HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-03; Planning Commission; Resolution 4477e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4477
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A BORROW SITE TO
ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF FARADAY FROM ITS
EXISTING TERMINUS TO FUTURE CANNON ROAD IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 8.
CASE NAME: FARADAY ROAD EXTENSION
CASE NO.: CDP 98-39(A)
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, “Developer”, has filed a verified a.
regarding property adjacent to the Faraday Road Right-of-way (“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 3rd day of March, 1
BORROW SITE
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all 1
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered 6
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration according t
“ND” dated December 9, 1998, and “PII” dated December 4, 1998,
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and CI
the Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts therein identified for this PI
said comments thereon, prior to approving the project. Based on the EIA Pi
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby APPRC
Negative Declaration.
0 *
1
2
3
4
5
6
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Negative Declaration
prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Qu
the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the
Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the in(
judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
7 II II Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 3rd day of March 195 8
9 ll following vote, to wit:
10
11
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heurc
Nielsen, Noble, Savary, and Welshons
12
13
NOES:
ABSENT:
14
15
16
17
18 liATT3/ . B/sJ
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
20 24 gad&/
21 4MICHAEiL J OLZMILLE
Planning irector
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 PC RES0 NO. 4477 -2-
0 0
- City of Carlsba(
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddresdLocation: Faraday Road Extension adjacent to Veteran’s Memorial Park
Project Description: Borrow site for the 5,400 foot extension from the existing tennir
of Faraday Road to future Cannon Road
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projc
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on t
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in t
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannil
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Christer Westman in the Planning Departme
at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4448.
DATED: December 9, 1998
CASE NO: CDP 98-39
CASE NAME: Faraday Road Extension Borrow Site
PUBLISH DATE: December 9, 1998
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-08:
e *
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CDP 98-39
DATE: December 3. 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Faraday Road Extension Borrow Site
2. APPLICANT: City of CarlsbadSherri Howard
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad C
92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 24.1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5.400 foot extension from the existing terminus of Faraday Road
future Cannon Road
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this proje
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Imp:
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning 0 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing H Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
W Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards Cultural Resources
[7 Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03128/96
e
DETERMINATION.
0
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IXI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatii
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATI\
DECLARATION will be prepared.
c] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[7 I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earl:
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigati
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentia’
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E1
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed proje
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
‘%,&?JIC”, / ‘m t?)
PI&er Signature Date
121 el59 Planning DirectoN SignMure Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C:
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific:
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that i
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea
question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporati
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” tc
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and 1
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce 1
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant.
e Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially signific:
effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyz
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applical
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigal
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pr
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additiol
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requil
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence t!
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03128196
e 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, a
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect 1
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is r
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially signific;
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attenti
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determin
significant.
4 Rev. 03128196
9 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impa
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 w
0 w
0 E
[XI C
0 1x
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? 0 0 o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? 0 0 17
17 0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
0 17 0 0
0 17 0 0
0 0 0 0
IXI
IXI
[XI
[XI
[XI
[XI e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 17 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? -
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
0 0 0 [XI 0 0 [XI 0 0 0 [XI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
0 El 0 [XI
0 0 0 El
0 0 0 [XI
5 Rev. 03/28/96
* 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
0
0
0
0 0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? o
0 0
0
cause any change in climate?
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
pool)?
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
6
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 cl
0
0
cl 0
0
LessThan No
Significant Impa Impact
0 IXI
0 Kl o [xi
0 [x 0 Ix 0 [x
[XI 0
O w 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI w 0 [XI 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [XI w
0 [XI
Rev. 03128196
e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
0 0
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
0
0
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? o 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
facilities?
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
7
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
0 [x
0 [x 0 [x
€3
o w
o w o w o w
0 w
[x] 17 o w
0 [XI 0 KI o w 0 [XI o w
0 w o w cl w
0 [XI 0 KI
Rev. 03128196
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies? 0 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
o 0 n U
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
potential impact area?
0 0 0 0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
o
0
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
Less Than
Significant
Impact
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
No
Impa
[x Ix
1x Ix IXJ
El IXI IXI IXI
El
(XI
IXI
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other cufrent projects, and
the effects of probable hare projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
cl 0 IXI 0
0 0 0 IXI
0 0 0 El
8 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEC
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negatj
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify 1
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availal
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above check1
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursu:
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigati
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address si
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03128196
e
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project. 1
environmental checklist, consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ
guidelines, was used to focus this study on physical, social, and economic factors that m
be hrther impacted by the proposed project. The checklist indicates whether an impact i; “Potentially Significant Impact”, “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporate(
“Less Than Significant Impact”, or “No Impact”.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsbc Negative Declaration November 191
e 0
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
No Impact
w* The proposed project is a borrow site to facilitate roadway grading and so stabilization associated with the construction of Faraday Avenue. The project short-term extending from April to September. The project is compatible w
City of Carlsbad General Plan designations and zoning for the project site as t
project is not a long-term or permanent land use. The proposed borrow s
location is designated as Open Space under the General Plan and the zoni
designation of the project site is 0-S (Open Space) (Ref 1 and 2). Because t
proposed project is temporary in nature, it will not preclude the kt1
development or use of the area for open space uses.
I(b)* The proposed project is a borrow site to facilitate construction of a roadway. T borrow site is located in proximity to sensitive biological resources including t
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, unnamed stream in Macario Canyon, and significa
stands of coastal sage scrub to the north and south of the project site. The
resources will not be directly impacted by the project. The project is locat
within the Mello I1 segment of the City’s Local Coastal Plan (Ref t
Compliance with applicable environmental policies such as grading and erosil
control will be required.
I(c)= The borrow site and surcharge areas are located in an area of vacant land. TI site and surrounding area is utilized for agricultural operations. The grading at
excavation associated with project implementation will not conflict with the
farming activities in the vicinity. There are no developed land uses (such
homes or businesses) in proximity to the borrow site and surcharge areas th
would be impacted by the borrow excavation and refilling. The project is a shc
term borrow of soil to be replaced at the excavation site after use.
The borrow site is located in an area planned for fkture use as a park. There
currently no concept plan or master plan preparkd for this park and pa1
improvements are not anticipated to be completed for approximately 10 to 1
years. The borrow excavation and recompaction have been prepared i
consultation with the City’s Park and Recreation Department, The propose
project will not preclude use of the site for park purposes. No impact to ti
planned park is anticipated.
I(4* The proposed project traverses vacant land that is currently utilized for agricultur production. The project site is primarily surrounded by vacant land which ar
planned for active and passive recreational uses. The proposed project will nc
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
Less Than Significant Impact
I(4* The majority of the site is currently used for agricultural purposes. No portion ( the project site is under a Williamson Act contract. The project site does nc
contain any farmland identified by the Department of Conservation as “Prim
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carisba Negative Declaration November 199
6 0
Farmland”. According to Department of Conservation Important Farmlar Mapping, the borrow site is classified as “Unique Farmland” (Ref 3). The use
this area for agricultural operations could resume after project implementatior
desired by the property owner.
It. POPULATION AND HOUSING
No Impact
II(a). The proposed project is a borrow site and will not involve the construction
additional residential units within the City. Therefore, the project will not res
in an increase in the City’s population nor would it cumulatively exceed offic
regional or local population projections.
It@). The proposed project is located in a currently undeveloped area. The project si
is in the vicinity of several other large planned developments that are curreni
under construction, or in their final approval stages. These projects inch
Cannon Road, Carlsbad Ranch, Kelly Ranch, Carlsbad Research Center, Unil
and the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course. Implementation of t
proposed project will not induce substantial growth, because it is a short-ter
borrow site project and will not result in the construction of urban uses infrastructure. The proposed project is required as a component of constructic
of the Faraday Avenue roadway extension. The extension of Faraday Avenue
not considered a major extension of infrastructure as it is classified as a two-la]
collector and will carry approximately 5,000-6,000 vehicles per day.
II(c). The proposed project is located on vacant land and therefore will not displac
existing housing.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsba Negative Declarafion November I99
6 0
m. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS
A geotechnical evaluation was conducted by Leighton & Associates for
proposed Faraday Avenue roadway extension project (Ref. 14).
The Faraday Avenue project area is characterized by numerous ridges 2
intervening ravines and valleys that intersect a main northwest trending drain:
that flows into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The proposed borrow site is locti
within one of the ravines.
The borrow site is underlain by alluvium and colluviudslope wash materials (R
14). As identified in the previous geotechnical investigation for the Farac
Avenue project @ef. 14), alluvium exists in the majority of the drainages of 1
Faraday conidor. As encountered, the alluvium generally consists of potentia
compressible, moist to wet, loose to medium dense silty sands, sandy silts, a
sandy clays. Within the main northwest trending drainage, the alluvium
relatively thick as evidenced by approximately 20-50 feet of alluvium encounter
in borings for the adjacent golf course geotechnical investigation.
Unsaturated alluvial soils are considered potentially compressible and not suital
for the support of structural loads or additional fill soils in areas of settlemt
sensitive improvements. These areas will require removal and recompaction
areas proposed for structural improvements as part of site grading.
Holocene aged colluviudslope wash mantles at the lower valley slopes, in are
undisturbed by agricultural activities. The colluviudslope wash typica consisted of poorly consolidated surficial materials derived from nearby soil ai
decomposed bedrock sources. The colluviudslope wash was typically poro
and anticipated to be potentially compressible under the load of existing fills improvements.
No Impact
III(a). The project site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as creatc
by the Alquist-Priolo Act (Hart, 1994). However, several inactive fault zon
have been mapped in a number of places within and adjacent to the project sit
These inactive fault zones are not considered to be a constraint to the project
no permanent structures are proposed.
llI(b). The location ofthe proposed project can be considered to lie within a seismical.
active region, as can all of southern Caliiomia. However, no impacts to this isa
are anticipated as no permanent structures are proposed.
III(c). Liquefaction of cohensionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion dl
to earthquakes. However, no impact to this issue is anticipated as no permanel
structures are proposed.
III(d). The proposed project is not located in an area that would be subject to seichc
tsunami, or volcanic hazard. No permanent structures are proposed.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site Negative Declaration City of Carlsbc November 195
6 a
III(e). Several features indicative of mass movements (such as landslides, surfic
slumps, etc.) were observed adjacent to the area proposed for soil borrowir
Localized zones of weak claystone/siltstone material are present in the SantiL
Formation and may create localized areas that are prone to slope instabikt)
exposed in a cut slope. Accordingly, all cut slopes should be mapped by
engineering geologist during site excavation. Additional recommendations
slope stabilization can be provided as needed during site excavation. Thc
recommendations are contained in the geotechnical report for Faraday Aver
and no hrther mitigation is required (Ref. 14).
III(g). Groundwater was encountered within several of the drainages in the lo\;
elevations of the Faraday alignment particularly in the main northwest trendi
drainage located west of the proposed borrow site. The presence of groundwa
in these areas would most likely limit the removal of alluvium and undocument
fill below the project site.
III(h). Perched groundwater conditions were also encountered at the contact betwe
the relatively impermeable Tertiary Santiago Formation and the relatively porc
overlying soils. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a constraint to s
borrowing.
m(i). No unique geologic features have been identified on-site.
Less Than Significant Impact
III(f). Ground water was observed as runoff in the major drainages and was encounter1
as seepage in several of the borings. Remedial measures will likely be required
address groundwater conditions. Loose unconsolidated deposits on the projc
site should be removed and densified, and subdrains installed where required
reduce the build-up of a shallow groundwater condition. These recommendatio:
are contained in the geotechnical report for Faraday Avenue and no hrth
mitigation is required (Ref 14).
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of CarlsbL Negative Declaration November 195
I)
IV. WATER
No Impact
IV(a,c).
The project will not result in a significant change in absorption rates, draina
patterns, and the rate and amount of surface runoff due to the short duration
the borrow project. The project will be implemented outside of the rainy seas
so impacts to these issues will be avoided. The grading for the project will bel
in April and end in September. The proposed project will not have a signific;
effect on water quality. Short-term increased absorption rates and alter
drainage patterns will not occur with this project.
IV(b). The proposed project will not result in the exposure of people or property
water related hazards such as flooding. The project will occur outside of the rai
season, with grading scheduled between April and September. Additionally, t
borrow site is not located in a flood plain, nor are people or improved propel
located near the borrow site.
IV(d). The proposed project will not cause changes in the amount of surface water in a
water body. The nearest body of water is the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, which
located northwest of the borrow site. The Lagoon will not be affected by t
borrow site.
The project site is on the westerly hillside of a 300-foot high hill. All runoff fro
the project, presently drains into the unnamed stream in the Macario Canyon. TI
project will not create a need for drainage control measures.
IV(e). The proposed project will not result in the alteration of any waterways such th
changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements would oca
Excavation of the proposed project will avoid impacting wetland areas to t:
south of the project site.
IV(f). No impact to this issue will occur as the project site is not identified as
groundwater recharge area, nor will excavations contact an aquifer.
IV(g). The proposed project will not result in the alteration to direction or rate of flo
of groundwater as the project site is not identiied as a groundwater recharge art
or aquifer.
IV(h). The proposed project will not result in an impact to groundwater quality as tl
project site is not identified as a groundwater recharge area or aquifer.
IV(i). The proposed project will not result in a reduction in the amount of groundwatl
available for public water supplies as the project site is not identified as
groundwater recharge area or aquifer.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of CarlsbL Negative Declaration November 19:
* 0
V. AIR QUALITY
No Impact
V(b). The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. 1 borrow site is located in an undeveloped area. Sensitive receptors will not
exposed to pollutants.
V(c). The proposed project will in no way alter air movement, moisture, or temperatu
or cause any change in climate. The proposed project is a borrow site which 1
not cause adverse changes to air movement, moisture, or temperature or cal
any change in climate.
V(d). The project is short-term and will not create objectionable odors. Emissions frc
grading equipment will not be sigtllficant as there are no residences or inhabita
structures located nearby.
Less than Significant Impact
V(a). The San Diego region is currently a non-attainment area for federal and st;
standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulates (PMl 0). The incremen
increase in impacts associated with the proposed project will contribute to existi
air quality violations on a short-term basis. Compliance with Air Polluti
Control District Rule No. (42), which requires watering of the project site
control PMlO emissions will reduce the PMlO generated by this project to a 1(
than significant level.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carisb, Negative Declaration November 19
a 0
VI. TRANSPORTATIONKIRCULATION
No Impact
VI(a). The borrow site project itself will not generate increased vehicular trips. 7
borrow site is facilitating the grading and subsequent construction of the extensi
of Faraday Avenue. The construction of Faraday Avenue will not gener;
vehicular trips.
VI(b). The proposed project will not result in hazards to safety fiom design features
incompatible uses. The proposed project is a short-term borrow site project facilitate grading related to the extension of Faraday Avenue.
VI(c). The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access
nearby uses. The site is located in a vacant area and will not affect emergen access. The borrow project will enable the extension of Faraday Avenue to
completed which will provide additional emergency access within the general ar
of the project.
VI(d). The project will not result in insufficient parking capacity, as it does not invol
the development of land uses which would generate the need for parking facilitil.
VI(e). The proposed project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians bicyclists, as the proposed project is a borrow site and is not located in an ar
frequented by pedestrians or bicyclists.
VI(f). The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternati
transportation. The project is a borrow site and will not affect alternati
transportation.
VI(g). The proposed project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne, or air trafl
transportation. The proposed project site is not located in close proximity to a1
of these modes of transportation and would not impact any of these sources
transportation.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsbc Negative Declaration November 195
0 0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A biological survey was conducted by Merkel & Associates for the Faraday Avenue propo! project (“Faraday Avenue Extension, City of Carlsbad, California”). A subsequent field stt
was conducted by Merkel & Associates to specifically address the proposed borrow site. T
following summarizes the findings of the study.
No Impact
MI(a). Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats do not exist on 1
proposed borrow site. Figure 1 depicts the vegetation and sensitive resourc
located within the project study area. The site is comprised of tracts
agricultural fields with diegan sage scrub and non-native grasslands in the vicini
The borrow site would not impact sage scrub or any other endangered, threaten
or rare species or their habitat.
MT(b). The proposed project will not impact any locally designated species such
heritage trees because there are no locally designated species on the borrow si
MI(c). The proposed project will not impact locally designated natural communities su
as oak forests or coastal habitat as there are no locally designated natu
communities existing on the borrow site.
MI(d). The proposed project will not impact any wetland habitat as there is no wetla]
habitat located within the area of disturbance of the project.
WI(e). The proposed project will traverse an area that has been identified as a potent
avian corridor as part of the City’s HMP. The area that the borrow traverses
void of any native vegetation and therefore would not impact the corridor.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City ofCaufs6c Negative Declaration November 195
e 0
Figure 1
Vegetation and Sensitive Resources Map
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Curls Negative Declaration November 1
e e
Vm. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
No Impact
VIII(a). The proposed project is a borrow site and will not involve excessive use of nc
renewable resources and therefore will not conflict with adopted ener
conservation plans.
VIII(b). The project will require fbel for excavation, however, the use will not
significant.
Vm(c). No known mineral resources have been identified on-site which would be
fkture value to the region and the residents of the State. The project site is r
located within a Mineral Resource Zone as identified by the State of Califon
Department of Conservation.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsbd Negative Declaration November 193
0 e
M. HAZARDS
No Impact
IX(a). The proposed project will not result in a risk of accidental explosion or release
hazardous substances. No hazardous materials other than fuel and oil for t
operation of grading equipment will be utiied in either the excavation or refilli
of the borrow site. These substances will not be utilized in significant amounts
warrant a significant risk to this issue.
M(b). The project may indirectly enhance rather than interfere with emergency respor
plans and emergency evacuation plans. The borrow project is a component of 1
Faraday Avenue extension, which once completed will provide additior
emergency access within the general area.
M(c). The proposed project is a borrow site. The excavation will involve 2:l slopc
and will be temporary (approximately 5-6 months in duration). The borrow I
will be excavated creating 2:l slopes on all sides avoiding potential impat
associated with a hazard from falling. The borrow site will be refilled a
compacted. The project will not involve the use of large amounts of chemicals
other hazardous substances.
M(d). The proposed project is a borrow site. Due to the nature of the proposed projec
it will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards as I
known health hazards or potential health hazards exist in the vicinity of the proje
site and no long-term uses are proposed.
lX(e). The proposed project will not result in an increase in fire hazards in areas wi
flammable brush, grass, or trees. The borrow site is void of significant stands
natural vegetation that could be subject to fire hazards.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site Negative Declaration City of Carlsba November 199
0 e
X. NOISE
No Impact
X(b). The proposed project will not result in the exposure of people to severe no
levels. The borrow site is a short-term excavation and refill project which will r
emit severe noises.
Less Than Significant Impact
X(a). The project will increase short-term noise levels as a result of introducing eat
moving equipment into the area. There are no existing or planned noise sensiti
receptors near the excavation site (such as residential uses). The impact frc
excavation and refill generated noise to the adjacent proposed golf course a:
proposed park will be less than significant as neither the golf course nor the pa
have been developed and the project will be completed before these uses a
developed.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsbc Negative Declaration November 195
e 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES
No Impact
XI(a). The proposed project will not generate an increase in population or any additiol
non-residential development and therefore would not result in a need for new
altered fire protection facilities or services.
XI(b). The proposed project will not generate an increase in population or any additiot
non-residential development and therefore would not result in a need for new
altered police facilities or services.
XI(c). The proposed project will not generate an increase in population or any additiot
non-residential development and therefore would not result in a need for new
altered school facilities.
XI(d). The proposed project is a soil borrow which will not result in the need f
maintenance or public facilities including roadways.
XI(e). The proposed project will not generate an increase in population or any additior
non-residential development in the project area which would result in a need f
any other new or altered government services.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of CarlsbL Negative Declaration November 193
0 e
XII. UTILITES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS
No Impact
XlI(a). The proposed project will not utilize excessive power (i.e. electricity) or natu
gas. The proposed project which is a borrow site will require an insignifica
amount of fossil fbels for implementation.
XII(b). The proposed project will not place a demand for, or require the extension
communication systems. The borrow site will not have a need for the extensii
of additional communication systems as the project is short-term in nature.
XII(c). The proposed project will not place a demand on local or regional water treatme
or distribution facilities. The borrow site will not demand increased local regional water treatment or water distribution facilities.
XII(d). The proposed project will not require sewer or septic facilities for operation. TI
borrow site does not have a need for sewer or septic facilities.
XlI(e). The proposed project will not require substantial alterations to the storm wat
drainage system. The borrow site will not require alteration of the storm wat
drainage system as it is a short-term project.
XlI(f). The proposed project will not generate solid waste. The proposed project will n
generate solid waste as it is a short-term borrow project.
XII(g). The proposed project will not generate a demand for potable water. The borro site will not generate demand for potable water as the site will be watered wil
reclaimed water.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site Negative Declaration City of Carlsbcj November 195
0 *
Xm. AESTHETICS
No Impact
XlII(a). The area in the immediate vicinity of the project site is vacant and larg
undeveloped, however agriculture has disturbed a considerable portion oft
area.
The project will be short-term, and the grading area of disturbance will genera
not be visible from the surrounding area, as the site is located in a ravine a
intervening topography will screen views onto the site. No visual impact
anticipated.
XIlI(b). As discussed above, the proposed project will not have a demonstrable negati
aesthetic affect.
XIU(c). The proposed project will not result in the creation of light or glare. The use
artifical lighting will not be necessary for project implementation.
XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No Impact
XIV(a). The site is underlain by alluvial materials which have a low probability
containing paleontological resources.
XIV(b). A cultural resource literature review, record search, and field survey w;
conducted by Gallegos & Associates for the Faraday Avenue extension proje
(Ref 15).
The proposed project will not disturb archeological resources. Based on tl
literature review and record search conducted for the Faraday Avenue projec
there are no archeological resources on site.
XN(c). There are no historical resources present on the project site which would I-
affected by the proposed project.
XN(d). The project will not cause a change, physical or otherwise, which would afTel
unique ethnic cultural values as no such uses are known to occur in the projei
area.
XIV(e). The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potenti
impact area, as no such uses are known to occur in the project area.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of CarlsbL Negative Declaration November 195
0 e
XV. RECREATIONAL
No Impact
XV(a). The proposed project will not result in additional residential development a
therefore would not increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
other recreational facilities.
XV(b). The proposed project is not located near any recreational uses. The proposl project is short-term and will be completed before the planned Carlsbad Municir
Golf Course and the planned City park are developed.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsbc Negative Declaration November 19!
e e
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No Impact
(b). The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonal
foreseeable future projects will not result in a significant cumulative impact to any
the issues discussed on the preceding pages.
(c). No environmental effects have been identified that will cause substantial adver
effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
Less Than Significant Impact
Based on the foregoing discussion, the City of Carlsbad has determined that the Faraday sc
borrow will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaratic
(ND) has been prepared.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site Negative Declaration City of Carlsbc November 195
a 0
References
1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad, April 20, 1994.
2. City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, City of Carlsbad, August 1994.
3. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California
Department of Conservation, November 1994.
4. The Impacts of Farmland Conservation in California (JSA 89-164), Jones &
Stokes, Inc., January 24, 1991.
5. Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1982.
6. City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program, City of Carlsbad, October 9, 1996.
7. City of Carlsbad Cultural Resources Guidelines, RECON, December 1990.
8. Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 5 and 8, City of Carlsbad, June 18, 1987.
9. Soil Survey, San Diego Area California (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
December 1973.
10. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update (City of Carlsbad, March 1994).
1 1. Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course EIR Biological Constraints Analysis (Merkel &
Associates, Inc., October 21, 1997).
12. Final Expanded Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Faraday
Avenue Roadway Extension , City of Carlsbad, August 1998.
13. Faraday Avenue Roadway Extension Biology Survey, Merkel & Associates, May
20, 1998.
14. Geotechnical Reconnaissance , Faraday Avenue Extension, Leighton and
Associates., Inc., May 28, 1998.
15. HistoricaVArchaeological Survey for the Faraday Road Project, Gallegos &
Associates, May 1998.
Faraday Avenue Borrow Site City of Carlsbc Negative Declaration November 19j