Loading...
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