAIR 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS, SUITE 200 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 T:714-724-5647 tstclair@rincongrp.com AND 4 OF 4 SECTIONS & DETAILS TREE PLAN PLANT PALETTE AND NOTES L-5 L-6 717 S.F.TOTAL PRIVATE RECREATION AREA EACH UNIT: UNITS 2, 5: 2ND FLOOR DECK AREA (MIN. 6' DIMENSION EACH UNIT):129 S.F. 588 S.F.ROOF DECK AREA (EACH UNIT): 696 S.F.TOTAL PRIVATE RECREATION AREA EACH UNIT: UNITS 8, 11: 2ND FLOOR DECK AREA (MIN. 6' DIMENSION EACH UNIT):106 S.F. 590 S.F.ROOF DECK AREA (EACH UNIT): Exhibit 11 May 21, 2025 Item #1 447 of 473 E E E G G G S X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE O E O E O E O E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S ST O P 65 65 6 5 65 N 89°25'35" W 149.82' N 0 0 ° 3 6 ' 5 2 " E 1 5 0 . 1 3 ' N 89°26'18" W 157.45' N 0 0 ° 3 5 ' 5 2 " E 1 3 7 . 6 8 ' L=15.43' R=14.00' D=63°10'04" 60' 30' 55 ' 25 ' S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G W W W W G G G G G G G G G G G W W W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W SSS S WW S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSD WW WW SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD WW SSSS SSSS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT G G G G G G G G G E E G G G G E E E E E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE E E EEEEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E 150.5' BUENA VISTA WAY ROW RO W JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T CL CL CL 25 . 0 ' 60.0' 30.0' BLOCK C LOT 9 APN: 155-251-12 UNIT 1 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 GF = 64 . 4 UNIT 2 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 3 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 4 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 5 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 6 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 UNIT 7 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 8 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 9 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 10 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 11 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 12 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 63.4 FS 63.9 FS9. 7 % 9. 7 % 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 63.2 FS 63.7 FS 65.0 FS 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 64.2 FS 64.2 FG (63.05 FS) 63.9 TG 62.9 IE 64.2 HP / FL 2. 2 % 63.85 FL (61.65 IE OUT) (62.9 FS) (62.75 FS) 1.0% 64.9 FS PROP. 3421 TRANSFORMER PAD 1.0%1.0% 0.5%0.5% 2X RISERS; 63.2 FS 1.3%2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE62.9 TG 62.0 IE 63.4 TG 62.4 IE (65.0 TW@FG) 65.0 BW (65.3 TW@FG) 64.8 BW (0.6%)(0.8%) 0.9% 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 65.0 FS 65.0 FS 3.1% 2.8% 64.6 FS65.0 FS 2.0%1.9% 64.45 FS 0. 7 % 64.1 FS 65.0 FS 64.9 FS EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING GUY WIRE AND ANCHOR TO REMAIN 64.6 FS FR FRFR FR EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE REMOVED; REPLACE WITH PCC SDWK EXISTING SEWER MH (63.3 RIM) (53.7 IE) EXISTING PCC CROSS GUTTER TO REMAIN (0 . 8 % ) (0 . 5 % ) 0. 7 % 64.6 FS 64.0 FG 63.9 FS 64.0 FG 63.65 TG 62.7 IE (62.4 FS) 64.0 FG (65.0 TW@FG) 63.7 BW 64.6 FS 64.5 FS MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (62.65 TC); (62.15 FL) MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (62.35 TC); (61.85 FL) 0. 8 % 5.0%5.0% 3.5%3.5% 65.0 FS 64.9 FS 3X RISERS; 63.1 FS 64.4 FS 64.3 FS 1X RISERS; 63.9 FS (62.45 FS) (65.2 TW@FG) 64.2 BW 0. 7 % 1.0% 64.4 FS 64.0 TW (63.3 BW@FG) (64.0 TW@FG) 64.0 BW 64.0 TW (62.3 BW@FG) EXISTING GUY WIRE AND ANCHOR TO REMAIN 64.4 FS 64.3 FS 1X RISERS; 63.9 FS (62.3 FS) EXISTING 14" AC WATER MAIN PER DWG 159-3 EXISTING 14" CL150T WATER MAIN PER DWG 159-3 1.5% 1.5% EXISTING 8" VCP SEWER MAIN PER DWG 118-9 0. 8 % OVERHANG ABOVE (TYP.) 5' SY S B 20' RYSB 1.5% EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE REMOVED; REPLACE WITH PCC SDWK 63.8 FG 5.0 % M I N 5.0 % M I N 57.4 IE@LAT (56.2 IE@MAIN) 63.65 RIM 57.9 IE 59.3 IE@LAT 58.1 IE@MAIN 59.45 IE@LAT 58.25 IE@MAIN 59.7 IE@LAT 58.5 IE@MAIN 59.9 IE@LAT 58.7 IE@MAIN 60.15 IE@LAT 58.95 IE@MAIN 60.35 IE@LAT 59.15 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.45 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.6 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.85 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.05 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.3 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.5 IE 60.4 IE@LAT 59.2 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.85 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.6 IE 60.15 IE@LAT 58.95 IE@MAIN 59.95 IE@LAT 58.75 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL 60.4 IE 59.65 IE@LAT 58.45 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.1 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.9 IE 59.45 IE@LAT 58.25 IE@MAIN 59.3 IE@LAT 58.1 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.75 IE GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 2.0%2.0% 0. 5 % 3.0%3.0% 64.9 FG 65.1 FG 64.4 FG 64.0 FL 64.1 FS 64.1 FL 64.2 FS 64.3 FS 64.0 FS 63.95 FS 63.7 FL 63.8 FS 63.55 FL 63.65 FS 2.0%2.0% 3.5%3.5% 63.85 RIM 59.25 IE 64.4 FG64.4 FG 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 68.0 TW 67.0 TW@FG 64.9 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW BMP 1 66.4 FG A= 31 SF BMP 2 66.4 FG A= 67 SF BMP 3 66.4 FG A= 67 SF BMP 4 66.0 FG A= 67 SF BMP 5 66.0 FG A= 67 SF BMP 6 66.0 FG A= 67 SF BMP 7 67.0 FG A= 49 SF BMP 8 66.4 FG A= 49 SF BMP 9 66.4 FG A= 49 SF 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.83 TG 64.0 IE BMP 10 66.0 FG A= 58 SF BMP 11 66.0 FG A= 58 SF BMP 12 66.0 FG A= 58 SF 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 64.8 RIM 63.9 IE 63.9 RIM 63.3 IE 64.3 RIM 63.15 IE 64.0 RIM 62.95 IE 63.9 RIM 62.85 IE 63.9 RIM 62.75 IE 5. 0 ' M I N . 5. 0 ' M I N . 5. 0 ' M I N . 5. 0 ' M I N . 63.8 HP/FL 63.3 TG 62.3 IE63.5 TG 62.05 IE 64.0 FG PROPOSED FENCING PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS (TYP.) PROPOSED FENCING PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS (TYP.) 63.8 HP/FL 12.0' 10.5' 64.0 FS 64.0 FG 64.2 FL 62.3 FL 63.9 TG 63.2 IE MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 64.9 FS 64.9 FS 3.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2. 0 % 64.7 FS 64.4 FS 2.5% 64.05 FS64.5 FS 64.5 FS 2.8% REMAIN EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO REMAIN 1 EXISTING DRY UTILITY VAULT TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED / REPLACED EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED / REPLACED 24.0' 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 . 0 ' 6 6 6 6 7 8 10 9 10 9 9 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 31 15 15 18 16 18 16 19 19 EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (63.5 TC); (63.0 FL) 15 MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (64.05 TC); (63.55 FL) 15 16 6. 0 ' EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO REMAIN EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC SIDEWALK TO EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO 63.5 RIM 61.95 IE20 21 21 6.0' 17 64.4 FS 64.4 FG 63.5 IE23 65.0 RIM 63.75 IE 64.9 FS 64.5 TG 63.7 IE 64.2 TG 63.55 IE 64.2 TG 63.45 IE 64.0 TG 63.05 IE 64.0 TG 62.9 IE 11 12 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 1% MIN.1% MIN. PROPOSED PVT 6" PVC SEWER TRUNKLINE @1.0% OVERHANG ABOVE (TYP.) 6.0' (65.2 TW@FG) 64.1 BW 62.3 TW 62.3 BW LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA 5 1 EXISTING 14" AC WATER MAIN PER DWG 146-8 EXISTING 42" INTERCEPTOR SEWER MAIN PER DWG 365-2 EXISTING 2" GAS MAIN 5 5 5 10' FYSB 7. 5 ' 12.0' GB GB 28 A A B B C C D D 12 64.4 RIM 63.7 IE 12 20.0' 24 24 24 24 24 24 3 BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING D BUILDING C EXISTING GAS SERVICE TO BE REMOVED PER SEPARATE SDGE WORK ORDER 6.5' EXISTING SEWER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING PCC CROSS GUTTER TO NEAREST JOINT 25 26 26 26 LIMITS OF PROPOSED GRIND AND OVERLAY 19 19 19 19 EXISTING SEWER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED 55 . 0 ' 27 4.0' 64.3 FS 64.4 FS; 1 RISER 64.3 FS 64.4 FS; 1 RISER 64.4 FS; 1 RISER 3X RISERS; 62.9 FS 64.3 FS 3 RISERS; 62.6 FS 63.8 FS 3 RISER; 62.4 FS 63.8 FS 3 RISERS; 62.5 FS 63.8 FS 64.4 FG 63.6 FL 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 64.0 FG 28 28 28 28 28 29 19 9 PROP. ELECTRIC METER BOX (TYP.) PROP. GAS METER BOX (TYP.) PROP. ELECTRIC METER BOX (TYP.) 65.8 TSW22 65.4 TSW22 65.4 TSW22 65.1 TSW22 PROP. 3309 PULL BOX 63.8 BOT. OF FOOTING 30 6. 7 5 ' S Y S B 2. 0 % 63.4 FS 63.2 FS 64.0 FG 2.0% 64 64 5.0% 5.0' (65.2 TW) 64.5 BW 64.4 FS 64.2 FG 64.0 FS 64.2 FS 2.0' 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 32 14 31 31 (65.1 FG) (65.3 FG) 26 4' X 4' WELD HOLE (65.2 FG) (65.3 FG) (63.8 FG)(63.5 FG) (63.1 FG) (65.4 FG) 64.2 RIM 63.3 IE 64.2 RIM 62.95 IE 64.2 RIM 62.75 IE 63.8 RIM 62.45 IE 63.8 RIM 62.25 IE BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T 11'-3" F.Y.S.B. 18'-9" R.Y.S.B. 24'-0" DRIVEWAY 20'-0" DRIVEWAY (E)SIDEWALK (E ) SI D E W A L K (E)D.G. WALK EN T R Y W A L K W A Y EN T R Y W A L K W A Y 6'- 9 " S. Y . S . B . 64 ' - 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 64 ' - 2 " 5' - 0 " S. Y . S . B . 6'- 9 " S. Y . S . B WA I V E R 64 ' - 1 " 10 ' - 0 " 64 ' - 1 " 5' - 0 " S. Y . S . B . WA I V E R 157'-11 1/2" 75 ' - 0 " 75 ' - 0 " LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE PRIVATE YARD TYP. VISITOR PARKING TYP. VISITOR PARKING TYP. WALKWAY TYP. WALKWAY TYP. WALKWAY TYP. 20'-0" CLEAR BETWEEN BLDGS. WALKWAY TYP. LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE 6'- 0 " BT W N . BL D G S 2N D FL R . WA I V E R RE Q U E S T 6'- 0 " BT W N . BL D G S 2N D FL R . WA I V E R RE Q U E S T 3' - 0 " S. Y . S . B . 2N D F L R . 4' - 9 " S. Y . S . B . 2N D F L R . UNIT 1 2,302 SF UNIT 3 2,302 SF UNIT 4 2,302 SF UNIT 5 2,302 SF UNIT 6 2,302 SF UNIT 7 2,320 SF UNIT 9 2,320 SF UNIT 10 2,320 SF UNIT 11 2,320 SF UNIT 12 2,320 SF 44'-0"2'-6"2'-0"44'-0"2'-0"2'-0" BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING D BUILDING C HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T 6'-0" ROW DED. 3'- 0 " 4' - 0 " 3' - 0 " LA N D S C A P E DECORATIVE PAVER DRIVEWAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2' - 0 " 3'- 0 " 2' - 0 " 3'- 0 " F.D.D.C.TRANS PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. 6' T A L L D E C O R A T I V E F E N C E 6' TALL DECORATIVE FENCE 5'-0 1/2" TO BLDG. ABV. RA I S E D PL A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R LI N E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . LI N E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . LI N E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . LI N E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . 20'-0" 20'-0" 10 ' - 0 " GU E S T PA R K I N G 20'-0"24'-0"GAS METERS 3'-6" MAX. DECORATIVE FENCE WITHIN F.Y.S.B. TYP. ALL 30" MAX. DECORATIVE FENCE WITHIN SIGHT TRIANGLE AREA UNIT 2 2,302 SF UNIT 8 2,320 SF 3'-6" MAX. DECORATIVE FENCE WITHIN F.Y.S.B. TYP. ALL LINE OF SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE E METERS E METERS GAS METERS E METERS E METERS Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1" = 10'-0" 5' 10'0 20'CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN A1.1 SITE PLAN A1.1 NMay 21, 2025 Item #1 448 of 473 20'-6 1/2" 20 ' - 1 1 / 2 " HW UP FOYER GR T GARAGE 3'-8" BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 12'-4" 11 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 6' - 4 " 20'-5" 3'-8" CLOSET CLOSET HW UP FOYER G RT GARAGE BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 12'-4" 11 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 6' - 4 " CLOSET CLOSET 23 ' - 1 1 / 2 " HW UP FOYER GR T GARAGE 3'-8" BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 12'-4" 11 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 6' - 4 " CLOSET CLOSET 20'-6 1/2" 2'-0" MUDMUD 2'-0" MUD 2'-0" 20 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 64'-1 1/2" 44 ' - 0 " 44 ' - 0 " 13'-3"8'-2 1/4"13'-1"8'-2 1/4"13'-3" 64'-1 1/2" LINE OF BLDG. ABOVE LINE OF BLDG. ABOVE LI N E O F B L D G . A B O V E LI N E O F B L D G . A B O V E MECHANICAL CHASE ABV. TYP. 8'-2 1/4" Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.1A BUILDING A & B FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.1A N May 21, 2025 Item #1 449 of 473 UP 3'-8" LIVING DINING DN REF KITCHEN DECK 139 SF 8' - 3 1 / 2 " 16'-10 1/2" 4' - 0 " 16'-7 1/2" HVAC PANTRY D/W 8'-0" 4' - 0 " 5'-1"4'-0" 14 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 2 " UPLIVING DINING DN REF KITCHEN DECK 139 SF8' - 9 1 / 2 " 17'-4 1/2" 4' - 0 " 16'-7 1/2" HVAC PANTRY D/W 8'-0" 4' - 0 " 5'-1"4'-0" 14 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 2 " UP 3'-8" LIVING DINING DN REF KITCHEN DECK 129 SF 14'-8 1/4" 4' - 0 " 16'-6" HVAC PANTRY D/W 8'-0" 4' - 0 " 4'-11 1/2"4'-0" 14 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 2 " POWDERPOWDERPOWDER 2'-0" 2'-0"21'-5 1/4"21'-3 1/4"21'-5 1/4" 66'-1 1/2" 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 48 ' - 0 " 16'-10 1/2"6'-7"14'-8 1/4"16'-10 1/2" 68'-1 1/2" 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 6'-6 3/4" 48 ' - 0 " 6" 1' - 0 " 6" 6" 6'-6 3/4" Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2A BUILDING A & B SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2A N May 21, 2025 Item #1 450 of 473 DN W D LINEN BEDROOM 2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATH 2 9' - 3 " 4'-0" PRIMARY BATHROOM 10 ' - 2 " 10'-1" 10'-5" 7' - 1 1 " 11 ' - 0 " 10'-2" BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 5'-0" 5' - 2 " UP CLOSET 3'-8" 12 ' - 2 " 14'-4" 5'-0" 3'-2" PRIMARY CLOSET 5'-11" 10'-2" 4' - 6 " DN W D LINEN BEDROOM 2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATH 2 4'-0" PRIMARY BATHROOM 10 ' - 2 " 10'-1" 8'-5"7' - 1 1 " 11 ' - 0 " BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 5' - 2 " UP CLOSET 12 ' - 2 " 5'-0" 3'-2" 4' - 6 " DN W D LINEN BEDROOM 2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATH 2 4'-0" PRIMARY BATHROOM 10 ' - 2 " 10'-1" 8'-5"7' - 1 1 " 11 ' - 0 " 10'-2" BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 5'-0" 5' - 2 " UP CLOSET 3'-8" 12 ' - 2 " 4'-10" 3'-2" 4' - 6 " 9' - 3 " 14'-4" PRIMARY CLOSET 5'-11" 9' - 3 " 14'-4" PRIMARY CLOSET 5'-11" 2'-0"2'-0"2'-0" 48 ' - 0 " 48 ' - 0 " 64'-1 1/2" 64'-1 1/2" 14'-10 1/2"6'-7"14'-8 1/4"13'-1 1/4"14'-10 1/2" 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 6" 6" 19'-6"13'-0"31'-7 1/2" 2'-0"2'-0" 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.3A BUILDING A & B THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.3A N May 21, 2025 Item #1 451 of 473 DNDNDN SOLARSOLARSOLAR ROOF DECK AREA ROOF DECK AREA ROOF DECK AREA +/- 42" HIGH ROOF AREA +/- 42" HIGH ROOF AREA +/- 42" HIGH ROOF AREA Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A2.4A BUILDING A & B ROOF PLAN A2.4A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) ROOF PLAN N May 21, 2025 Item #1 452 of 473 Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A3.0 COLOR & MATERIAL PALETTE A3.0 2502 JEFFERSON HOMES CARLSBAD, CA ALL IDEAS, DESIGNS AND DIRECTION INDICATED WITHIN THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE PROPERTY OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. AND ARE INTENDED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT ONLY AND SHALL NOT OTHERWISE BE USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. THERE SHALL BE NO CHANGES OR DEVIATIONS FROM THESE DRAWINGS OR ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. COLOR AND MATERIAL PALETTE KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC.KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM760-814-8128 A D C B E F NOTE: SEE COLOR AND MATERIAL SCHEDULE ON BUILDING ELEVATION SHEETS DECORATIVE CABLE RAIL DECK GUARDRAIL - FRAME PAINTED BLACK EL DORADO STONE - CUT COARSE STONE COLOR: SEASHELL LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: GREEK VILLA SW 7551 CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK FRAME DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR - NATURAL WOOD TONE DARK NATURAL WOOD FRONT DOORS TIMBERTECH PVC CLADDING BY AZEK - VINTAGE COLLECTION, COLOR:WEATHERED TEAK DARK PAINT (TRIM) - SW 7069 IRON ORE ACCENT SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: IRON ORE SW 7069 G H J May 21, 2025 Item #1 453 of 473 DECORATIVE NATURAL WOOD TONE FRONT ENTRY DOOR J DECORATIVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING C BLACK WINDOW FRAMES TYP.G STUCCO ACCENT SW7569 - IRON ORED BLACK WINDOW TRIMG DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE1 DECORATIVE WOOD COLUMN ACCENTE 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE DECORATIVE EL DORADO STONE FINISH CUT COARSE STONE - SEASHELL A 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1' - 0 " 4' - 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E DECORATIVE DECK GUARDRAIL - CABLE RAIL WITH BLACK FRAME F DECORATIVE DECK GUARDRAIL - CABLE RAIL WITH BLACK FRAME F STUCCO BASE SW7551 - GREEK VILLAB 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1'- 0 " 4'- 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A3.1-2A BUILDING A & B ELEVATIONS A3.1A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) WEST ELEVATION COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE GENERAL NOTES 1.BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM NEWLY CREATED PAD. 2.F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3.ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4.ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5.ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6.ALL WINDOWS ADJACENT TO STUCCO OR SIDING PROVIDES 4" WIDE AND 2" DEEP WINDOW TRIM OF THE SAME MATERIAL (STUCCO OR FIBER/CEMENT BOARD). AT LEAST 66% OF WINDOWS/ DOORS SHALL HAVE TRIM THAT PROJECTS A MINIMUM OF 2". 7.SLIDING WINDOW AND DOORS FRAMES TO BE VINYL. A C DECORATIVE CABLE RAIL DECK GUARDRAIL - FRAME PAINTED BLACK EL DORADO STONE - CUT COARSE STONE COLOR: SEASHELL DARK PAINT (TRIM) - SW 7069 IRON OREE F KEYNOTES 1 PAINT HATCH LEGEND 2 BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS. DECORATIVE BLACK EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE LOCATION. DARK NATURAL WOOD FRONT DOORS G CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK FRAME WOOD-LOOK SIDING PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE B C ACCENT STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR - NATURAL WOOD TONE J LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: GREEK VILLA SW 7551 D 3 PAINTED SMOOTH WOOD COLUMN STONE PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULEA D TIMBERTECH PVC CLADDING BY AZEK - VINTAGE COLLECTION, COLOR: WEATHERED TEAK H ACCENT SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: IRON ORE SW 7069 B BASE STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE May 21, 2025 Item #1 454 of 473 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1' - 0 " 4' - 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E DECORATIVE NATURAL WOOD TONE FRONT ENTRY DOOR H DECORATIVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING C BLACK WINDOW FRAMES TYP.G STUCCO ACCENT SW7569 - IRON ORED BLACK WINDOW TRIMG DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE1 STUCCO BASE SW7551 - GREEK VILLAB 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1'- 0 " 4'- 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A3.1-2A BUILDING A & B ELEVATIONS A3.2A SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING A & B (MIRRORED) EAST ELEVATION COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE GENERAL NOTES 1.BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM NEWLY CREATED PAD. 2.F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3.ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4.ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5.ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6.ALL WINDOWS ADJACENT TO STUCCO OR SIDING PROVIDES 4" WIDE AND 2" DEEP WINDOW TRIM OF THE SAME MATERIAL (STUCCO OR FIBER/CEMENT BOARD). AT LEAST 66% OF WINDOWS/ DOORS SHALL HAVE TRIM THAT PROJECTS A MINIMUM OF 2". 7.SLIDING WINDOW AND DOORS FRAMES TO BE VINYL. A C DECORATIVE CABLE RAIL DECK GUARDRAIL - FRAME PAINTED BLACK EL DORADO STONE - CUT COARSE STONE COLOR: SEASHELL DARK PAINT (TRIM) - SW 7069 IRON OREE F KEYNOTES 1 PAINT HATCH LEGEND 2 BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS. DECORATIVE BLACK EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE LOCATION. DARK NATURAL WOOD FRONT DOORS G CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK FRAME WOOD-LOOK SIDING PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE B C ACCENT STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR - NATURAL WOOD TONE J LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: GREEK VILLA SW 7551 D 3 PAINTED SMOOTH WOOD COLUMN STONE PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULEA D TIMBERTECH PVC CLADDING BY AZEK - VINTAGE COLLECTION, COLOR: WEATHERED TEAK H ACCENT SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: IRON ORE SW 7069 B BASE STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE May 21, 2025 Item #1 455 of 473 20'-6 1/2" 20 ' - 1 1 / 2 " HW UP FOYER GR T GARAGE 3'-8"BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 12'-4" 11 ' - 0 " 4'-0" 6' - 2 " 20'-5" CLOSET CLOSET 23 ' - 1 1 / 2 " HW FOYER G RT GARAGE BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 12'-4" 11 ' - 0 " 4'-0" CLOSET 20'-6 1/2" 20 ' - 1 1 / 2 " HW UP FOYER G RT GARAGE BATH 1 BEDROOM 1 12'-4" 11 ' - 0 " 6' - 2 " CLOSET UP 3'-8" 6' - 2 " 4'-0"3'-8" MUD 2'-0"CLOSET MUD 2'-0" MUD 2'-0"CLOSET 8'-1 3/4"13'-1 1/2"13'-3" 64'-1 1/2" 44 ' - 0 " 21'-5 1/4"21'-5 1/4" 64'-1 1/2" 21'-3 1/4" 16'-4 1/4"13'-3" 44 ' - 0 " LINE OF BUILDING ABV. LINE OF BUILDING ABV. HVAC DUCT ABV. TYP. Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.1C BUILDING C & D FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.1C N May 21, 2025 Item #1 456 of 473 UP 3'-8" LIVING DINING UP KITCHEN DECK 132 SF 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 15'-11" 4' - 0 " 16'-7 1/2" D/W 8'-0" 4' - 0 " 4'-3 1/4" 14 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 2 " HVAC REF PANTRY UP 3'-8" LIVING DINING UP KITCHEN DECK 132 SF 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 15'-5" 4' - 0 " 16'-7 1/2" D/W 8'-0" 4' - 0 " 4'-3 1/4" 14 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 2 " HVAC POWDER REF PANTRY UP 3'-8" LIVING DINING UP KITCHEN DECK 106 SF 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 13'-8 3/4" 4' - 0 " 16'-7 1/2" D/W 8'-0" 4' - 0 " 4'-1 3/4" 14 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 3 1 / 2 " HVAC REF PANTRY 4'-3 1/4"4' - 0 " 2'-0" 4'-3 1/4"4'-3 1/4" POWDERPOWDER 21'-5 1/4"21'-3 1/4"21'-5 1/4" 68'-1 1/2" 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 48 ' - 0 " 15'-11"15'-0 1/4"13'-8 3/4"7'-6 1/2"15'-11" 68'-1 1/2" 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 48 ' - 0 " 2'-0"2'-0" 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 13'-3"13'-3" LINE OF BUILDING ABV.LINE OF BUILDING ABV. Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2C BUILDING C & D SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2C N May 21, 2025 Item #1 457 of 473 W D LINEN BEDROOM 2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATH 2 9' - 3 " 4'-0" PRIMARY BATHROOM 11 ' - 2 " 10'-1" 10'-6"7' - 1 1 " 11 ' - 0 " 10'-2" BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 5'-11" 5' - 2 " 3'-8" 12 ' - 2 " 13'-10" 5'-0" 3'-2" PRIMARY CLOSET6'-5" DN UP CLOSET OFFICE W D LINEN BEDROOM 2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATH 2 9' - 3 " 4'-0" PRIMARY BATHROOM 11 ' - 2 " 10'-1" 10'-6"7' - 1 1 " 11 ' - 0 " BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 5' - 2 " 12 ' - 2 " 13'-10" 5'-0" 3'-2" PRIMARY CLOSET DN UP CLOSET OFFICE 10'-2" W D LINEN BEDROOM 2 PRIMARY BEDROOM BATH 2 9' - 3 " 4'-0" PRIMARY BATHROOM 11 ' - 2 " 10'-1" 8'-5"7' - 1 1 " 11 ' - 0 " 10'-2" BEDROOM 3 CLOSET 5'-11" 5' - 2 " 3'-8" 12 ' - 2 " 13'-10" 4'-10" 3'-2" PRIMARY CLOSET6'-5" DN UP CLOSET OFFICE 1'-6" 6'-5" 1'-6"1'-6" 10'-5"11'-0 1/2"10'-5" 64'-1 1/2" 50 ' - 0 " 64'-1 1/2" 10'-2 3/4"22'-0 1/4" 2'- 0 " 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 2'- 0 " 15 ' - 3 " 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 50 ' - 0 " 2'- 0 " 24 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 15 ' - 3 " 7' - 9 1 / 2 " 2'-0"2'-0" 13'-11"7'-6 1/2"13'-8 3/4"15'-0 1/4"13'-11" Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.3C BUILDING C & D THIRD FLOOR PLAN A2.3C N May 21, 2025 Item #1 458 of 473 DN DN DN SOLAR SOLAR SOLAR ROOF DECK AREA +/- 42" HIGH ROOF AREA ROOF DECK AREA +/- 42" HIGH ROOF AREA ROOF DECK AREA +/- 42" HIGH ROOF AREA Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A2.4C BUILDING C & D ROOF PLAN A2.4C SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) ROOF PLAN N May 21, 2025 Item #1 459 of 473 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1' - 0 " 4' - 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E DECORATIVE NATURAL WOOD TONE FRONT ENTRY DOOR H DECORATIVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING C BLACK WINDOW FRAMES TYP.G STUCCO ACCENT SW7569 - IRON ORED BLACK WINDOW / DOOR TRIMG DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE1 STUCCO BASE SW7551 - GREEK VILLAB DECORATIVE WOOD COLUMN ACCENTE DECORATIVE DECK GUARDRAIL - CABLE RAIL WITH BLACK FRAME F DECORATIVE DECK GUARDRAIL - CABLE RAIL WITH BLACK FRAME F 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1'- 0 " 4'- 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A3.1-2C BUILDING C & D ELEVATIONS A3.1C SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) WEST ELEVATION COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE GENERAL NOTES 1.BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM NEWLY CREATED PAD. 2.F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3.ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4.ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5.ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6.ALL WINDOWS ADJACENT TO STUCCO OR SIDING PROVIDES 4" WIDE AND 2" DEEP WINDOW TRIM OF THE SAME MATERIAL (STUCCO OR FIBER/CEMENT BOARD). AT LEAST 66% OF WINDOWS/ DOORS SHALL HAVE TRIM THAT PROJECTS A MINIMUM OF 2". 7.SLIDING WINDOW AND DOORS FRAMES TO BE VINYL. A C DECORATIVE CABLE RAIL DECK GUARDRAIL - FRAME PAINTED BLACK EL DORADO STONE - CUT COARSE STONE COLOR: SEASHELL DARK PAINT (TRIM) - SW 7069 IRON OREE F KEYNOTES 1 PAINT HATCH LEGEND 2 BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS. DECORATIVE BLACK EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE LOCATION. DARK NATURAL WOOD FRONT DOORS G CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK FRAME WOOD-LOOK SIDING PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE B C ACCENT STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR - NATURAL WOOD TONE J LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: GREEK VILLA SW 7551 D 3 PAINTED SMOOTH WOOD COLUMN STONE PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULEA D TIMBERTECH PVC CLADDING BY AZEK - VINTAGE COLLECTION, COLOR: WEATHERED TEAK H ACCENT SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: IRON ORE SW 7069 B BASE STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE May 21, 2025 Item #1 460 of 473 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1' - 0 " 4' - 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E DECORATIVE NATURAL WOOD TONE FRONT ENTRY DOOR J DECORATIVE COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING C BLACK WINDOW FRAMES TYP.G STUCCO ACCENT SW7569 - IRON ORED BLACK WINDOW TRIMG DECORATIVE WALL SCONCE1 DECORATIVE EL DORADO STONE FINISH CUT COARSE STONE - SEASHELL A DECORATIVE DECK GUARDRAIL - CABLE RAIL WITH BLACK FRAME F STUCCO BASE SW7551 - GREEK VILLAB 31 ' - 1 5 / 8 " T O P O F R O O F 9'- 1 1 / 8 " 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 9'- 1 1 / 8 " F.F.E. F.F.E. 8 3 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " F.F.E. TOP PLATE 1' - 0 5 / 8 " TOP PLATE 1'- 0 5 / 8 " 3' - 6 " GU A R D R A I L 1'- 0 " 4'- 6 " AR C H . F E A T U R E Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 A3.1-2C BUILDING C & D ELEVATIONS A3.2C SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2' 4'0 8'BUILDING C & D (MIRRORED) EAST ELEVATION COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE GENERAL NOTES 1.BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM NEWLY CREATED PAD. 2.F.F.E. = FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION. 3.ALL NOTES ARE TYPICAL. 4.ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS U.N.O. 5.ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6.ALL WINDOWS ADJACENT TO STUCCO OR SIDING PROVIDES 4" WIDE AND 2" DEEP WINDOW TRIM OF THE SAME MATERIAL (STUCCO OR FIBER/CEMENT BOARD). AT LEAST 66% OF WINDOWS/ DOORS SHALL HAVE TRIM THAT PROJECTS A MINIMUM OF 2". 7.SLIDING WINDOW AND DOORS FRAMES TO BE VINYL. A C DECORATIVE CABLE RAIL DECK GUARDRAIL - FRAME PAINTED BLACK EL DORADO STONE - CUT COARSE STONE COLOR: SEASHELL DARK PAINT (TRIM) - SW 7069 IRON OREE F KEYNOTES 1 PAINT HATCH LEGEND 2 BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION PER CITY OF CARLSBAD STANDARDS. DECORATIVE BLACK EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE LOCATION. DARK NATURAL WOOD FRONT DOORS G CLEAR RESIDENTIAL GLAZING WITH BLACK FRAME WOOD-LOOK SIDING PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE B C ACCENT STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE DECORATIVE GARAGE DOOR - NATURAL WOOD TONE J LIGHT COLOR SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: GREEK VILLA SW 7551 D 3 PAINTED SMOOTH WOOD COLUMN STONE PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULEA D TIMBERTECH PVC CLADDING BY AZEK - VINTAGE COLLECTION, COLOR: WEATHERED TEAK H ACCENT SAND FINISH STUCCO 20/30 - COLOR: IRON ORE SW 7069 B BASE STUCCO COLOR PER COLOR/ MATERIAL SCHEDULE May 21, 2025 Item #1 461 of 473 E E E G G G S X X X X X X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX X OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S ST O P BIKE 65 65 6 5 65 N 89°25'35" W 149.82' N 0 0 ° 3 6 ' 5 2 " E 1 5 0 . 1 3 ' N 89°26'18" W 157.45' N 0 0 ° 3 5 ' 5 2 " E 1 3 7 . 6 8 ' L=15.43' R=14.00' D=63°10'04" 60' 30' 55 ' 25 ' 30 ' S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W IR R IR R IR R IR R W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G W W W W G G G G G G G G G G W W W W W W S S S S W W W S S S S W W W SSS S WW S S S S W W W S S S S W W W S S S S WSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSD WW WW SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD WW SSSS SSSS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W E E E E E E E E E E E E E JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT G G G G G G G G G E E G G G G E E E E E E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE E EEEEE BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T 10'-0" F.Y.S.B. 20'-0" R.Y.S.B. 24'-0" DRIVEWAY 20'-0" DRIVEWAY (E)SIDEWALK (E ) SID E W A L K (E)D.G. WALK EN T R Y W A L K W A Y EN T R Y W A L K W A Y 6'- 9 " S. Y . S . B . 64 ' - 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 64 ' - 2 " 5'- 0 " S. Y . S . B . 6'- 9 " S.Y . S . B WA I V E R 64 ' - 1 " 10 ' - 0 " 64 ' - 1 " 5'- 0 " S. Y . S . B . WA I V E R 157'-11 1/2" 75 ' - 0 " 75 ' - 0 " LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE PRIVATE YARD TYP. VISITOR PARKING TYP. VISITOR PARKING TYP. WALKWAY TYP. WALKWAY TYP. WALKWAY TYP. WALKWAY TYP. LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE6'- 0 " BT W N . BL D G S 2N D FL R . WA I V E R RE Q U E S T 6'- 0 " BT W N . BL D G S 2N D FL R . WA I V E R RE Q U E S T 3'- 0 " S.Y . S . B . 2N D F L R . 4'- 9 " S.Y . S . B . 2N D F L R . UNIT 1 2,302 SF UNIT 2 2,302 SF UNIT 3 2,302 SF UNIT 4 2,302 SF UNIT 5 2,302 SF UNIT 6 2,302 SF UNIT 7 2,320 SF UNIT 8 2,320 SF UNIT 9 2,320 SF UNIT 10 2,320 SF UNIT 11 2,320 SF UNIT 12 2,320 SF 44'-0"2'-0"2'-0"44'-0"2'-0"2'-0" BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING D BUILDING C HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T HW G R T 6'-0" ROW DED. 3'- 0 " 4'- 0 " 3'- 0 " LA N D S C A P E DECORATIVE PAVER DRIVEWAY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2'- 0 " 3'- 0 " 2'- 0 " 3'- 0 " F.D.D.C. TRANS PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. PRIVATE YARD TYP. 6' T A L L D E C O R A T I V E F E N C E 6' TALL DECORATIVE FENCE 5'-0 1/2" TO BLDG. ABV. RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R RA I S E D P L A N T E R LIN E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . LIN E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . LI N E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . LI N E O F 2 N D F L R . A B V . 20'-0" 20'-0" 10 ' - 0 " GU E S T PA R K I N G 20'-0"24'-0" (E) METERS (E) METERS (E) METERS FIRE HOSE PULL LENGTH = 150'HOSE PULL MEETING POINT FIRE HOSE PULL LENGTH = 150' 3' X 3' LADDER PAD PLACED 6'-10" FROM EMERGENCY RESCUE OPENING AT A 24'-0" TALL WINDOW SILL (TYP.) 3' X 3' LADDER PAD PLACED 6'-10" FROM EMERGENCY RESCUE OPENING AT A 24'-0" TALL WINDOW SILL (TYP.) EXISTING HYDRANT LOCATION. ADDITIONAL HYDRANT LOCATED 200' SOUTH ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BUENA PLACE AND JEFFERSON STREET. Date:6-3-24 Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Project: File: Revisions: 1 JEFFERSON ST. HOMES 25 0 2 - 2 5 1 8 J E F F E R S O N S T R E E T CA R L S B A D , C A 9 2 0 0 8 JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T H O M E S PLANNING #1 7-17-24 CT 2024-0004 PUD 2024-0004 CDP 2024-0021 KIRK MOELLER ARCHITECTS, INC. 2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, STE 220 CARLSBAD, CA 92010 KIRK@KMARCHITECTSINC.COM 760-814-8128 2 PLANNING #2 10-11-24 3 PLANNING #3 12-4-24 SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 10' 20'0 40'FIRE DEPT. ACCESS AND HYDRANT LOCATION PLAN N FD1.1 FIRE DEPT. ACCESS & HYDRANT PLN. FD1.1 ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:155-251-18-00 / 155-251-19-00 ADDRESS:2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON ST. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR 3-STORY NEW CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS, EACH CONSISTING OF THREE UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 12 UNITS. ASSOCIATED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT ARE A PART OF THIS PERMIT. ACREAGE:23,618 SQ. FT. / .542 AC. BUILDING INFORMATION BUILDING A GROSS FLOOR AREA:6,908 S.F. BUILDING B GROSS FLOOR AREA:6,908 S.F. BUILDING C GROSS FLOOR AREA:6,960 S.F. BUILDING D GROSS FLOOR AREA:6,960 S.F. TOTAL BUILDING AREA:27,736 S.F. STORIES:3 HEIGHT:35' MAX. OCCUPANCY:R-2 & U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:V-B FIRE SPRINKLERS:YES (NFPA 13R) FIRE ALARM:YES PROJECT SUMMARY INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 1.CARLSBAD SITE INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. PLEASE SCHEDULE ALL FIELD INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE. INSPECTIONS CANCELED AFTER 1 P.M. ON THE DAY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED DATE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A RE-INSPECTION FEE. CALL (442) 339-2660 TO SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION. 2.A LUMBER DROP INSPECTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO BRINGING COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS (OR COMBUSTIBLE FIXTURES AND FINISHES FOR STRUCTURES OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION). ALL-WEATHER ACCESS ROADS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING 72,000 TOPPED WITH ASPHALT, CONCRETE, OR EQUIVALENT SHALL BE IN PLACE AND HYDRANTS OPERATIONAL AT TIME OF LUMBER DROP INSPECTION. 3.FOR PROJECTS WITH FUEL MODIFICATION, A VEGETATION CLEARANCE INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO A LUMBER DROP INSPECTION. USE THE FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN SERVICE REQUEST NUMBER TO SCHEDULE THE VEGETATION CLEARANCE INSPECTION. 4.PHASED INSTALLATION OF FIRE ACCESS ROADS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS NOT COVERED BY THE FEES PAID AT PLAN SUBMITTAL. CONTACT (442) 339-2660 TO ARRANGE FOR ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS THAT MAY BE NEEDED AND ANY FEES THAT MAY BE DUE 5.AN ORIGINAL APPROVED, SIGNED, WET-STAMPED CARLSBAD FIRE ACCESS & WATER PLAN SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON-SITE AT TIME OF INSPECTION 6.ACCESS ROADS AND HYDRANTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REMAIN CLEAR OF OBSTRUCTIONS AT ALL TIMES DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION. AREAS WHERE PARKING IS NOT PERMITTED SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AT ALL TIMES. OBSTRUCTION OF FIRE LANES AND HYDRANTS MAY RESULT IN CANCELLATION OR SUSPENSION OF INSPECTIONS. 7.TEMPORARY FUEL TANKS OF 60 OR MORE GALLONS SHALL BE REVIEWED, INSPECTED, AND PERMITTED BY THE, CITY OF CARLSBAD PRIOR TO USE. 8.THE PROJECT ADDRESS SHALL BE CLEARLY POSTED AND VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC ROAD DURING CONSTRUCTION. 9.ALL GATES IN CONSTRUCTION FENCING SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH EITHER A KNOX OR BREAKAWAY PADLOCK. 10.BUILDINGS OF FOUR OR MORE STORIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH STAIRS AND A STANDPIPE BEFORE REACHING 40 FEET IN HEIGHT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1.FIRE LANE WIDTHS SHALL BE MEASURED FROM TOP FACE OF THE CURB TO TOP FACE OF THE CURB FOR FIRE LANES WITH STANDARD CURBS AND GUTTERS AND FROM FLOW-LINE TO FLOW-LINE FOR FIRE LANES WITH MODIFIED CURB DESIGNS (E.G., ROLLED, RAMPED, ETC.). THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THAT ALL APPROVED PUBLIC WORKS OR GRADING DEPARTMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS OR PRECISE GRADING PLANS CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STREET WIDTH MEASUREMENTS PER THE APPROVED CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER PLAN AND STANDARDS IDENTIFIED IN CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE FOR ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIRE ACCESS ROADS. 2.PERMANENT, TEMPORARY, AND PHASED EMERGENCY ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED TO SUPPORT AN IMPOSED LOAD OF 72,000 LBS. AND SURFACED TO PROVIDE ALL-WEATHER DRIVING CAPABILITIES. 3.FIRE LANE SIGNS AND RED CURBS SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE AND SHALL BE INSTALLED AS DESCRIBED THEREIN. ADDITIONAL FIRE LANE MARKINGS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION DEPENDING ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 4.ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL HAVE A “BLUE REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKER” INDICATING THEIR LOCATION PER THE CARLSBAD STANDARD. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY MARKERS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. 5.ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE LOCATED AND BE OF A COLOR AND SIZE SO AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY FROM WHICH THE BUILDING IS ADDRESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE. 6.ACCESS GATES SHALL BE APPROVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION AND SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 5 OF THE CFC AND CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE. 7.APPROVED ACCESS WALKWAYS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL REQUIRED OPENINGS AND ALL RESCUE WINDOWS. 8.VEGETATION SHALL BE SELECTED AND MAINTAINED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ALLOW IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO ALL HYDRANTS, VALVES, FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTIONS, PULL STATIONS, EXTINGUISHERS, SPRINKLER RISERS, ALARM CONTROL PANELS, RESCUE WINDOWS, AND OTHER DEVICES OR AREAS USED FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES. VEGETATION OR BUILDING FEATURES SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT ADDRESS NUMBERS OR INHIBIT THE FUNCTIONING OF ALARM BELLS, HORNS, OR STROBES. 9.DUMPSTERS AND TRASH CONTAINERS LARGER THAN 1.5 CUBIC YARDS SHALL NOT BE STORED IN BUILDINGS OR PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF COMBUSTIBLE WALLS, OPENINGS OR COMBUSTIBLE ROOF EAVE LINES UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN APPROVED SPRINKLER SYSTEM. 10.ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER PLAN OR APPROVED SITE PLAN, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ROAD WIDTH, GRADE, SPEED HUMPS, TURNING RADII, GATES OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS, SHALL REQUIRE REVIEW, INSPECTION, AND APPROVAL BY THE, CITY OF CARLSBAD. 11.APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS APPROVAL OF ANY INFORMATION OR PROJECT CONDITIONS OTHER THAN THOSE ITEMS AND REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN CARLSBAD FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER GUIDELINE AND RELATED PORTIONS OF THE CFC AND CBC. THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOT STATED HEREIN UPON EXAMINATION OF ACTUAL SITE AND PROJECT CONDITIONS OR DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS & WATER NOTES May 21, 2025 Item #1 462 of 473 N89°26'18"W 157.45' N0 ° 3 5 ' 5 2 " E 1 3 7 . 6 8 ' S0 ° 3 6 ' 5 2 " W 1 5 0 . 1 3 ' S89°25'35"E 149.82'L=15.43' R=14.00 =63.17 BUENA VISTA CIRCLE ROW ROW RO W JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T CL CL CL CL 25 . 0 ' 30 . 0 ' 55 . 0 ' 60.0' 30.0'30.0' PL PL BLOCK C LOT 12 NLY H LOT 11 APN: 155-251-18 BLOCK C LOT 10 SLY H LOT 11 APN: 155-251-19 PROJECT SITE AREA = 23,618 SF / 0.542 AC BLOCK C LOT 9 APN: 155-251-12 RO W 1 6.0' 5 BLOCK C LOT 10-12 WLY 17.5 & ELY 57.5 APN: 155-251-17 EXISTING LOT LINE SITE JE F F E R S O N S T BUENA PL BUENA VISTA WAY KNOWLES AVE DA V I S A V E LAGUNA DR KR E M E Y E R CI R BUE N A VIS T A C I R M A D I S O N S T HOM E A V E I - 5 F R E E W A Y LAS FLORES DR GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 20'40'60' ABBREVIATIONS AR/AV AIR-RELEASE & AIR/VACUUM VALVE BO BLOW-OFF BS BOTTOM OF STAIR BW BOTTOM OF WALL DI DUCTILE IRON FF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION PER ARCHITECT FG FINISHED GRADE FS FINISHED SURFACE GB GRADE BREAK GF FACE OF GARAGE ELEVATION GV GATE VALVE HP HIGH POINT IE INVERT ELEVATION LP LOW POINT TB THRUST BLOCK TC OP OF CURB TG TOP OF GRATE TS TOP OF STAIR TW TOP OF WALL WAS WATER AGENCIES' STANDARDS JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 2502 JEFFERSON STREET 4 PLSA 4138-01 TITLE SHEET PLAN VIEW - SITE LAYOUT SCALE: 1" = 20' HORIZONTAL GENERAL NOTES SHEET INDEX REFERENCED DRAWINGS OWNER INFORMATION SUBDIVIDER INFORMATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE ADDRESS TOPOGRAPHY BENCHMARK SITE ACREAGE EARTHWORK / PROJECT GRADING ACCESS ENGINEER OF WORK PREPARED BY TOM ST. CLAIR FOR: RINCON CAPITAL GROUP, LLC 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA, 92008 PH: (888) 357-3553 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON STREET APN: 155-251-18 & -19 CARLSBAD, CA 92008 TOPOGRAPHY OBTAINED BY FIELD SURVEY ON JANUARY 15, 2024 PREPARED BY: PASCO, LARET, SUITER & ASSOCIATES TYLER LAWSON, PE #80356 DATE THE NORTHERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT 11 AND ALL OF LOT 12 BLOCK "C" OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF SUNNYSLOPE TRACT, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 995, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, JUNE 6 1906. EXPECTING THEREFORM THE EASTERLY 57.5 FEET THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFORM THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12, A DISTANCE OF 12.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 14.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH CENTRAL ANGLE OF 63° 10' 04", AN ARE DISTANCE OF 15.43 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NOTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 12 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 155-251-18 LOT 10 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 11, BLOCK "C" OF RESUBDIVISION OF PORTINO OF SUNNYSLOPE TRACT, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 995, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY . EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE EASTERLY 57.5 FEET THEREOF APN: 155-251-19 GROSS:23,618 SF (0.542 AC) PROPOSED DEDICATION:922 SF (0.021 AC) *EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:7,231 SF (0.166 AC) DISTURBED AREA (ONSITE): 22,696 SF (0.521 AC) *PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (ONSITE): 14,729 SF (0.338 AC) *PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA (ONSITE): 8,889 SF (0.204 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (ROW): 2,739 SF (0.063 AC) DISTURBED AREA (ROW)3,590 SF (0.082 AC) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA (TOTAL): 17,468 SF (0.401 AC) OVERALL DISTURBED AREA 26,286 SF (0.603 AC) *AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF PROPOSED ONSITE DISTURBED AREA CUT: 190 CY MAX CUT HEIGHT: 1.2 FT FILL: 4,500 CY MAX FILL HEIGHT: 1.2 FT IMPORT: 4,500 CY REMEDIAL: 4,375 CY VOLUME OF CUT (PER PRELIM GRADING PLAN): 190 CY VOLUME OF OTHER EXCAVATIONS: N/A TOTAL GRADED AREA: 23,618 SF (0.542 AC) 190 CY / 0.542 AC = 350 CY / ACRE *PROJECT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO GRADE, ERECT, OR CONSTRUCT INTO OR ON TOP OF A NATURAL OR MANUFACTURED SLOPE WHICH HAS A GRADIENT OF FIFTEEN PERCENT OR MORE, THEREFORE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PURSUANT TO C.M.C. 21.95.140(D)(2) DO NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT THESE QUANTITIES ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON FINAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND DETAILING BUENA VISTA WAY, A PUBLIC ROAD PREPARED BY: PASCO, LARET, SUITER & ASSOCIATES 1911 SAN DIEGO AVE, SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 PH: (858) 259-8212 PREPARED ON: 5/7/2024 LAND USE RESIDENTIAL NUMBER OF LOTS 2 LOTS SEWER DISTRICT CITY OF CARLSBAD WASTEWATER DIVISION WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTRIC SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC TELEPHONE AT&T CATV TIME WARNER CABLE DRAINAGE BASIN / HYDROLOGIC AREA BUENA VISTA CREEK / EL SATO FIRE CITY OF CARLSBAD AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED (12 UNITS * 6 ADT / UNIT) = 72 ADT PROPOSED PROPOSED DENSITY 12 UNITS / 0.542 AC = 24.2 DU / AC PROPOSED # OF UNITS 12 UNITS EX. # OF UNITS / LIVE ABLE SPACE 1 UNIT / 1,229 SF & 1 UNIT 864 SF ZONING DESIGNATION R-3 RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION R-15 RESIDENTIAL SEWER GENERATION RATES 200 GPD / DU (MULTI-FAMILY) * 12 DU = 2,400 GPD PEAK DAILY FLOW 2,400 GPD * 2.5 = 6,000 GPD WATER GENERATION RATES 185 GPD / DU (RES. - MIXED USE) * 12 DU = 2,220 GPD MAXIMUM DAY DEMAND 2,220 GPD * 1.6 = 3,552 GPD Q100 PRE-DEVELOPMENT 1.00 CFS Q100 POST-DEVELOPMENT (UNMIT / MIT)2.27 CFS / 0.63 CFS CADT DISK IN SOUTH SIDEWALK NEAR THE EAST END OF LAS FLORES DRIVE BRIDGE OVER INTERSTATE 5, BASED ON POINT NUMBER 139, PER ROS 17271. ELEVATION = 82.22 DATUM = NGVD 29 TENTATIVE MAP TITLE SHEET 1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 2 SECTIONS AND DETAILS 3-4 ROS 21047 CR 13447 ROS 12779 MAP 3845 MAP 995 MAP 486 1 DENSITY CALCULATIONS GROSS ACREAGE = 23,618 SF / 0.542 ACRES LESS BEACHES = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS PERMANENT BODIES OF WATER = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS FLOODWAYS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS SIGNIFICANT WOODLAND HABITATS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS LAND SUBJECT TO MAJOR POWER TRANSMISSION EASEMENTS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES LESS RAILROAD TRACK BEDS = 0 SF / 0 ACRES NET ACRES = 23,618 SF / 0.542 ACRES SLOPES AREA (SF / ACRES)DENSITY (DU)*DWELLING UNITS 0% - 25%23,618 SF / 0.542 ACRES 8-15 4.34 - 8.13 25% - 40% 0 SF / 0 ACRES 8-15 0 40% +0 SF / 0 ACRES 8-15 0 *PER THE LAND USE ELEMENT - R-23 RESIDENTIAL: 15-23 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE BASE UNITS ALLOWED = 8.13 BASE DENSITY PER = 9.0 DENSITY BONUS ROUND UP 11% UNITS AS "VERY LOW" = 9.0 * 0.11 = 0.99 UNIT AFFORDABLE DENSITY BONUS UNITS = 1 UNIT 35.0% DENSITY BONUS = 10.0 * 0.35 = 13.5 UNITS FOR 5% "VERY LOW" AFFORDABLE UNITS PER DENSITY BONUS ROUND UP = 14.0 TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED UNITS = 12.0 UNITS 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED PROPOSED MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL UNITS = 11.0 PROPOSED "VERY LOW AFFORDABLE UNITS = 1.0 PROPOSED DENSITY BONUS UNITS = 3.0 DWG 118-9 DWG 146-8 DWG 159-3 DWG 365-2 LEGEND EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE / RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE OF ROAD ADJACENT LOT LINE SETBACK LINE EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED BUILDING FOOT PRINT PROPOSED FLOW LINE PROPOSED DIRECTION OF FLOW PROPOSED AC SAWCUT PROPOSED LIMITS OF GRADING 150-FT CALTRANS SIGHT DISTANCE VIEW COORIDOR PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-3 PROPOSED 6" PCC CURB AND GUTTER PER SDRSD G-2 PROPOSED PCC PAVEMENT PROPOSED RAISED PLANTER BMP PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS BMP PROPOSED 6" PVC STORM DRAIN PROPOSED 6" FIRE SERVICE PER CMWD W-7 & W-9 PROPOSED 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE PER CMWD W-4 PROPOSED 4" PVC SEWER LATERAL AND CLEANOUT PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-7 PROPOSED 6" PVC SEWER LATERAL AND CLEANOUT PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-7 PROPOSED 12" X 12" BROOKS BOX PROPOSED 18" X 18" BROOKS BOX PROPOSED 6" AREA DRAIN PROPOSED 6" STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT PROPOSED PCC DRIVEWAY PER SDRSD G-14A PROPOSED CURB OUTLET PER SDRSD D-25 PROPOSED 3" PVC SIDEWALK UNDER DRAIN PER SDRSD D-27 100 100 SD SD W W W S S SETBACKS BASIS OF BEARING THE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF NAD83 (CCS-83), ZONE 6, EPOCH 1991.35, AS DETERMINED LOCALLY BY A LINE BETWEEN STATIONS CLSB130 AND CADT 5-50.7 BEING A GRID BEARING OF N 21° 00' 57" E AS DERIVED FROM GEODETIC VALUES SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY 17271, CITY OF CARLSBAD SURVEY CONTROL NETWORK VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC 5315 AVENIDA ENCINAS CARLSBAD CA, 92008 PH: (888) 357-3553 PER R-3 ZONE FYSB = 20-FT SYSB = 10-FT (10% OF LOT WIDTH, BUT NOT MORE THAN 10-FT) RYSB = 20-FT (TWICE THE LENGTH OF SYSB) PROPOSED (UNDER DENSITY BONUS) FYSB = 10-FT SYSB = 6.75-FT / 5.0-FT RYSB = 20.0-FT J:\ACTIVE JOBS\4138 RINCON JEFFERSON\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS NOTE: THIS IS A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP OF A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT DEFINED BY SECTION 1350 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE PROJECT CONTAINS A MAXIMUM OF 12 AIRSPACE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS. S S S EXISTING EASEMENT INFORMATION TITLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE DATED DECEMBER 19, 2023 ORDER NO.: DIV-7068883 ITEMS1 THROUGH 4 ARE NON MAPPING AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES, INGRESS AND EGRESS RECORDED MARCH 20, 2007 AS INST. NO. 2007-0187863, O.R. ITEMS 6 THROUGH 16 ARE NON MAPPING AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. PROPOSED EASEMENT INFORMATION PROPOSED DEDICATION GRANTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR PUBLIC STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES 1 5 CT 2024-0004 / CDP 2024-0021 / PUD 2024-0004 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP / COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 12/11/2024 May 21, 2025 Item #1 463 of 473 E E E S W W W X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXX X OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE O E O E O E O E O E O E O E OE OE OE 65 65 6 5 65 64.7964.28 63.4963.00 63.35 62.94 62.48 62.26 62.85 62.67 64.44 64.00 64.39 64.26 63.92 63.84 63.89 63.59 63.71 63.63 65.21 64.63 62.72 61.99 TC 61.51 FL 62.13 TC 61.68 FL 62.23 TC 61.77 FL 62.35 TC 61.86 FL 62.11 TC 62.00 FL 62.89 TC 62.42 FL 63.07 TC 62.56 FL 62.81 TC 62.81 FL62.78 TC 62.79 FL 63.30 TC 62.81 FL 63.31 TC 62.81 FL 63.45 TC 62.96 FL 63.87 TC 63.39 FL 64.12 TC 63.64 FL 64.36 TC 63.90 FL 66.05 FF 66.21 FF 64.78 FF 64.85 FF 64.77 FF 63.65 FF 65.52 FF 63.93 FF 63.74 63.97 63.39 64.27 64.68 64.50 64.27 64.2 63.14 63.21 64.04 65.04 64.75 63.67 63.85 64.98 63.19 62.87 65.07 64.79 65.03 65.32 64.68 63.40 65.31 63.64 TC 63.18 FL 64.04 64.01 63.93 64.29 64.15 64.17 64.28 64.50 64.50 64.64 64.70 64.97 64.91 64.9164.48 64.45 64.17 63.59 63.28 63.13 63.35 63.33 63.53 63.62 63.32RIM 53.72BOT 63.24 64.59 18"TP18"TP 8"TP 18"TP 8"TP 6"TD 6"TD 6"TD 6"TD S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G W W W G G G G G G G G G W W W W W W W S S W W S S W W SS W S S W W S S W W S S W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSD WW WW SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G W SSS SSS SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD W W W W W W W W JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT G G G G G G G G E E G G G E E E E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X XX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXX X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E E EEEE E E E E E E E E E E E N89°26'18"W 157.45' N0 ° 3 5 ' 5 2 " E 1 3 7 . 6 8 ' S0 ° 3 6 ' 5 2 " W 1 5 0 . 1 3 ' S89°25'35"E 149.82' L=15.43' R=14.00 =63.17 BUENA VISTA WAY ROW ROW RO W JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T CL CL CL CL 25 . 0 ' 60.0' 30.0'30.0' BLOCK C LOT 9 APN: 155-251-12 RO W UNIT 1 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 GF = 64 . 4 UNIT 2 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 3 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 4 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 5 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 6 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 UNIT 7 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 8 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 9 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 10 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 11 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 12 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 GF = 6 4 . 0 63.4 FS 63.9 FS9. 7 % 9. 7 % 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 63.2 FS 63.7 FS 65.0 FS 2. 0 % 2. 0 % 64.2 FS 64.2 FG (63.05 FS) 63.9 TG 62.9 IE 64.2 HP / FL 2. 2 % 63.85 FL (61.65 IE OUT) (62.9 FS) (62.75 FS) 1.0% 64.9 FS PROP. 3421 TRANSFORMER PAD 1.0%1.0% 0.5%0.5% 2X RISERS; 63.2 FS 1.3%2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE62.9 TG 62.0 IE 63.4 TG 62.4 IE (65.0 TW@FG) 65.0 BW (65.3 TW@FG) 64.8 BW EX DWY TO REMAIN (0.6%)(0.8%) 0.9% 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 1.0% GARAGE 65.0 FS 65.0 FS 3.1% 2.8% 64.6 FS 65.0 FS 2.0%1.9% 64.45 FS 0. 7 % 64.1 FS 65.0 FS 64.9 FS EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING GUY WIRE AND ANCHOR TO REMAIN 64.6 FS FR FRFR FR EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE REMOVED; REPLACE WITH PCC SDWK EXISTING SEWER MH (63.3 RIM) (53.7 IE) EXISTING PCC CROSS GUTTER TO REMAIN (0 . 8 % ) (0 . 5 % ) 0. 7 % 64.6 FS 64.0 FG 63.9 FS 64.0 FG 63.65 TG 62.7 IE (62.4 FS) 64.0 FG (65.0 TW@FG) 63.7 BW 64.6 FS 64.5 FS MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (62.65 TC); (62.15 FL) MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (62.35 TC); (61.85 FL) 0. 8 % 5.0%5.0% 3.5%3.5% 65.0 FS 64.9 FS 3X RISERS; 63.1 FS 64.4 FS 64.3 FS 1X RISERS; 63.9 FS (62.45 FS) (65.2 TW@FG) 64.2 BW 0. 7 % 1.0% 64.4 FS 64.0 TW (63.3 BW@FG) (64.0 TW@FG) 64.0 BW 64.0 TW (62.3 BW@FG) EXISTING GUY WIRE AND ANCHOR TO REMAIN 64.4 FS 64.3 FS 1X RISERS; 63.9 FS (62.3 FS) EXISTING 14" AC WATER MAIN PER DWG 159-3 EXISTING 14" CL150T WATER MAIN PER DWG 159-3 1.5% 1.5% EXISTING 8" VCP SEWER MAIN PER DWG 118-9 0. 8 % OVERHANG ABOVE (TYP.) 5' SY S B 20' RYSB 1.5% EXISTING DRIVEWAY APRON TO BE REMOVED; REPLACE WITH PCC SDWK 63.8 FG 5.0 % M I N 5.0 % M I N 57.4 IE@LAT (56.2 IE@MAIN) 63.65 RIM 57.9 IE 59.3 IE@LAT 58.1 IE@MAIN 59.45 IE@LAT 58.25 IE@MAIN 59.7 IE@LAT 58.5 IE@MAIN 59.9 IE@LAT 58.7 IE@MAIN 60.15 IE@LAT 58.95 IE@MAIN 60.35 IE@LAT 59.15 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.45 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.6 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.85 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.05 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.3 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.5 IE 60.4 IE@LAT 59.2 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.85 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.6 IE 60.15 IE@LAT 58.95 IE@MAIN 59.95 IE@LAT 58.75 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL 60.4 IE 59.65 IE@LAT 58.45 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 60.1 IE END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.9 IE 59.45 IE@LAT 58.25 IE@MAIN 59.3 IE@LAT 58.1 IE@MAIN END OF SEWER LATERAL; 59.75 IE GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 GF = 6 4 . 4 2.0%2.0% 0. 5 % 3.0% 3.0% 64.9 FG 65.1 FG 64.4 FG 64.0 FL 64.1 FS 64.1 FL 64.2 FS 64.3 FS 64.0 FS 63.95 FS 63.7 FL 63.8 FS 63.55 FL 63.65 FS 2.0%2.0% 3.5%3.5% 63.85 RIM 59.25 IE 64.4 FG64.4 FG 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 68.0 TW 67.0 TW@FG 64.9 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW BMP 1 66.4 FG A= 31 SF BMP 2 66.4 FG A= 67 SF BMP 3 66.4 FG A= 67 SF BMP 4 66.0 FG A= 67 SF BMP 5 66.0 FG A= 67 SF BMP 6 66.0 FG A= 67 SF BMP 7 67.0 FG A= 49 SF BMP 8 66.4 FG A= 49 SF BMP 9 66.4 FG A= 49 SF 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.83 TG 64.0 IE BMP 10 66.0 FG A= 58 SF BMP 11 66.0 FG A= 58 SF BMP 12 66.0 FG A= 58 SF 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.07 TG 63.4 IE 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 67.0 TW 66.0 TW@FG 64.0 BW 64.8 RIM 63.9 IE 63.9 RIM 63.3 IE 64.3 RIM 63.15 IE 64.0 RIM 62.95 IE 63.9 RIM 62.85 IE 63.9 RIM 62.75 IE 5. 0 ' M I N . 5. 0 ' M I N . 5. 0 ' M I N . 5. 0 ' M I N . 63.8 HP/FL 63.3 TG 62.3 IE63.5 TG 62.05 IE 64.0 FG PROPOSED FENCING PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS (TYP.) PROPOSED FENCING PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS (TYP.) 63.8 HP/FL 12.0' 10.5' 64.0 FS 64.0 FG 64.2 FL 62.3 FL 63.9 TG 63.2 IE MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 2.0% MIN. 64.9 FS 64.9 FS 3.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2. 0 % 64.7 FS 64.4 FS 2.5% 64.05 FS 64.5 FS 64.5 FS 2.8% EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT SERVICE AND HYDRANT TO REMAIN EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO REMAIN 1 1 1 EXISTING DRY UTILITY VAULT TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED / REPLACED EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED / REPLACED 24.0' 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 . 0 ' 6 6 6 6 7 8 10 9 10 9 9 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 31 15 15 18 16 18 16 19 19 EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (63.5 TC); (63.0 FL) 15 MATCH EXIST PCC C&G; (64.05 TC); (63.55 FL) 15 16 6. 0 ' EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WATER SERVICE AND METER TO REMAIN EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC SIDEWALK TO REMAIN EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN 63.5 RIM 61.95 IE20 21 21 6.0' 17 64.4 FS 64.4 FG 63.5 IE23 65.0 RIM 63.75 IE 64.9 FS 64.5 TG 63.7 IE 64.2 TG 63.55 IE 64.2 TG 63.45 IE 64.0 TG 63.05 IE 64.0 TG 62.9 IE 11 12 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 11 1% MIN.1% MIN. PROPOSED PVT 6" PVC SEWER TRUNKLINE @1.0% OVERHANG ABOVE (TYP.) 6.0' (65.2 TW@FG) 64.1 BW 62.3 TW 62.3 BW LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA 5 1 EXISTING 8" VC SEWER MAIN PER DWG 118-9 EXISTING 14" AC WATER MAIN PER DWG 146-8 EXISTING 42" INTERCEPTOR SEWER MAIN PER DWG 365-2 EXISTING 2" GAS MAIN 5 5 5 64 BLOCK C LOT 10-12 WLY 17.5 & ELY 57.5 APN: 155-251-17 10' FYSB 7. 5 ' 12.0' GB GB 28 A A B B C C D D 12 64.4 RIM 63.7 IE 12 20.0' 24 24 24 24 24 24 3 BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING D BUILDING C EXISTING GAS SERVICE TO BE REMOVED PER SEPARATE SDGE WORK ORDER 6.5' EXISTING SEWER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING PCC CROSS GUTTER TO NEAREST JOINT 25 26 26 LIMITS OF PROPOSED GRIND AND OVERLAY LIMITS OF PROPOSED GRIND AND OVERLAY 26 LIMITS OF PROPOSED GRIND AND OVERLAY 19 19 19 19 EXISTING SEWER LATERAL TO BE REMOVED 30 . 0 ' 55 . 0 ' EXISTING PCC CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN EXISTING POWER POLE TO REMAIN 27 4.0' 64.3 FS 64.4 FS; 1 RISER 64.3 FS 64.4 FS; 1 RISER 64.4 FS; 1 RISER 3X RISERS; 62.9 FS 64.3 FS 3 RISERS; 62.6 FS 63.8 FS 3 RISER; 62.4 FS 63.8 FS 3 RISERS; 62.5 FS 63.8 FS 64.4 FG 63.6 FL 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 6 3 64 64.0 FG 28 28 28 28 28 29 19 9 PROP. ELECTRIC METER BOX (TYP.) PROP. GAS METER BOX (TYP.) PROP. ELECTRIC METER BOX (TYP.) 65.8 TSW 22 65.4 TSW22 65.4 TSW 22 65.1 TSW 22 PROP. 3309 PULL BOX 63.8 BOT. OF FOOTING 30 6. 7 5 ' S Y S B 2. 0 % 63.4 FS 63.2 FS 64.0 FG 2.0% 64 64 5.0% 5.0' (65.2 TW) 64.5 BW 64.4 FS 64.2 FG 64.0 FS 64.2 FS EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY TO REMAIN 2.0' 66.67 TG 63.0 IE 32 14 31 31 (65.1 FG) (65.3 FG) 26 4' X 4' WELD HOLE (65.2 FG) (65.3 FG) (63.8 FG)(63.5 FG) (63.1 FG) (65.4 FG) 64.2 RIM 63.3 IE 64.2 RIM 62.95 IE 64.2 RIM 62.75 IE 63.8 RIM 62.45 IE 63.8 RIM 62.25 IE GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 10'20'30' J:\ACTIVE JOBS\4138 RINCON JEFFERSON\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 2502 JEFFERSON STREET 4 PLSA 4138-01 PLAN VIEW - PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES SITE NOTES 1. ALL UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON PER BEST AVAILABLE RECORD INFORMATION. 2. ALL EXISTING ONSITE STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. ALL EXISTING ONSITE TREES TO BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL ONSITE WATER, SEWER, AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES TO BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED. 5. HARDSCAPE SHALL DRAIN AWAY FROM PROPOSED STRUCTURES AT MINIMUM OF 2.0% FOR 10 FEET, AND LANDSCAPE FOR A MINIMUM OF 5.0% IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SECTION 1804.4. ANY DEVIATION SHALL REQUIRE RECOMMENDATION FROM PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 6. TRASH FROM EACH UNIT TO BE PICKED UP AT CURB SIDE. 2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENT TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACE; MONUMENTS DISTURBED OR DESTROYED SHALL BE REPLACED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR PROPOSED 2" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE, METER AND BACKFLOW PER CMWD W-4 & W-6 PROPOSED PRIVATE 1" DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE PROPOSED 6" FIRE SERVICE AND RDPA PER CMWD W-9 PROPOSED 6" PVC SEWER LATERAL WITH 12" CLEANOUT PER CITY OF CARLSBAD S-7 WITH BACK WATER VALVE PROPOSED 4" PVC SEWER LATERAL PROPOSED PCC RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED DRIVE AISLE PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED 12" X 12" BROOKS BOX OR APPROVED EQUAL PROPOSED 18" X 18" BROOKS BOX OR APPROVED EQUAL PROPOSED 6" AREA DRAIN BY NDS OR APPROVED EQUAL PROPOSED 6" STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT BY NDS OR APPROVED EQUAL PROPOSED 12" X 12" BROOKS BOX RAISED PLANTER BIOFILTRATION BMP EMERGENCY OUTLET STRUCTURE PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-3 PROPOSED 6" PCC CURB AND GUTTER PER SDRSD G-2 PROPOSED 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 PROPOSED PCC DRIVEWAY PER SDRSD G-14A PROPSOED AC PAVEMENT SAWCUT PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED TRENCH AND RESURFACING PER CITY OF CARLSBAD GS-26 AND GS-28 PROPOSED CURB OUTLET PER SDRSD D-25 150-FT STOPPING SITE DISTANCE VIEW CORRIDOR PER CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL PROPOSED STEM WALL PER SEPARATE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROPOSED DUAL 3" PVC SIDEWALK UNDER DRAIN PER SDRSD D-27 PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVER WALKWAY PER DEATIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED TYPE A PCC PED RAMP PER SDRSD G-27A PROPOSED 3" AC GRIND AND OVERLAY PROPOSED 20-FT DIAMETER CANOPY TREE WELL BMP PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED 4" PCC WALKWAY PROPOSED REM TRITON TDAM 12(5) TRASH CAPTURE DEVICE PROPOSED DEEPENED FOOTING PER SEPARATE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PROPOSED MASONRY RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-1 PROPOSED 1" IRRIGATION SERVICE METER AND BACKFLOW PER CMWD W-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 EXISTING EASEMENT INFORMATION TITLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE DATED DECEMBER 19, 2023 ORDER NO.: DIV-7068883 ITEMS1 THROUGH 4 ARE NON MAPPING AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES, INGRESS AND EGRESS RECORDED MARCH 20, 2007 AS INST. NO. 2007-0187863, O.R. ITEMS 6 THROUGH 16 ARE NON MAPPING AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. PROPOSED EASEMENT INFORMATION PROPOSED DEDICATION GRANTED TO THE CITY OF CARLSBAD FOR PUBLIC STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES 1 5 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 May 21, 2025 Item #1 464 of 473 X XUNIT 2 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 1 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 3 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 4 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 5 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 6 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 PLPL 5.0%5.0% 5.1' 10.0'6.75' 1.5%5.0% BUILDING A BUILDING B 7.5% 5.0'5.0' BUENA VISTA CIRCLE APN: 155-251-12 6.0' 6" CURB & GUTTER PER SDRSD G-02 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-07 PROPOSED 6" PVC FIRE SERVICEPROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS PROPOSED 4" PCC STORM DRAIN PROPOSED CMU RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-03 64.0 TW (63.3 BW)63.5 TC 63.0 FL DASHED LINE REPRESENTS APPROX. EXISTING GRADE63.6 FL PROPOSED DEEPENED FOOTING 63.8 FL 64.4 FG 64.0 FG 64.0 FG 64.0 FG PROPOSED REMEDIAL GRADING PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS 3.6' H= 1.5' X X UNIT 7 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 8 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 9 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 10 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 11 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 12 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 PLPL10.0'5.1'6.75' 1.5% BUILDING C BUILDING D 5.0'5.0' 5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0% BUENA VISTA CIRCLE APN: 155-251-12 6.0' 6" CURB & GUTTER PER SDRSD G-02 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-07 PROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS PROPOSED 6" PVC STORM DRAIN PROPOSED CMU RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-3 64.0 TW (64.0 BW)64.0 TC 63.5 FL 64.1 FL DASHED LINE REPRESENTS APPROX. EXISTING GRADE 63.7 FL PROPOSED STEM WALL PROPOSED STEM WALL 65.0 FG 64.4 FG 64.4 FG 64.0 FG PROPOSED REMEDIAL GRADING PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS 3.6' H= 2.1' X X X X PL EX. PL X 24.0' UNIT 8 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 UNIT 2 FF = 65.1 PAD = 64.4 5.0%3.3%3.3%1.5% 20.8'18.7' 6.0' DEDICATION UNIT 2 GFF = 64.4 1.0%UNIT 8 GFF = 64.41.0% BUILDING A BUILDING C10.5' 3.0' 10.5' ULT. PL JEFFERSON STREET APN: 155-251-17 1.0% 6.5' EXISTING 6" CURB & GUTTER PROP. 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 PROPOSED PVT 2" PVC DOMESTIC WATER SERVICEPROPOSED 6" PVC SEWER TRUNKLINE @1.0% PROPOSED CMU RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-1 (65.2 TW) 64.5 BW (62.8) TC (62.3) FL PROPOSED 6" PVC FIRE SERVICE PROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL SHEET 4 DASHED LINE REPRESENTS APPROX. EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED RAISED PLANTER BIOFILTRATION BMP PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED RAISED PLANTER BIOFILTRATION BMP PER DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED RIBBON GUTTER FOR DETAIL SHEET 4 PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL SHEET4 PROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS 64.05 FL 64.15 FS 64.05 FL 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW 67.4 TW 66.4 TW@FG 64.4 BW PROPOSED JOINT UTILITY TRENCH H=2.6' TEMPORARY CUT64.15 FS PROPOSED REMEDIAL GRADING PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS X X X X X PL EX. PL 3.5%1.4% 1.5% UNIT 12 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 UNIT 6 FF = 64.7 PAD = 64.0 1.4% 24.0' DRIVE ISLE20.7'6.0' DEDICATION 24.8' 2.0%UNIT 6 GFF = 64.0 1.0%UNIT 12 GFF = 64.01.0% BUILDING B BUILDING D10.5' 3.0' 10.5' ULT. PL JEFFERSON STREET APN: 155-251-17 6.5'1.0% EXISTING 6" CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED PVT 2" PVC DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE PROPOSED PVT 6" PVC SEWER TRUNK LINE @1.0% PROPOSED CMU RETAINING WALL PER SDRSD C-1 PROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS DASHED LINE REPRESENTS APPROX. EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED 6.0" RISERS PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL SHEET 4 WALKWAY PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL SHEET 4 (62.25) TC (61.75) FL 64.6 FS (64.2 TW) 64.0 BW 63.85 FS 64.5 FS PROPOSED FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS 64.0 FS64.0 FS PROP. 4" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 63.9 FG 64.5 FS 64.4 FS PROPOSED RIBBON GUTTER FOR DETAIL SHEET 4 63.75 FL H=2.5' TEMPORARY CUT PROPOSED REMEDIAL GRADING PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0'5.0' 18"TP18"TP 8"TP 18"TP 8"TP 6"TD 6"TD 6"TD 6"TD E E E G G G S W W W X X X XXX X XX ST O P BIKE 65 65 65 65 X X X X X X X X X X X X SD SD W W SD SD SD W E E G G G G E E E E OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE OE X X E A A B B C C D D BUENA VISTA CIRCLE JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T CL 55.0' 30.0'25.0' 7.7' EX. SDWLK 14.3' TRAVEL LANE 9.5' TRAVEL LANE 6.0' SDWK R/W R/W 8.0' PARALLEL PARKING 8.0' PARALLEL PARKING (2.0%)(2.0%)2.0%(2.0%) 1.5' LA PROPOSED 4" PCC CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED 4" PCC CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED AC PAVEMENT SAWCUT PER DETAIL THIS SHEET EX 8" VCP SEWER MAIN PER DWG 118-9 EX. 14" WATER MAIN PER DWG 159-3 EX 1.5" HP GAS MAIN PER DWG 159-3 EX PCC CONCRETE SIDEWALK EX CURB AND GUTTER EX A.C. PAVING AND SUBGRADE CL NORTH R/W EX. ROW60.0' 30.0'30.0' 6.0' PKWY 16.0' TRAVEL LANE 16.0' TRAVEL LANE 6.0' EX. SDWLK 8.0' PARALLEL PARKING 8.0' PARALLEL PARKING (2.0%)(2.0%)(2.0%)2.0% ULT PL 6.0' DEDICATION 6.5' SDWK PROPOSED 4" PCC CONCRETE SIDEWALK PROPOSED 4" PCC CONCRETE SIDEWALK AC PAVEMENT SAWCUT PER DETAIL THIS SHEET EX PCC CONCRETE SIDEWALK EX CURB AND GUTTER EX. 8" VC SEWER MAIN PER DWG 118-9 EX. 3" GAS MAIN EX A.C. PAVING AND SUBGRADE EXISTING 42" INTERCEPTOR SEWER MAIN PER DWG 365-2 EXISTING 14" AC WATER MAIN PER DWG 146-8 J:\ACTIVE JOBS\4138 RINCON JEFFERSON\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 2502 JEFFERSON STREET 4 PLSA 4138-01 3 SECTION CUT A-A NOT TO SCALE SECTION CUT B-B NOT TO SCALE SECTION CUT C-C NOT TO SCALE SECTION CUT D-D NOT TO SCALE SECTIONS & DETAILS SECTION VIEW - KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL STREET SECTION - BUENA VISTA WAY NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL STREET SECTION - JEFFERSON STREET NOT TO SCALE May 21, 2025 Item #1 465 of 473 10" 8" PONDING DEPTH 14" 3" 4" FREEBOARD 11" LAYER OF 3/4" CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK 4" THICK CHOCKET COURSE OF 3/8" PEE GRAVEL 18" THICK LAYER OF ENGINEERED SOIL; *SEE NOTE BELOW STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED RAISED PLANTER BOX; DESIGN BY OTHERS PLANTER WATERPROOFING; IMPERVIOUS LINER ALONG THE SIDES AND BOTTOM OF THE BASIN ROOF DOWNSPOUT PIPE TO CONVEY STORMWATER TO BMP PLANTERS 1-12 DEEP ROOTED, DENSE, DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING SUITABLE FOR WELL-DRAINED SOIL 12" X 12" CATCH BASIN BY BROOKS PRODUCTS OR APPROVED EQUAL FOR EMERGENCY OVERFLOW 6" PVC OUTLET PIPE (TYP.) 6" DIAMETER PERFORATE UNDERDRAIN PIPE PLANTER WATER PROOFING IMPERVIOUS LINER FS ELEV. PER PLAN TW ELEV. = BMP FG + 12" 3" HARDWOOD MULCH CLEANOUT / INSPECTION PORT *BIOFILTRATION "ENGINEERED SOIL" LAYER SHALL BE MINIMUM 18" DEEP "SANDY LOAM" SOIL MIX WITH NO MORE THAN 5% CLAY CONTENT. THE MIX SHALL CONTAIN 50-60% SAND, 20-30% COMPOST OR HARDWOOD MULCH, AND 20-30% TOPSOIL. 3.0'2.0' 5.0' 10.5' BEDDING COURSE-2" THICK OF 18" TO 38" (NO.8) AGGREGATE (SUBGRADE) 6" X 24" PCC FLUSH CURB CHOKER COURSE-4" THICK OF 3 8" TO 12" (NO.57) CRUSHED ROCK (SUBGRADE)MIN. 6" THICK OF 3 4" CRUSHED ROCK (SUBGRADE) SLOPE PERVIOUS PAVER STORAGE LAYERS TOWARDS RIBBON GUTTER; SEE NOTE THIS SHEET 6" PERFORATED PVC SUBDRAIN MIN. 0.25' THICK OF 34" CRUSHED ROCK (STORAGE LAYER); THICKNESS VARIES SOIL SUBGRADE % PER PLAN PCC RIBBON GUTTER PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 5.5' VARIES 0.5' MIN. APPROVED PERVIOUS PAVERS W/ MIN. 3 8" VOID 4" PCC PAVEMENT % PER PLAN GU T T E R L I N E SA W C U T L I N E 3.0' MIN 2.0' MIN 6" PCC CURB & GUTTER PER SDRSD G-2 STRUCTURAL SECTION 4" AC OVER 6" CLASS II AB OVER NATIVE SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% REL. COMP. COLD PLAN AND OVERLAY (3" MIN. DEPTH) TO PROVIDE SMOOTH TRANSITION EXISTING AC PAVEMENT PROPOSED 3' WIDE 5" THICK PCC RIBBON GUTTER FL + 0.1'FL SUBGRADE PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL THIS SHEET0.1' 3.0' 1.5'1.5' VARIES PERVIOUS PAVERS PER DETAIL THIS SHEET VARIES SLOPE PERVIOUS PAVERS GRAVEL LAYERS AT 5.0% TOWARDS RIBBON GUTTER X PL FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS; COMBINED WALL AND FENCE HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 6' FROM LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE TW PER PLAN = TOP OF WALL AT FINISH SURFACE 0.5' MIN COVER OVER FOOTING PER SDRSD TYP. BW PER PLAN = BOTTOM OF WALL AT FINSIHED GRADE 4" PERFORATED FRENCH DRAIN 3/4" TO 1" CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK PER BACKFILL PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0' 1.00' PCC CURB & GUTTER (SIZE PER PLAN) PCC CURB & GUTTER (SIZE PER PLAN) B B A A 18" WIDE CURB CUT CENTERED ON TREE WELL (SEE DETAIL D-D) LA SPLASH PAD PER GS-5.06 LA 20' DIAMETER CANOPY STREET TREE WITH 628 CF MIN STRUCTURAL SOIL LIMITS OF 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER ALONG SIDES OF STRUCTURAL SOIL 6" THICK, 18" DEEPENED EDGE SIDEWALK TREATMENT, SEE SECTION B-B BELOW TREE WELL GRATE COVER 4' X 8' CONSTRUCT CONTIGUOUS PCC SIDEWALK 4.0' CLEAR MIN LIMITS OF STRUCTURAL SOIL BELOW (3.5 DEEP X 8' X 22.5') 9" x 30" x 12" DEEP TYPE 1 SPLASH PAD PER SDC DS GS-5.06 (NO. 2 COARSE AGGREGATE ROCK) R=6" (TYP.) 6" PCC C&G PER SDRSD G-02GUTTER LIP 2. 5 ' 1. 0 ' 1. 0 ' C C D D 18" CURB CUT OPENING CENTERED AT TREE WELL GUTTER LIP 4. 5 ' G U T T E R D E P R E S S I O N 6" PCC C&G PER SDRSD G-02 LIMITS OF 9" X 30" TREE GRATE SUPPORT 6" PCC C&G PER SDRSD G-2 STREET FLOW COMPACTED SUBGRADE 8.0' LIMITS OF STRUCTURAL SOIL ROOT BARRIER PER SDRSD L-6 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER 42" DEEP STRUCTURAL SOIL; STRUCTURAL PER A-1 STRUCTURAL SOIL OR APPROVED EQUAL DEEP ROOT TREE BUBBLER PER SDRSD DWG I-4 UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE 3" MIN MULCH LAYER 4" OPENING FOR DRAINAGE 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER SPLASH PAD PER SDC GS DS GS-5.06 6"8" PCC SIDEWALK PER SDRSD G-7 4.0' TREE GRATE FRAME 4" X 8" SMOOTH DOWELS @ 18" OC, GREASED ON ONE END, TYP. ALL SIDES PER SDC GS DS GS-1.00 #4 @ 18" O.C. BOTH WAYS PER SDC GS DS GS 1-.00 CURB CUT PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 4' X 8' CASCADE TREE GATE FRAME BY URBAN ACCESSORIES; INSTALL GRATE PER MANUFACTER'S SPECIFICATIONS 6" SAND FILTER LAYER ROOT BARRIER PER SDRSD L-6 9" X 30" TREE GRATE SUPPORT 3" PL ADJACENT LANDSCAPED AREA 12.0' COMPACTED SUBGRADE ROOT BALL 22.5' 6" SAND FILTER LAYER ROOT BARRIER PER SDRSD L-6 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER 42" DEEP STRUCTURAL SOIL; STRUCTURAL PER A-1 STRUCTURAL SOIL OR APPROVED EQUAL DEEP ROOT TREE BUBBLER PER SDRSD DWG I-4 UNCOMPACTED SUBGRADE 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING SIDEWALK AS NECESSARY 8" ROOT BARRIER PER SDRSD L-6 3" MULCH 9.0' 8.0' TREE GRATE FRAME 9" X 30" TREE GRATE SUPPORT 4" X 8 SMOOTH DOWELS @ 18" OC, GREASED ON ONE END, TYP. ALL SIDES PER SDC GS DS GS-1.02 #4 @ 18" O.C. BOTH WAYS PER SDC GS DS GS-1.02 INSTALL 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER WHERE CONCRETE IS POURED OVER ENGINEERED SOIL (TYP.) 4' X 8' CASCADE TREE GATE FRAME BY URBAN ACCESSORIES; INSTALL GRATE PER MANUFACTER'S SPECIFICATIONS 3" 6" PCC C&G PER SDRSD G-2 STREET FLOW COMPACTED SUBGRADE CURB CUT PER DETAIL THIS SHEET 30 MIL PLASTIC IMPERMEABLE LINER AND ROOT BARRIER 9" X 30" PCC TREE GRATE SUPPORT PER SDRSD L-4 SPLASH PAD PER GS-5.06 12" 12" TOP OF 6" PCC C&G TOP OF 6" PCC C&G 4.5' FLOWLINE (PER PLAN) FLOWLINE (PER PLAN)1" GUTTER DEPRESSION @ TREE WELL1" VERTICAL GUTTER TRANSITION OVER 1' HORIZONTAL *1.5' CURB CUT OPENING1.0'1.0' 7"1" 2.5' *REPLACE CURB TO NEAREST JOINT PAVER NOTES: -ALL AGGREGATE MUST BE CLEAN/WASHED AND FREE OF FINES (SAND, SILT, ETC.) -THE PAVERS SHALL NOT BE SEALED ONCE THE VOID FILLER HAS BEEN ADDED -EACH COURSE SHALL BE VIBRATORY COMPACTED BEFORE PLACEMENT OF NEXT COURSE -SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR USE IN HIGHLY EXPANSIVE SOIL-SUBDRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED -SLOPE GRAVEL SUBGRADE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES AT 5.0% MIN. FOR 10-FT MIN.; LAY 3-INCH GRAVEL STORAGE LAYER FLAT FOR 7-FT ON EACH SIDE OF RIBBON GUTTER EDGE X FENCE PER SEPARATE LANDSCAPE PLANS; COMBINED WALL AND FENCE HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 6' FROM LOWEST ADJACENT GRADE TW PER PLAN = TOP OF WALL AT FINISH SURFACE 0.5' MIN COVER OVER FOOTING PER SDRSD TYP. BW PER PLAN = BOTTOM OF WALL AT FINSIHED GRADE 4" PERFORATED FRENCH DRAIN PL 1.0' 0.83' 3/4" TO 1" CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK PER BACKFILL PER GEOTECH RECOMMENDATIONS 0.83' SOIL SUBGRADE VOID FILLER-1 8" TO 38" (NO.8) AGGREGATE IN VOIDS APPROVED PERVIOUS PAVERS W/ MIN. 3 8" VOID MIN. 6" THICK OF 3 4" CRUSHED ROCK CHOKER COURSE-4" THICK OF 38" TO 1 2" (NO.57) CRUSHED ROCK BEDDING COURSE-2" THICK OF 18" TO 3 8" (NO.8) AGGREGATE 6" X 16" PCC FLUSH CURB NOTE: -ALL AGGREGATE MUST BE CLEAN/WASHED AND FREE OF FINES (SAND, SILT, ETC.) -THE PAVERS SHALL NOT BE SEALED ONCE THE VOID FILLER HAS BEEN ADDED -EACH COURSE SHALL BE VIBRATORY COMPACTED BEFORE PLACEMENT OF NEXT COURSE -NO IMPERVIOUS LINER OR FILTER FABRIC IS TO BE USED -SPECIAL APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR USE IN HIGHLY EXPANSIVE SOIL-SUBDRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED J:\ACTIVE JOBS\4138 RINCON JEFFERSON\CIVIL\DRAWING\DISCRETIONARY PLANS JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 2502 JEFFERSON STREET 4 PLSA 4138-01 4 TYPICAL DETAIL - RAISED PLANTER BMP NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - DRIVE ISLE PERVIOUS PAVERS NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - AC PAVEMENT SAWCUT NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - PCC RIBBON GUTTER NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - RETAINING WALL (SDRSD C-1) NOT TO SCALE SECTIONS & DETAILS PLAN VIEW - CURB CUT @ TREE WELL (BMP 14) NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE PLAN VIEW - CURB CUT @ TREE WELL SDC GS DS GS-5.01 (BMP 14) NOT TO SCALE SECTION C-C CURB CUT @ TREE WELL SDC GS DS GS-5.01 (BMP 14) NOT TO SCALE SECTION D-D CURB CUT @ TREE WELL SDC GS DS GS-5.01 (BMP 14) SECTION A-A TREE WELL W/ GRATE MODIFIED SDC GS 1.02 (LARGE TREE WELL - BMP 14) SECTION B-B TREE WELL W/ GRATE MODIFIED SDC GS 1.02 (LARGE TREE WELL - BMP 14) NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - RETAINING WALL (SDRSD C-3) NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL DETAIL - WALKWAY PERVIOUS PAVERS NOT TO SCALE TREE WELL BMP TO BE MAINTAINED BY JEFFERSON STREET HOMES HOA May 21, 2025 Item #1 466 of 473 04.18.2025 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC 20’10’5’0’ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - L.1 BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T SITEWIDE PLANTING WATER QUALITY PLANTERS LEGEND BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D • VINYL FENCE • DECORATIVE COBBLE • ACCENT PLANTING FRONT YARD TYP. ENHANCED PROJECT ENTRY 1” IRRIGATION WATER METER VINYL FENCE IN FRONT OF RETAINING WALL PROPERTY LINE PERMEABLE CONCRETE PAVERS CMU RETAINING WALL per CIVIL VINYL FENCE BEHIND RETAINING WALL WATER QUALITY PLANTERS - TYP. PROPERTY LINE SETBACK TREE WELL BMP PER CIVIL PLANS ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL APN: 155-251-19 ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL APN: 155-251-17 BMP 1 BMP 7 BMP 2 BMP 8 BMP 3 BMP 9 BMP 4PR O P E R T Y L I N E D E D I C A T I O N PR O P E R T Y L I N E D E D I C A T I O N PR O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E S E T B A C K BMP 10 BMP 5 BMP 11 BMP 6 BMP 12 EXISTING PEPPER TREE TO BE REMOVED • PERMEABLE CONCRETE PAVERS MOTORCOURT CALTRANS STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE LINE SEWER LINE SS RI G H T O F W A Y RIGHT OF WAYCORNER SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE TRANSFORMER FENCE WITHIN SIGHT TRIANGLE NOT TO EXCEED 30” IN HT. OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN IN PLACE. May 21, 2025 Item #1 467 of 473 04.18.2025 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 16’8’4’0’ 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC TREE & SHRUB PLAN - L.2 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY TREES ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24"BOX LOW 3 CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 24"BOX LOW 1 RHUS LANCEAAFRICAN SUMAC MULTI-TRUNK MAINTAIN @ 25' MAX HT.36"BOX LOW 9 VERTICAL ACCENT FURCRAEA MACDOUGALIIMACDOUGALL'S CENTURY PLANT 24"BOX LOW 5 LAURUS NOBILIS - COLUMN SWEET BAY - COLUMN 24"BOX LOW 16 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING QTY SHRUBS ALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOE 5 GAL LOW 24" o.c. 18 BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 5 GAL LOW 18" o.c. 25 ACCENT/ENHANCED PLANTING AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 9 BIO-TREATMENT BASIN PLANTING LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' CANYON PRINCE GIANT WILD RYE 5 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 114 FOREGROUND PLANTING DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV' LITTLE REV DIANELLA 5 GAL LOW 18" o.c. 234 EPILOBIUM CALIFORNICUMCALIFORNIA FUCHSIA 5 GAL LOW 30" o.c. 6 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'ARCTIC FROST' ARCTIC FROST RUSH 5 GAL LOW 24" o.c. 184 FOUNDATION PLANTING LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY - COLUMN 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 59 LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS 'GREEN CLOUD' GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 51 OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 16 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'SMOKEY' SMOKEY COAST ROSEMARY 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 80 PLANT SCHEDULE EXISTING TREES EXISTING PEPPER TREE TO BE REMOVED N/A 1N/A N/A REMARKS MAINTAIN @ 25'MAX HT. MAINTAIN @ 25' MAX HT. FOR GENERAL PLANTING NOTES, SLOPE PLANTING NOTES, and PLANTING DESIGN NOTES SEE SHEET L.3. SEE SHEET L.4 FOR HYDROZONE AND WATERCONSERVATION PLAN for PLANT ZONE TYPES. WATER CONSERVATION NOTE: LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGES SOFTSCAPE % of TOTALSITE AREA 4,528 S.F.23,618 S.F.19.1% ROOT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED WHERE TREES ARE PLANTED LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET OF SIDEWALK, WALLS, STRUCTURES, CURBS, PAVING, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN R.O.W. (TYP.), WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAIN, ETC. CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL DRAINLINES IN FIELD PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICT WITH TREE LOCATIONS WITH STORM DRAIN LINES. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE POSITIVE DRAINAGE (2% GRADE IN PLANTING AREAS) AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES AND TERMINATING IN ANAPPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM. LANDSCAPE PLANS WILL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL AS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT TREE LOCATED WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT MUST HAVE ALLLIMBS REMOVES TO A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET ABOVE TOP OFCURB. " I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS CONTAINED IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS. I HAVE PREPARED THIS PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSEREGULATIONS AND THE LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS WHEN SUBMITTING CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS. I CERTIFY THAT THE PLAN IMPLEMENTS THOSE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER." SIGNATURE:DAN DELLESTATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT #6642 LANDSCAPE GRADING and DRAINAGE TREE PLACEMENT NOTE: TREE ROOT BARRIER NOTE: CITY LANDSCAPE NOTE REFERENCE NOTES: TREE MAINTENANCE WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS QTY TREES ARBUTUS X 'MARINA' MARINA STRAWBERRY TREE 24"BOX LOW 3 CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD 24"BOX LOW 1 RHUS LANCEA AFRICAN SUMAC MULTI-TRUNK MAINTAIN @ 25' MAX HT.36"BOX LOW 9 VERTICAL ACCENT FURCRAEA MACDOUGALII MACDOUGALL'S CENTURY PLANT 24"BOX LOW 5 LAURUS NOBILIS - COLUMN SWEET BAY - COLUMN 24"BOX LOW 16 SYMBOL BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE WUCOLS SPACING QTY SHRUBS ALOE STRIATA CORAL ALOE 5 GAL LOW 24" o.c. 18 BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' BLONDE AMBITION BLUE GRAMA 5 GAL LOW 18" o.c. 25 ACCENT/ENHANCED PLANTING AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 9 BIO-TREATMENT BASIN PLANTING LEYMUS CONDENSATUS 'CANYON PRINCE' CANYON PRINCE GIANT WILD RYE 5 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 114 FOREGROUND PLANTING DIANELLA REVOLUTA 'LITTLE REV' LITTLE REV DIANELLA 5 GAL LOW 18" o.c. 234 EPILOBIUM CALIFORNICUM CALIFORNIA FUCHSIA 5 GAL LOW 30" o.c. 6 LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA 'ARCTIC FROST' ARCTIC FROST RUSH 5 GAL LOW 24" o.c. 184 FOUNDATION PLANTING LAURUS NOBILIS SWEET BAY - COLUMN 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 59 LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS 'GREEN CLOUD' GREEN CLOUD TEXAS SAGE 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 51 OLEA EUROPAEA 'MONTRA' LITTLE OLLIE® OLIVE 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 16 WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'SMOKEY' SMOKEY COAST ROSEMARY 15 GAL LOW 36" o.c. 80 PLANT SCHEDULE EXISTING TREES EXISTING PEPPER TREE TO BE REMOVED N/A 1N/A N/A REMARKS MAINTAIN @ 25' MAX HT. MAINTAIN@ 25' MAX HT. FOR GENERAL PLANTING NOTES, SLOPE PLANTING NOTES, and PLANTING DESIGN NOTES SEE SHEET L.3. SEE SHEET L.4 FOR HYDROZONE AND WATERCONSERVATION PLAN for PLANT ZONE TYPES. WATER CONSERVATION NOTE: LANDSCAPE PERCENTAGES SOFTSCAPE % of TOTALSITE AREA 4,528 S.F.23,618 S.F.19.1% ROOT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED WHERE TREES ARE PLANTED LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET OF SIDEWALK,WALLS, STRUCTURES, CURBS, PAVING, PUBLICIMPROVEMENTS WITHIN R.O.W. (TYP.), WATER, SEWER,STORM DRAIN, ETC. CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL DRAINLINES IN FIELDPRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF TREES. CONTRACTORSHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICT WITH TREE LOCATIONS WITH STORM DRAIN LINES. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL HAVE POSITIVEDRAINAGE (2% GRADE IN PLANTING AREAS) AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES AND TERMINATING IN ANAPPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM. LANDSCAPE PLANS WILL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL AS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT TREE LOCATED WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT MUST HAVE ALL LIMBS REMOVES TO A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET ABOVE TOP OF CURB. " I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS CONTAINED IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD'S LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS. I HAVE PREPARED THIS PLAN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSEREGULATIONS AND THE LANDSCAPE MANUAL AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS WHEN SUBMITTING CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS. I CERTIFY THAT THE PLAN IMPLEMENTS THOSE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER." SIGNATURE: DAN DELLESTATE OF CALIFORNIA LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT #6642 LANDSCAPE GRADING and DRAINAGE TREE PLACEMENT NOTE: TREE ROOT BARRIER NOTE: CITY LANDSCAPE NOTE REFERENCE NOTES: TREE MAINTENANCE WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T EXISTING PEPPER TREE TO BE REMOVED TREES ALONG JEFFERSON ST. TO MEET CRITERIA OF SDG&E FOR OVERHEAD POWER LINES CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES TO REMAIN IN PLACE. ALL PLANTING IN SIGHT TRIANGLE NOT TO EXCEED 30” IN HT. May 21, 2025 Item #1 468 of 473 04.18.2025 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC PLANT PALETTE + NOTES- L.3 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED IRRIGATION CONCEPT FOR THE LANDSCAPED AREAS: POTABLE WATER: AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO UTILIZE POTABLE WATER. PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE COMPANY A MECHANICAL DEVICE TO DISTRIBUTE WATER AND ENSURE PLANT SURVIVAL IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME THAT LEAST INTERFERES WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE RESIDENTS. CONCEPT: THE SYSTEM WILL DERIVE ITS WATER FROM THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DEPARMENT of WATER AND POWER. ALL POINTS OF CONNECTIONS WILL BE PROTECTED BY A BACKFLOW PREVENTION UNIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CMWD). THE SYSTEM WILL UTILIZE VARIOUS TYPES OF IRRIGATION HEADS COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA BEING WATERED AND INFILTRATION RATES OF THE SOIL WITH MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATES. THE SYSTEM WILL BE CONTROLLED BY A "SMART CONTROLLER" AND MOISTURE SENSING EQUIPMENT. VALVES PROGRAMMED FROM AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS WILL MAXIMIZE EFFICIENT WATER APPLICATION. TO AVOID WASTED WATER, THE CONTROLS WILL BE OVERSEEN BY A FLOW MONITOR THAT WILL DETECT ANY BROKEN SPRINKLER HEADS TO STOP THAT STATION'S OPERATION, ADVANCING TO THE NEXT WORKABLE STATION. IN THE EVENT OF PRESSURE SUPPLY LINE BREAKAGE, IT WILL COMPLETELY STOP THE OPERATION OF THE SYSTEM. ALL MATERIAL WILL BE NONFERROUS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE BRASS PIPING INTO AND OUT OF THE BACKFLOW UNITS. ALL WORK WILL BE IN THE BEST ACCEPTABLE MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND STANDARDS PREVAILING IN THE INDUSTRY. WATERING WILL CONFORM WITH CITY OF CARLSBAD WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. 1. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE OVERALL LANDSCAPING CONCEPT IS TO PROVIDE A DISTINCT VISUAL IMPRESSION AND COMMUNITY IDENTITY, SOFTEN THE URBAN EXPERIENCE, PROVIDE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF AESTHETIC STANDARDS COMPLIMENTED BY THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT WILL ASSURE AN ATTRACTIVE ENVIRONMENT ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AMONG ITS RESIDENTS AND VISITORS. 2. THE LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CONCEPT FOR THE SITE WILL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE MOST EFFICIENT AND CONSERVING MEANS TO DISTRIBUTE IRRIGATION WATER AND PROVIDE THE PROPERTY MANAGER WITH THE LATEST TECHNOLOGY FOR WATER CONSERVATION. 3. THE FOLLOWING PLANT MATERIAL AS SELECTED IS COMPLIANT WITH CITY OF CARLSBAD GREEN INITIATIVES OR CAL GREEN EQUIVALENT INCLUDING CONSIDERATION FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND NON-INVASIVE SPECIES. PRELIMINARY PLANT PALETTE NOTES: PLANTS INSTALLED AND AT MATURITY WILL BE POSITIONED TO AVOID OBSTRUCTING MOTIRISTS' VIEWS OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS AND VEHICULAR TRAVEL WAYS. LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS OVER 30 INCHES IN HEIGHT FROM ADJACENT STREET GRADE ARE NOT PERMITTED AT STREET CORNERS WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT ZONE 25 FEET OUTWARD FROM THE BEGINNING OF CURVES. TREES LOCATED WITHIN A VEHICULAR SIGHT LINE MUST HAVE ALL LIMBS REMOVED TO A HEIGHT OF 6 FEET ABOVE THE ADJACENT TOP OF CURB LINE OF SIGHT NOTE:TREE ROOT BARRIER NOTE: ROOT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED WHERE TREES ARE PLANTED LESS THAN FIVE (5) FEET OF SIDEWALK, WALLS, STRUCTURES, CURBS, PAVING, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN R.O.W. (TYP.), WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAIN, ETC. TREE PLACEMENT NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL DRAINLINES IN FIELD PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF TREES. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICT WITH TREE LOCATIONS WITH STORM DRAIN LINES. AGRONOMIC SOILS REPORT NOTE: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ONE AGRONOMIC SOILS TEST and INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL PER REPORT and SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS. 8 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE PLANT MATERIAL PLACEMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. NO TREES SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' TO A BUILDING OR ROOF STRUCTURE. NO TREES SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' TO PAVING OR FREESTANDING WALLS UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TREES SHALL NOT BE PLANTED WHERE FUTURE GROWTH WILL OBVIOUSLY CONFLICT WITH ROOF OVERHANGS. NO SHRUBS OR TREES SHALL BE PLANTED THAT WILL CREATE A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION TO SIGHT LINE OF VEHICLE TRAFFIC. TREES PLANTED IN LANDSCAPE AREAS OF LESS THAN 5' IN WIDTH SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH APPROVED ROOT BARRIERS. ANY PLANTING SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR EXISTING IN THE FIELD THAT CONTRADICTS THESE CRITERIA IS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE OR RELOCATE PLANT MATERIAL. ANY EXISTING LANDSCAPING DESIGNATED TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED IN PLACE. ANY DAMAGED PLANTING OR IRRIGATION SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND. PRIOR TO ANY FINE GRADING OR PLANTING, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AGRONOMIC SOIL REPORTS AND SOIL AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATIONS PER SPECIFICATIONS, WHICH SHALL SUPERSEDE THOSE WITHIN THE SPECIFICATIONS. SEE AGRONOMIC SOILS REPORT NOTE THIS SHEET. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO APPROVE ALL PLANT MATERIAL NOT LESS THAN 1 WEEK PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED DELIVERY DATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL GROWER STAKES, TAGS AND RIBBONS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN PROPER DRAINAGE AND DIRECT ALL WATER TO DRAINAGE INLETS SO AS TO PREVENT STANDING WATER. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL PLANTED AREAS FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AFTER "START OF MAINTENANCE" PERIOD. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE SHRUBS FOR 6 MONTHS AND TREE MATERIAL FOR 12 MONTHS (1 YEAR). GENERAL PLANTING NOTES: 6 7 3 4 5 2 1 9 10 11 12 PLANTING DESIGN NOTES: ·LANDSCAPE PLANS FEATURE GROUND COVER, SHRUBS, AND TREES TO SCREEN ELEMENTS OF UNSIGHTLINESS AND SCREEN / SOFTEN NEW IMPROVEMENTS. ·LANDSCAPING IS USED ALONG ALL BUILDING ELEVATIONS TO BOTH SOFTEN AND ENHANCE THE ARCHITECTURE. ·WOODY SHRUBS ARE PLANTED OVER HERBACEOUS GROUND COVER AREAS TO COVER 60% OF THE GROUND COVER AREA (AT MATURE SIZE). ·EVERGREEN PLANTS ARE USED TO SCREEN UNSIGHTLY ELEMENTS AND SHALL BE SPACED TO PROVIDE 100% SCREENING WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS OF INSTALLATION. ·ALL UTILITIES ARE SCREENED WITH APPROPRIATE PLANT MATERIAL. NO TREES SHALL CONFLICT WITH LIGHT POLES. IRRIGATION CONCEPT NOTES: 1.IRRIGATION CIRCUITS SHALL BE ORGANIZED INTO HYDROZONES. 2.ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE PERMANENT AND SHALL UTILIZE SPRINKLER/ROTOR HEADS ON SLOPES, AND LOW PRECIPITATION RATE DRIP IN OTHER PLANTED AREAS. 3.CONTROLLER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MULTIPLE PROGRAMMING AND SHALL BE CONNECTED TO A RAIN SHUT-OFF DEVICE. 4.THE OVERALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED WITH WATER EFFICIENCY AND CONSERVATION IN MIND, THROUGH GOOD DESIGN, SPECIFICATION OF EFFICIENT MATERIALS, AND PROPER LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT. 5.THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL. 6. ONLY SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SHALL BE USED TO IRRIGATE PLANT MATERIAL WITHIN 24" OF AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE UNLESS THE ADJACENT IMPERMEABLE SURFACES ARE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN ENTIRELY INTO LANDSCAPED AREAS. IRRIGATION NOTE:13 TRANSFORMERS WILL BE SCREENED BY 15 GAL. WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA 'SMOKEY'. SEE SHEET L.2. SCREENING NOTE: CITY LANDSCAPE NOTE LANDSCAPE PLANS WILL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL AS DETERMINED APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROJECT 50% OF SHRUBS (EXCEPT ON SLOPES 3:1 OR STEEPER) SHALL BE MINIMUM 5-GALLON SIZE. CITY OF CARLSBAD LANDSCAPE MANUAL REQUIREMENTS: May 21, 2025 Item #1 469 of 473 04.18.2025 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 16’8’4’0’ 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC HYDROZONE PLAN - L.4 HYDROZONESYMBOL AREA WATER USAGE PLANT FACTOR (Kc) 1,370 S.F. HYDRO-ZONE - 1 WESTERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 0.50 0.30 HYDRO-ZONE - 2 NORTHERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) HYDRO-ZONE - 3 SOUTHERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) TOTAL HYDROZONE AREA: LOW 1,265 S.F. 377 S.F. 785 S.F. MODERATE HYDRO-ZONE -4 EASTERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 0.30 MODERATE 0.50 LOW HYDRO-ZONE - 5 BIO-FILTRATION PLANTERS IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 723 S.F.MODERATE 0.50 IRRIGATION HYDROZONES: 4,560 S.F. HYDRO-ZONE - 6 BMP TREE WELL IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 40 S.F.0.30LOW HYDROZONESYMBOL AREA WATER USAGE PLANT FACTOR (Kc) 1,370 S.F. HYDRO-ZONE - 1 WESTERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 0.50 0.30 HYDRO-ZONE - 2 NORTHERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) HYDRO-ZONE - 3 SOUTHERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) TOTAL HYDROZONE AREA: LOW 1,265 S.F. 377 S.F. 785 S.F. MODERATE HYDRO-ZONE -4 EASTERN SUN EXPOSURE IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 0.30 MODERATE 0.50 LOW HYDRO-ZONE - 5 BIO-FILTRATION PLANTERS IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 723 S.F.MODERATE 0.50 IRRIGATION HYDROZONES: 4,560 S.F. HYDRO-ZONE - 6 BMP TREE WELL IRRIGATION TECHNIQUE SHRUBS - SUB SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION (POTABLE WATER) 40 S.F.0.30LOW BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T BMP 1 BMP 7 BMP 2 BMP 8 BMP 3 BMP 9 BMP 4 BMP 10 BMP 5 BMP 11 BMP 6 BMP 12 May 21, 2025 Item #1 470 of 473 04.18.2025 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 16’8’4’0’ 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC WALL + FENCE PLAN - L.5 DESCRIPTION:DETAIL SYMBOL 1 42" HT VINYL PRIVATE FENCE CMU with STONE VENEER BIOFILTRATION PLANTERS (HEIGHT per CIVIL ENGINEER) CMU RETAINING WALL per CIVIL ENGINEER 2 3 4 WALL AND FENCE KEY: 30" HT VINYL PRIVATE FENCE 5 60" HT VINYL PRIVATE FENCE VINYL PRIVACY FENCE2 2x6 TOP & BOTTOM RAIL 30 " o r 4 2 " o r 6 0 " pe r P L A N 1x8 T&G VINYL PANELS 4x4 VINYL POST CMU with STONE VENEER BIOFILTRATION PLANTER (HEIGHT per CIVIL)4 CMU RETAINING WALL per CIVIL ENGINEER5 HT . P E R C I V I L RETAINING WALL per CIVIL ENGINEER 42 " M A X . PRECAST CONCRETE CAP. CLAD IN STONE VENEER TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE STONE VENEER TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE 1 NOTE: ALL VINYL FENCING TO BE COLOR: TAN WALL CAP per CIVIL ENGINEER NOTE: ALL CMU TO BE COLOR: GRAY FINISH: PRECISION 3 DESCRIPTION:DETAIL SYMBOL 1 42" HT VINYL PRIVATE FENCE CMU with STONE VENEER BIOFILTRATIONPLANTERS (HEIGHT per CIVIL ENGINEER) CMU RETAINING WALL per CIVIL ENGINEER 2 3 4 WALL AND FENCE KEY: 30" HT VINYL PRIVATE FENCE 5 60" HT VINYL PRIVATE FENCE VINYL PRIVACY FENCE2 2x6 TOP & BOTTOM RAIL 30 " o r 4 2 " o r 6 0 " pe r P L A N 1x8 T&G VINYL PANELS 4x4 VINYL POST CMU with STONE VENEER BIOFILTRATION PLANTER (HEIGHT per CIVIL)4 CMU RETAINING WALL per CIVIL ENGINEER5 HT . P E R C I V I L RETAINING WALL per CIVIL ENGINEER 42 " M A X . PRECAST CONCRETE CAP. CLAD IN STONE VENEER TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE STONE VENEER TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE 1 NOTE: ALL VINYL FENCING TO BE COLOR: TAN WALL CAP per CIVIL ENGINEER NOTE: ALL CMU TO BE COLOR: GRAY FINISH: PRECISION 3 BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T BMP 1 BMP 7 BMP 2 BMP 8 BMP 3 BMP 9 BMP 4 BMP 10 BMP 5 BMP 11 BMP 6 BMP 12 May 21, 2025 Item #1 471 of 473 04.18.2025 JEFFERSON STREET HOMES 16’8’4’0’ 2502-2518 JEFFERSON STREET CARLSBAD, CA 92008 2502 & 2518 JEFFERSON, LLC MAINTENANCE PLAN - L.6 LANDSCAPE AREASYMBOL AREA 327 S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY - CITY LANDSCAPE AREA HOA MAINTAINED COMMON LANDSCAPE AREA HOA MAINTAINED BMP LANDSCAPE AREA HOA MAINTAINED 2,376 S.F. 686 S.F. 3,215 S.F. PRIVATE YARD HOA MAINTAINED MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY NOTE: STREET TREES WILL BE MAINTAINED BY DEVELOPER FOR FIRST 12 MONTHS OF ESTABLISHMENT. ONCE THIS PERIOD HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND TREES ARE IN HEALTHY CONDITION, THE CITY WILL ASSUME MAINTENANCE. LANDSCAPE AREASYMBOL AREA 327 S.F. RIGHT-OF-WAY - CITY LANDSCAPE AREA HOA MAINTAINED COMMON LANDSCAPE AREA HOA MAINTAINED BMP LANDSCAPE AREA HOA MAINTAINED 2,376 S.F. 686 S.F. 3,215 S.F. PRIVATE YARD HOA MAINTAINED MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY NOTE: STREET TREES WILL BE MAINTAINED BY DEVELOPER FOR FIRST 12 MONTHS OF ESTABLISHMENT. ONCE THIS PERIOD HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND TREES ARE IN HEALTHY CONDITION, THE CITY WILL ASSUME MAINTENANCE. BUILDING A BUILDING B BUILDING C BUILDING D BUENA VISTA WAY JE F F E R S O N S T R E E T BMP 1 BMP 7 BMP 2 BMP 8 BMP 3 BMP 9 BMP 4 BMP 10 BMP 5 BMP 11 BMP 6 BMP 12 May 21, 2025 Item #1 472 of 473 Exhibit 12 Full Size Exhibits “A” – “Z” dated May 21, 2025 (on file in the Planning Department) May 21, 2025 Item #1 473 of 473 Kyle Van Leeuwen, Senior Planner Planning Division May 21, 2025 Jefferson Street Homes CT 2024-0004/PUD 2024-0004/CDP 2024-0021 ITEM 1 - Project Site 2502 & 2518 Jefferson St. •0.542 AC (23,618 SF) •2 Lots (2 Single-Family) •R-15 GP Land Use •R-3 Zoning (Multi-Family) •Coastal: Mello II Segment ITEM 1 – Project Proposal •Demolition: Two Single-Family Residence •Construct 4 New Structures •12 Three-Story Condominiums •Density Bonus: 3 Additional Units 1 Unit Very-Low Income •1 Concession / 6 Waivers ITEM 1 - Site Plan 4 New Structures •4 Triplexes •Two Floor Plans •2,302 & 2,320 SF •Two-Car Garages •Roof Decks •1 Guest Parking Space •Street Trees •6-Foot Dedication (Jefferson) Density Bonus Calculation ITEM 1 – Project Proposal 55 •Base Density: 15 DU/AC X 0.542 AC = 9 Units (8.13) •1 Unit Very-Low-Income = 11% of Base Units •11% Very-Low Dedication = 35% Bonus Density •35% of 9 Units = Up to 4 Additional Units •13 Total Units allowed – 12 Units Proposed STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW Concession/Incentive ITEM 1 – Project Proposal 66 1.Concession to eliminate five-foot street dedication along Buena Vista Way. STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW Waivers of Dev. Standards ITEM 1 – Project Proposal 77 1. 10 feet side yard setback (south PL) – 5 feet proposed 2. 20 feet rear-yard setback (east PL) – 18 feet, 9 inches proposed 3. 10 feet street setback (north PL) – 4 feet, 9 inches proposed STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW Waivers of Dev. Standards (con’t) ITEM 1 – Project Proposal 88 4.Community Recreation Space – 2,400 SF waived 5. 10 feet building separation required – 6 feet proposed (upper stories) 6. Planter boxes limit 42” height, 2’ intrusion – 36” height, 3’,3” intrusion proposed STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ITEM 1 - Elevation ITEM 1 – Renderings ITEM 1 – Renderings ITEM 1 – CEQA Exemption Staff has reviewed the scope of the project and applicable studies and finds that the project belongs to a class of projects that categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents (CEQA §15332 - In- Fill Development Projects) ITEM 1 – CEQA Exemption Analysis in Support of Exemption: 1.Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 2.Noise Study 3.Air Quality 4.Historical Assessment 5.Archaeological Survey 6.Paleontological Assessment ITEM 1 – RECOMMENDATION ADOPT a resolution APPROVING a CEQA exemption and APPROVING the Tentative Tract Map, Planned Development Permit, and Coastal Development Permit, based on the findings and subject to conditions. ITEM 1 ZONING General Plan ITEM 1 2ND FLOOR ROOF PLAN ITEM 1